BREAKING: Fed Announces Not QE…QE 2.0 (What You Need To Know)
Summary
Fed Policy Shift: The guest argues the Fed’s new “technical purchases” of T-bills effectively resemble QE and are likely to expand beyond bills as in 2019–2020.
Repo and Collateral: He emphasizes stress is more about counterparty risk and collateral scarcity (T-bills) than a simple lack of bank reserves, questioning the efficacy of the Fed’s approach.
US Treasuries: Actionably, one camp sells Treasuries expecting higher rates via inflation from QE, while his camp buys Treasuries on rising systemic risk leading to disinflation/deflation and lower yields.
Gold: He notes gold does not closely track CPI and tends to trade on risk; elevated financial risk may support gold as a hedge.
Silver: Silver is framed as more sensitive to growth and inflation expectations, bullish in a reflationary scenario but approached more cautiously if disinflation dominates.
Opportunities and Risks: No specific tickers were pitched; the focus is on macro positioning, recognizing risks from collateral dynamics and funding market stress and tailoring portfolio hedges accordingly.
Transcript
Hello fellow Rebel Capitalists. Hope you are well. I am changing the volume. [laughter] My mixer, we've got some breaking news. Well, if you saw the Fed's or the drone pow press conference yesterday, he kind of leaked it and now the mainstream media is mentioning it here and there. But for those of you who have been watching my videos for a long, long, long time, you remember 2019, September, the repo blow up, repo madness. And remember what the Fed did right after that. They started not QE. They said, "Whatever you do, we're going to start buying bonds. We're going to increase the size of our balance sheet. We're going to increase the number of bank reserves. But whatever you do, don't call it QE. It's this is not QE. This is not Kiwi. It's not Kiwi Kiwi. [laughter] And then what happened? You guys know how that story ended. As soon as we got to 2020, the surveis sickness hit and all of a sudden they're like, "Forget the not QE stuff. Got to go back to the actual QE stuff." And now you can go ahead and call it QE because the stuff is hitting the fan. And what we're seeing right now is 2.0. You got it. And my guess is this round is going to play out exactly like the first round of not QE QE. But what I want to focus on today is what's happening. Keep you guys informed, connect some dots, but then I want to talk about how this is actionable for your portfolio, assuming you're someone that wants to protect and grow your wealth. Because a lot of this stuff that we discussed very esoteric, right? When you're think about the Fed's balance sheet, reverse repo, the standing repo facility, you know, sofur rates. I don't know, George. I I don't know. Just this is just all a thought experiment. It's it's fun to talk about, but at the end of the day, it really doesn't help me make money. But that's where you're wrong. And I'm going to give you an example right now. Okay. So, let's dive into let's go over to Reuters first and foremost. We're going to find out what actually happened. And uh drum pal. And if you're watching my live stream, you saw me react to this in real time. So, Fed says it will start technical buying of Treasury bills to manage market liquidity. Now, what's great is basically it's QE. But what [laughter] just like they did in 2019, they have to, you know, they didn't even come up with a clever name back then. They just told the market and the participants and the mainstream media, whatever you do, don't call this QE. I don't care what you call it, don't call it QE. So, let's get into what they're calling it. Now, they're saying the Federal Reserve on Wednesday said it would imminently start buying shortdated government bonds to help manage market liquidity levels. Yeah. But they came out with a name for it, the technical oriented purchases. [laughter] Technical. Technical. It's like what the Fed does. It's like they're so good at what they do, they can just do it with precision. The precision of a fine Swiss watch. That's right. Now, forget the fact that they tried to literally create consumer price inflation from 2009 to I don't know what was it 2020 and they failed miserably. Remember, they couldn't get the inflation rate above 2%. No matter how many QES they did [laughter] that they actually called QES, no matter how many operation twists, no matter how low they dropped the interest rates, they couldn't they they couldn't simply get the CPI, we'll use that as a proxy, above their 2% target. But yet somehow we're supposed to believe that now they can just dial this in with this unbelievable precision that it's not just down to the decimal point. I mean, you can go out like four or five decimal points and the Fed is just going to be able to hit that number exactly. Even though for 11 years they tried to create more than 2% inflation and they failed miserably. Even every single thing they do fails miserably. And by the way, it look at every single Fed rate cutting cycle. I mean, we talked about that yesterday. Uh, I could go to it. I think I've