Ed Sheeran played his hit song “I Don’t Care” on his recent tour stop at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.

By the time he sang it, the crowd had already been told that not caring wasn’t an option.

His opening act was the rapper Macklemore, who used his set to explain: “One of the reasons why I wanted to come on this tour was because I wanted to stand up here on stages and stadiums across America, and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart. Free Palestine.”

Then he performed his protest song “Hind’s Hall” while footage of the destruction in Gaza played on the screens.

Doing that, two nights in a row, got him kicked off the tour.

Robert Kraft, who owns the New England Patriots and Gillette Stadium outside Boston, refused to host Macklemore at Sheeran’s two upcoming shows there, citing “a broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery.” Other stadium owners on the tour joined him.

With stadiums refusing to have Macklemore, the tour’s promoter cut him from the remaining dates.

Macklemore didn’t care. He said his mission was accomplished. “I didn’t need 10 shows from Ed,” he wrote on Instagram afterward. “I needed two. Two chances to stand in front of 90,000 people.”

To be clear, Macklemore has every right to say whatever he wants at his own shows, to people who paid to hear it. But activists don’t seem to think the venue owners, stage crews, and Ed Sheeran himself have the right to refuse to be a part of Macklemore’s protests.

Biting the hand that feeds, Macklemore criticized Sheeran, who he said “couldn’t get past his public facing, ‘I don’t take sides.'”

Sheeran answered like a normal adult.

“There is a reason I do not use my professional platform for politics— my audience includes young people, often children, of all backgrounds,” he wrote. “Those who come to my shows do not expect a political forum.”

In other words, some people just want to go to a damn concert.

It was Macklemore or the tour, the promoter had warned, and Sheeran said he would never “abandon the touring crew and the other support acts and musicians who rely on me for work and to make a living.”

But fanatics argue that nobody gets to stay out of it.

Macklemore said so himself: “There is no neutral position between the oppressor and the oppressed.” The logic is that Gaza has to be solved, so Gaza has to be shoved down people’s throats.

And for his heinous crime of neutrality, Ed Sheeran is being canceled.

The day Sheeran posted his statement, every supporting act on the tour quit in protest. One of them wrote that “artists must not be silenced when they speak up for the oppressed.”

In Ireland, a radio station pulled Sheeran’s music from its playlists.

An Irish newspaper op-ed called him a “gutless coward.” The Irish actor Liam Cunningham wrote, “We know who Ed Sheeran is now.”

Even the children’s YouTube star Ms. Rachel piled on. No surprise there— her toddler show features a nonbinary “they/them” co-star and she now campaigns on Gaza, so she’s in the business of promoting political views where they don’t belong.

“Ed Sheeran is making a political statement to his fans when he does a concert to support Ukraine,” she wrote, “but considers Palestine too dangerous and political.”

And yes, Sheeran played a Ukraine benefit in 2022. But everyone there bought a ticket FOR the cause. Nobody at MetLife bought a ticket for Gaza.

Sadly, the fanatics do it because it works.

Macklemore pledged the $1 million he’d earned on the tour to Palestinian relief groups, and challenged Kraft to match it.

Kraft answered that Sheeran had already called him, told him he was donating $2 million “to aid in the region to fight this humanitarian crisis,” and asked Kraft to match it, which Kraft did.

It hasn’t bought Sheeran any peace. Tomorrow he plays Philadelphia, and two activist groups have announced a protest outside the stadium. They call it “his first show after caving to Zionist threats.”

Even when the activists successfully bully people into supporting their cause, it’s not enough for them. Nothing is acceptable but total, undying fealty to their political opinions.

And every cause claims the same right to your attention and support.

If nobody is allowed to be neutral about Gaza, nobody is allowed to be neutral about the climate, or race, or gender. Each of those causes has its own true believers, and they’re just as certain as Macklemore that THEIR emergency can’t wait.

So climate activists glue themselves to the road you take to work, and deface priceless works of art. Your kid’s school teaches gender ideology, and the parents who object get treated like domestic terrorists.

Then the ballgame opens with a knee for BLM. Try to get a coffee and the Starbucks baristas write their political slogans on your cup. Go to the movies and get lectured by Hollywood. Watch a football game and get shamed by the shaving brand Gillette, somewhat ironically, over toxic masculinity.

And what are you supposed to do? Raise a fist in solidarity? Be aware…? Give some corrupt activists money, so they can spend it on mansions for personal use, as the leaders of Black Lives Matter did?

Taken to its logical conclusion, your life gets consumed by things you’re forced to care about and can’t affect anyway. And it’s all at the service of people who’d rather hold you captive than entertain you, or teach your kids, or serve you coffee— the things you’re paying them to do.

Not every place lives like this. There are many cities, states, and countries where this type of behavior is not tolerated.

Most of the time I write about a Plan B as a way to protect your savings, and your freedom, from a bankrupt US government.

But this is also what a Plan B is for. Freedom is about lifestyle too, including freedom from the fanatics who insist that nobody gets to stay out of it.

It’s the option to opt out— somewhere to live where you can raise your kids, drive to work, watch a ballgame, order a coffee, and go to a concert without any of it turning into somebody else’s protest.

P.S. If you’d rather choose where you live by how you want to live, that’s what Schiff Sovereign’s flagship research service, Plan B Confidential, is for— actionable research on second residencies, foreign banking, and legal tax strategies, with boots-on-the-ground reports from more than 120 countries.

Source

It was January 2000. AOL had just announced it was buying Time Warner in what was then the biggest merger in history. Fourteen dot-com companies had bought Super Bowl ads, one of them starring a sock puppet that sold dog food.

The US economy was growing at one of its fastest paces ever; GDP was up nearly 5% the year before— and that’s real growth, before adding inflation, which itself was just 1.4%.

Unemployment was 4%, the lowest in thirty years. And there was no other country on the planet that could come close to rivaling America’s dominance.

Best of all, the federal government was running a surplus… a real one. It was so strong that, even excluding the Social Security surplus, the government took in $86 billion more than it spent.

So the Treasury didn’t need to borrow any money. Naturally it still held bond auctions, because when you issue the global reserve currency, you have to give investors a safe place to park their money. But Treasury was retiring more debt than it issued, and even started buying its own bonds back early.

And after wondering what “the meaning of the word is is”, Bill Clinton bragged that the country was “on track to pay down nearly $300 billion in debt” by the end of the year.

And in the middle of all that, the 10-year Treasury yield hit 6.79%.

In other words, investors wanted a 6.79% annual return to hold extremely safe US government bonds… at a moment when America was on top of the world and the government’s finances were in their best shape in decades.

That interest rate was not a crisis. After all, the government didn’t have to borrow to keep the lights on or the military funded or Social Security solvent. So they didn’t really care.

The Treasury’s interest bill was shrinking as a share of tax revenue every single year.

Imagine that.

Fast forward to earlier this week, and after a hot inflation report and with oil back above $100, the same 10-year yield briefly crossed 5%.

The reaction was instant panic.

Imagine being able to go back in time for a moment… back to January 2000. Imagine talking to an economist back then. You explain that you’re from the future, and that in 2026, the national debt is $40 trillion and growing faster than the economy. The foreign central banks that used to buy America’s debt are dumping Treasuries and buying gold instead.

You explain that there are wars in Ukraine and Iran, socialism is creeping back into American politics, and Congress can barely function.

You then ask the economist from January 2000 to guess where they think the 10-year yield would be, given all of that bad news.

They’d probably guess 10%, maybe 12%, and they’d be amazed to hear it only just crossed 5%.

So why did it take so long?

Because after the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed cut rates to zero… and left them there for seven years. There were a few ceremonial hikes, but when COVID arrived, the Fed slashed rates right back to zero.

It was able to do this because the Fed conjured trillions of dollars out of thin air… and used that money to buy bonds and suppress yields.

The 10-year was so low, in fact, that the federal government could issue those notes at less than 0.5%.

For thirteen years money was essentially free, and an entire generation came to believe that was normal. It wasn’t, and that era is clearly over.

Think about what an opportunity that was: when you can borrow at 0.5%, $2 trillion in debt costs just $10 billion a year. Investing that money at even a measly 1% means the government would be making money on its debt.

A 1% hurdle rate is not particularly high. But Congress couldn’t manage even that much.

Despite racking up tens of trillions in debt, there’s realistically nothing to show for all of that money: the national debt has quadrupled since the financial crisis, while the economy has only doubled.

Now, each year, much of the national debt matures, and the Treasury doesn’t have the money to pay it back. So they have to issue new debt to repay the old debt.

Problem is, the new debt is issued at much higher rates. They were paying 0.5% on the old debt. The new yield of 5% is TEN times the interest on the same amount of debt.

And with an average maturity of about six years, most of the $40 trillion rolls over within just a few years… which means before long the annual interest bill will reach $2 trillion per year.

Add nearly $3 trillion for Social Security and Medicare, and that’s the vast majority of tax revenue.

Literally everything else, including the military, roads, and light bill at the White House, is funded with more debt.

In 2000, the government could shrug at a 6.79% yield because it was paying debt down. Today everyone’s panicking at 5% because Congress borrows $2 trillion a year and can’t stop.

So, is Congress going to suddenly find its inner fiscal discipline?

I’m not holding my breath.

That leaves exactly one way to get the 10-year back down, and it’s the same way the Fed did it back in 2020: conjure more money out of thin air and make capital infinite.

And as the world discovered shortly after in 2021 and 2022, the consequence of that policy is inflation.

P.S. In 2000, a 6.79% Treasury with 1.4% inflation was a fantastic deal. Today’s 5% Treasury with the inflation that’s coming is a losing one.

Real assets are where you come out ahead: gold, energy, and industrial metals rise when the dollar falls. The profitable, debt-free companies that produce them are what we research in Schiff Sovereign’s Strategic Assets.

You can learn more about Strategic Assets here.

Source

On Sunday afternoon, the power went out at ExxonMobil’s refinery in Channahon, Illinois, a southwest suburb of Chicago.

Oil refineries run at tremendous heat and pressure, so whenever the power goes out, all that heat and pressure has to go somewhere. It’s basic physics. Hence why the plant burned it off through the flare stacks, with black smoke visible for miles.

The power came back around 7 p.m., but the plant stayed down, and as of Monday ExxonMobil still hadn’t said when it would restart, likely up to a week.

Bear in mind this is a plant that processes about 275,000 barrels of crude a day— close to 10% of the region’s fuel supply.

But that’s not what caused the highest diesel prices ever.

Even before this refinery was taken out of commission, the national average price of diesel went above $6 a gallon last week for the first time ever. Filling up a long-haul semi truck now costs more than $1,000.

It’s important to note that a barrel of crude oil is almost useless until somebody turns it into something. A refinery cooks the crude and breaks it apart into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, the raw material for plastics, etc.

Everyone knows about the squeeze on oil due to the war with Iran. But the shortage of REFINERIES is another issue.

Sure, the wars have taken a toll on refineries and other fuel plants. Iran bombed Bahrain’s only refinery, shut ever since. It also wrecked half of Shell’s Pearl GTL in Qatar, the world’s largest plant for turning natural gas into diesel, jet fuel and lubricants. Ukrainian drones, meanwhile, have cut Russia’s refining by roughly a third.

And the rest of the world’s refineries can’t pick up the slack.

