Inflation Concerns: The podcast discusses the ongoing impact of tariffs and inflation, emphasizing that consumers are more concerned about high prices than the rate of inflation change, with potential for prices to rise significantly.
Market Complacency: Lobo Tiggre highlights a sense of complacency on Wall Street, warning that the economic shocks, particularly from tariffs, are not over and will continue to impact the real economy and investments.
Stagflation Risks: The discussion touches on the risk of stagflation, with high prices and a weakening labor market, drawing parallels to the 1970s and suggesting that the Fed's tools are inadequate for such an environment.
Gold and Silver Outlook: Tiggre is bullish on gold and silver, citing central bank buying and geopolitical tensions as factors supporting high prices, and suggests that the current price levels offer a buying opportunity.
Potential Return to Gold Standard: The possibility of a return to a gold-backed currency is discussed, with emphasis on the BRICS countries potentially leading this change, supported by the tangible nature of gold.
Uranium as a Key Investment: Uranium is highlighted as a top investment priority due to increasing global demand for nuclear energy and constrained supply, with the US and China expanding nuclear capacity.
Commodities Market Insights: The podcast covers various commodities, noting the potential for near-term corrections in copper due to economic weakness, while maintaining a long-term bullish outlook on uranium and copper.
Independence in Analysis: Lobo Tiggre emphasizes his independent approach to investment analysis, offering insights free from external influences, which he believes adds value to his investment perspectives.
Transcript
Economists keep saying, "Oh, inflation is a rate of change." So, if you have this oneoff thing and there's no more knock-on effects, then there's no inflation. It's done. But that's not what the consumer cares about. They don't care about whether the rate of change is done or not. They care that their prices went up and they're not going down. How long will this process take, by the way? >> Years. Global Tra of the Independent Speculator joins us once more. He will be talking to us about his outlook on monetary policy, global economic growth, and the resource sector, which are the commodities that global likes the best. What will the Fed do next? What's going to happen to gold after it's been plateauing for quite some time? Is it too late to get in gold? Should gold investors take profits? These are all questions we'll be addressing with Lobo today. So, very exciting episode up ahead. I'll be attending the Precious Metals Summit in Beaver Creek, Colorado. uh in a few weeks, September 9th to 12th to be exact, and I'll be covering the conference by interviewing some of the uh most prominent thought leaders in the resource sector. They have a great lineup of keynote speakers this year, as they always do in prior years. Also be interviewing key CEOs of the resource sector, bringing you insights from the ground that you've never seen before. And I'll be airing these episodes shortly after the conference, so stay tuned. It'll be sponsored and brought to you by Tutor Gold. Back to Lobo. Thanks for being here, Lobo. Good to see you as always. >> Always glad to be on the show with you, David. >> What's going on in the world, Lobo? We've caught up a couple months ago. Uh what do you think has transpired globally that has caught your eye? How do you see the planet uh of humans uh evolving over the next couple of months? Uh I'll leave it very broad for the first question. Sure, there's a lot we could say there, but I I think there is one important central theme. This is not entirely new, but maybe it's more important, more urgent than ever. And this isn't just a loboism, but complacency. Complacency on Wall Street. And I'm not just talking about new all-time highs every week in the S&P 500, though that's part of it. It just there's a there's a growing drum beat in the narrative that the worst of Trump shock is behind us. You know, ever since so-called liberation day, it's been every you know, that was the worst and that's behind us. Everything's getting better. And I just don't think that's true. Maybe the the most shocking announcements are behind us, but as we see right now, we've got Trump just smacking India with a 50% tariff because they're buying Russian oil. I don't see them stopping to buy Russian oil. I think it's optimistic to think that suddenly peace will break out. I'm not sure how that one plays out. But it's just one example of how, you know, the shocks are not done coming. But that aside, let's let's say that Trump's done. No more new tariffs. It is what it is. You know, the deals are what they are. The letters have gone out, right? It's done. No more no more shocking new announcements. Well, fine. That's the deals. That's the announcements. That's the letters. What about the impact of these things on the real economy that is still in front of us? And so I come back to my initial point. I I really think that it is a mistake and it's surprising to me that such experienced investors on Wall Street, people with, you know, giant buildings full of supercomputers are are making what looked to me to be like such a rookie mistake. The Piper has not been paid for what's being done right now, let alone anything else. And that has consequences. And I I I do expect to see the boat rocked. I'm not saying the market's about to crash or anything dramatic, though that could happen. I'm just saying Trump shock ain't done yet. It's got to work its way through the real economy and that will impact our investments and investors abroad and in general. >> Well, as we speak today on Wednesday, Trump just slapped a 50% tariff over India uh on the news that they bought Russian oil. steep US tariffs on a range of Indian products have taken effect, threatening a serious blow to India's overseas trade in its largest export market. This is one of the highest tariffs imposed on any country to date. Markets actually are kind of unmoved today on the news. Uh crude oil is up 1%. That's the big mover. Um Treasury yields are uh uh uh slightly up. Now I I just to illustrate your point. So tariffs aren't over. What are these consequences you you're talking about? Uh, Lobo, you're not calling for a market crash right now, but what do these consequences of Trump's quote unquote rookie mistake? What do they look like? >> Uh, well, no, I didn't say Trump made the rookie mistake. And whether or not you agree with Trump's agenda or not is is a whole separate kettle of fish. I think Trump has an agenda. And I think what he's doing is consistent with that agenda. And again, whether you agree with it or not, I actually don't think Trump is being stupid or crazy in terms of him pursuing his agenda. Now, whether you agree with the agenda, that's a separate question. I was saying the Wall Street guys, the fat cats with the big investment firms, >> okay? >> They're the ones who are drinking the Kool-Aid and thinking, "Oh, everything's fine. Everything's fine. Nothing to worry about here. Move along." These aren't the droids you're looking for, right? Um, so as far as the consequences, even even the mainstream, like you listen to the debate about tariff inflation and so on, the debate is not about whether or not prices are going to go up. Like even though Trump keeps saying the Chinese are going to pay the tariffs or whoever the foreigners are going to pay the tariffs, I think pretty much everybody besides Trump is acknowledging that US consumers are going to pay at least some of higher price as a result. The argument isn't about whether that's going to happen or not. Like leftwing, right-wing, red, blue, doesn't matter. Everybody sees this coming. What the debate is about is whether it's going to be they don't they don't want to use the word, but transitory, right? It's oneoff. you know, you have these higher tariffs or there's a one-off adjustment and then there's no more inflation because it it's been paid for. That's one argument. And other people say, well, no, that doesn't take into account the knock-on effects, retaliations, or you know, one of the big factors right now is all the not just companies that front ran the tariffs and ordered a bunch of things from abroad before the tariffs went in, but the consumers who stocked up on things before the tariffs went into effect. So as that cushion, that safety margin gets consumed, then you start seeing more of the tariffs impact both the consumer and the producers in terms of their their stocks. So I think it's a mistake to just dismiss the tariffs and say, "Oh, there's no inflation's only 3%." That's fine. Uh the impact of what's been done and what's being done right now is still to work its way through the real economy. That's point number one. Two, there are the knock-on effects. So, there could be more price inflation. It may not be a one-off thing. And then three, the big one is that economists keep saying, "Oh, inflation is a rate of change." So, if you have this oneoff thing and there's no more knock-on effects, then there's no inflation. It's done. But that's not what the consumer cares about. They don't care about whether the rate of change is done or not. They care that their prices went up and they're not going down. So to to write to to ignore the inflation impact of the tariffs by saying it's one and done and we don't have to worry about it anymore that ignores the fact that prices are going to go up significantly as much as 50% for some products perhaps and the consumers are not going to be happy about that and by the way they vote. So I I do see this as disruptive. Even if it did turn out to be transitory, it is significant now this year and this is at a time where the labor market is showing weakness. So you got weakness in the economy and you got higher prices in the economy. That's stagflation. And we all know what stagflation did uh for assets last time around in the 1970s. >> Assets being gold, silver, real estate, hard assets, commodities. Is that what you're referring to? Yes. Well, I mean, you're you're naming the ones that did better. Like real assets did better, including real money, gold and silver. Other assets, not so much. >> You're not the first person to tell me this week, by the way, I'm not talking about this whole year. This week that we're entering stagflation. What's the Fed going to do about this? >> Well, two things. One is we had a former Fred president interviewed at Jackson Hole saying, "Gee, you know, I I'm not saying it's going to be like the 1970s, but it sure looks like stagflation." and and to have a you know a a Fed or former Fed official actually use the dreaded sword is really quite striking. So this isn't just tinfoil hat Lobo off in the forests of Lithuania talking about something crazy that'll never happen. You know a former Fed president is saying the economy right now looks like stagflation. And then the other, you know, the answer to your question is, you know, what's the Fed going to do about it? If you remember when when a reporter that reporter was probably never invited back to a press conference by Powell, but a reporter asked Pow, "What is he going to do if there's stagflation? What's your plan for having for dealing with stagflation?" And Powell's plan was to not let it happen. Well, guess what? It's happening. So, where does that leave? You have no plan. And and this makes sense, David. You know, the the toolbox of the Fed, they talk about all these tools they have. There's there's really one I mean one and a half maybe they muck about with interest rates and yes QE fiddles around on the side. Um but if your tools are to throttle the economy to to bring inflation down because the economy is too hot you know that doesn't work when the economy is already weak and the labor market is weakening. And if your tools on the you know on the other hand is to stimulate the economy to get it going because the labor market's weak. That doesn't work if inflation is already high because your stimulation is going to make it higher. So the Fed's tools are completely inadequate to a stagflationary environment. It's they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. So what do they do? I I can't tell you what they will do. Uh I'm guessing that they will probably heir on the side of throwing the dollar under the bus. that meaning loosen make easy money easier to support the labor market. Um partly because you know the the pain when it sets in will just be really really hard to ignore and partly because the United States administration is firing Fed officials and you know bringing serious pressure to bear on the feds. So, I I'm I'm skeptical of how resistant the Fed will be to pressure going forward. It seems that Powell's speech at Jackson Hole has already suggested that the that the Fed is feeling the heat. I want to get you to react to uh something uh Ray Delio posted about uh well, I won't I won't I won't ruin the surprise uh in just a minute. Uh I think you'll have an interesting reaction