got it right here on my chart. There you go. So, look at every single Fed rate cutting cycle. It pretty much ends with what? A recession. Well, okay. [laughter] If they're able to dial things in, why do we have a recession every single time they cut rates? Like I thought they're so good that they can just cut rates to the the the perfect level. What is Jerome K? They call it R star or the neutral rate. Oh yes, the neutral rate. So if they're so awesome and so precise at getting the neutral rate, why is it that every single time they try to do something, we still get a recession? H maybe that's cuz they don't know what the hell they're doing. [laughter] Uh but let's get back to the article. It assumes that not only they know what they're doing, but they can dial it in with this absolute precision. All right. The technically oriented purchases, the central bank said as part of a policy announcement associated with the latest FOMC meeting where they cut rates when it begins buying the initial round will total about 40 billion in T bills per month. The Fed said in the statement that its buying will remain elevated for a few months to offset expected large increases in nonreserve liabilities in April, adding after the pasted blah blah blah blah blah. Okay. What are they calling it? The sole purpose of maintaining ample supply of reserves over time, thus supporting effective control of our policy rate. Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. This is all just nonsense and and dril and fed speak. They've got a name for it. The effort. Okay. Technical had to start buying. It was like it was like fine-tune liquidity management system [laughter] just totally ridiculous. All right. But regardless of what they're calling it, it is what it is. And what it is is not QE QE. But let's go over to a tweet that I just uh put out here because you'll notice what they're doing here is they're specifically buying bills. So, front end of the curve. Front end of the curve. And what they're doing is the idea here is there's just not enough cash. I mean, it's it's really weird because the banks print money. Literally, they print their own money. Whether you want to call it dollar credit, dollar commercial bank deposit liabilities, whatever. We use it as money. you can use it to buy a Chipotle burrito. Okay, so the Fed or the uh central the um commercial banks, excuse me, can print this stuff at will. The banks are the ones that create the money. They create cash. They create liquidity. But yet, for some reason, we we we all know that like no one would dispute that. But yet, we're also supposed to believe that they can just run out of money. Like, oh my gosh, they they just run out of money. um although they create the money, they ran out of it. So now they have to go to the Fed and get more money. And obviously we know they ran out of money that they can actually print because the repo rates are going up or the short-term funding rates are going up. And it gets to the point where it's kind of a headscratcher. You're like, hm, that doesn't sound right. Why why would the banks that print the money run out of money? And then you start to dig a little deeper and then you see what's really happening here and what's happening beneath the surface. And the the main takeaway here is what they want you to assume and what they maybe assume themselves is that it is a fact that the bank's just running out of cash. [laughter] Sorry, we'd love to give you that loan repo market and we'd love to make all this money on you, but we just ran out. We just ran out of money. I don't know. We can't do the loan. So this is what they believe. We'll take them at their word. But I So if this is true, then the issue of the bank or the uh collateral, meaning the bills that you're buying, is a moot issue, right? Because if you're in there and the only problem is that the banks just ran out of money, then you can take away that collateral, give them money, problem solved. But there's a problem with that because what if the banks don't need the Fed's money because they can print their own? And the lack of liquidity or the stress in the short-term funding markets isn't really a result of the banks not having any money. It's more so counterparty risk. And maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with a lack of collateral. So, let's go over to this X post, Twitter post that I just did here. And I think this summarizes it quite well. And then we're going to talk about how this is actionable. So, you have to have one of two views. Number one, you either believe that repo rates equal in this in the context of what we're talking about equal liquidity and that liquidity is a result of bank reserves. or you believe and this is by far the minority here. Am I talking about you know very few people I know fall into this camp but I would I I definitely fall into the camp of number two or repo rates equal or have a large part to do with risk which the amount of risk has a lot to do with the type and the amount of collateral. Now, I know this sounds very complex and esoteric and kind of in the weeds and wonky, but it's really