US refineries are already running at almost 98% of capacity. There’s no spare refining capacity, and that’s because governments have treated refining as the enemy of humanity for the past decade.

For example, ten years ago Britain had six refineries. Then the UK government announced a ban on new gasoline and diesel cars and piled punitive taxes specifically on refineries, and today Britain is down to four.

I guess the “Just Stop Oil” fanatics are happy now. They actually declared victory last year and hung up their hi-vis (oil-based) vests, and quit (oil-based) gluing themselves to things, because “no new oil” had become official government policy in the UK.

California, meanwhile, imposed a new penalty tax on refinery margins, and then passed climate change regulations for refineries that are virtually impossible to achieve.

Unsurprisingly, in the past year, California lost two refineries: Phillips 66’s in Los Angeles and Valero’s in Benicia near San Francisco. That’s 17% of California’s refining capacity.

Then Newsom panicked and changed his tune, realizing that California fuel prices would surge. He suddenly promised to “work closely with refiners.” He directed his own energy commission to pause the punitive refinery tax for five years. He even pushed legislators to consider paying hundreds of millions of dollars to Valero to keep their plant open.

Too little, too late. The refiners left, or idled their plants. You can only bite the hand that feeds so many times before they take action.

But of course, everyone will pay for Newsom’s idiocy, because diesel moves everything. So much of American imports arrive at California ports (like the Port of Long Beach), and trucks haul it across the country from there. Trains do the rest.

And nearly every big truck and freight train runs on diesel, which is now a lot more expensive in California. So the cost of Newsom’s lunacy is paid by every consumer.

Harvest is starting across the Midwest right now, and everything from tractors to grain dryers burns fuel. Phosphate (another critical fertilizer ingredient) is mined and hauled with diesel.

So the farmer pays $6 a gallon, the trucker pays $6 a gallon… and consumers reimburse these costs in the form of higher prices.

And let’s not forget, winter is coming.

Heating oil is diesel by another name (it comes out of the same refinery), and about 5 million American homes heat with it, more than 80% of them in the Northeast. One Gulf oil executive warned last week of “a very difficult winter coming in Northwest Europe. This is only the beginning.”

Bottom line, the power outage at Channahon is a problem. But it’s a small problem compared to the larger war on refineries.

With the spare refineries gone, even the slightest issue at remaining refineries now shows up in the price of diesel, food and everything else that moves on a truck.

Unexpected disruptions from war and power outages are one thing.

But governments deliberately villainizing refiners and chasing them out of town, for the crime of creating the energy the world desperately relies on, is another.

Their green policies and ESG mandates also helped drive a decade of underinvestment in the physical things civilization runs on: ships, mines, oil fields, smelters… and refineries.

Now the world is in the midst of a destructive war. When there is no spare capacity, every disruption has to be resolved by price, and the companies that own the scarce, strategic assets collect the difference.

And owning a piece of those companies yourself is the best way to protect yourself from higher prices and inflation.

P.S. That’s the whole point of Schiff Sovereign’s investment research newsletter, Strategic Assets: profitable, low-debt companies that own or move real things, bought while they’re still cheap.

Two oil tanker owners we featured when nobody wanted them are up more than 180% and 130%— one of them runs the ships that haul diesel— and our palm oil grower is up nearly 140%.

If you’d like to see the full research, you can learn more about Strategic Assets here.

Source

Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat down for a fireside chat at Southern Methodist University in Dallas and told the room what the plan is for the national debt.

“We don’t have a revenue problem,” he said. “We have a spending problem.” Contain the spending, add 3% growth, and America can “grow our way out of this.”

That’s a nice idea… and, it’s possible. The key part there is the spending freeze: arrest the growth in federal spending, and the deficit will eventually melt away.

The problem, of course, is that Congress won’t even cut obvious fraud. So I don’t think taxpayers should hold their breath for sudden fiscal responsibility.

The growth side of his approach is feasible. But what does “grow our way out” of the debt actually mean?

The national debt is now a little over $40 trillion. Meanwhile the entire US economy— everything produced by every business and every worker in the country over a full year— is about $32.5 trillion.

This means the debt is 123% of GDP, i.e. the all-important debt-to-GDP ratio is 123%.

That ratio is the key indicator that bond investors watch. And it’s the number Secretary Bessent is talking about when he says the US can grow its way out of debt.

The whole point is to bring that percentage down, from 123% today to something more like 80% or 90%.

Notice what he did NOT say. He didn’t say the debt would shrink. He didn’t say the deficit would go away. Growing your way out means the debt keeps getting bigger… it just grows at a slower pace, while the economy grows at a much more rapid pace.

Specifically, the US national debt has been growing at an average 6.7% per year over the past few years… which means ‘growing our way out’ will require the US economy to expand by at LEAST 7% per year, just to make a dent in the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Now go back to Bessent’s number: he’s talking about 3% growth.

And when he says 3%, he means real growth, i.e. the economy producing 3% more goods and services than it did the year before. That means more cars, more houses, more software, more oil… more actual stuff.

But we just established that the economy will require 7% growth in order to fix the debt challenge.

So where, exactly, is the other 4% supposed to come from?

It comes from inflation. In short the economy produces 3% more stuff, but the stuff costs 4% more. In total that gets you to more or less 7% GDP growth, while the debt increases by 6.7%.

And with that, you have a tiny improvement to America’s dismal debt-to-GDP ratio.

This is already the path that they’re on; in the last year, America’s total (i.e. nominal) GDP growth was 6.5%. Of that, only 2% was real growth, i.e. the production of more goods and services.

The rest, about 4.5%, was from rising prices.

So “growing our way out” is really just a polite way of saying inflation. And the government is effectively telegraphing a 4% inflation target. As it happens, that’s about where inflation already is right now.

In other words, the plan is to make everything else more expensive faster than the debt grows, and to call that a fix.

Four percent a year doesn’t sound like much. But it compounds, and at that rate a dollar loses about a third of its purchasing power in ten years.

The solution is to own the stuff they can’t conjure out of thin air.

A government can print money by the trillion, but it can’t print an ounce of gold or a barrel of oil, or anything else that’s real or critical to the economy.

That’s why real assets tend to hold their value when the currency is losing value… and why the businesses that produce those assets— gold miners, energy companies, copper producers, chip makers, etc.— often do spectacularly well.

P.S. Real assets are the whole premise of Schiff Sovereign’s investment research newsletter, Strategic Assets: profitable, well-run companies that produce the things a government can’t print, researched while they’re still cheap.

We locked in gains of more than 10x on a small silver producer we featured last year, and a gold producer has gone up 5x yet still trades cheaper against its earnings than the day we wrote it up. Two oil tanker owners we covered when nobody wanted them are up more than 150% and 110%.

The subscription comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee. You can learn more about Strategic Assets here.

Source

At a time in my life which now seems centuries ago, I was once a young lieutenant, barely a year out of West Point, and I had recently been assigned to lead an electronic warfare platoon.

Whenever my unit wasn’t deployed or in the field, most of my duty days were spent in a top-secret facility called a SCIF— the kind of place that was guarded by military police and didn’t have any windows.

But every Tuesday morning at 9 a.m. sharp, my unit would formally assemble at the brigade motor pool to conduct routine PMCS checks— Army-speak for vehicle maintenance.

September 11, 2001, started like any other Tuesday morning.

Being on time in the Army is considered late, so naturally we all showed up to the motor pool around 10 minutes early.  And the regular business after the formation only lasted about 5 minutes.

But in that brief 15-minute window, from the time we were milling around the motor pool to the time I was going back to the SCIF, the entire world changed.

I was about to walk into the building when one of my sergeants approached me and said, “Sir, I don’t know if you heard, but terrorists just flew planes into the World Trade Center.”

My reaction was disbelief. This dude is crazy. But the look on his face suggested he was serious.

I mumbled some meekish “whaaaaat” sort of reaction and exhaled a pfff of confusion, but then walked inside where the military police at the desk were refreshing CNN.com. I saw the screen. Images of carnage in New York. It was real.

After handing over my little Nokia bar phone, I was buzzed in and walked down one of the halls where someone had set up a TV— an old-school cathode ray tube mounted on a big rolling cart, just like the ones my teachers used back in middle school.

NBC was on. The chipper, perma-smile morning crew was still trying to anchor the horrific news coverage and doing their best to make sense of what was happening. Then legendary news veteran Tom Brokaw took over and brought those of us in the room— and the rest of America— up to speed.

Everyone over the age of 35 or so has their own version of this ‘where was I’ story about 9/11.

They’re called ‘flashbulb memories,’ and they’re forever emblazoned in our brains. It made me realize that my dad wasn’t kidding around when he once went into vivid detail about the moment he heard that JFK had been shot.

We’ve experienced a few others over the past 25 years.

Many of us remember where we were when we heard about the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. I certainly do— my best friend called me and told me to turn on CNBC. It was Sunday September 14, 2008… and they were broadcasting live footage of Lehman Brothers employees filing into their office with cardboard boxes to clean out their desks.

The global financial system nearly collapsed the following day.

Similarly, many of us remember where we were when we first realized that COVID was real.

All of these flashbulb events over the past quarter century— with today being the 25th anniversary of 9/11— are reminders that the world can change in an instant.

Even if you’re too young to remember 9/11, you probably at least remember the pandemic. Everything changed, practically overnight.

To be frank, there will be others. We may see a day similar to the September 2008 financial crisis, when Americans tune in to see the bond market collapsing and Treasury yields surging… because foreigners are dumping their US government bonds all at once.

The irony is that a large part of America’s $40 trillion national debt… and hence the challenges with deficits, inflation, etc… is in large part due to the seismic shift after 9/11.

Before 9/11, America was in solid shape. The federal government was running a small budget surplus. And while the economy was slowing a bit and working off its hangover from the excesses of the tech boom in the 1990s, life was good.

But America went to war less than four weeks later on October 7, 2001. It lasted for twenty years and cost trillions upon trillions of dollars. Spending surged. The bureaucracy expanded. The surveillance state exploded.

And it all kicked off a borrowing spree that continues to this day. With the national debt now in excess of $40 trillion, more than 125% of GDP, America’s standing is waning rapidly.

Yes, there’s plenty of good news today and cause for optimism.

But the reality is that foreign ownership of US government bonds is falling. Even allies are starting to diversify. And it’s not hard to understand why: the US debt situation is a complete disaster.

So if this trend continues, we could absolutely experience another flashbulb-type event, where the whole world witnesses, in real time, the loss of America’s primacy.

The reaction will be similar to what most of us experienced on 9/11: total disbelief.

To be clear, nobody dies when yields spike, and a bond market crash is nothing like watching the towers fall. But the disbelief will be identical, because almost no one thinks it can happen here. It’s not supposed to happen here.

But it can. It just might. And if it does, just like the other flashbulb events—  9/11, the 2008 financial crisis, and the pandemic— the world could change dramatically in just 15 minutes.

Source

In July, the Canadian uranium miner Cameco stopped producing at its mine in northern Saskatchewan (known as ‘Cigar Lake’) for two weeks.

Cigar Lake itself was fine, nothing was wrong with the mine. The problem was their sulfuric acid plant— a crucial ingredient in processing uranium ore— broke down.

Normally they would have just bought sulfuric acid from somewhere else while they fixed their company-owned acid plant. But this year that’s not so easy.