to this. But just on the STflation front, Lobo, didn't we already have stagflation in 2022 when uh inflation was just coming off the heels of 9.1% in the US and we had two quarters of negative GDP. I mean, that was a short-lived stagflation. People say we we haven't had it since 1970s. Well, we saw that what happened to markets. Markets came down and then we recovered. So, what could one make the argument that's already come and gone? And >> you could, but that would be like a textbook argument, >> right? And and and this is part of my whole thing and and even, you know, Trump's administration has talked about Main Street versus Wall Street. It's Main Street's turn, right? On Main Street, you know, a technical definition of a recession or a technical definition of a stagflation, that doesn't matter. What matters is what am I experiencing? And if I'm experiencing high prices, >> and again, it's it's high prices, not increasing like the increasing is worse, but if they're just high, I'm not happy. I don't care if the rate has gone down. I care that the prices are high. I care that my grocery bill is much higher than it was last year. And the fact that it's not still going up quite as fast. Doesn't matter. It's still higher and going higher. So you have that at the same time that now where before I wasn't worried about my job, but now I am. Then I'm not happy. And and so, you know, I'm not too concerned about technical definitions. And as you know very well the they're not going to declare a recession until a year or two after the fact. So I I think those kind of you know technocratic ways of looking at it are not very useful. It's more useful to consider you know what's the reality in the ground? How are people going to react? What behaviors will change? How will employers change their behavior? How will employees change their behavior? And what does that do in my investable time frame? What would this stagflation this time in 2025 or 2026 and beyond look like compared to the 70s? The 70s were spurred partly by an oil shock. Uh that's not what's happening today. So I'm wondering how the end result may compare. Yeah, I I think that's a really good point and you know I would agree with Harker who said you know it's not going to be the 1970s over again but even if it doesn't repeat and it just rhymes I think that's still if nothing else very bullish for gold and silver because you know again what what did really well in the last time around if that's your only comparable even if it's not a very good comparable that's still the only comparable and I think that adds to the tailwind wins for gold and silver and the beauty of it is if if they're already at 3500 40, you know, or close to that. Um, and you're looking at upside pressure. Uh, that's very, very bullish. To answer the question, of course, I don't have a silver ball. Yes, many things are very different. The the OPEC oil shock isn't happening at the moment. On the other hand, it seems like things have calmed down in the Middle East with, you know, Israel just deciding to pound another piece of the Gaza Strip into dust as opposed to bombing Iran. You know, it's certainly less concerning. it from a global geopolitical perspective, but it could heat up again. So that whole oil thing could come back into play and make it rhyme more. But never mind, doesn't have to happen. I I have a feeling that actually without anything new happening or change in the geopolitical scale, I I think it will not be that much like the 70s. I think this time the powers that be, whatever the Fed does, by the way, remember there's not just monetary policy, there's fiscal policy. And I think Congress has no patience for suffering voters out there. So I think the money helicopters will just get, you know, sent into overdrive. What I'm saying is the stag part, if it really starts to hurt, I don't think we're going to get anywhere near the protracted stagflationary bout that we had in the 1970s. I think as soon as the stag part is clear, the Fed is likely to jump in to help. And whether they do or they don't, I anticipate Congress will jump in to help and the money helicopters will fly and so we get a reflationary boom. Uh I don't know the future, but you're asking me for my my best guess. My best guess is that the stag part will be fleeting and we probably go quickly into a more reflationary boom. And maybe then the Fed says, "Oh, you know, we need to fight inflation again." But by then it's too late. By then, Powell's hopes of being remembered as a vulker are out the window and he's going to be remembered as another Arthur Burns. >> Uh, you know what else happened in the early 70s? Uh, the gold standard was removed. And now we have Ray Dallio, one of the thought leaders in the finance space, CIO of Bridgewater, uh, or former CIO, I think he's now uh, no longer directly involved, but anyway, he tweeted this. The US dollar used to be backed by gold and it's not far-fetched to think we may be headed there again in the future. History shows us that the same cycles repeat time and time again. One such cycle is related to currency devaluation. Uh once people start to lose trust in the system, we see specific cause and effect. Governments print a lot of money. They paid off the debt with the cheap money. Nobody wants to hold the devalued currency. Governments go back and link money to gold. Will this pattern happen again? It's hard to say and it wouldn't be happen it wouldn't happen anytime soon but it is conceivable. Okay. It wouldn't happen anytime soon but a gold standard a return to the gold standard is conceivable. Do you agree? Absolutely. Yes. The short version of what Ry just said which I agree with is that Gresham's law goes both ways. And you know when crisis comes and and the the confidence is lost, you know, even the Roman Empire, you know, they'd have to go back to finding a way to produce real silver coins again that weren't full of copper, right? Or ultimately just like copper instead of silver. Uh reality does matter in the end. Um but actually I want to rewind the conversation a little bit combining our previous point in this one. I think this is really interesting. This is one of the differences. the fact that the US abandoned the gold standard or the rest of the gold standard in 1971 when actually you know in August we're on the anniversary here um 54 years ago Tricky Dick Nixon took the US off the remnants of the gold standard slamming the gold window on Charles de Gaulle's fingers that had a coiled spring effect you know the US had already under Johnson you know guns and butter had been spending way beyond its means and this was you know why it happened. People didn't believe that the value of the dollar was what the stated relationship with gold was. Um so gold gold soarses when it's freed from the dollar and that coil spring effect you can't that's one of the differences between then and now like you asked about how will it be similar or different from the 1970s. This is one of those things that's different. Now, some people, a lot of, you know, diehard gold bugs will say, well, the gold and silver price has been manipulated for so long, it's been artificially suppressed. So, they might actually argue that this is a similarity, not a difference. Um, I don't know what the truth of the matter is. I don't know how manipulated the price of gold was, but I just think this is kind of interesting because on the face of it, this is a big difference. You know, there is no official peg or hasn't been one for 54 years between the dollar and gold. But if the people who have been, you know, arguing for the suppression of the price of gold, if they were right and suddenly that's over and gold goes shooting up to 3500, you know, who knows how much fire how much higher it'll go. That might actually be another tailwind for gold here. I want to be very careful. I'm not saying this is true. I'm not saying suddenly I've subscribed to all the conspiracy theories. Um, but I'm also not saying that they've been proven wrong. I I just think there's an interesting parallel here. Um, as far as Dalio goes, I think the way that happens, and it may happen sooner than he thinks, he's a student of history and he know that history takes all this time, you know, hundreds of years. The fall of Rome was a was like 300 years long, but now things happen faster. And I think the vector here is is I actually find some credibility to the idea that the bricks might introduce a goldback currency of some form. And you know, blockchain makes that easier. And well, why would they back it with gold? You know, why not Bitcoin or why not? You know, just make a, you know, a brick currency. And I think the reason for that is, you know, no offense to the Bitcoin crowd, gold is real. You can hold it in your hand. You can see if you're China and Russia says, you know, we're contributing this many tons of gold and China saying, we're contributing this many tons of gold and India says we're contributing this many tons of gold. you can send somebody to go look at the vault and see if it's actually there. And and there's not a whole lot of love to be lost between the Chinese and the Russians, for example. So, between these very different countries with very different cultures, I think that it actually makes sense to use something physical, visible, measurable, tangible to back such a currency because it it it enables trust and verification that nothing else does. So, who knows? I'm not saying this will happen tomorrow. I think something like that, even with a with a crypto system for delivering it worldwide outside of the Swift system, makes sense. That's not the sort of thing you can just launch overnight. So, I think we'll see it coming. We'll have plenty of warning. I think that will be an investable trend when it starts happening. Um, it's not happening today, but I I could see it happening. And then if it does, I can imagine everybody else following suit and it would be really >> Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Oh, I was going to add to that and maybe get you to uh respond to my theory here. In 1944, uh more than 40 allied nations uh met in uh in Breton Woods, New Hampshire uh hence the name Bretonwoods. And they decided to start a new monetary system. Uh and that lasted until 1971. as you know now what what could happen this time around if we were to revisit this idea perhaps we would have two axes here uh one from the bricks and one from the west and NATO NATO members uh I don't see a global cooperation between let's say China and the US deciding on a joint common global goldbacked standard currency um I don't uh you know the We've got too too many different ideologies going on right now. So that may be an impediment to returning to the gold. >> But that's the beauty of it, David. That's that's exactly why I'm saying that this may well involve like actual physical gold backing because that makes it possible for very different cultures, languages, you know, ways of thinking about business and money and everything. It it it is a that very thing that that Bitcoin people like to mock that that physical weight. You know, remember that drop gold campaign, those poor people in their business suits carrying these heavy bags of gold. Like that very thing is what makes gold a useful intermediary in this environment. And if you think about it, like this isn't some strange new invention. This is actually the way the world worked before. You think the French and the British loved each other in the 1700s? Of course not. Or the Spanish and the British, you know, a couple hundred years earlier. Of course not. And so are you going to trust each other's pieces of paper or even coinage with but like the metal inside had value that was objectively measurable and that allowed international commerce to happen even amongst enemies like actual waring enemies. So I I think it actually makes sense that if we're if if the fiat system as we know it breaks down and there's no confidence on any side and the parties don't trust each other, it makes perfect sense to me that something physical, measurable, me verifiable would step in to help smooth things over. And and that's that's why it was done before. International trade was not settled in dollars or franks or rubles. It was settled in gold. I want to point something out to you. We're talking about gold. This is the gold to oil ratio. Gold to oil historical chart. Now, every time it's spiked in the past, we've had a recession. 2020 something dramatic happened. As we know, COVID global economy shut down. Oil tanked, gold spiked, oil to gold rat, gold to oil ratio shot through the moon. 2008 happened again. 