not. Let's just look at this. I did a whiteboard video this morning that will be out tomorrow, and I gave an example, an analogy that I think is very easy for people to understand. It's the exact same thing. So, let's just say that you are a lender and you've got $100 million to lend. Okay, great. and you've got three potential people out there, borrowers that want to borrow money from you. What metrics are going are you going to use to determine outside of just what the 10ear is doing? Let's say what else you you know the risk-free rate. Outside of that, what metrics are you going to use to determine what interest rate you're going to charge those borrowers? So, you're going to and I I can wait here. I'll give you guys three seconds to give me some answers. One, two, three. [laughter] What you're going to do is you're going to pull up their credit score, right? And you're going to say, "Okay, why are you pulling up their credit score?" Because you're seeing how risky they are, right? And then what you're going to do after you see how risky they are, then you're going to see, "Okay, what are you posting as collateral?" So, let's just say that they have a house and they have home equity. Again, this is something that all of us can easily understand, even if we're not a homeowner. And they'll then they say, "Okay, bank, you're going to charge me, let's say, 10% interest with no collateral, but whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, time out. I've got all this home equity that I'm trying to draw on. You know, you can use that that home. You can use my house as collateral." Okay, great. Well, now we're talking. Now, you as the lender will say, "Okay, well, I was going to do 10% unsecured, but if you're going to give me your house as collateral, okay, that's going to bring down the interest rate, isn't it?" So, this is again something that's very easy for all of us to understand. That's the repo market. That's the repo market. Now, what if I told you, remember, you had $100 million to lend. What if I told you that I was going to give you another hund00 million? Whoa. So now you have $200 million to lend. How would that impact the interest rate you're charging the borrowers? I think most of you would answer, "Well, George, it wouldn't it wouldn't impact the interest rate I'm charging the borrowers because what's impacting the rate that I charge the borrowers is the amount of risk that I have that I won't be paid back. And if I am paid back, how likely is it that I make myself whole?" Right? So now let's go back to the Fed. And so what I'm talking about there in terms of the repo market, the housing that we talked about as collateral, those are T bills. The borrowers are obviously the counterparties in the repo market that are borrowing. And you, the lender, is just the the counterparties that are l the the banks, right? That that by the way can print their own money that create the money. they create the money supply for the most part. So if they have So what the Fed is doing here is they're saying well those entities that can print money they somehow ran out and so what we're going to do is we're going to go buy all the collateral, not all, but a large part of the collateral and we're going to bring it onto our balance sheet so it's no longer in the financial plumbing so no one can use it anymore. And then we're going to go ahead and give the banks that don't need the money, we're going to give them more money. And then interest rates are obviously going to come down. [laughter] You see, when you use some good oldfashioned common sense, and you and you strip out all the fancy words, repo market, the standing repo facility, sofur rates, blah blah blah blah blah. When you strip out all the fancy words and you just use an identical example that we're all familiar with, you're like, what? How is that going to help doing not QEQ? like that that's like counterproductive. And if by chance the dollar funding the short-term funding markets become less volatile, then it sure as hell wasn't a result of taking all the collateral away. It just solved the problem or it fixed the problem. The market fixed the problem in spite of the Fed making it even worse. So let's go back to this and say okay George how is this actionable because if you believe number one and that they are absolutely starting QE again there's no disputing this is QE and it will turn into QE I don't care if they're buying bills now it'll be just like 2020 2019 where three four months later be like whoop sorry we're gonna start buying bonds we're gonna start buying notes we're gonna start buying you know, all maturities. We're and we're going to buy a lot fewer of bills or zero. That's inevitably what's going to happen. No prob No certain only probabilities, but I would say, you know, 99% that's going to happen. So then if you think that bank reserves equal liquidity then you would that would lead you to believe that this is going to stoke inflation and therefore you would be definitely a bear when it comes to treasuries. Meaning that you would have your base case would be interest rates are going to go up and