About half the world’s seaborne sulfur moves through the Strait of Hormuz, and since the war with Iran began, those shipments have almost completely stopped. China, the world’s largest exporter of sulfuric acid, restricted its own exports in May to make sure they had enough.

So a simple mechanical problem at an acid plant caused a two-week shutdown of the world’s largest uranium mine.

Two weeks is a really long time for a huge mine like Cigar Lake to have an unscheduled shutdown; that’s because uranium is already in critical supply— there simply isn’t enough uranium being produced right now to keep up with demand.

The math is easy: miners produced roughly 155 million pounds of uranium in year. Reactors burn about 185 million pounds. So there’s already a significant deficit.

For the past several years, the deficit between uranium production versus reactor demand was covered by stockpiles that had been building up over decades. So the nuclear industry effectively burned through its uranium ‘savings’.

But those stockpiles of uranium are now basically depleted… which means that nuclear power companies will need to rely on uranium production in order to meet their needs.

This is a problem… and one that we can quantify.

Because uranium is literally THE most important resource for a nuclear reactor, the reactor companies tend to line up their uranium supply needs years and years in advance through forward contracts and term agreements.

There’s no black magic here— it’s a pretty predictable quantity. A 2GW nuclear plant, for example, already knows exactly how much electrical capacity they have, so they know how much fuel they need to serve their customers… hence they can forecast their future uranium needs.

For this year at least, US nuclear power companies have more or less the amount of uranium that they anticipate needing. But next year they’ll be in a deficit… and one that grows each year.

By 2030, US nuclear power companies will be short 40% of their anticipated uranium needs. By 2033, they’ll be short 91%. Basically all of it.

Big deal, right? Existing uranium producers can simply mine more.

But that’s not really happening… at least, not at current prices.

Kazatomprom (based in Kazakhstan) is the largest uranium miner in the world. And their management is deliberately pulling back on production right now.

The company believes that it’s simply not worth mining and selling uranium at the current price. Why bother producing at your full potential now when they KNOW the price is going to rise in the future, hence they make a LOT more money in the future if they mine less now.

OK well, the big shortage in the 2030s is still a few years away. So the industry has time to start more mines and bring new uranium production online.

Well, that’s easier said than done.

A company called NexGen Energy discovered a major uranium deposit in Saskatchewan back in 2014. They finally got their construction license this March, started building in August, and expect their first ore in 2030.

In other words, SIXTEEN years from discovery to production— and that’s about average for the industry.

You can’t just turn on uranium production like a light switch; it takes years and years to make most things happen in business, and uranium mining is no different.

This is common across many real assets— there has been years of underinvestment. Very few new uranium mines. Very little oil & gas exploration. Not enough new shipyards, refineries, smelters, etc.

It takes several years… plus a lot of risk capital… to discover a new resource deposit and bring a mine to life. Years.

Demand can grow much more quickly. Just look at the increase in electricity demand (thanks in large part to data centers). When electricity demand surges, but the supply of the fuel required to generate electricity is stagnant, the end result is higher prices.

And not just higher electricity prices— higher prices for the fuel as well, i.e. higher natural gas prices, higher uranium prices, and even higher coal prices.

(Coal is especially interesting— it was basically chased out of town. NO ONE wanted to invest in a new coal mine thanks to Greta Thunberg. Yet the International Energy Agency now expects coal-fired power generation to rise this year to make up for energy imbalances. Stagnant supply meets rising demand.)

That’s tough news for anyone with an electricity bill. But you can also be on the other side of it and make money from this trend.

When supply and demand is so fundamentally unbalanced, the companies that produce these scarce resources tend to perform extremely well.

This is the primary investment ethos for our investment research newsletter, Strategic Assets.

We look for the most critical resources that the economy runs on; we find sectors where there has been chronic underinvestment and focus on undervalued yet successful companies with great management and balance sheets.

Energy has been good to us. Two oil tanker owners we featured when nobody wanted them are up more than 150% and 110%.

A small South American oil producer we featured last month has no debt and sells every barrel at the wellhead to one of the largest oil companies on earth— so shipping is someone else’s problem. A typical new well takes years to pay for itself. This company’s fastest did it in 37 days.

Learn more about Strategic Assets here.

Source

It’s so simple, how could no one have thought of this before?

The man currently polling in second place to become the next President of France has put forward an ingenious solution to tackling France’s national debt, currently standing at around 117% of the country’s GDP.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon says, “All we have to do is take the 18% held by the Bank of France and chuck it in the fire.”

This is the guy who has a real shot at running the second-largest economy in the eurozone, and he’s telling voters that roughly €636 billion of what their government owes can simply be erased.

And the voters like the sound of it. Of course they do, who doesn’t love getting something for nothing?

Quick economics lesson for the brilliant man who wants to lead France: the Bank of France bought those bonds with euros it created for the purpose… the European Central Bank’s own explainer says buying bonds “creates money in the banking system.”

Normally those euros come back out of circulation as the debt gets repaid. Mélenchon’s plan skips that part: the government ‘throws the debt in the fire’ and doesn’t pay it back. So the central bank eats the loss… meaning that the €636 billion conjured out of nothing stays in the system.

This creates inflation, plain and simple.

Goods and services cannot be created out of nothing. Euros can. So when there’s suddenly more money in the system relative to the same amount of goods and services, the end result is inflation.

The other obvious implications is that France would still owe the rest of its debt… and those lenders will have seen that France is willing to default. I wonder what that would do to French bond yields?

Or maybe they’ll rest easy with Mélenchon’s assurance that “I’m not going after private creditors, not at this step in any case.”

Why do French voters even care about the national debt? Because they’ve been feeling the consequences of idiotic fiscal policy for years.

Interest alone costs the French government more than its entire defense budget. There’s no taxing their way out, either: the French are already the second-most-taxed people in the developed world, at about 44% of GDP.

So every fix takes some benefit away from taxpayers. Last year’s plan canceled two public holidays, froze pensions, and cut civil-service jobs… and the prime minister who proposed the solutions was thrown out.

The plan before that raised the retirement age from 62 to 64 brought the biggest protests France had seen in decades; that plan has now been suspended to keep the current government alive.

Meanwhile, growth was less than 1% last year, and unemployment is at its highest since 2020.

And here comes Mélenchon with a plan that costs nobody anything: delete a portion of the debt and go back to spending as if everything is OK.

However dumb the solution, at least the French are talking about the problem.

The US government crossed $40 trillion in debt last month. That’s roughly 123% of GDP, worse than France.

America gets away with it, for now, because the dollar is still the world’s reserve currency. Central banks hold a lot of their strategic financial reserves in US Treasury bonds, so Congress has always had a line of foreigners waiting to lend it money no matter how large the deficit.

But that line of foreigners is now getting shorter. Foreign holdings of Treasuries fell by $72 billion in June alone, China’s are at their lowest since 2008, and so far this year foreigners have bought just 7% of the new debt the US government issued.

The reasons aren’t a mystery: a dysfunctional government that can’t even pass a budget or eliminate fraud from its spending, while increasingly weaponizing access to the US dollar system.

When the foreign buyers stop showing up, America finds itself with France’s problem. Automatic cuts to Social Security are only six years away. Interest on the debt is already larger than the defense budget.

Extreme government spending is already pushing inflation higher… and socialists are everywhere now promising to spend even more.

These people genuinely believe that money is something you can conjure out of thin air with no consequence.

But whether they cancel the debt, or simply continue to ignore it, the consequence ultimately comes back to inflation.

That’s because conjuring money out of thin air, or borrowing from future generations to spend today, doesn’t produce one more barrel of oil, one more bushel of wheat, or one more pound of copper. It just produces more euros and dollars.

America has been here before.

Through the 1970s the US government ran deficits for Vietnam AND a historic expansion of welfare spending… then cut the dollar’s last link to gold in 1971. They created new money to cover the difference.

Consumer prices doubled over the decade, and the Dow finished 1979 where it started 1970, which after inflation was a loss of about half in real terms.

Meanwhile, gold went from $35 an ounce to $850. And oil went from about $3.40 a barrel to nearly $30. The world’s most important (and scarce) resources not only held their value, but they dominated. And the companies that produced them did far better.

Over roughly the same stretch, Barron’s index of gold mining stocks rose more than 1,200% while the S&P 500 managed 43%.

The new money has to go somewhere, and it flows into whatever the government cannot create more of.

Today, a lot of the companies that produce those real assets like metals, energy, food, and the ships that carry them, are still cheap.

We find them for subscribers of our investment research newsletter, Strategic Assets.

Gold and silver moved first, as central banks started diversifying out of the dollar. A small silver producer we featured in April 2025 rose more than 10x in ten months. A gold producer has gone up 5x, yet it’s earning money so fast that the stock is cheaper against its earnings today than the day we wrote it up. It pays a dividend, too.

Now the rest is showing life. A zinc producer we featured is up more than 150% in under a year. A tin miner is up more than 230% and trading at all-time highs. Two oil tanker owners we bought when nobody wanted them are up more than 150% and 110%, and one just reported the best quarter in its history.

Learn more about Strategic Assets here.

Source

Sweden’s far left political faction is heading into its election next week promising to roll out a destructive idea that already failed once before in their country.

The Left Party (the former communists) wants a wealth tax on billionaires… it’s Bernie Sanders’ dream come true. They’ve also floated a new property tax on expensive homes, plus an exit tax on any billionaire who tries to leave.

Then there’s the Green Party, which has its own ideas about how the top 1% should contribute more. They back the billionaire wealth tax too… but they differ with the communists on how it should be spent (climate change versus redistribution).

Obviously it’s not a done deal yet— the Greens and the Communists still have to win… and then hammer out the details. But Sweden’s wealthiest citizens aren’t waiting around to find out what happens next.

Bloomberg reports that Swedish tax lawyers are already busy; clients are setting up foreign structures, rewriting their succession plans, and asking whether their companies should keep their headquarters in Sweden at all.

Klas Tikkanen, a senior executive at the private equity firm Nordic Capital, told Bloomberg: “I think it could turn into a real exodus, especially if they announce an exit tax.”

Notice the word “if.” Nothing has passed, and nobody has even voted yet. The mere threat is a tangible enough risk that anyone in the cross hairs is planning to move.

It’s not hard to understand why; wealthy people are, by far, the most mobile social class… and there are lots of nice places in the world that don’t come with six harsh months of winter.

It’s interesting that this experiment has already run twice, and both times the rich people left.

Norway’s center-left government raised the wealth tax in 2022, and for business owners the bill roughly doubled in a single year, by one estimate.

By the end of 2022, more wealthy Norwegians had left the country than in the previous thirteen years combined. Kjell Inge Røkke, who had been Norway’s richest man, paid about $20 million in tax in 2021 and moved to Lugano the next year.

But even Sweden itself already ran this wealth tax experiment once. And it was an abject failure.

Sweden introduced a wealth tax in 1911 and kept it for the next 96 years. By the end it was taking 1.5% a year on net worth above roughly $200,000 for a single person— not exactly billionaire territory. Roughly 280,000 Swedes were paying it.

People were leaving in droves to avoid paying the oppressive levy.

Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of IKEA, left Sweden in 1973 and eventually settled in Switzerland. He had plenty of companionship: by the 2000s the Swedish tax authority estimated that some $70 billion had been parked abroad for tax reasons.