2000 it happened. On and on and on. You see the pattern. I mean there's been exceptions of course but now we're seeing golden oil the gold oil ratio once again uh rally and this is sounding some alarm bells with some analysts who follow this trend. Uh what's your take on this? I think it's a very good thing to point out and it's maybe not as simple as one might think but just just on the face of it what what does this ratio tell us? If gold is up, that means safe haven demand is up, fear is up, and if oil is down, therefore the ratio goes up, >> then that means economic um energy is down, the the economy is looking weaker, weakening demand on the economic front, that's recession. So there are people, Peter Schiff, my fellow Puerto Rican among them, who argue that, you know, the are the US is already in a recession. I I think Danielle D. Martino Booth said it recently, too. um I don't know if you've interviewed her recently, but there are people out there saying in the US is in a recession. It just hasn't been recognized yet. And this chart would back that up. >> The the push back on that or maybe to steal man the other side as Lex Freiedman might say is that we are entering a different world. I mean I guess the other side would be Doomberg. you've interviewed him, right? >> And he's talked about how, you know, it's oil equivalents these days. And it's not just LG, but it's all kinds of things that are convertible. And so, you can't just look at oil by itself. And he he doesn't believe in peak oil at all. And he sees all these oil equivalents coming to market in increasing ways. So it it could be that we're looking at like the past range of the gold to or oil ratio that may change forever. It may never go back to its historic range if Bloomberg is right. And and that will be completely different from whether or not there's a recession. So like this spike that you're seeing on your chart right now that and really since 2008 the the upwards you know roughly speaking upward trend in that ratio that could be indicating what Bloomberg is saying rather than anything about the economy overall. What is the investment thesis for gold now that it's been trading rangebound around $3,200 to $3,400 for quite some time now. By quite some time I mean a few months. Somebody uh says to you Lobo, I missed the boat on gold and now it's just kind of hovering in a range. I don't know what to do. >> Somebody just asked me this at dinner and I and I told him normally, you know, before this year, if gold went up screaming up like it did to 3500, I'd be the guy getting rotten tomatoes thrown at me at the Vancouver conference or whatever for saying, you know, when something goes vertical, it's time to look for some correction. um you know, it's time to take some profits here and you know, this is not the time to chase anything, you know, and and remember that $3,500 high, that's just that's not just a nominal high. That's actually a high adjusted for CPI. So that is a that is a material. Yeah. That that's that is a striking chart. And and normally when a market goes screaming up like that, you you want to be thinking more in terms of taking profits than buying. But in this case, again, sort of like with the Bloomberg thing and the oil, I think we are looking at a changed game. The central bank's buying since the weaponization of the dollar, that is a one-way door. David, the the Chinese and the Indians, certainly not the Russians, they're not going to go back to trusting the United States dollar the way they did before the Russians were kicked out of the Swift system. That's just not going to happen. And and we see this there's been times of plenty this year when news that normally or not normally but like in the recent past would have been headwinds for gold and gold wiggles a little bit and it comes right back up again. And to me this is evidence of the central bank gold buying and the world gold council charts show that the central bank gold buying continues at a higher pace since 22 since the weaponization of the dollar. So what I'm saying is my normal caution about something that pulls a hockey stick like gold did recently um is ameliorated by this game-changing scenario where you have not just a new buyer here but like a a global set of new buyers who have very very deep pockets and and I really do think this is a one oneway door. I don't think the the governments and central banks around the world that are now hedging their exposure to the dollar are going to suddenly decide, oh, it's okay. We'll go back to how things were before. It's the the Chinese and the Russians certainly aren't going to do it. Um, so the answer to the question is is this I'm even uncomfortable saying it, David, because I it is so ingrained in me that when you see something go up, it's time to think about taking profits. But somebody doesn't, you know, they missed it. They don't have any gold. They haven't bought any gold stocks. I am right now, my guidance is yes, I would buy at these levels because I I think we have a floor here. I I see relatively little downside. And you ask what's the argument? The argument is everything that's happening under under Trump in the United States, everything that's happening in Europe with the remilitarization and um the uh deglobalization, the Chinese response, the Russian war machine, all of this stuff is inflationary. That is bullish for monetary metals, including gold and silver. So there's this m this big massive macro argument that is bullish for gold at a time where central bank gold buying has put something of a floor at a high level under there. That's what makes me comfortable saying yes even over 3,400 if I didn't own any gold I would buy some today and I would certainly look for the better gold stocks. And if just another point supporting your argument, if the entire gold market wanted to take profits, which they could have done since April, right? They had four and a half, three and a half months to take Yeah. to take profits, they would have. And there was some profit taking along the way when they reached new old the gold price reached new local highs. But overall, like you said, there was a floor established. The market did not tank. The market did not take huge profits like in 20 2011, right? This didn't happen. >> Yeah. >> Uh and it we saw that in 2020 as well. That didn't happen this time. >> What happened was just a stabilization of the price around new to all-time highs. >> Yep. Yep. And here's here's one more thing to think about, David. Uh you know, if gold dropped $1,000 an ounce from where it is today, >> take that exercise. Okay. >> I mean, $1,000 like wow, that's huge. $1,000 drop. I mean, it's not going to happen. I don't think they're certainly not all at once. But if it dropped a,000 bucks an ounce, that would take us down to 2400. The mines that are in operation, the gold mines that are in operation today, they were built based on feasibility studies at like 1,700, 1,800. The better ones, 1300,400. So, gold could drop $1,000 an ounce and you'd still be looking at uh not maybe not obviously not as fat margins as we have today, but you would be looking at decent margins for all but the crappiest of the gold miners out there. So, you talk about a moat, you know, and if you want to be a, you know, a cautious Warren Buffett style person, okay, metal stocks, mining stocks are not going to be a Warren Buffett thing in large, but think about that business. It could drop a,000 bucks an ounce and you'd still be making money. So if there is a correction, my takeaway here is that if there is a correction, I think that would be a gift from the market, a buying opportunity to take advantage of. >> Are you this bullish on all the precious metals? >> Well, you I missed I missed the I missed Yeah, I I missed the bull run on silver, >> right? So I don't count uh I don't count platinum and palladium and those other expensive silvery industrial metals as monetary metals. I I don't like the term precious. It's either monetary or it's industrial. That's that's the way I look at these things. >> Okay. >> So, the answer to the question is yes and no. And silver bulls hate me when I say this, but you know, silver's relationship with gold has visibly changed recently as well. Now, it still acts as a monetary metal. There's days when, say, copper and other industrial metals go down, but silver goes up with gold. So, yes, silver is still a monetary metal and silver has not reached all-time highs. So that I I think that volatility aside that makes me confident actually in more upside in silver than gold. Let me repeat that. I see more upside in silver than gold right now. Now that doesn't mean it's going to go straight up. That's the that's the catch. You know, the industrial side of silver can be a tailwind or a headwind. And if I'm right about, you know, Trump shock working its way through the real economy in the months ahead, well, that's going to have an impact on industrial demand for silver. So there, so there could be a headwind in the near term for silver. If that happened, I'd probably just buy more. I longer term, I'm very very bullish. So all you silver bulls, put away your s your rotten tomatoes. I'm not making a bare case for silver. I'm just saying, you know, you ignore its industrial side in the near term at your own peril. >> What happened in June, early June, there was a huge runup of silver price. >> Yeah. >> Of the silver. >> So, I don't know if you can do it on your chart there, David, but that happened at the same time that platinum and palladium and even roodium were moving. >> And and interestingly enough, gold was not moving at this time. So, so there are a lot of people that got all excited when silver went shooting up to 40 bucks and they're saying this is it. You know, the ddollarization trend is finally hitting silver and it's off to the races now. But it didn't. If it was ddollarization or if it was something monetary that made that happen, gold would have moved at the same time. But it didn't. >> It moved overlay with silver industrial metals. So I I don't fully understand what happened there to be honest with you, David. But to me, it's just very striking that when this happened, it was a bunch of industrial minerals that moved it once and not the other monetary metal, gold. So, again, I I'm not making a bare case. I don't hate silver. You know, I think the industrial side of silver actually makes it it puts a bigger tailwind in silver sales on the other side of Trump shock because it has all this extra demand as an industrial mineral that gold doesn't have. So, I I really like silver. I'm I'm just not willing to ignore the reality of data such as you have on the screen right now. Platinum went up early June. Like you said, I'm trying to understand I know we don't have an exact answer for this. I'm just trying to understand the impetus be behind uh these moves which are very much correlated now that I have them both on the same chart. Lobo I I'm trying to understand maybe there was um uh there was some tariff announcement that uh that preceded which which sparked a huge demand for platinum hoarding or industrial metal hoarding. I I don't know. I'm just speculating here. It's important to understand maybe what happened so that if the same event happens again we could be ready. I agree and it would be great if we could do that but the honest answer David is that I don't know. I've heard many theories. There were a lot of people at the time this happened saying, "Oh, it's because gold got expensive and the Chinese started buying silver instead." Well, but that doesn't explain platinum moving at the same time. And there were other people saying, "Oh, well, it's the automotive industry coming back and platinum and platium and rodium are all well, but silver is is used mostly in solar panels. There is some in the cars, but not in catalytic converters. So, it doesn't make sense for it to move on that basis either." So, I've heard various explanations. Uh, oh, the Russians are buying silver now. There there's a bunch of things out there, but I didn't find any of them very satisfactory. It it might just be like just global positioning, the tariffs as you say, or China stockpiling like everything industrial that would explain a a multi-asset move like this. And we'll just we'll never know except for possibly in in hindsight if somebody comes out and discloses it. Um the so you know I wish I could tell you here's the trigger, watch for this in the future and that'll tell us um you know when to bet on this move happening again. But I I don't think anybody knows that. I the only takeaway I can say is that in this moment silver acted more like these other metals than gold. And so be cautious um about assuming be be cautious about assuming that silver has to act like gold all the time. >> I've added copper and palladium to this chart. I know it's a bit messy now, but uh here let me just remove palladium. It's not really necessary. Copper copper off cuz that's very different. That huge move on huge move on copper was because of a tariff announcement and then an unannouncement. Right. >> Yeah. that the point I was trying to make was that uh barring those tariff announcements and the announcement the the prices moved kind of in lock step up until that announcement but yes let's put palladium back up uh palladium has been um actually selling off unlike platinum and silver um again is there a story there uh right again they they are all industrial metals but in different markets so that's why you know I