therefore buy commodities, buy oil, buy all these things, right? But now let's assume that you fall into my camp and repo rates are just a reflection of the risk and what the Fed is doing. Even if it tides the market over temporarily, it really wasn't a result of what they were doing. It would have happened anyway and they just made it worse [laughter] or they just made it more difficult for the market itself to solve the problem. Then you realize that what they're doing with QE isn't necessarily adding liquidity. It's more so a reflection that there is extreme or increasing levels of risk in the system. And increasing levels of risk in the system is not inflationary. It's disinflationary. And if you get the stuff really hitting the fan temporarily, it can be deflationary like we saw in 2009. So if you believe in this QE leads you to believe that, oh my gosh, we're going to have a reaceleration of inflation. If you believe this, then you're like, oh my gosh, this is a signal from the markets that risk is high. Therefore, you would lean more toward the side of disinflation and possibly possibly outright deflation. So, in this camp, you're definitely selling treasuries. You think that interest rates are going to go up. This camp, you're buying treasuries. This camp, you're buying oil. This camp, you're selling oil or just not buying it, you know, commodities, something like that. So, then you say, well, go, what about gold and silver? Gold and silver don't really trade. I [laughter] don't know why people think this. They just look at a chart of the CPI and look at a chart of gold. There's there's not really a strong correlation there whatsoever. So, if anything, I would argue gold mostly trades on risk. Now, silver, maybe that's trading on growth and inflation expectations increasing, but you would want to take either camp that you're in into consideration. So, in this camp, maybe you would be wildly bullish on silver. In this camp, maybe you'd be bullish, but maybe not so much. You'd be cautious, cautiously optimistic, let's say. So, you see by just breaking this down how you can take the you can turn this in to very, very, very actionable takeaways. That was the point of doing this video. And guys, if you want more actionable takeaways, uh, you can check out Rebel Capitalist Pro. That's the private investment community I have with my good friends Chris Mintosh, Brent Johnson, Patrick Sesna from MacroVoices, where we go over a lot of contrarian strategies that have worked extremely extremely well to help you protect and grow your wealth. And within that community, I'm talking about these actionable strategies based on my worldview, based on my understanding of these complex esoteric topics. And uh, believe it or not, it's led me to make some decisions that have worked extremely well this year. So, if you want to check out more, uh, we'll just have Josh put a link in the description. All right, guys. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon. As always, make sure you're standing up for freedom, liberty, free market, capitalism. We'll see you on the next video.
BREAKING: Fed Announces Not QE…QE 2.0 (What You Need To Know)
Summary
Transcript
Hello fellow Rebel Capitalists. Hope you are well. I am changing the volume. [laughter] My mixer, we've got some breaking news. Well, if you saw the Fed's or the drone pow press conference yesterday, he kind of leaked it and now the mainstream media is mentioning it here and there. But for those of you who have been watching my videos for a long, long, long time, you remember 2019, September, the repo blow up, repo madness. And remember what the Fed did right after that. They started not QE. They said, "Whatever you do, we're going to start buying bonds. We're going to increase the size of our balance sheet. We're going to increase the number of bank reserves. But whatever you do, don't call it QE. It's this is not QE. This is not Kiwi. It's not Kiwi Kiwi. [laughter] And then what happened? You guys know how that story ended. As soon as we got to 2020, the surveis sickness hit and all of a sudden they're like, "Forget the not QE stuff. Got to go back to the actual QE stuff." And now you can go ahead and call it QE because the stuff is hitting the fan. And what we're seeing right now is 2.0. You got it. And my guess is this round is going to play out exactly like the first round of not QE QE. But what I want to focus on today is what's happening. Keep you guys informed, connect some dots, but then I want to talk about how this is actionable for your portfolio, assuming you're someone that wants to protect and grow your wealth. Because a lot of this stuff that we discussed very esoteric, right? When you're think about the Fed's balance sheet, reverse repo, the standing repo facility, you know, sofur rates. I don't know, George. I I don't know. Just this is just all a thought experiment. It's it's fun to talk about, but at the end of the day, it really doesn't help me make money. But that's where you're wrong. And I'm going to give you an example right now. Okay. So, let's dive into let's go over to Reuters first and foremost. We're going to