When H&M’s main owner, Stefan Persson, threatened to leave in the 1990s, the Social Democrats simply exempted him— from 1997, controlling owners of listed companies paid no wealth tax on their shares.

As always, a tax that was originally meant for ‘the wealthy’ increasingly fell on middle class homeowners whose assessed values kept rising.

And what did the tax collect for all that trouble? By the end it was bringing in about $800 million a year, around 0.3% of Sweden’s tax revenue— a rounding error.

So in 2007, Sweden gave up on taxing wealth entirely, i.e. even one of the most socialist nations on earth had figured out that a wealth tax doesn’t work.

Less than twenty years later, the Communists have completely forgotten this lesson and think that they can do it better.

It’s amazing when you think about it— Sweden’s nearly century-long wealth tax experiment failed miserably…. but the Communists are apparently so smart that their wealth tax will be successful.

The arrogance is extraordinary. But all too common.

Across the pond in the Land of the Free, America’s communists think that their wealth tax ideas are also brilliant and original.

California voters will decide in November on a supposedly “one-time” 5% wealth tax on billionaires. Yet even Emmanuel Saez, the Berkeley economist who co-wrote the proposal, acknowledges that it’s not really a one-time tax: “I’m not there to pretend that it’s one, once, and never again.”

Meanwhile New York’s state legislature has a bill to tax billionaires’ unrealized gains… every year.

And Senator Elizabeth Warren isn’t satisfied with billionaires; her ultra-millionaire tax proposal bundles a wealth tax on centimillionaires, plus an additional 40% exit tax on anyone who renounces US citizenship.

When the place you live starts treating productive people and their money as enemies to punish, rather than partners to welcome, the rational move is to think about your own Plan B.

Notice that wealthy Swedes haven’t actually left. But they are making plans, setting up the structures etc., now, while they still can. This way, if the tax passes, they already have somewhere to go. If they are lucky, most of them will never use it.

That’s the entire logic of a Plan B.

You don’t have to go anywhere. The point is to make sure you have an option in case you ever need to use it.

P.S. The hardest part is knowing where to start.

That’s what our Plan B Confidential service is for— actionable research on second residencies, foreign banking, and legal tax strategies, drawn from sixteen years of boots-on-the-ground work and a network of trusted providers around the world.

Plus a Rolodex of vetted service providers when you decide to take action.

Click here to learn more about Schiff Sovereign’s Plan B Confidential.

Source

It’s been another busy week for the Inspired Idiots. Here are a few of the most absurd stories from the last several days in case you missed them.

New York’s top socialist has a fake union card and a townhouse from Dad

Gustavo Gordillo tells a great story.

He’s the son of Peruvian immigrants who “had nothing”. He worked fast food and cleaned houses. He rose up to become a unionized electrician, renting a modest apartment and fighting for every New Yorker squeezed by landlords and capitalist pigs.

And today he’s co-chair of the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Then the New York Post started pulling records.

It turns out his grandfather came to America in 1958 to practice medicine and became president of the Ohio Psychiatric Association. That’s pretty accomplished for a family that “had nothing”.

It’s true that Gordillo joined the electricians’ union as an apprentice in April 2024. But he quickly stopped showing up for work and was thrown of the union for “prolonged absence.”

A union source told the Post that Gordillo took the slot “just for show.”

And it turns out his ‘modest apartment’ that he rents to burnish his working class street cred is also for show; Gordillo doesn’t actually live there, he actually lives in a posh townhome that his parents spent millions renovating with nonunion labor.

Last week, Gordillo’s fellow comrades on the New York City DSA’s leadership committee voted him into one of their top jobs— coordinating their socialist agenda with Mayor Mamdani’s office.

It’s such a joke… everything these people do is a con.

It’s the same con when the Chicago’s teachers union boss said school choice was for “racists,” then put her son in a private Catholic high school.

Or people like Barack Obama who spent years warning that rising seas would make homes uninhabitable, then bought a waterfront estate on Martha’s Vineyard.

They’re all frauds.

The EU has found €10 trillion of “idle” money. Guess where?

Ursula von der Leyen is the unelected President of the European Commission, i.e. the de facto head of the European Union. Last week she gave a speech to French business leaders in Paris and announced an amazing discovery: Europe has €10 trillion just lying around!

So where is it? It’s in regular people’s bank accounts. It’s their savings.

“Unfortunately, these savings are lazy,” she said. The EU’s official translation quickly changed it to “sitting idle.” She talks about other people’s money as if it were hers to spend and says she and her unelected members need to “put these savings to work.”

Her plan, called the Savings and Investments Union, would rewrite the rules for banks and insurers, essentially forcing banks to make certain investments that the European Commission wants… and doing it all with funds that regular, everyday Europeans are trying to save.

Hooray Democracy!

Some of these investments would go towards bankrupt governments. Others would go towards European companies that are deemed ‘too risky’ to private capital. Great. So when investors aren’t willing to back a company, the answer is to force banks to do it with their customers’ savings?

What could possibly go wrong??

Well, Germany serves as the perfect answer. It shut down its nuclear reactors, which had supplied a third of its electricity, and bet the grid on solar panels in a country where the sun barely shines.

German electricity now costs about 2.5 times what it does in the US, and the factories are leaving.

Von der Leyen herself admitted in March that abandoning nuclear was “a strategic mistake”— one she personally voted for, and one she has done nothing to reverse.

But this is how these people think: your savings are Europe’s resource, more dairy cows to be milked through the banking system.

Birmingham is going to the High Court to get the Union Jack off its lampposts

Birmingham is England’s second-largest city, and its local council has spent the past year pulling the country’s own flags— the British Union Jack and England’s St George’s Cross— off lampposts.

People kept putting them back up. So on Aug 26 the council, now run by a Liberal Democrat and Green coalition, asked the High Court for an injunction against “unauthorised attachments on the highway, including flags,” naming seven of the flag-hangers and “persons unknown.”

Breaching a High Court injunction is contempt of court— up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine, and the council’s draft order adds, in capital letters, that “YOUR ASSETS MAY BE SEIZED.”

Bear in mind, hanging something on a lamppost is otherwise a £2,500 fine. The council went to the High Court to turn that into a prison sentence, and its stated reasons are “public safety” and “community cohesion.”

Meanwhile, Palestinian flags have hung from Birmingham lampposts since the Gaza war started in 2023, and as far as we can tell nobody went to court over them.

And twelve days before it went to court, the council lit up the Library of Birmingham in green and white for Pakistan’s independence day.

My guess is that the council won’t sue anyone putting up a Pride flag. And judging by what gets waved at the city’s protests, you could probably get away with an Islamic State flag.

But the British flag in Britain, and the English flag in England, are now a safety hazard and grounds for contempt of court.

So what “community” is the council so keen to keep cohesive?

Britain let in nearly a million net migrants a year at the peak and housed a great many of them at taxpayer expense. Taxes are now at their highest since the 1940s, and the wealthiest and most mobile taxpayers have been leaving in droves.

What stays behind are all those “doctors and lawyers” arriving by dinghy from Africa and the Middle East… like the Afghan who crossed the Channel from Calais in 2022, won asylum by saying Afghanistan was too dangerous to go back to. He then spent eight weeks on vacation there in 2024, posting videos from a national park.

It really is pathetic. And governments like these are exactly why we keep telling readers to have a Plan B.

Source

In 1845, the French economist Frédéric Bastiat petitioned parliament on behalf of the nation’s candlestick makers. They were being ruined, he wrote, by an unscrupulous rival that was flooding the market with light at a price no honest candlestick maker could match.

This light-producing rival, of course, was the sun.

And Bastiat satirically demanded “a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains… in short, all openings, holes, chinks and fissures” to ensure that no sunlight could enter French homes.

Think of the jobs this would create. “If more tallow [curtains] be consumed, there will arise a necessity for an increase of cattle and sheep,” the petition argued. “Thousands of vessels would soon be employed in the whale fisheries [for oil].”

Bastiat, one of history’s most famous proponents of free markets, was obviously joking. He wrote the petition to mock the tariff wall that sheltered France’s industries from cheap foreign goods— block the cheaper competitor, protect the domestic producer, count the jobs saved.

No one counted the cost of protectionism: everyone else paying more for everything, and the whole country became poorer.

Yet decade after decade since, every new innovation has been met with exactly this kind of uproar. And nobody is joking.

It wasn’t so long ago that taxi drivers were up in arms over Uber undercutting their prices. In June 2015, nearly 3,000 of them shut down parts of Paris, burning tires and blocking airport roads, because Uber’s cheap service didn’t require the professional taxi license that could cost $270,000.

The French government caved within a day, ordering police to seize the unlicensed Uber drivers’ cars.

Now the wheel has turned. Waymo’s robotaxis launched in Atlanta in June 2025, bookable through the Uber app of all places. And Uber drivers say the competition is cutting their pay.

Naturally the Atlanta Rideshare Drivers Union wants the city to slap a $0.50 to $1.00 fee on every robotaxi ride, paid into a “driver transition fund,” plus a ban on robo pickups at the Atlanta airport.

If only they could tax the sun for the candlestick makers.

The federal government runs the same play, just bigger.

In January 2025, the Commerce Department finalized its ‘Connected Vehicle Rule’, which bans cars with Chinese-linked software from the US market, starting with the 2027 model year.

The stated reason is national security: keeping foreign adversaries out of the cameras, microphones, and GPS units on American streets.

That’s a real concern, to be fair. But then came the carve-outs.

Volvo, majority-owned by China’s Geely, got authorization in May to keep selling. Ford, after talks with the department, decided its China-built Lincoln Nautilus doesn’t need an exemption at all.

But Polestar— owned by the same Chinese parent as Volvo— was shut out and is leaving the US market.

The Commerce Department doesn’t publish these decisions or its reasoning, so nobody outside the building knows why one Geely brand got a green light and the other got kicked out of America.

Let’s be honest: if these Chinese cars were really a security threat, there would be no carve-outs to negotiate. There would be a flat ban. No exceptions.

The real threat of cheap Chinese cars is to the profits of American automakers; Chinese cars are very inexpensive— like a decent quality mid-size SUV for around $20k. So many US buyers would start driving Chinese that the American automakers would either have to adapt and compete… or suffer catastrophic losses.

The end result of these bans is less competition, meaning Americans end up paying more for their vehicles.

Just add this to the long list of things which governments, from city councils to federal regulators, make more expensive.

Yesterday we wrote about how federal influence over local building codes adds $132,000 to the average new home.

Today it’s how they’re making buying a car and taking a quick trip more expensive.

Ask California how it’s doing on that nonexistent high-speed rail… $15 billion and 18 years in, without a mile of track. Or ask Europeans, where climate fuel mandates are already tacking surcharges onto every plane ticket.

The receipts are everywhere: everything the government touches becomes more expensive.

College tuition is up about 1,200% since 1980— the surge began as soon as the federal government made itself the nation’s student lender.

Since Obamacare passed, the average family health insurance premium has nearly doubled.

Even junk food became more expensive due to government  food subsidies; in fact the moment 18 states pulled soda and snacks off the food stamp list, PepsiCo cut prices on Doritos and Lay’s by up to 15%.

Housing, transportation, food, healthcare, education— all swamped by government interference, all quickly became less affordable.

And underneath all of it, bringing the whole pot to a boil, is the inflation that politicians and regulators caused with their own spending.