don't think it's just like the auto industry >> you know it might China, you know, stocking up or not, you know, whatever. Um, and again, not to repeat myself, I do not know the answer, David. I don't want to tell your audience, "Yeah, do this, bet on this next time. Here's the trigger." I I don't know. U, but but be careful about what you assume on this basis. >> Well, let's just talk about copper now. Uh, is this an arbitrage opportunity at some point with copper? This is this is the US market, right? This is COMX. So, uh, there was some discrepancy between pricing on the COMX and the LME, uh, which which contributed to, >> yeah, I'm I'm being I guess politically correct, but I there's some arbitrage happening here. That's what partly contributed to this big downdraft in the price. This here, uh, like you mentioned was the tariff announcement, 50% copper tariff announcement. And uh I so I don't know the market >> and the big one on the downside was the announcement that you know like the actual copper product that is traded you know what we trade on the comics was going to be excluded from the tariffs. The tariffs are on finished products and things. >> 449 that's that's a fair value now. That's the that's the fair value of copper. >> It's been trading that way. >> Yes. Um the issue there is that again as we started this conversation on the macro I do think that there's more Trump shock to hit the economy and and Dr. Copper is called that for a reason. So if I'm right more weakness in the economy ahead and not just in the US by the way um then I I think there's near-term vulnerability to copper. Now, if I could sit that out, like if I'm a long-term investor and I don't care if copper goes down 30% from here because I'm confident it'll go up in the years ahead and and if copper goes down 30%, the copper stocks will go down 60% or, you know, something like that, right? So, you know, if if I've got a 10-year outlook or something, maybe I just go ahead and buy this dip and don't worry about it. But in my experience, most investors don't have that kind of u staying power. They don't like it if they buy something and it goes down 60% no matter how much they believe in it. So if you're not willing to take that risk, you know, I don't I don't think copper just goes to the moon and never looks back tomorrow. I think there's time to wait and see if the other shoe drops and if copper gives us a shot at lower prices. Basically, this is what I'm doing with my own money right now, David. I'm extremely bullish on copper going forward. uh even longer term even more bullish than uranium. But I see such potential for near-term correction in copper that I'm still mostly accumulating cash. I did buy one stock that got oversold, but mostly I'm just accumulating cash and waiting to deploy. So I don't know the future. I can't promise what will happen or if that's a good idea or not, but I can tell you that's what I'm doing with my own money. >> Which of these commodities do you like the most? And we haven't talked about uranium uh yet. I wonder if uranium is the answer to my question. If not, what else? Yes. And yes, copper was my top pick for this year. Uh and the reasons for that are mostly still ahead of us. I'm still very very bullish on copper except for this near-term thing. But but I got to say at this particular moment that we're talking, uh, uranium, it visibly carved out a bottom a couple months ago and then it kind of got ahead of itself and then it fell back again and it now looks to be carving out a bottom again and that puts it on an upward trend. So if I miss the last big uranium move upwards, uh, I would not dally right now. and and and right now as much as I like copper like going forward and for years to come I see more opportunity right now in the uranium space. So if you ask me what is my top shopping priority it is absolutely no question uranium more than gold more than silver more than copper right now if I could only add you know had a choice of all and I only had could add one it would be uranium >> get your reaction to this article from the energy uh department energy.gov is a website. Nine key takeaways from the president's executive orders on nuclear energy. I won't read all of them, but let's just go through some of the highlights. Speed up nuclear reactor licensing. Add 300 gawatts of new US nuclear capacity by 2050. Well, that's still some time away, but um you know, >> but it's huge. And and by the way, the Chinese are doing more than that by 2040, >> which is you know, on the scale of what it time it takes to build nuclear power plants, that's like tomorrow. Well, what does this mean for investors though? I mean, a lot of the new I know for a fact that a lot of the uranium uh that the US nuclear reactors use does not actually come from the US. And in fact, nuclear uh sorry, uranium production in the US lags behind other countries. >> Almost zero until recently. So there's there's no question about that. So no, >> investors be looking abroad. Should investors be positioning now to US companies? Uranium is valuable enough to be a globally fungeible e a globally fungeible commodity. >> So it's this is very bullish for the uranium market around the world but it's also obviously bullish for US sourced uranium. There's a clear bias and preference here like this is explicit. So uh you know who they are. I don't give free stock picks but it's pretty clear who actually has uranium production in the United States. Um I'm not and I'm not saying they're all good picks by the way. Some of them are really struggling, some of them are doing better. Um, but I think it doesn't take much due diligence diligence to tell who's going to be able to deliver US sourced uranium to the market and they will have an extra price advantage that that will that is a material and investable fact. Um, but but >> I think it sounds like Trump Sorry. Go ahead. >> No. Well, okay. So, I was going to say don't underestimate the global aspect of this. You know when I when I say the Chinese are building even more reactors and doing it faster that really matters. This is such a powerful global trend that even Sweden, this announcement was just today and Sweden is is like Germany, like one of these most anti-uclear in a way places and particularly the mining. And I just saw an announcement today that Sweden is now looking at permitting uranium mining. And this this is a big a deal is Germany saying, well, maybe we should reconsider nuclear power. Uh, you know, in terms of straws in the wind, sign of the times, whatever you want to call it, this is huge. I mean, this is like the United States is talking about reactivating Three-Mile Island. Like that is that is jaw-dropping that that would even be considered uh given the fear around that name. So, what we're saying here, David, the key takeaway is that the demand side of this story just keeps getting better and better on an almost daily basis. I mean, it's unbelievable how much we're seeing the demand side increase here. And at the same time, we're seeing the supply side still constrained. There's a there was a reasonable fear that the lowhanging fruit of uh like mothball mines that could be brought back online or or lowcost projects that could be built to bring new supply online, it was reasonable to worry about, you know, that possibly over supplying the market in the near term. But now that it's started and these mines are being built or re refurbished, >> yeah, >> they're almost all behind schedule or over budget. Some of them aren't happening at all. So while it was reasonable to worry about high prices high prices in this market, it is no longer reasonable to me. The market has shown that it's easier said than done to bring these uranium mines online. And so demand's going up, supply remains constrained. This is clearly bullish. And sorry, one final thing. Uranium prices are highly recession resistant. So, while I'm worried about copper and maybe even silver a little bit in the near term because of economic weakness, I think that has zero impact on uranium. >> You don't think electricity consumption will change given a recession? >> It will, but not base load power. You use uranium because it's 24/7 365. That's nuclear power is always there. Base load power. It's the kind of thing you use for hospitals and airports and data center. The kind of thing that you don't want to switch off at night or ever. I understand. >> And to my earlier question about whether or not uh investors should be looking at domestic US-based uh nuclear or uranium producing companies, this this this next point says one of the big takeaways from the executive orders is that President Trump wants to maximize domestic production of nuclear fuel. He wants to also according to the executive orders uh increase the number of American uh workers at nuclear sites uh and uranium power plant uh uranium uh uh mines. I I wonder what incentive uh or incentives he's giving to to to to make uranium producers actually start producing in the US and to actually bolster the production uh profile domestically. >> Yeah, I have to make uranium great again. I have to push back on that a little bit. This is fuel production and those people the workforce he's talking about is for you know when you when you take the mine product and you vaporize it, you centrifuge it and all these things they do to the process to get to the pellet. The mines don't make the pellets. These two points that you're talking about are the work needed to take the mine product and turn it into the fuel the actual fuel that goes into the reactor. So actually that doesn't really incentive >> the enrichment part >> if right if you didn't care where that uranium came from you could do all these things and it wouldn't make any difference to the minds at all. So >> okay >> but at the same time the US has established and this was a Trump 1.0 0 idea the US has established a uranium reserve and there's also clearly this drive towards um you know domestic sources of critical minerals and uranium was cited a couple months ago in one of the earlier critical minerals executive orders uranium and by the way gold too oddly enough and the same one but to this point uranium was cited as one of these critical minerals that we need to incent so I'm not saying that the miners are not getting incentives in the United States I think it's real. I think it's material and I think it's investable. Um but those points that you showed those are about the enrichment which is a different it's related but a different question. >> Well that's still part of um yeah that's a good point and that should in theory bolster national security. We don't have to rely on well by by we I mean the US doesn't have to rely on other countries for enrichment which is a key part of the process >> especially since so much of that comes from Russia. >> Yeah sense there. >> How long will this process take by the way? >> Years. years. Okay. So, we're looking at post Trump, they could still have So, in theory, this could be reversed, right? The next >> it could, but but it's interesting, you know, you know, the the US uranium strategic uranium reserve or whatever the hell they call it, that was a Trump 1.0 idea, but it was under Biden that it got funded in the first um purchases were made. >> I and and even, you know, if you recall, it's not that long ago, you know, under the Biden administration, there was um I think it was like 2.6 6 billion was allocated for encouraging the development of advanced nuclear. So the the the fact that uranium has finally become under the green umbrella, you know, it's non-carbon emitting and so on, I I think that actually makes it something that can endure changes of power. >> Well, uh I'll finish off on this note. People should go to uh the independent speeculator.com to learn more about Loel's works, get his uh stock picks. What do you want people to know um about the independent speculator? What can we learn from this site? What are you working on right now that you know, give us a teaser? Lots of things there. I think the main takeaway is is in the name, the independent speculator. I I don't promise that I'm always going to pick the highest gaining stocks or that I know everything that I'm always right. I do promise that I'm independent. There is no amount of money a company can pay me to say, you know, this company is a great speculation when it's not or I think the opposite. So, um, you know, it a person who asks you to trust them is usually not trustworthy. So, I'm not going to say trust me. Um, but if you if you come to agree, if you do your analysis and you decide that I really am an independent speculator, then I really think that's something that you should consider in your in your own input going forward. >> Great. Thank you. We'll put the link down below and uh we'll make sure to give Lobo a follow there. Thank you very much, Lobo, for your time today. I appreciate it. I know you're traveling in Europe, so we'll speak again soon. Take care. >> Thank you, David. Good questions. Thank you for watching. Don't forget to like and subscribe.