find out what actually happened. And uh drum pal. And if you're watching my live stream, you saw me react to this in real time. So, Fed says it will start technical buying of Treasury bills to manage market liquidity. Now, what's great is basically it's QE. But what [laughter] just like they did in 2019, they have to, you know, they didn't even come up with a clever name back then. They just told the market and the participants and the mainstream media, whatever you do, don't call this QE. I don't care what you call it, don't call it QE. So, let's get into what they're calling it. Now, they're saying the Federal Reserve on Wednesday said it would imminently start buying shortdated government bonds to help manage market liquidity levels. Yeah. But they came out with a name for it, the technical oriented purchases. [laughter] Technical. Technical. It's like what the Fed does. It's like they're so good at what they do, they can just do it with precision. The precision of a fine Swiss watch. That's right. Now, forget the fact that they tried to literally create consumer price inflation from 2009 to I don't know what was it 2020 and they failed miserably. Remember, they couldn't get the inflation rate above 2%. No matter how many QES they did [laughter] that they actually called QES, no matter how many operation twists, no matter how low they dropped the interest rates, they couldn't they they couldn't simply get the CPI, we'll use that as a proxy, above their 2% target. But yet somehow we're supposed to believe that now they can just dial this in with this unbelievable precision that it's not just down to the decimal point. I mean, you can go out like four or five decimal points and the Fed is just going to be able to hit that number exactly. Even though for 11 years they tried to create more than 2% inflation and they failed miserably. Even every single thing they do fails miserably. And by the way, it look at every single Fed rate cutting cycle. I mean, we talked about that yesterday. Uh, I could go to it. I think I've got it right here on my chart. There you go. So, look at every single Fed rate cutting cycle. It pretty much ends with what? A recession. Well, okay. [laughter] If they're able to dial things in, why do we have a recession every single time they cut rates? Like I thought they're so good that they can just cut rates to the the the perfect level. What is Jerome K? They call it R star or the neutral rate. Oh yes, the neutral rate. So if they're so awesome and so precise at getting the neutral rate, why is it that every single time they try to do something, we still get a recession? H maybe that's cuz they don't know what the hell they're doing. [laughter] Uh but let's get back to the article. It assumes that not only they know what they're doing, but they can dial it in with this absolute precision. All right. The technically oriented purchases, the central bank said as part of a policy announcement associated with the latest FOMC meeting where they cut rates when it begins buying the initial round will total about 40 billion in T bills per month. The Fed said in the statement that its buying will remain elevated for a few months to offset expected large increases in nonreserve liabilities in April, adding after the pasted blah blah blah blah blah. Okay. What are they calling it? The sole purpose of maintaining ample supply of reserves over time, thus supporting effective control of our policy rate. Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. This is all just nonsense and and dril and fed speak. They've got a name for it. The effort. Okay. Technical had to start buying. It was like it was like fine-tune liquidity management system [laughter] just totally ridiculous. All right. But regardless of what they're calling it, it is what it is. And what it is is not QE QE. But let's go over to a tweet that I just uh put out here because you'll notice what they're doing here is they're specifically buying bills. So, front end of the curve. Front end of the curve. And what they're doing is the idea here is there's just not enough cash. I mean, it's it's really weird because the banks print money. Literally, they print their own money. Whether you want to call it dollar credit, dollar commercial bank deposit liabilities, whatever. We use it as money. you can use it to buy a Chipotle burrito. Okay, so the Fed or the uh central the um commercial banks, excuse me, can print this stuff at will. The banks are the ones that create the money. They create cash. They create liquidity. But yet, for some reason, we we we all know that like no one would dispute that. But yet, we're also supposed to believe that they can just run out of money. Like, oh my gosh, they they just run out of money. um although they create the money, they ran out of it. So now they have to go to the Fed and get more money. And obviously we know they ran out of money that they can actually print because the repo rates are going up or the short-term funding rates are going up. And it gets to the point where it's kind of a headscratcher. You're like, hm, that doesn't sound right. Why why would the banks that