Yet who do they blame? Greedy corporations.

Inflation has nothing to do with greed. It has everything to do with incompetence and irresponsibility.

Bastiat’s joke was that nobody would ever actually file the candlestick makers’ petition. Yet 181 years later, what started as satire is taking place every single day.

A political class that treats cheaper goods and services as a threat is deliberately choosing to make the country poorer.

P.S. A government that treats cheaper as a threat isn’t going to start choosing growth anytime soon. That’s exactly why we publish Plan B Confidential— our flagship research on legal, practical ways to diversify your savings, your income, and even your residency beyond any single government’s bad decisions. Click here to learn more.

Source

Somewhere in America there’s a local ordinance that tells you which way your garage has to face.

Another one dictates what your fence can be made of, and a third sets how many square feet of window your house needs. A few spell out the dimensions of particular features down to a quarter of an inch.

The National Association of Home Builders, the trade group for the companies that build American homes, has been adding up what rules like these cost since 2011.

Its reasoning is simple: the country is short about 1.2 million homes, and rising regulatory costs are one of the things keeping builders from closing that gap. So anyone writing new rules ought to know what the existing ones already cost.

Government regulation now adds about $132,000 to the price of a new home.

That’s just over a quarter of the roughly $500,000 the average new house sold for in January.

Builders said that ten years of changes to the building code added about $40,000 to the cost of a house. That’s the cost to buy the extra materials and labor each new edition of the code demands… whether or not the buyer wanted them.

Some of those rules are reasonable— hurricane-rated windows on a house within a mile of the shore, or shock-proof breakers on the circuits that run the stove and the dryer.

But those same code changes also decided that a hot-water pipe can’t run more than 100 feet, that the outlet on a kitchen island has to pop up out of the countertop, and that an ordinary draft-vented furnace needs its own sealed, insulated room with an outside air vent.

None of those is a matter of life or death; even the furnace is an energy-efficiency rule, and the homeowner doesn’t get to decide whether the upfront cost is worth the long term savings.

Codes get adopted locally, but the model codes that cities and counties copy are drafted with help from the Energy Department, FEMA, and the EPA.

The study notes, almost in passing, that “DOE also has a budget to persuade state and local governments to adopt more stringent codes.”

In other words, a federal agency spends tax money persuading your county to make your house more expensive.

Just the energy part of the code adds between $9,600 and $21,400 to a home built to the 2021 version, and NAHB estimates it can take the buyer up to 90 years to recoup that money in lower utility bills. So maybe your grandkids will thank you, assuming the house is still standing.

This cost was made a federal requirement— a condition of every FHA and USDA loan on a new house— until a judge ruled in March that it violated the government’s own affordable-housing law. But it still stands as the building code in roughly a dozen states.

Then come the fees. Permits, inspections, impact charges, and utility hookups add about $20,000 per house after the builder buys the lot.

Like any medieval lord, the local government also takes its tribute in land. More than 85% of developers have to hand part of their parcel to the town for a park or keep it as open space, at a cost of about $13,600 per home. Of course that cost is passed on to the buyer.

Regulation also costs time, and the study only quantifies about half that cost. More than 90% of developers report delays averaging about seven months, and more than a year passes between the zoning application and the first day of work on the site.

The study puts the delay itself at about $4,000 a house. It doesn’t count the opportunity cost, or how delaying new housing supply raises the costs of everything else on the market.

And it’s quickly getting worse. Five years ago the same study put the total regulatory cost per home at about $94,000. It’s up more than 40% since then— and it has doubled since 2011.

Disposable income in the US rose 18% over the same five years. So the cost of obeying the rules is growing twice as fast as anyone’s ability to pay it.

Notice that these costs have nothing to do with greedy builders or Wall Street landlords.

Many builders have been cutting prices every month for well over a year, and new homes still aren’t selling. They’re sitting unsold— in a country that’s short 1.2 million homes— because a builder can only cut so far before he’s selling at a loss.

Ironically, on top of the federal government pushing a rule that violated its own affordable-housing law, NAHB suspects some of the rules have less to do with safety or efficiency and more to do with “aesthetics, or possibly even, in some cases, a desire to price less affluent residents out of particular neighborhoods.”

Yet the same city councils that pass them will tell you affordable housing is their top priority.

And homebuilding is just the one industry that bothered to add up the cost of insane government regulation.

The same thing happens anywhere the government writes the rule book.

Want to build a power line, a pipeline, or a mine? The White House’s own environmental council found that the average federal environmental review takes four and a half years before anyone breaks ground.

The National Association of Manufacturers puts the cost of complying with federal rules at about $3 trillion a year, roughly 11% of GDP.

All of this strangling regulation is a big part of why the economy can’t grow faster, and right now the US needs growth badly.

The national debt just crossed $40 trillion, and Congress refuses to cut a cent, even when the spending is obvious fraud.

That leaves two ways out. Either the economy grows faster than the debt, which means the country builds more, makes more, and starts more businesses than it does now… or the government prints the difference.

Without a regulation-destroying bonanza, it’s obvious which one happens. If the government can’t rein in the rules, it can’t rein in the debt. And if it can’t rein in the debt, it can’t rein in inflation, because printing the money is the only option left.

Source

Hardly a week goes by without another data center announcement, and the projects have gotten so big that they’re now measured in gigawatts.

A gigawatt is a billion watts of electricity. Running around the clock, one gigawatt is enough to supply about 800,000 average American homes— and a single large data center is now built at that scale.

The data center that Meta is building near El Paso is designed for a full gigawatt and comes online in 2028.

Plus Meta just announced plans to grow its campus in Louisiana to 5GW. And OpenAI’s Stargate program, spread across sites in several states, is planned for 10GW.

These projects are also spectacularly expensive, and even the richest companies on earth have stopped paying for them out of pocket.

Earlier this month Google borrowed $25 billion from the bond market. It was the company’s third major bond sale this year, which brings its 2026 borrowing to more than $70 billion.

Google needs the money because its capital expenditures budget this year is about $200 billion, and in Q2 they spent more cash than they brought in for the first time in more than two decades.

Meta is doing the same thing. In late July, a BlackRock-led group raised $12.5 billion of debt for that El Paso site, where Meta will be the sole tenant for twenty years.

The group had to pay about 7.5% to get the deal done, one of the highest yields on any blue-chip data center bond to date. That comes on top of the $25 billion in bonds that Meta sold in May, and another $30 billion borrowed for the Louisiana campus.

And that’s just two borrowers. The total borrowings right now related to AI and data centers is truly staggering.

But it’s not just tech spending that’s driving the bond market. Let’s not forget about the US federal government, which is on track for a $2.1 trillion deficit this fiscal year.

That’s just the NEW amount of debt they have to borrow this year just to keep the lights on and pay all the Somalis.

The White House is asking Congress for a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget next year, more than 40% above this year’s and the largest defense request (as a percentage of GDP) since World War II.

So between tech spending and the federal deficit, that’s already several trillion dollars in capital that needs to be borrowed from the bond market… THIS YEAR.

Here’s the problem: America’s “net private savings”, i.e. the sum of ALL undistributed corporate profits, plus total household net income, is only about $2.2 trillion.

In short, the federal government already requires nearly ALL of the net private savings from literally every household and every company across America… just to make ends meet.

Meanwhile the biggest foreign lenders are backing away.

Japan, the UK, and China— the three largest foreign lenders to the US government— all cut their Treasury holdings in June. China now has their lowest Treasury holdings since 2008, down more than 13% from last year.

In short, foreigners are not coming to the rescue. So there is very little capital left over to lend for data centers and AI expansion.

And that says nothing about the tens of millions of other borrowers— small businesses, home buyers, etc. who need to borrow money.

This is why interest rates are rising— it’s simple supply and demand: demand for capital is at an all-time high. Yet supply of capital (at the moment) is fixed. And when the supply/demand fundamentals of capital get out of whack, interest rates rise.

Families who need to buy a home now are standing in the same line as Google, Meta, and the Treasury Department, competing for the same money.

That’s why the average 30-year mortgage rate is 6.7%, and will likely go MUCH higher from here…

… unless the Fed starts printing money again.

Technically the Fed doesn’t physically ‘print’ anything, it’s all electronic. And they don’t call it ‘money printing’, because that would be too embarrassing. They refer to it as ‘quantitative easing’. But it has the same effect— increasing the supply of capital to meet the demand, thus causing interest rates to fall.

Mortgage rates fall. Treasury yields fall. Everyone is able to borrow for less.

Which sounds great… except that conjuring money out of thin air invariably triggers more inflation. So if you can borrow more cheaply but have to pay more for everything, are you really any better off?

It’s obvious the White House wants the Fed to cut rates… which means firing up a fresh round of Quantitative Easing. And Congress certainly won’t mind being able to borrow more.

Pretty much all politicians, regardless of party affiliation, want lower interest rates. Given the choice between high mortgage rates and higher inflation, politicians will pick higher inflation every time.

And that’s exactly why it makes sense to have a Plan B.

Source

In November 2008, California voters approved a ballot measure to build a bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

It was supposed to be fast enough to make the journey in under three hours. And passengers could hop on by 2020, for a total cost of $33 billion.

Eighteen years later, there is nothing to ride.

Emblematic of the progress so far is a field outside Fresno, where lonely viaducts poke into the sky with no rail connecting them. The locals call it their own Stonehenge.

And the state’s 2026 revised business plan now says it will cost $126 billion to complete… by 2040. Eighteen years into a 12-year project, they’re now saying they need another $93 billion and 14 more years.

Why is the price nearly four times higher than the original estimate?

Well, let’s try to answer that by tracking where the $15 billion already spent has gone.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority’s own business plan shows that about $9.1 billion went to three construction contracts covering 119 miles of the project. Those contracts are for the civil work only, meaning dirt, pipes, power lines, and concrete.

For that, California got about 80 miles of finished roadbed, i.e. the raised, graded earth that the track will eventually sit on, plus various bridges and overpasses.

In case you’re not keeping score, that works out to $77 million per mile… but that doesn’t include the actual train tracks.

No, California plans on building the rail, the electric wire, and the signals with an additional $3.5 billion contract— which was just awarded in June (i.e. 18 years in to a 14-year project).

And $3.5 billion of rail only encompasses a very small portion of the total distance they need to build.

For a rough comparison, Brightline— a private company in Florida— finished a Miami to Orlando line in 2023, with 235 miles of track, stations, and trains, for about $6 billion, or $25 million a mile.

So California’s is three times what Florida’s cost WITHOUT including the cost of the rail, the trains, and the stations.

Extraordinary. Where did all this money go?

They claim that $1.57 billion went to buying property— the narrow strip of land under the 119 miles (i.e. less than a third of the project).

But if you look at real estate prices in the area (Central Valley farmland went for about $12,000 an acre when the buying started), the actual land value was worth maybe $35 million at the time.

In other words, the state OVERPAID what the land was worth by 30x. I’m sure absolutely zero politicians or their families profited from that overpayment.

The next $3.6 billion went to studies, i.e. environmental reviews, and something the state calls “program-wide support”. That’s the second-biggest item on the bill.

The Authority started in 2008 with ten employees and hired a consulting firm to run the project. By 2018 the state had grown its own staff to about 190, with the consulting firm employing 485 people on the job.

This outside firm is generating hundreds of millions of dollars per year to do nothing.