Inflation Warning: Prices May Soar 50%, Fed ‘Completely Inadequate’ | Lobo Tiggre
Summary
Transcript
Economists keep saying, "Oh, inflation is a rate of change." So, if you have this oneoff thing and there's no more knock-on effects, then there's no inflation. It's done. But that's not what the consumer cares about. They don't care about whether the rate of change is done or not. They care that their prices went up and they're not going down. How long will this process take, by the way? >> Years. Global Tra of the Independent Speculator joins us once more. He will be talking to us about his outlook on monetary policy, global economic growth, and the resource sector, which are the commodities that global likes the best. What will the Fed do next? What's going to happen to gold after it's been plateauing for quite some time? Is it too late to get in gold? Should gold investors take profits? These are all questions we'll be addressing with Lobo today. So, very exciting episode up ahead. I'll be attending the Precious Metals Summit in Beaver Creek, Colorado. uh in a few weeks, September 9th to 12th to be exact, and I'll be covering the conference by interviewing some of the uh most prominent thought leaders in the resource sector. They have a great lineup of keynote speakers this year, as they always do in prior years. Also be interviewing key CEOs of the resource sector, bringing you insights from the ground that you've never seen before. And I'll be airing these episodes shortly after the conference, so stay tuned. It'll be sponsored and brought to you by Tutor Gold. Back to Lobo. Thanks for being here, Lobo. Good to see you as always. >> Always glad to be on the show with you, David. >> What's going on in the world, Lobo? We've caught up a couple months ago. Uh what do you think has transpired globally that has caught your eye? How do you see the planet uh of humans uh evolving over the next couple of months? Uh I'll leave it very broad for the first question. Sure, there's a lot we could say there, but I I think there is one important central theme. This is not entirely new, but maybe it's more important, more urgent than ever. And this isn't just a loboism, but complacency. Complacency on Wall Street. And I'm not just talking about new all-time highs every week in the S&P 500, though that's part of it. It just there's a there's a growing drum beat in the narrative that the worst of Trump shock is behind us. You know, ever since so-called liberation day, it's been every you know, that was the worst and that's behind us. Everything's getting better. And I just don't think that's true. Maybe the the most shocking announcements are behind us, but as we see right now, we've got Trump just smacking India with a 50% tariff because they're buying Russian oil. I don't see them stopping to buy Russian oil. I think it's optimistic to think that suddenly peace will break out. I'm not sure how that one plays out. But it's just one example of how, you know, the shocks are not done coming. But that aside, let's let's say that Trump's done. No more new tariffs. It is what it is. You know, the deals are what they are. The letters have gone out, right? It's done. No more no more shocking new announcements. Well, fine. That's the deals. That's the announcements. That's the letters. What about the impact of these things on the real economy that is still in front of us? And so I come back to my initial point. I I really think that it is a mistake and it's surprising to me that such experienced investors on Wall Street, people with, you know, giant buildings full of supercomputers are are making what looked to me to be like such a rookie mistake. The Piper has not been paid for what's being done right now, let alone anything else. And that has consequences. And I I I do expect to see the boat rocked. I'm not saying the market's about to crash or anything dramatic, though that could happen. I'm just saying Trump shock ain't done yet. It's got to work its way through the real economy and that will impact our investments and investors abroad and in general. >> Well, as we speak today on Wednesday, Trump just slapped a 50% tariff over India uh on the news that they bought Russian oil. steep US tariffs on a range of Indian products have taken effect, threatening a serious blow to India's overseas trade in its largest export market. This is one of the highest tariffs imposed on any country to date. Markets actually are kind of unmoved today on the news. Uh crude oil is up 1%. That's the big mover. Um Treasury yields are uh uh uh slightly up. Now I I just to illustrate your point. So tariffs aren't over. What are these consequences you you're talking about? Uh, Lobo, you're not calling for a market crash right now, but what do these consequences of Trump's quote unquote rookie mistake? What do they look like? >> Uh, well, no, I didn't say Trump made the rookie mistake. And whether or not you agree with Trump's agenda or not is is a whole separate kettle of fish. I think Trump has an agenda. And I think what he's doing is consistent with that agenda. And again, whether you agree with it or not, I actually don't think Trump is being stupid or crazy in terms of him pursuing his agenda. Now, whether you agree with the agenda, that's a separate question. I was saying the Wall Street guys, the fat cats with the big investment firms, >> okay? >> They're the ones who are drinking the Kool-Aid and thinking, "Oh, everything's fine. Everything's fine. Nothing to worry about here. Move along." These aren't the droids you're looking for, right? Um, so as far as the consequences, even even the mainstream, like you listen to the debate about tariff inflation and so on, the debate is not about whether or not prices are going to go up. Like even though Trump keeps saying the Chinese are going to pay the tariffs or whoever the foreigners are going to pay the tariffs, I think pretty much everybody besides Trump is acknowledging that US consumers are going to pay at least some of higher price as a result. The argument isn't about whether that's going to happen or not. Like leftwing, right-wing, red, blue, doesn't matter. Everybody sees this coming. What the debate is about is whether it's going to be they don't they don't want to use the word, but transitory, right? It's oneoff. you know, you have these higher tariffs or there's a one-off adjustment and then there's no more inflation because it it's been paid for. That's one argument. And other people say, well, no, that doesn't take into account the knock-on effects, retaliations, or you know, one of the big factors right now is all the not just companies that front ran the tariffs and ordered a bunch of things from abroad before the tariffs went in, but the consumers who stocked up on things before the tariffs went into effect. So as that cushion, that safety margin gets consumed, then you start seeing more of the tariffs impact both the consumer and the producers in terms of their their stocks. So I think it's a mistake to just dismiss the tariffs and say, "Oh, there's no inflation's only 3%." That's fine. Uh the impact of what's been done and what's being done right now is still to work its way through the real economy. That's point number one. Two, there are the knock-on effects. So, there could be more price inflation. It may not be a one-off thing. And then three, the big one is that economists keep saying, "Oh, inflation is a rate of change." So, if you have this oneoff thing and there's no more knock-on effects, then there's no inflation. It's done. But that's not what the consumer cares about. They don't care about whether the rate of change is done or not. They care that their prices went up and they're not going down. So to to write to to ignore the inflation impact of the tariffs by saying it's one and done and we don't have to worry about it anymore that ignores the fact that prices are going to go up significantly as much as 50% for some products perhaps and the consumers are not going to be happy about that and by the way they vote. So I I do see this as disruptive. Even if it did turn out to be transitory, it is significant now this year and this is at a time where the labor market is showing weakness. So you got weakness in the economy and you got higher prices in the economy. That's stagflation. And we all know what stagflation did uh for assets last time around in the 1970s. >> Assets being gold, silver, real estate, hard assets, commodities. Is that what you're referring to? Yes. Well, I mean, you're you're naming the ones that did better. Like real assets did better, including real money, gold and silver. Other assets, not so much. >> You're not the first person to tell me this week, by the way, I'm not talking about this whole year. This week that we're entering stagflation. What's the Fed going to do about this? >> Well, two things. One is we had a former Fred president interviewed at Jackson Hole saying, "Gee, you know, I I'm not saying it's going to be like the 1970s, but it sure looks like stagflation." and and to have a you know a a Fed or former Fed official actually use the dreaded sword is really quite striking. So this isn't just tinfoil hat Lobo off in the forests of Lithuania talking about something crazy that'll never happen. You know a former Fed president is saying the economy right now looks like stagflation. And then the other, you know, the answer to your question is, you know, what's the Fed going to do about it? If you remember when when a reporter that reporter was probably never invited back to a press conference by Powell, but a reporter asked Pow, "What is he going to do if there's stagflation? What's your plan for having for dealing with stagflation?" And Powell's plan was to not let it happen. Well, guess what? It's happening. So, where does that leave? You have no plan. And and this makes sense, David. You know, the the toolbox of the Fed, they talk about all these tools they have. There's there's really one I mean one and a half maybe they muck about with interest rates and yes QE fiddles around on the side. Um but if your tools are to throttle the economy to to bring inflation down because the economy is too hot you know that doesn't work when the economy is already weak and the labor market is weakening. And if your tools on the you know on the other hand is to stimulate the economy to get it going because the labor market's weak. That doesn't work if inflation is already high because your stimulation is going to make it higher. So the Fed's tools are completely inadequate to a stagflationary environment. It's they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. So what do they do? I I can't tell you what they will do. Uh I'm guessing that they will probably heir on the side of throwing the dollar under the bus. that meaning loosen make easy money easier to support the labor market. Um partly because you know the the pain when it sets in will just be really really hard to ignore and partly because the United States administration is firing Fed officials and you know bringing serious pressure to bear on the feds. So, I I'm I'm skeptical of how resistant the Fed will be to pressure going forward. It seems that Powell's speech at Jackson Hole has already suggested that the that the Fed is feeling the heat. I want to get you to react to uh something uh Ray Delio posted about uh well, I won't I won't I won't ruin the surprise uh in just a minute. Uh I think you'll have an interesting reaction to this. But just on the STflation front, Lobo, didn't we already have stagflation in 2022 when uh inflation was just coming off the heels of 9.1% in the US and we had two quarters of negative GDP. I mean, that was a short-lived stagflation. People say we we haven't had it since 1970s. Well, we saw that what happened to markets. Markets came down and then we recovered. So, what could one make the argument that's already come and gone? And >> you could, but that would be like a textbook argument, >> right? And and and this is part of my whole thing and and even, you know, Trump's administration has talked about Main Street versus Wall Street. It's Main Street's turn, right? On Main Street, you know, a technical definition of a recession or a technical definition of a stagflation, that doesn't matter. What matters is what am I experiencing? And if I'm experiencing high prices, >> and again, it's it's high prices, not increasing like the increasing is worse, but if they're just high, I'm not happy. I don't care if the rate has gone down. I care that the prices are high. I care that my grocery bill is much higher than it was last year. And the fact that it's not still going up quite as fast. Doesn't matter. It's still higher