print the money run out of money? And then you start to dig a little deeper and then you see what's really happening here and what's happening beneath the surface. And the the main takeaway here is what they want you to assume and what they maybe assume themselves is that it is a fact that the bank's just running out of cash. [laughter] Sorry, we'd love to give you that loan repo market and we'd love to make all this money on you, but we just ran out. We just ran out of money. I don't know. We can't do the loan. So this is what they believe. We'll take them at their word. But I So if this is true, then the issue of the bank or the uh collateral, meaning the bills that you're buying, is a moot issue, right? Because if you're in there and the only problem is that the banks just ran out of money, then you can take away that collateral, give them money, problem solved. But there's a problem with that because what if the banks don't need the Fed's money because they can print their own? And the lack of liquidity or the stress in the short-term funding markets isn't really a result of the banks not having any money. It's more so counterparty risk. And maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with a lack of collateral. So, let's go over to this X post, Twitter post that I just did here. And I think this summarizes it quite well. And then we're going to talk about how this is actionable. So, you have to have one of two views. Number one, you either believe that repo rates equal in this in the context of what we're talking about equal liquidity and that liquidity is a result of bank reserves. or you believe and this is by far the minority here. Am I talking about you know very few people I know fall into this camp but I would I I definitely fall into the camp of number two or repo rates equal or have a large part to do with risk which the amount of risk has a lot to do with the type and the amount of collateral. Now, I know this sounds very complex and esoteric and kind of in the weeds and wonky, but it's really not. Let's just look at this. I did a whiteboard video this morning that will be out tomorrow, and I gave an example, an analogy that I think is very easy for people to understand. It's the exact same thing. So, let's just say that you are a lender and you've got $100 million to lend. Okay, great. and you've got three potential people out there, borrowers that want to borrow money from you. What metrics are going are you going to use to determine outside of just what the 10ear is doing? Let's say what else you you know the risk-free rate. Outside of that, what metrics are you going to use to determine what interest rate you're going to charge those borrowers? So, you're going to and I I can wait here. I'll give you guys three seconds to give me some answers. One, two, three. [laughter] What you're going to do is you're going to pull up their credit score, right? And you're going to say, "Okay, why are you pulling up their credit score?" Because you're seeing how risky they are, right? And then what you're going to do after you see how risky they are, then you're going to see, "Okay, what are you posting as collateral?" So, let's just say that they have a house and they have home equity. Again, this is something that all of us can easily understand, even if we're not a homeowner. And they'll then they say, "Okay, bank, you're going to charge me, let's say, 10% interest with no collateral, but whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, time out. I've got all this home equity that I'm trying to draw on. You know, you can use that that home. You can use my house as collateral." Okay, great. Well, now we're talking. Now, you as the lender will say, "Okay, well, I was going to do 10% unsecured, but if you're going to give me your house as collateral, okay, that's going to bring down the interest rate, isn't it?" So, this is again something that's very easy for all of us to understand. That's the repo market. That's the repo market. Now, what if I told you, remember, you had $100 million to lend. What if I told you that I was going to give you another hund00 million? Whoa. So now you have $200 million to lend. How would that impact the interest rate you're charging the borrowers? I think most of you would answer, "Well, George, it wouldn't it wouldn't impact the interest rate I'm charging the borrowers because what's impacting the rate that I charge the borrowers is the amount of risk that I have that I won't be paid back. And if I am paid back, how likely is it that I make myself whole?" Right? So now let's go back to the Fed. And so what I'm talking about there in terms of the repo market, the housing that we talked about as collateral, those are T bills. The borrowers are obviously the counterparties in the repo market that are borrowing. And you, the lender, is just the the counterparties that are l the the banks, right? That that by the way can print their own money that create the money. they create the money supply for the most part. So if they have So what the Fed is doing here is they're saying well those entities that can print money they somehow ran