When the state auditor went looking for what all those people had produced, 145 of the 184 deliverables were missing.

Not deliverables like rails and bridges. We’re talking about reports. The consultants couldn’t even manage that.

Governor Gavin Newsom’s reaction was to promise a purge. Yet the same firm still runs the project. And every slip in the schedule means the firm gets paid more. In fact this year’s plan added another $145 million for consultants.

In July the project’s own Inspector General wrote that the Authority “has obscured basic facts about the project” and made oversight harder for the legislature.

For example, in January, the Authority agreed to pay one of its contractors $537 million to settle nearly 600 claims for extra costs.

What claims? Were the claims real? Nobody knows, because nobody has audited it. The Inspector General, whose job that is, says his office is half-staffed. Maybe he should hire an outside consulting firm.

How could anyone look at all this and not see the same kind of fraud the Somalis are running in Minneapolis?

You take tax dollars and funnel them through layers of government employees, consultants, contractors, and unions, all of them tied to the political establishment. In return, those people spend a slice of their ill-gotten gains keeping the politicians who make it possible in office.

California’s version may be ‘legal’ graft. But that hardly makes it different. It might be worse, since at least in Minneapolis the people on the take can be prosecuted.

Who’s to say the contractor didn’t earn an extra $537 million? Who’s to say the consultants’ reports weren’t worth every dollar of the $3.6 billion?

And when someone tries to get to the bottom of it, they make asking questions illegal.

Nick Shirley, the YouTuber whose video of empty tax-funded Minneapolis day cares went viral last Christmas, walked into a Los Angeles immigrant-services nonprofit this summer and asked where the $80 million in government money it has taken over the last four years went.

But they were ready to silence him, because two months after the Minneapolis video, that same nonprofit had co-sponsored a bill letting its staff sue anyone who posts videos of them online. Newsom signed it into law on Saturday.

Starting in October 2027, anyone who works at, volunteers at, or gets help from an immigration nonprofit can sue whoever posts their picture online, for at least $4,000 plus attorney’s fees.

And these are the same people who mock anyone who suggests an election might not be secure.

Why wouldn’t you trust them to count the mail-in ballots at 3 a.m.?

Nobody should bet a family’s future on these people getting better. The tax-funded gravy train isn’t slowing down if they have anything to do with it.

And that’s exactly why it makes sense to have a Plan B.

PS- Schiff Sovereign Premium is our guide to building that Plan B: legally cutting your tax bill, gold and precious metals strategies, research on undervalued real asset businesses, and diversification moves that keep your money and your freedom of movement out of any one government’s reach.

It’s just $9 a month. You can learn more here.

Source

Several days ago, just as America’s national debt topped $40 trillion for the first time, China’s official propaganda outlets took the opportunity to mock the United States over this ominous milestone.

Xinhua is the Chinese government’s official news agency, and they published a scathing commentary comparing the US national debt to Frankenstein and his monster. They noted both were “destroyed by the forces they had set in motion,” and that America “risks a similar end.”

Another Xinhua social media account mocked the US government for borrowing new debt to pay back old debt, joking, “sounds like a perfect plan.”

And a different Xinhua piece warned that US Treasuries were transforming from a rock-solid “risk-free” safe haven asset into a source of volatility.

Xinhua’s comments are not wrong. $40 trillion an insane amount of debt, and if you include state and local debt across the United States— New York, California, Chicago, etc., the total gross debt grows to $44 trillion.

The worst part is that few politicians are serious about cutting the debt, or even slowing down the borrowing. Congress can’t even cut hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of obvious fraud.

But the criticism is pretty rich coming from the Chinese Communist Party.

America’s federal debt is roughly 125% of GDP. Even including state and local debt it’s 135% of GDP.

But China’s is 107% of GDP— so it’s not like the CCP is some paragon of spending restraint! And that 107% number is just what they publicly acknowledge.

Here’s one example of an accounting trick China uses to keep its full debt off the books.

For decades, Chinese cities weren’t allowed to borrow directly. So as an alternative they set up government-owned companies to do the borrowing for them.

These government-owned companies built the subways, the industrial parks, and the apartment towers, but the debt sat on the companies’ books instead of the government’s.

In November 2024 China’s government finally admitted to trillions of dollars worth of this hidden debt. And they announced a five-year plan to move it onto their official balance sheet.

America’s debt has been growing steadily: a horribly grotesque, absurdly wasteful $2 trillion per year since 2020. But China’s debt takes a quantum leap every time the CCP tells a little more truth.

And by the IMF’s count, China’s real government debt comes to 135% of GDP this year… dead even with America’s.

But Chinese debt pulls way ahead of the US when you factor in actual private debt held by companies and citizens.

Chinese corporate debt, for example, sits at 143% of GDP. US company debt is about HALF of that level. And let’s not forget that the biggest Chinese borrowers are state-owned enterprises where the politicians are ultimately in charge. So I’m suuuuure those company audits are totally above board…

The real question is HOW is this money going to be paid back. And by WHOM?

In January, China’s statistics bureau reported that just 7.9 million babies were born in 2025, down from 9.5 million the year before… and the fewest in modern China’s history. China’s fertility rate is 0.96, not even half of what it takes to keep a population steady. And China’s population shrank for the fourth year in a row.

America’s debt will land on the next generation, which is bad. But at least America HAS a next generation.

Decades of the idiotic one-child policy left China with families with (hopefully) one worker supporting two parents and four grandparents. That same worker will now inherit his share of China’s debt at 135%+ of GDP.

America’s fiscal challenges are immense. But they can be solved with common sense solutions— eliminating obvious fraud, making government more efficient, scaling back regulations that hamstring small business growth, reforming the immigration system, reforming Social Security.

China, on the other hand, needs a time machine to solve its problems. And since no such time machine exists, they just cook the books.

Seriously. A shrinking population is deadly for a nation’s economy. China can’t go back in time to reverse its one-child policy. And they can’t fix it with immigration either— because few people want to move to China!

This is why so many Chinese companies are developing robotics— it’s an absolute necessity there. But even this comes with a major social cost, i.e. higher unemployment.

And China cooks the books on those numbers as well.

When youth unemployment hit 21.3% in June 2023, the bureau suddenly decided that its methods of calculating unemployment needed immediate changes.

Plus any criticism or complaining leads to imprisonment… or worse.

In October 2020, Jack Ma, Alibaba’s founder and then the richest man in China, gave a speech in Shanghai saying China’s banks ran on a “pawnshop mentality” and its regulators were out of date.

Two weeks later the Chinese government killed his payments company’s stock listing, which would have been the biggest in history, and Ma disappeared for three months.

This method of control is why no one can really trust anything from the Chinese government.

That includes their attitude that they will some day rule the world.

When President Trump visited Beijing earlier this year, Xi Jinping asked whether China and the United States could “overcome the so-called Thucydides Trap,” the theory that a rising power and the one it threatens end up at war.

China’s government has spent years telling anyone who’ll listen that America is finished and China’s time has come.

America does have challenges. And there is still some time left to get its house in order to avoid serious consequences.

But China is not its replacement.

Source

King Hammurabi of Babylon had a simple rule for home builders: if the house you built collapsed and killed its owner, you were put to death.

That was law #229, carved in stone almost 4,000 years ago. And some version of this rule has existed for most of human history. Even to this day, it’s a tradition among architects to spend the night under a bridge they designed to prove that it’s safe.

Bottom line, people who built things were often expected to eat their own cooking and suffer the successes and consequences of their work.

The United States Congress has spent decades perfecting the opposite arrangement.

Start with the salary. Members of Congress earn $174,000 a year, more than double what the median American household makes. Yet Congress would like you to know how painful that is.

Senator Tommy Tuberville calls the job a “sacrifice.” Representative Pramila Jayapal complains that “most of us get paid less than our chiefs [of staff] at this point.”

Current and former members are suing the government, demanding retroactive cost-of-living raises, with claims as high as $420,000 apiece.

Bear in mind, again, that Congressmen already make $174,000 per year. Yet the House of Representatives averages just 150 days in session per year. And last year’s legislative calendar scheduled just 137 days.

Most Americans work at least 250 days a year. So, adjusting for actual days worked, Congressmen are actually earning nearly $300,000 based on a normal work year. So the pay gap between everyday Americans and their Congressional representatives is even greater than at first glance.

And just how do they fill their 150ish work days? The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee once handed its incoming freshmen a model schedule:

Four hours of the day went to fundraising calls. Another hour to something called “strategic outreach”, i.e. being aligned with the party bosses. The actual job of representing constituents gets, maybe, 3-4 hours per day.

By the party’s own math, half of a congressman’s day goes to keeping the job rather than doing it.

This is insane. A welder doesn’t get to spend half of his day persuading people to let him keep his job; rather, if he doesn’t want to get fired, he simply has to do a good job. Pretty simple.

But members of Congress can’t run on their records, because their record is the insane world that we all live in.

So they spend their days telling lies to donors in order to raise enough money to tell more lies in TV commercials and email blasts. Anywhere else, this cascade of lies would be considered criminal fraud. In politics it’s just campaigning.

And in a few weeks, those campaign pitches will even receive a special pass around Gmail’s inbox filter: starting September 8, 2026, Google will let verified political committees bypass it entirely, just in time for the midterms. Your inbox has rules; their fundraising has an exemption.

But the exemptions don’t stop there.

Thanks to Congress, Americans are required by law to have some overpriced health insurance plan. But politicians have a special plan, with taxpayers footing the vast majority of the premium… plus coverage for life once a member qualifies for retirement after serving just FIVE years in Congress.

So the same people who built the most unaffordable healthcare system in the world exempted themselves from ever feeling the pain.

Pensions repeat the pattern: members elected before 2013 earn a pension that accrues nearly twice as fast as a regular federal worker’s, collectible as early as 50. They let Social Security drift toward insolvency for you. For themselves, they built a backup.

Then there’s the stock trading. A corporate executive who trades on confidential information goes to prison. Congress never bothered to apply those rules to itself until the 2012 STOCK Act.

That might explain how former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went from a roughly $3 million net worth when she entered Congress in 1987 to an estimated $280 million today. It’s all apparently due to her husband’s extreme investment prowess.

But she’s far from the only one. Must all be a wild coincidence.

Even after the 2012 STOCK Act which required politicians to disclose their stock trades, nothing changed. Seventy-eight members broke that law in a single term— yet in the fourteen years since the STOCK Act, not a single one has been prosecuted for insider trading.

Even Speaker Mike Johnson says, “Look, at least let them, like, engage in some stock trading, so that they can continue to, you know, take care of their family.”

Imagine the private-sector version: if JP Morgan announced a new campus in Texas and its CEO, Jamie Dimon, bought up the surrounding land to sell to his own company, he’d be indicted before the concrete cured.

Congress runs that trade every day, on information you’ll never see, and calls it “taking care of their family”.

Then you’ve got their housing perks.

Representatives can bill taxpayers for their living costs in Washington DC— up to $276 a night for lodging, plus a $92 meal allowance.

What’s interesting is that this is a recent adjustment going back to just 2023. Congressmen were ‘suffering’ the worst inflation in four decades. Rather than acknowledge that they themselves were instrumental in creating that inflation, they cooked up a bailout for themselves so that they wouldn’t have to pay sky-high prices.

In short, you pay higher living costs. Congressmen bill you for theirs.