and going higher. So you have that at the same time that now where before I wasn't worried about my job, but now I am. Then I'm not happy. And and so, you know, I'm not too concerned about technical definitions. And as you know very well the they're not going to declare a recession until a year or two after the fact. So I I think those kind of you know technocratic ways of looking at it are not very useful. It's more useful to consider you know what's the reality in the ground? How are people going to react? What behaviors will change? How will employers change their behavior? How will employees change their behavior? And what does that do in my investable time frame? What would this stagflation this time in 2025 or 2026 and beyond look like compared to the 70s? The 70s were spurred partly by an oil shock. Uh that's not what's happening today. So I'm wondering how the end result may compare. Yeah, I I think that's a really good point and you know I would agree with Harker who said you know it's not going to be the 1970s over again but even if it doesn't repeat and it just rhymes I think that's still if nothing else very bullish for gold and silver because you know again what what did really well in the last time around if that's your only comparable even if it's not a very good comparable that's still the only comparable and I think that adds to the tailwind wins for gold and silver and the beauty of it is if if they're already at 3500 40, you know, or close to that. Um, and you're looking at upside pressure. Uh, that's very, very bullish. To answer the question, of course, I don't have a silver ball. Yes, many things are very different. The the OPEC oil shock isn't happening at the moment. On the other hand, it seems like things have calmed down in the Middle East with, you know, Israel just deciding to pound another piece of the Gaza Strip into dust as opposed to bombing Iran. You know, it's certainly less concerning. it from a global geopolitical perspective, but it could heat up again. So that whole oil thing could come back into play and make it rhyme more. But never mind, doesn't have to happen. I I have a feeling that actually without anything new happening or change in the geopolitical scale, I I think it will not be that much like the 70s. I think this time the powers that be, whatever the Fed does, by the way, remember there's not just monetary policy, there's fiscal policy. And I think Congress has no patience for suffering voters out there. So I think the money helicopters will just get, you know, sent into overdrive. What I'm saying is the stag part, if it really starts to hurt, I don't think we're going to get anywhere near the protracted stagflationary bout that we had in the 1970s. I think as soon as the stag part is clear, the Fed is likely to jump in to help. And whether they do or they don't, I anticipate Congress will jump in to help and the money helicopters will fly and so we get a reflationary boom. Uh I don't know the future, but you're asking me for my my best guess. My best guess is that the stag part will be fleeting and we probably go quickly into a more reflationary boom. And maybe then the Fed says, "Oh, you know, we need to fight inflation again." But by then it's too late. By then, Powell's hopes of being remembered as a vulker are out the window and he's going to be remembered as another Arthur Burns. >> Uh, you know what else happened in the early 70s? Uh, the gold standard was removed. And now we have Ray Dallio, one of the thought leaders in the finance space, CIO of Bridgewater, uh, or former CIO, I think he's now uh, no longer directly involved, but anyway, he tweeted this. The US dollar used to be backed by gold and it's not far-fetched to think we may be headed there again in the future. History shows us that the same cycles repeat time and time again. One such cycle is related to currency devaluation. Uh once people start to lose trust in the system, we see specific cause and effect. Governments print a lot of money. They paid off the debt with the cheap money. Nobody wants to hold the devalued currency. Governments go back and link money to gold. Will this pattern happen again? It's hard to say and it wouldn't be happen it wouldn't happen anytime soon but it is conceivable. Okay. It wouldn't happen anytime soon but a gold standard a return to the gold standard is conceivable. Do you agree? Absolutely. Yes. The short version of what Ry just said which I agree with is that Gresham's law goes both ways. And you know when crisis comes and and the the confidence is lost, you know, even the Roman Empire, you know, they'd have to go back to finding a way to produce real silver coins again that weren't full of copper, right? Or ultimately just like copper instead of silver. Uh reality does matter in the end. Um but actually I want to rewind the conversation a little bit combining our previous point in this one. I think this is really interesting. This is one of the differences. the fact that the US abandoned the gold standard or the rest of the gold standard in 1971 when actually you know in August we're on the anniversary here um 54 years ago Tricky Dick Nixon took the US off the remnants of the gold standard slamming the gold window on Charles de Gaulle's fingers that had a coiled spring effect you know the US had already under Johnson you know guns and butter had been spending way beyond its means and this was you know why it happened. People didn't believe that the value of the dollar was what the stated relationship with gold was. Um so gold gold soarses when it's freed from the dollar and that coil spring effect you can't that's one of the differences between then and now like you asked about how will it be similar or different from the 1970s. This is one of those things that's different. Now, some people, a lot of, you know, diehard gold bugs will say, well, the gold and silver price has been manipulated for so long, it's been artificially suppressed. So, they might actually argue that this is a similarity, not a difference. Um, I don't know what the truth of the matter is. I don't know how manipulated the price of gold was, but I just think this is kind of interesting because on the face of it, this is a big difference. You know, there is no official peg or hasn't been one for 54 years between the dollar and gold. But if the people who have been, you know, arguing for the suppression of the price of gold, if they were right and suddenly that's over and gold goes shooting up to 3500, you know, who knows how much fire how much higher it'll go. That might actually be another tailwind for gold here. I want to be very careful. I'm not saying this is true. I'm not saying suddenly I've subscribed to all the conspiracy theories. Um, but I'm also not saying that they've been proven wrong. I I just think there's an interesting parallel here. Um, as far as Dalio goes, I think the way that happens, and it may happen sooner than he thinks, he's a student of history and he know that history takes all this time, you know, hundreds of years. The fall of Rome was a was like 300 years long, but now things happen faster. And I think the vector here is is I actually find some credibility to the idea that the bricks might introduce a goldback currency of some form. And you know, blockchain makes that easier. And well, why would they back it with gold? You know, why not Bitcoin or why not? You know, just make a, you know, a brick currency. And I think the reason for that is, you know, no offense to the Bitcoin crowd, gold is real. You can hold it in your hand. You can see if you're China and Russia says, you know, we're contributing this many tons of gold and China saying, we're contributing this many tons of gold and India says we're contributing this many tons of gold. you can send somebody to go look at the vault and see if it's actually there. And and there's not a whole lot of love to be lost between the Chinese and the Russians, for example. So, between these very different countries with very different cultures, I think that it actually makes sense to use something physical, visible, measurable, tangible to back such a currency because it it it enables trust and verification that nothing else does. So, who knows? I'm not saying this will happen tomorrow. I think something like that, even with a with a crypto system for delivering it worldwide outside of the Swift system, makes sense. That's not the sort of thing you can just launch overnight. So, I think we'll see it coming. We'll have plenty of warning. I think that will be an investable trend when it starts happening. Um, it's not happening today, but I I could see it happening. And then if it does, I can imagine everybody else following suit and it would be really >> Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Oh, I was going to add to that and maybe get you to uh respond to my theory here. In 1944, uh more than 40 allied nations uh met in uh in Breton Woods, New Hampshire uh hence the name Bretonwoods. And they decided to start a new monetary system. Uh and that lasted until 1971. as you know now what what could happen this time around if we were to revisit this idea perhaps we would have two axes here uh one from the bricks and one from the west and NATO NATO members uh I don't see a global cooperation between let's say China and the US deciding on a joint common global goldbacked standard currency um I don't uh you know the We've got too too many different ideologies going on right now. So that may be an impediment to returning to the gold. >> But that's the beauty of it, David. That's that's exactly why I'm saying that this may well involve like actual physical gold backing because that makes it possible for very different cultures, languages, you know, ways of thinking about business and money and everything. It it it is a that very thing that that Bitcoin people like to mock that that physical weight. You know, remember that drop gold campaign, those poor people in their business suits carrying these heavy bags of gold. Like that very thing is what makes gold a useful intermediary in this environment. And if you think about it, like this isn't some strange new invention. This is actually the way the world worked before. You think the French and the British loved each other in the 1700s? Of course not. Or the Spanish and the British, you know, a couple hundred years earlier. Of course not. And so are you going to trust each other's pieces of paper or even coinage with but like the metal inside had value that was objectively measurable and that allowed international commerce to happen even amongst enemies like actual waring enemies. So I I think it actually makes sense that if we're if if the fiat system as we know it breaks down and there's no confidence on any side and the parties don't trust each other, it makes perfect sense to me that something physical, measurable, me verifiable would step in to help smooth things over. And and that's that's why it was done before. International trade was not settled in dollars or franks or rubles. It was settled in gold. I want to point something out to you. We're talking about gold. This is the gold to oil ratio. Gold to oil historical chart. Now, every time it's spiked in the past, we've had a recession. 2020 something dramatic happened. As we know, COVID global economy shut down. Oil tanked, gold spiked, oil to gold rat, gold to oil ratio shot through the moon. 2008 happened again. 