out and so what we're going to do is we're going to go buy all the collateral, not all, but a large part of the collateral and we're going to bring it onto our balance sheet so it's no longer in the financial plumbing so no one can use it anymore. And then we're going to go ahead and give the banks that don't need the money, we're going to give them more money. And then interest rates are obviously going to come down. [laughter] You see, when you use some good oldfashioned common sense, and you and you strip out all the fancy words, repo market, the standing repo facility, sofur rates, blah blah blah blah blah. When you strip out all the fancy words and you just use an identical example that we're all familiar with, you're like, what? How is that going to help doing not QEQ? like that that's like counterproductive. And if by chance the dollar funding the short-term funding markets become less volatile, then it sure as hell wasn't a result of taking all the collateral away. It just solved the problem or it fixed the problem. The market fixed the problem in spite of the Fed making it even worse. So let's go back to this and say okay George how is this actionable because if you believe number one and that they are absolutely starting QE again there's no disputing this is QE and it will turn into QE I don't care if they're buying bills now it'll be just like 2020 2019 where three four months later be like whoop sorry we're gonna start buying bonds we're gonna start buying notes we're gonna start buying you know, all maturities. We're and we're going to buy a lot fewer of bills or zero. That's inevitably what's going to happen. No prob No certain only probabilities, but I would say, you know, 99% that's going to happen. So then if you think that bank reserves equal liquidity then you would that would lead you to believe that this is going to stoke inflation and therefore you would be definitely a bear when it comes to treasuries. Meaning that you would have your base case would be interest rates are going to go up and therefore buy commodities, buy oil, buy all these things, right? But now let's assume that you fall into my camp and repo rates are just a reflection of the risk and what the Fed is doing. Even if it tides the market over temporarily, it really wasn't a result of what they were doing. It would have happened anyway and they just made it worse [laughter] or they just made it more difficult for the market itself to solve the problem. Then you realize that what they're doing with QE isn't necessarily adding liquidity. It's more so a reflection that there is extreme or increasing levels of risk in the system. And increasing levels of risk in the system is not inflationary. It's disinflationary. And if you get the stuff really hitting the fan temporarily, it can be deflationary like we saw in 2009. So if you believe in this QE leads you to believe that, oh my gosh, we're going to have a reaceleration of inflation. If you believe this, then you're like, oh my gosh, this is a signal from the markets that risk is high. Therefore, you would lean more toward the side of disinflation and possibly possibly outright deflation. So, in this camp, you're definitely selling treasuries. You think that interest rates are going to go up. This camp, you're buying treasuries. This camp, you're buying oil. This camp, you're selling oil or just not buying it, you know, commodities, something like that. So, then you say, well, go, what about gold and silver? Gold and silver don't really trade. I [laughter] don't know why people think this. They just look at a chart of the CPI and look at a chart of gold. There's there's not really a strong correlation there whatsoever. So, if anything, I would argue gold mostly trades on risk. Now, silver, maybe that's trading on growth and inflation expectations increasing, but you would want to take either camp that you're in into consideration. So, in this camp, maybe you would be wildly bullish on silver. In this camp, maybe you'd be bullish, but maybe not so much. You'd be cautious, cautiously optimistic, let's say. So, you see by just breaking this down how you can take the you can turn this in to very, very, very actionable takeaways. That was the point of doing this video. And guys, if you want more actionable takeaways, uh, you can check out Rebel Capitalist Pro. That's the private investment community I have with my good friends Chris Mintosh, Brent Johnson, Patrick Sesna from MacroVoices, where we go over a lot of contrarian strategies that have worked extremely extremely well to help you protect and grow your wealth. And within that community, I'm talking about these actionable strategies based on my worldview, based on my understanding of these complex esoteric topics. And uh, believe it or not, it's led me to make some decisions that have worked extremely well this year. So, if you want to check out more, uh, we'll just have Josh put a link in the description. All right, guys. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon. As always, make sure you're standing up for freedom, liberty, free market, capitalism. We'll see you on the next video.