Congressmen also routinely get sweetheart deals from banks and mortgage brokers; during the 2008 financial crisis, for example, America’s largest housing lender at the time ran a VIP program that waived fees and cut prices on home loans for politicians and key staffers.

Everyone else pays the going rate— 6% to 7% today. Politicians get special terms, and I’m sure there are no strings attached.

An organization that never feels its own failures has no reason to fix them. The debt, the inflation, and the fraud keep compounding no matter who wins.

Hammurabi figured out the fix 4,000 years ago: make the builder liable for his own construction. Congress has spent decades making sure the roof always comes down on somebody else.

Source

On June 7, 1939, US President Franklin Roosevelt signed a new law authorizing $100 million (a lot of money back then) to buy rubber, tin, tungsten, etc., and put it all in storage.

The United States was still at peace at the time. World War II had not yet broken out, and global trade was still relatively seamless.

But anyone reading a newspaper could see what was coming. Hitler had annexed Austria the year before and swallowed the rest of Czechoslovakia that March. Japan had been at war in China for two years.

Every commodity on Roosevelt’s list had one thing in common: America produced next to none of it. Nearly all of the rubber used by US companies, for example, came from British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. A lot of tin came from Malaya as well.

Congress and Roosevelt were being appropriately cautious. And within a short time they had stockpiled hundreds of thousands of tons of these strategic assets.

Then came the War. Then Pearl Harbor. And then full-blown economic chaos.

By March 1942, for example, Japanese troops had overrun Malaya and the Dutch East Indies… meaning that about 90% of America’s rubber supply vanished overnight. Fortunately, their foresight to build stockpiles cushioned the blow.

This critical lesson in self-sufficiency is easily forgotten. As long as global peace and cooperation feel permanent, governments never think about resource scarcity. They assume they will always be able to trade for what they need… so why waste money stockpiling?

But global peace and cooperation can quickly turn to conflict and tension, and that is the environment we are in today.

The last major global conflict was World War II. Before it was over, 730 delegates from 44 nations literally sat down at a conference and hammered out a new framework for economic cooperation that made the US dollar the world’s undisputed reserve currency.

As a result, every country on earth has parked its savings in US government bonds for the past eight decades.

It hasn’t always been easy. The US formally ended the convertibility between the dollar and gold in the 1970s, and there was some thought to creating a new financial system. But the dollar managed to survive as king.

The dollar’s status has also been at risk throughout this century, between the skyrocketing US national debt and heavy-handed legislation (like FATCA) that the US government forced on the rest of the world.

But, still, the dollar survived. And foreign countries kept buying dollars and Treasury bonds.

But everyone has a breaking point, including foreign countries.

The US government’s response to freeze Russian assets in 2022 was the start. Then came last year’s so-called “Liberation Day”, when decades of trade policy were upended, overnight. Then came the Iran war. And now a $40 trillion national debt with no end in sight.

This has all been enough for foreign governments and central banks to finally reverse course; at first they slowed their purchases of US Treasury bonds. Now they’re actually selling… and diversifying away from the dollar.

The immediate beneficiary has been gold. And we’ve written about this— gold is the most logical asset for central bank diversification because it is already a traditional reserve asset… plus the gold market is very large and liquid.

We believe this trend will continue; gold prices will rise as a result, and quality mining companies should prosper.

But there’s a second element to this diversification story.

After Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz— which carried a fifth of the world’s oil and a host of other critical resources— every government on the planet re-learned the same lesson of World War II: trade and cooperation can vanish in an instant.

And now the entire globe feels a sense of urgency to prepare for the next conflict.

Will China invade Taiwan? Will the US and China go to war? Will Russia and NATO come to blows? Nobody knows, and no government wants to be caught flat-footed, unable to import the critical resources that their economies need to function.

In Roosevelt’s era it was things like rubber and tin.

Today, these critical resources (what we refer to as ‘real assets’) start with energy— oil, natural gas, even coal… plus uranium for some countries.

Now, not every commodity is a real asset. Sugar is a commodity… but the world would be just fine without it. No government is going to stockpile orange juice, lumber, or wool. Or even rubber anymore.

But cut off a country’s oil supply and it reverts to the Dark Ages.

That’s why countries are now stockpiling the strategic assets that are the vital inputs to their economies: copper, rare earths, and even the IP and hardware that power AI.

China is the clearest example. In 2025 alone it added more than a million barrels a day to an oil stockpile and now holds roughly 1.4 billion barrels— the world’s largest reserve.

When Hormuz closed and the US and 31 other countries released 400 million barrels from their emergency reserves, China barely touched its pile and by July was adding to it again.

Its nuclear-fuel imports hit a record last year too, far beyond what its reactors burn; the excess went into stockpiles. And this summer Beijing put a new $9 billion state company in charge of buying mines around the world.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, produces plenty of oil, so they don’t need to stockpile it. But they are building nearly two gigawatts of data centers at home rather than risk being cut off from computing power.

A government that sells a Treasury still has to put the money somewhere, and the sensible places are the assets that the US government cannot freeze… and that no central bank can print. That is why the long-term direction of gold is still up.

But it’s also why energy, industrial metals, productive technology, and other vital resources— plus the companies which produce them— have a bright future.

This is the thesis behind Schiff Sovereign’s investment research newsletter, Strategic Assets. A world that no longer trusts the US government moves into gold, and a world that can no longer count on trade cooperation secures its own stockpiles.

We provide research on companies that mine, pump, and build what governments are stockpiling.

Subscribers who acted on our research locked in more than 10x on a small silver producer and more than 6x on a gold and silver producer, both in under a year.

A tin producer featured last summer is up more than 3x, a zinc producer more than 2.5x, and a tanker company about 2.5x. Across the companies we have closed out, winners and losers together, the average return is 172%.

We cordially invite you to learn more about Strategic Assets by clicking here.

Source

In 2012, a 76-year-old Vietnam veteran named Jerry Meekins bought a $197 Spirit Airlines ticket to Atlantic City to visit his daughter.

Then his doctor told him two things: he had terminal cancer, and he could not fly. Meekins asked for his money back. Spirit said no.

He offered a letter from his oncologist, hospice paperwork, even his prepaid funeral package. Spirit wouldn’t look. CEO Ben Baldanza publicly blamed the dying man for not buying travel insurance. A week of national outrage later, Baldanza caved and refunded the fare himself.

It was not out of character. Five years earlier, Baldanza hit reply-all on a complaint from a passenger whose delayed flight cost him the concert he was flying to see. “We owe him nothing as far as I’m concerned,” the CEO wrote. “Let him tell the world how bad we are. He’s never flown us before anyway and will be back when we save him a penny.”

That was Spirit’s business model: treat customers like garbage and bet they’ll crawl back for a penny. Unsurprisingly, they went bankrupt.

Rule #1 in business is ‘the customer is always right’. At a minimum, businesses know that they need to treat paying customers with basic courtesy. Duh.

But governments never learn that lesson; they don’t have to extend any courtesy because they take your money at the point of a gun.

Rob Streeper has lived in his San Antonio home for 18 years. In June, the city’s code enforcement office sent him a notice of violation because a tree on his property had a branch that was hanging too low over the public sidewalk.

Fair enough. Keeping the sidewalks passable is all part of the mundane administrivia of municipal government. But there was just one problem: a bird was nesting on that particular branch of Mr. Streeper’s tree.

Streeper is apparently a staunch rule follower, because he called the US Fish and Wildlife Service to ask what to do. A federal agent told him that removing an active nest violates the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which carries up to six months in prison and a $15,000 fine.

In other words, the local government was threatening to fine him for failing to commit a federal crime. And he pays taxes to fund both his city council as well as the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Streeper reported this back to the city, and even made clear that once nesting season ends, “we have no problem with cutting the branch.”

None of it mattered. Two months later, a $300 citation appeared. “Nobody talked to us,” he said. “They just taped it to the door.”

Eventually a code enforcement officer told him what was really going on: a neighbor had been calling the city every single day to complain about the branch.

From a bureaucrat’s perspective, the path of least resistance was to simply issue the fine, and ignore the injustice of it. After all, the bureaucrat wouldn’t suffer for any of it.

And at no point in this story does a judge or jury appear. Streeper could have technically contested the ticket in municipal court, and a jury of random strangers would have sided with him in a heartbeat. But that means a court date, days off work, and more weeks of the machine, all over a $300 ticket that should never have existed.

In many respects the process IS the punishment. The government never needs to be right— but it is more expensive to fight them than to obey them.

What finally fixed it was a TV camera. On August 14 at 10:59 a.m., one minute before a KSAT 12 news crew pulled up to the house, Streeper’s phone rang. It was a city official named Michael Uresti, calling to say the matter had “reached my level.”

The ticket was dismissed, the branch received a stay of execution (until late September), and the common sense that went missing for two months turned up in sixty seconds.

“It took telling the code compliance people that [local news crews] were involved for them to finally back off,” Streeper said.

Until then, not a single bureaucrat who touched this case felt compelled to stop it.

This is how the whole system works. In 2021, for example, the Biden administration ordered its contractors to vaccinate their employees, while Texas banned employers from mandating vaccines at all.

Companies faced an impossible choice: break state law, or lose their federal contracts. It took lawsuits from 26 states and a federal injunction to sort out the mess.

Or ask Mike and Chantell Sackett, who bought a $23,000 lot in Idaho and started building a home. The EPA showed up, declared their land a federally protected wetland, and threatened penalties of over $40,000 per day.

Better yet, the agency insisted no court in America even had the power to review its order. The Sacketts needed sixteen years and two unanimous Supreme Court decisions to win— the first just to establish their right to be heard at all.

And those were the lucky ones. The contractors had 26 state attorneys general. The Sacketts had a public-interest law firm and sixteen years of patience. Streeper had a news crew.

But if you don’t have lawyers, politicians, or cameras on your side, you just get pummeled by the system.

That’s what happens when there are so many rules, so many agencies, and so many levels of government. Compliance with the law becomes impossible.

Meanwhile, government doesn’t uphold its end of the bargain. It can’t be bothered to stop the riot outside a citizen’s house or clear the drug pushers from his sidewalk. But bureaucrats will happily wreck someone’s life over an errant tree branch.

And the tree branch is the smallest version of the story. The Federal Reserve destroyed a quarter of the dollar’s value in five years. Congress ran the national debt to $40 trillion while letting Social Security race toward insolvency.

Nobody has answered for any of this incompetence, and nobody ever will. The consequences and penalties are reserved for a man with a bird’s nest in his tree.

A government that does this has lost its way, lost its moral compass.

This is simply not how you treat anyone, let alone your own citizens. And it is not what a functioning free society looks like.

Source

In June of 1944, American soldiers were storming the beaches of Normandy, leading the fight to defeat the Nazis.

Back home, Americans gave everything they had. Some 85 million bought war bonds. The top income tax rate hit 94%, the highest in US history. Even ordinary people paid more and more income tax to support the war effort.

This was the absolute peak of American patriotism and record high tax rates. And yet overall government tax revenue still only came to just 20.5% of GDP.

This matters. In the eight decades since the end of World War II, tax revenue in the United States has averaged between 17% and 18% of GDP… with very little variation.

The low was 14.2% in 1950, coming out of a recession, and the high was 20.0% in 2000, at the peak of the dot-com boom when capital gains tax rates were through the roof.