2000 it happened. On and on and on. You see the pattern. I mean there's been exceptions of course but now we're seeing golden oil the gold oil ratio once again uh rally and this is sounding some alarm bells with some analysts who follow this trend. Uh what's your take on this? I think it's a very good thing to point out and it's maybe not as simple as one might think but just just on the face of it what what does this ratio tell us? If gold is up, that means safe haven demand is up, fear is up, and if oil is down, therefore the ratio goes up, >> then that means economic um energy is down, the the economy is looking weaker, weakening demand on the economic front, that's recession. So there are people, Peter Schiff, my fellow Puerto Rican among them, who argue that, you know, the are the US is already in a recession. I I think Danielle D. Martino Booth said it recently, too. um I don't know if you've interviewed her recently, but there are people out there saying in the US is in a recession. It just hasn't been recognized yet. And this chart would back that up. >> The the push back on that or maybe to steal man the other side as Lex Freiedman might say is that we are entering a different world. I mean I guess the other side would be Doomberg. you've interviewed him, right? >> And he's talked about how, you know, it's oil equivalents these days. And it's not just LG, but it's all kinds of things that are convertible. And so, you can't just look at oil by itself. And he he doesn't believe in peak oil at all. And he sees all these oil equivalents coming to market in increasing ways. So it it could be that we're looking at like the past range of the gold to or oil ratio that may change forever. It may never go back to its historic range if Bloomberg is right. And and that will be completely different from whether or not there's a recession. So like this spike that you're seeing on your chart right now that and really since 2008 the the upwards you know roughly speaking upward trend in that ratio that could be indicating what Bloomberg is saying rather than anything about the economy overall. What is the investment thesis for gold now that it's been trading rangebound around $3,200 to $3,400 for quite some time now. By quite some time I mean a few months. Somebody uh says to you Lobo, I missed the boat on gold and now it's just kind of hovering in a range. I don't know what to do. >> Somebody just asked me this at dinner and I and I told him normally, you know, before this year, if gold went up screaming up like it did to 3500, I'd be the guy getting rotten tomatoes thrown at me at the Vancouver conference or whatever for saying, you know, when something goes vertical, it's time to look for some correction. um you know, it's time to take some profits here and you know, this is not the time to chase anything, you know, and and remember that $3,500 high, that's just that's not just a nominal high. That's actually a high adjusted for CPI. So that is a that is a material. Yeah. That that's that is a striking chart. And and normally when a market goes screaming up like that, you you want to be thinking more in terms of taking profits than buying. But in this case, again, sort of like with the Bloomberg thing and the oil, I think we are looking at a changed game. The central bank's buying since the weaponization of the dollar, that is a one-way door. David, the the Chinese and the Indians, certainly not the Russians, they're not going to go back to trusting the United States dollar the way they did before the Russians were kicked out of the Swift system. That's just not going to happen. And and we see this there's been times of plenty this year when news that normally or not normally but like in the recent past would have been headwinds for gold and gold wiggles a little bit and it comes right back up again. And to me this is evidence of the central bank gold buying and the world gold council charts show that the central bank gold buying continues at a higher pace since 22 since the weaponization of the dollar. So what I'm saying is my normal caution about something that pulls a hockey stick like gold did recently um is ameliorated by this game-changing scenario where you have not just a new buyer here but like a a global set of new buyers who have very very deep pockets and and I really do think this is a one oneway door. I don't think the the governments and central banks around the world that are now hedging their exposure to the dollar are going to suddenly decide, oh, it's okay. We'll go back to how things were before. It's the the Chinese and the Russians certainly aren't going to do it. Um, so the answer to the question is is this I'm even uncomfortable saying it, David, because I it is so ingrained in me that when you see something go up, it's time to think about taking profits. But somebody doesn't, you know, they missed it. They don't have any gold. They haven't bought any gold stocks. I am right now, my guidance is yes, I would buy at these levels because I I think we have a floor here. I I see relatively little downside. And you ask what's the argument? The argument is everything that's happening under under Trump in the United States, everything that's happening in Europe with the remilitarization and um the uh deglobalization, the Chinese response, the Russian war machine, all of this stuff is inflationary. That is bullish for monetary metals, including gold and silver. So there's this m this big massive macro argument that is bullish for gold at a time where central bank gold buying has put something of a floor at a high level under there. That's what makes me comfortable saying yes even over 3,400 if I didn't own any gold I would buy some today and I would certainly look for the better gold stocks. And if just another point supporting your argument, if the entire gold market wanted to take profits, which they could have done since April, right? They had four and a half, three and a half months to take Yeah. to take profits, they would have. And there was some profit taking along the way when they reached new old the gold price reached new local highs. But overall, like you said, there was a floor established. The market did not tank. The market did not take huge profits like in 20 2011, right? This didn't happen. >> Yeah. >> Uh and it we saw that in 2020 as well. That didn't happen this time. >> What happened was just a stabilization of the price around new to all-time highs. >> Yep. Yep. And here's here's one more thing to think about, David. Uh you know, if gold dropped $1,000 an ounce from where it is today, >> take that exercise. Okay. >> I mean, $1,000 like wow, that's huge. $1,000 drop. I mean, it's not going to happen. I don't think they're certainly not all at once. But if it dropped a,000 bucks an ounce, that would take us down to 2400. The mines that are in operation, the gold mines that are in operation today, they were built based on feasibility studies at like 1,700, 1,800. The better ones, 1300,400. So, gold could drop $1,000 an ounce and you'd still be looking at uh not maybe not obviously not as fat margins as we have today, but you would be looking at decent margins for all but the crappiest of the gold miners out there. So, you talk about a moat, you know, and if you want to be a, you know, a cautious Warren Buffett style person, okay, metal stocks, mining stocks are not going to be a Warren Buffett thing in large, but think about that business. It could drop a,000 bucks an ounce and you'd still be making money. So if there is a correction, my takeaway here is that if there is a correction, I think that would be a gift from the market, a buying opportunity to take advantage of. >> Are you this bullish on all the precious metals? >> Well, you I missed I missed the I missed Yeah, I I missed the bull run on silver, >> right? So I don't count uh I don't count platinum and palladium and those other expensive silvery industrial metals as monetary metals. I I don't like the term precious. It's either monetary or it's industrial. That's that's the way I look at these things. >> Okay. >> So, the answer to the question is yes and no. And silver bulls hate me when I say this, but you know, silver's relationship with gold has visibly changed recently as well. Now, it still acts as a monetary metal. There's days when, say, copper and other industrial metals go down, but silver goes up with gold. So, yes, silver is still a monetary metal and silver has not reached all-time highs. So that I I think that volatility aside that makes me confident actually in more upside in silver than gold. Let me repeat that. I see more upside in silver than gold right now. Now that doesn't mean it's going to go straight up. That's the that's the catch. You know, the industrial side of silver can be a tailwind or a headwind. And if I'm right about, you know, Trump shock working its way through the real economy in the months ahead, well, that's going to have an impact on industrial demand for silver. So there, so there could be a headwind in the near term for silver. If that happened, I'd probably just buy more. I longer term, I'm very very bullish. So all you silver bulls, put away your s your rotten tomatoes. I'm not making a bare case for silver. I'm just saying, you know, you ignore its industrial side in the near term at your own peril. >> What happened in June, early June, there was a huge runup of silver price. >> Yeah. >> Of the silver. >> So, I don't know if you can do it on your chart there, David, but that happened at the same time that platinum and palladium and even roodium were moving. >> And and interestingly enough, gold was not moving at this time. So, so there are a lot of people that got all excited when silver went shooting up to 40 bucks and they're saying this is it. You know, the ddollarization trend is finally hitting silver and it's off to the races now. But it didn't. If it was ddollarization or if it was something monetary that made that happen, gold would have moved at the same time. But it didn't. >> It moved overlay with silver industrial metals. So I I don't fully understand what happened there to be honest with you, David. But to me, it's just very striking that when this happened, it was a bunch of industrial minerals that moved it once and not the other monetary metal, gold. So, again, I I'm not making a bare case. I don't hate silver. You know, I think the industrial side of silver actually makes it it puts a bigger tailwind in silver sales on the other side of Trump shock because it has all this extra demand as an industrial mineral that gold doesn't have. So, I I really like silver. I'm I'm just not willing to ignore the reality of data such as you have on the screen right now. Platinum went up early June. Like you said, I'm trying to understand I know we don't have an exact answer for this. I'm just trying to understand the impetus be behind uh these moves which are very much correlated now that I have them both on the same chart. Lobo I I'm trying to understand maybe there was um uh there was some tariff announcement that uh that preceded which which sparked a huge demand for platinum hoarding or industrial metal hoarding. I I don't know. I'm just speculating here. It's important to understand maybe what happened so that if the same event happens again we could be ready. I agree and it would be great if we could do that but the honest answer David is that I don't know. I've heard many theories. There were a lot of people at the time this happened saying, "Oh, it's because gold got expensive and the Chinese started buying silver instead." Well, but that doesn't explain platinum moving at the same time. And there were other people saying, "Oh, well, it's the automotive industry coming back and platinum and platium and rodium are all well, but silver is is used mostly in solar panels. There is some in the cars, but not in catalytic converters. So, it doesn't make sense for it to move on that basis either." So, I've heard various explanations. Uh, oh, the Russians are buying silver now. There there's a bunch of things out there, but I didn't find any of them very satisfactory. It it might just be like just global positioning, the tariffs as you say, or China stockpiling like everything industrial that would explain a a multi-asset move like this. And we'll just we'll never know except for possibly in in hindsight if somebody comes out and discloses it. Um the so you know I wish I could tell you here's the trigger, watch for this in the future and that'll tell us um you know when to bet on this move happening again. But I I don't think anybody knows that. I the only takeaway I can say is that in this moment silver acted more like these other metals than gold. And so be cautious um about assuming be be cautious about assuming that silver has to act like gold all the time. >> I've added copper and palladium to this chart. I know it's a bit messy now, but uh here let me just remove palladium. It's not really necessary. Copper copper off cuz that's very different. That huge move on huge move on copper was because of a tariff announcement and then an unannouncement. Right. >> Yeah. that the point I was trying to make was that uh barring those tariff announcements and the announcement the the prices moved kind of in lock step up until that announcement but yes let's put palladium back up uh palladium has been um actually selling off unlike platinum and silver um again is there a story there uh right again they they are all industrial metals but in different markets so that's why you know I don't think it's just like the auto industry >> you know it might China, you know, stocking up or not, you know, whatever. Um, and again, not to repeat myself, I do not know the answer, David. I don't want to tell your audience, "Yeah, do this, bet on this next time. Here's the trigger." I I don't know. U, but but be careful about what you assume on this basis. >> Well, let's just talk about copper now. Uh, is this an arbitrage opportunity at some point with copper? This is this is the US market, right? This is COMX. So, uh, there was some discrepancy between pricing on the COMX and the LME, uh, which which contributed to, >> yeah, I'm I'm being I guess politically correct, but I there's some arbitrage happening here. That's what partly contributed to this big downdraft in the price. This here, uh, like you mentioned was the tariff announcement, 50% copper tariff announcement. And uh I so I don't know the market >> and the big one on the downside was the announcement that you know like the actual copper product that is traded you know what we trade on the comics was going to be excluded from the tariffs. The tariffs are on finished products and things. >> 449 that's that's a fair value now. That's the that's the fair value of copper. >> It's been trading that way. >> Yes. Um the issue there is that again as we started this conversation on the macro I do think that there's more Trump shock to hit the economy and and Dr. Copper is called that for a reason. So if I'm right more weakness in the economy ahead and not just in the US by the way um then I I think there's near-term vulnerability to copper. Now, if I could sit that out, like if I'm a long-term investor and I don't care if copper goes down 30% from here because I'm confident it'll go up in the years ahead and and if copper goes down 30%, the copper stocks will go down 60% or, you know, something like that, right? So, you know, if if I've got a 10-year outlook or something, maybe I just go ahead and buy this dip and don't worry about it. But in my experience, most investors don't have that kind of u staying power. They don't like it if they buy something and it goes down 60% no matter how much they believe in it. So if you're not willing to take that risk, you know, I don't I don't think copper just goes to the moon and never looks back tomorrow. I think there's time to wait and see if the other shoe drops and if copper gives us a shot at lower prices. Basically, this is what I'm doing with my own money right now, David. I'm extremely bullish on copper going forward. uh even longer term even more bullish than uranium. But I see such potential for near-term correction in copper that I'm still mostly accumulating cash. I did buy one stock that got oversold, but mostly I'm just accumulating cash and waiting to deploy. So I don't know the future. I can't promise what will happen or if that's a good idea or not, but I can tell you that's what I'm doing with my own money. >> Which of these commodities do you like the most? And we haven't talked about uranium uh yet. I wonder if uranium is the answer to my question. If not, what else? Yes. And yes, copper was my top pick for this year. Uh and the reasons for that are mostly still ahead of us. I'm still very very bullish on copper except for this near-term thing. But but I got to say at this particular moment that we're talking, uh, uranium, it visibly carved out a bottom a couple months ago and then it kind of got ahead of itself and then it fell back again and it now looks to be carving out a bottom again and that puts it on an upward trend. So if I miss the last big uranium move upwards, uh, I would not dally right now. and and and right now as much as I like copper like going forward and for years to come I see more opportunity right now in the uranium space. So if you ask me what is my top shopping priority it is absolutely no question uranium more than gold more than silver more than copper right now if I could only add you know had a choice of all and I only had could add one it would be uranium >> get your reaction to this article from the energy uh department energy.gov is a website. Nine key takeaways from the president's executive orders on nuclear energy. I won't read all of them, but let's just go through some of the highlights. Speed up nuclear reactor licensing. Add 300 gawatts of new US nuclear capacity by 2050. Well, that's still some time away, but um you know, >> but it's huge. And and by the way, the Chinese are doing more than that by 2040, >> which is you know, on the scale of what it time it takes to build nuclear power plants, that's like tomorrow. Well, what does this mean for investors though? I mean, a lot of the new I know for a fact that a lot of the uranium uh that the US nuclear reactors use does not actually come from the US. And in fact, nuclear uh sorry, uranium production in the US lags behind other countries. >> Almost zero until recently. So there's there's no question about that. So no, >> investors be looking abroad. Should investors be positioning now to US companies? Uranium is valuable enough to be a globally fungeible e a globally fungeible commodity. >> So it's this is very bullish for the uranium market around the world but it's also obviously bullish for US sourced uranium. There's a clear bias and preference here like this is explicit. So uh you know who they are. I don't give free stock picks but it's pretty clear who actually has uranium production in the United States. Um I'm not and I'm not saying they're all good picks by the way. Some of them are really struggling, some of them are doing better. Um, but I think it doesn't take much due diligence diligence to tell who's going to be able to deliver US sourced uranium to the market and they will have an extra price advantage that that will that is a material and investable fact. Um, but but >> I think it sounds like Trump Sorry. Go ahead. >> No. Well, okay. So, I was going to say don't underestimate the global aspect of this. You know when I when I say the Chinese are building even more reactors and doing it faster that really matters. This is such a powerful global trend that even Sweden, this announcement was just today and Sweden is is like Germany, like one of these most anti-uclear in a way places and particularly the mining. And I just saw an announcement today that Sweden is now looking at permitting uranium mining. And this this is a big a deal is Germany saying, well, maybe we should reconsider nuclear power. Uh, you know, in terms of straws in the wind, sign of the times, whatever you want to call it, this is huge. I mean, this is like the United States is talking about reactivating Three-Mile Island. Like that is that is jaw-dropping that that would even be considered uh given the fear around that name. So, what we're saying here, David, the key takeaway is that the demand side of this story just keeps getting better and better on an almost daily basis. I mean, it's unbelievable how much we're seeing the demand side increase here. And at the same time, we're seeing the supply side still constrained. There's a there was a reasonable fear that the lowhanging fruit of uh like mothball mines that could be brought back online or or lowcost projects that could be built to bring new supply online, it was reasonable to worry about, you know, that possibly over supplying the market in the near term. But now that it's started and these mines are being built or re refurbished, >> yeah, >> they're almost all behind schedule or over budget. Some of them aren't happening at all. So while it was reasonable to worry about high prices high prices in this market, it is no longer reasonable to me. The market has shown that it's easier said than done to bring these uranium mines online. And so demand's going up, supply remains constrained. This is clearly bullish. And sorry, one final thing. Uranium prices are highly recession resistant. So, while I'm worried about copper and maybe even silver a little bit in the near term because of economic weakness, I think that has zero impact on uranium. >> You don't think electricity consumption will change given a recession? >> It will, but not base load power. You use uranium because it's 24/7 365. That's nuclear power is always there. Base load power. It's the kind of thing you use for hospitals and airports and data center. The kind of thing that you don't want to switch off at night or ever. I understand. >> And to my earlier question about whether or not uh investors should be looking at domestic US-based uh nuclear or uranium producing companies, this this this next point says one of the big takeaways from the executive orders is that President Trump wants to maximize domestic production of nuclear fuel. He wants to also according to the executive orders uh increase the number of American uh workers at nuclear sites uh and uranium power plant uh uranium uh uh mines. I I wonder what incentive uh or incentives he's giving to to to to make uranium producers actually start producing in the US and to actually bolster the production uh profile domestically. >> Yeah, I have to make uranium great again. I have to push back on that a little bit. This is fuel production and those people the workforce he's talking about is for you know when you when you take the mine product and you vaporize it, you centrifuge it and all these things they do to the process to get to the pellet. The mines don't make the pellets. These two points that you're talking about are the work needed to take the mine product and turn it into the fuel the actual fuel that goes into the reactor. So actually that doesn't really incentive >> the enrichment part >> if right if you didn't care where that uranium came from you could do all these things and it wouldn't make any difference to the minds at all. So >> okay >> but at the same time the US has established and this was a Trump 1.0 0 idea the US has established a uranium reserve and there's also clearly this drive towards um you know domestic sources of critical minerals and uranium was cited a couple months ago in one of the earlier critical minerals executive orders uranium and by the way gold too oddly enough and the same one but to this point uranium was cited as one of these critical minerals that we need to incent so I'm not saying that the miners are not getting incentives in the United States I think it's real. I think it's material and I think it's investable. Um but those points that you showed those are about the enrichment which is a different it's related but a different question. >> Well that's still part of um yeah that's a good point and that should in theory bolster national security. We don't have to rely on well by by we I mean the US doesn't have to rely on other countries for enrichment which is a key part of the process >> especially since so much of that comes from Russia. >> Yeah sense there. >> How long will this process take by the way? >> Years. years. Okay. So, we're looking at post Trump, they could still have So, in theory, this could be reversed, right? The next >> it could, but but it's interesting, you know, you know, the the US uranium strategic uranium reserve or whatever the hell they call it, that was a Trump 1.0 idea, but it was under Biden that it got funded in the first um purchases were made. >> I and and even, you know, if you recall, it's not that long ago, you know, under the Biden administration, there was um I think it was like 2.6 6 billion was allocated for encouraging the development of advanced nuclear. So the the the fact that uranium has finally become under the green umbrella, you know, it's non-carbon emitting and so on, I I think that actually makes it something that can endure changes of power. >> Well, uh I'll finish off on this note. People should go to uh the independent speeculator.com to learn more about Loel's works, get his uh stock picks. What do you want people to know um about the independent speculator? What can we learn from this site? What are you working on right now that you know, give us a teaser? Lots of things there. I think the main takeaway is is in the name, the independent speculator. I I don't promise that I'm always going to pick the highest gaining stocks or that I know everything that I'm always right. I do promise that I'm independent. There is no amount of money a company can pay me to say, you know, this company is a great speculation when it's not or I think the opposite. So, um, you know, it a person who asks you to trust them is usually not trustworthy. So, I'm not going to say trust me. Um, but if you if you come to agree, if you do your analysis and you decide that I really am an independent speculator, then I really think that's something that you should consider in your in your own input going forward. >> Great. Thank you. We'll put the link down below and uh we'll make sure to give Lobo a follow there. Thank you very much, Lobo, for your time today. I appreciate it. I know you're traveling in Europe, so we'll speak again soon. Take care. >> Thank you, David. Good questions. Thank you for watching. Don't forget to like and subscribe.