Yet throughout those eight decades, the overall average has remained quite steady— 17% to 18%… even though corporate and individual tax rates have been all over the board over the same period.

The reason is simple: as tax rates go up and down, people and businesses adjust their behavior. If marginal tax rates skyrocket, people stuff their earnings into tax shelters. Or they defer revenue. Or they come up with any number of ways to legally reduce what they owe.

It’s human nature.

You probably heard that the US national debt just crossed $40 trillion yesterday. And on its current trajectory, there is no end in sight to the growth of that debt.

The federal government now routinely posts ~$2 trillion annual deficits… during periods of relative peace and prosperity.

Plenty of people (especially on the left) believe the answer is to tax the rich: sky-high marginal rates, wealth taxes, etc. But the historical data show that higher tax rates cannot and will not solve the problem.

According to IRS data, imposing a tax rate of 90% on people earning $2MM per year or more would theoretically generate $200 to $300 billion in additional tax revenue.

But remember human nature: people would very quickly change their behavior and restructure their affairs, and so the real additional tax revenue would collapse to less than $50 billion per year.

The same goes for a wealth tax. Charging billionaires and centimillionaires a percentage of their unrealized gains sounds like a nice idea to a socialist. But the consequences would offset most (if not all) of the additional revenue.

If Elon Musk were forced to sell 10% of his stock to pay a wealth tax, the share prices of Tesla and SpaceX would plummet.

Sure, the IRS would collect more money from Musk himself. But, nationwide, overall capital gains tax revenue would fall dramatically. So net tax revenue would barely budge.

The point is there are always consequences to raising taxes: less economic activity, slower growth, and higher unemployment. No country in history has ever taxed its way to prosperity.

What’s crazy is that an economy as large and dynamic as America’s doesn’t even need to run a balanced budget. Even a $1 trillion annual deficit would be OK— and a huge step in the right direction. The national debt would still grow, but as a percentage of GDP, it would shrink.

And it’s not hard to get there. The low-hanging fruit is obvious: the Government Accountability Office, the federal government’s own watchdog, estimates that hundreds of billions of dollars are lost to outright fraud and theft every single year.

Yet Congress doesn’t seem to want to even try to eliminate obvious fraud.

And that’s the easy stuff.

The harder part would be streamlining government operations and cutting waste and inefficiency… which could easily generate hundreds of billions in savings.

Harder still would be reforming entitlements, fixing immigration, and taking a chainsaw to the Code of Federal Regulations… all of which could trim spending and/or grow the economy (and hence increase tax revenue).

Again, the national debt is $40 trillion, yet Congress won’t even do the easy stuff to fix it. Even worse, the media and the courts actively block and obstruct the people who do try.

We can hope that common sense will one day prevail, and that AI and nuclear power will supercharge the US economy to the point where America grows its way out of debt.

But in the meantime, there are now 40 trillion reasons to have a Plan B.

Source

If you were to head to Bloomberg, CNBC, or Yahoo Finance this morning and see virtually all green across the board in US markets, you wouldn’t think it’s a sad day for America.

And yet, despite stocks being up and investors positively effervescent, it is indeed a sad day, because today marks the first real capitulation by the Treasury Department.

Stocks are up because the Treasury Department announced this morning that it will double repurchases of long-dated government bonds. If that sounds boring and mundane, it’s not.

For the past several weeks, Treasury yields have been skyrocketing. Our readers won’t be surprised by this— we’ve been predicting this and telling the story for quite some time.

In short, the bond market is rapidly losing confidence in America. And that’s especially true for foreign governments and central banks.

For most of the past eighty years, pretty much every foreign government on the planet parked their national savings in US government bonds. It was a no-brainer. US Treasury bonds paid interest. They were extremely liquid and could be sold in seconds. And they are backed by the wealthiest, most powerful, most creditworthy nation on Earth.

So the rest of the world happily lent their financial surpluses to the US government and asked few questions.

At peak (in 2011), foreigners owned nearly half of all marketable US Treasury bonds. Fifteen years later they hold less than a third, and that proportion is sliding quickly.

Earlier this week the Treasury Department reported that foreigners continue to trim their holdings of US government bonds. In fact, so far this year, foreigners have only purchased 7% of net US debt issuance. In June, their purchases of Treasury bonds and notes fell 88% in a single month, and once you add in the Treasury bills they sold, foreigners were net SELLERS of US government debt.

It’s not hard to understand why; between the political theater, rising deficits, and inability to cut even obvious fraud, foreigners are no longer as willing to risk lending money to America… especially when they have to take that risk for three decades (i.e. holding a 30-year Treasury bond).

As a result, foreigners are selling. And as they sell, the natural consequence of the bond market is that Treasury yields have been rising… especially for the least popular securities like the 30-year Treasury bond.

This morning the US government officially staged an intervention. They signaled to the bond market, and to the world, that they’re willing to step in and buy back their own debt in order to prop up the market.

Investors cheered. But, again, this is actually quite sad news. It is tantamount to the Treasury Department capitulating and acknowledging that they have lost the confidence of foreign investors.

We’ve been writing about this trend for quite some time, encouraging our readers to consider investing in gold… as well as gold producers.

In our most recent edition of Schiff Sovereign: Premium, for example, we wrote about three major gold companies that we believed were significantly undervalued. They’re all up 10% just this morning… because gold is on an absolute tear.

Why gold?

As foreign governments and central banks have been moving out of US dollars, they’ve had to park that money into some other asset. At the moment, gold is realistically the only viable strategic reserve asset that is extremely liquid, widely accepted around the world, and carries zero counter-party risk.

Foreign countries have already been buying up gold over the past few years as their confidence in the US has waned; from 2022 through 2025 they bought a few hundred billion dollars’ worth— roughly 2% of their financial reserves. And that modest purchase alone took the gold price from about $1,600 to more than $4,000.

Global central banks are back in the gold market buying again today. And since we can’t exactly hold our breath that the US government is going to get its fiscal house in order anytime soon, we can only conclude that the central bank gold-buying trend will continue… and accelerate.

This trend is bad for America. But it’s good for gold. And it’s even better for gold producers.

P.S. One of the other companies we’ve covered in Premium, a gold producer, is up a bit this week, but we still think it is wildly undervalued. So does its own CEO, who told analysts on this week’s earnings call that the company is “significantly undervalued.”

It has no debt, just reported the most profitable first half in its history, and trades at roughly two times its annual cash flow.

We walk through the numbers in our latest edition of Schiff Sovereign: Premium, which is just $9 per month. Click here to learn more.

Source

Four years ago this month, Washington passed a law and named it, with a straight face, the Inflation Reduction Act.

Bizarrely, their plan to ‘reduce inflation’, which had been caused by excessive government spending, was for the government to spend even more money. It’s genius!

Among its various provisions, part of the legislation authorized the government to negotiate prescription drug prices. Seems like a nice idea in principle… but in practice it’s been a disaster.

The Congressional Budget Office released the results late last month: the Medicare drug provisions that were supposed to generate $129 billion in savings will now add $700 billion to the deficit.

Sometimes it seems like this is the whole idea; given the rampant Medicare fraud that gets uncovered on a daily basis, it’s clear that politicians have an incentive to steer MORE money into the program.

Healthcare is the easiest spending in Washington to justify. Every dollar comes with the same argument: if we don’t spend on healthcare, people will die!

It ends up being so much money— a giant, dark pool of corruption— and a lot of it gets funneled straight back into the political process as campaign contributions. And it’s been going on for ages.

Back in 2002, for example, America’s biggest health-care workers union spent about $800,000 electing Rod Blagojevich governor of Illinois. He later thanked them “for electing me governor.”

Weeks after he took office, Blagojevich signed multiple executive orders that fattened the union’s pockets, like forcing more healthcare workers to join… and automatically deducting union dues from their paychecks. Bad for the unionized workers, but great for the union bosses.

In New York, the Greater New York Hospital Association wrote two checks totaling more than $1 million to the state Democratic Party in August 2018, at then-Governor Andrew Cuomo’s campaign’s request.

Three months later the state ordered its first across-the-board Medicaid rate increase since 2008, worth about $140 million a year. Great news for the hospital association.

The cycle never ends— the unions and associations scratch the politicians’ backs, and in turn get their backs scratched. No one can rationally expect those parties to walk away from their mutual benefit.

And this is just the ‘honest’ graft and corruption… it doesn’t take into account the outright fraud.

During COVID, Medicare paid for eight test kits per month, per person, in America. Yet an inspector general later found it paid up to $454 million for nearly 39 million kits over that limit.

In June, the Justice Department found over $6.5 billion in fake health-care claims. Yet agents recovered only $182 million in cash and assets, less than three cents per dollar of fraud.

In one instance, a pair of adult day care operators fraudulently billed Medicare and Medicaid $120 million over a decade. One of their centers claimed 1,041 attendees in a single day while the building’s occupancy limit was 81.

Then Nick Shirley walked into the neighborhood’s facilities with a camera this summer and turned up $190 million more in suspicious billing.

And yet very little of the fraud gets stopped… in large part because a portion of what they steal from the government is funneled back to the politicians (mostly on the Left) who vote for more Medicare spending.

These same politicians install activist judges at the state and federal level, ensuring that anyone who tries to stop the fraud will be sued… and blocked by the courts.

As an example, last year Congress voted to cut off Planned Parenthood from Medicaid for one year.

Planned Parenthood sued. Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee in Boston, dutifully blocked the cut within weeks, and the appeals court had to overrule her twice before the law could take effect.

Feeding Our Future, the Minnesota child-meal Somali fraud network, had the audacity to sue the state for racial discrimination when the fraudulent money train slowed down.

It’s extraordinary; there are so many checks-and-balances in place to keep the graft  going.

The politicians vote to keep the money moving. The judges defend it to the last Somali. And the activists and the media scream that anyone asking questions is racist; Governor Tim Walz called the fraud talk “vile, racist lies.”

The teachers’ unions march the kids out of school for union causes and No Kings rallies, as if the kids had any idea what they were marching for. And the universities continue the socialist indoctrination.

Media, education, courts: the whole institutional layer exists to keep the money flowing.

So of course they want more of it.

Senator Bernie Sanders reintroduced Medicare for All last year, and the movement that just made Zohran Mamdani mayor of New York wants to make this slush fund the entire health-care system.

Even the most conservative estimate puts the price at $32.6 trillion over the first decade; that’s an astonishing amount of potential fraud.

The US could get its fiscal house in order if it shut this slush fund down. But the graft is deeply entrenched… so it’s likely that US deficit spending will continue in order to pay for it all.

Foreign governments have reached the same conclusion: The US has to go deeper into debt in order to finance hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud.

That’s a major reason why foreign governments and central banks are diversifying away from the dollar. And with no obvious global currency to park their financial reserves into, they buy gold.

We have been making this argument for the past few years, since gold was below $1800. This sort of news makes the case even more strongly: the story hasn’t changed… and gold remains a great hedge for the fiscal uncertainty to come.

PS: In this month’s Schiff Sovereign Premium, we made the case for a gold producer built for exactly this outlook: a debt-free, dividend-paying, highly successful gold company which just had the most profitable first-half in its company history. But it only trades at 2x cash flow.

If the fraud and deficits continue, gold should do very well… and successful producers can do even better.

Click here to learn more about Schiff Sovereign Premium.

Source