Via SchiffGold.com,

Last week, Peter appeared on Soar Financially, where he was interviewed by host Kai Hoffmann. The two dive into gold’s upward trajectory and its historical precedents, the market’s misguided optimism when it comes to the American economy, and recent events in domestic politics and international banking.

Peter starts with his perennial reminder: public sector jobs do not boost the economy, and recent jobs numbers are intended to support a false narrative.

“Government jobs are not a sign of a strong economy. In fact, they weaken an economy because we have to pay for those jobs. They’re non-productive jobs. They result in bigger deficits, higher inflation. That’s really all we have– we have inflation that masquerades as growth.”

One factor distinguishing today’s economy from the past is that no monetary policymakers intend to hike rates in the long-term:

“Gold is on pace to have its biggest gains since 1979. And it’s not a coincidence that gold is moving this much, especially when the Fed is starting to cut rates and just beginning this new easing cycle. In 1979, the Fed was still tightening. In fact, in 1980, that’s when the Fed got rates to 20%. That’s what really stopped the gold bull market. But this gold bull market is just getting started, because the Fed isn’t anywhere near hiking rates. In fact, they’re cutting rates.”

Despite decades of artificially low interest rates and their resulting inflation, the market is too optimistic. The longer this goes on, the less plausible it is that the Fed can stay close to its inflation target:

“Every year, no matter how bad inflation was the prior year, the bond market is just assuming that it’s going to be 2% for the next 30 years. At some point, the bond market is going to have to come to terms with reality that this 2% target is all fantasy land—the Fed isn’t going to even come close to achieving that.”

Likewise, the American public mistakenly believes that politics can fix the economy without a painful and drastic correction period:

“It’s hard to get elected telling the truth that things can only get better if they get worse first. But Trump is promising immediate results—positive, no pain, just gain. And so nobody is prepared for what’s actually going to happen. That’s a problem. But the question is, can you get elected promising short-term pain for long-term gain? ‘Yes, I’m going to fix the problems, but in doing that, things are going to get worse before they get better. We have to spend less. We have to save more.’”

Turning to the havoc caused by hurricanes in recent weeks, Peter explains why it’s foolish to have bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. try to manage every disaster in the country:

“It’s a huge moral hazard, and so on the local levels, we’re not prepared. But it’s much better for North Carolina to take care of its own problems, as opposed to Washington, D.C., taking care of its problems. And California takes care of its problems instead of outsourcing it to Washington, D.C. You have Washington, D.C., trying to take care of wildfires in California, hurricanes in the Carolinas—whatever happens. But there’s so much corruption at the federal level, so much graft; it’s a very inefficient way to do it.”

In Europe, the move away from the dollar continues, with Poland significantly expanding its gold reserves. Central banks are the driving force behind gold’s rise this year, and Peter expects both central banks and the public to increase gold purchases:

“Right now, it’s foreign central banks, but they’re going to step it up. They have a lot more gold to buy—they’ve barely scratched the surface. Look now, Poland just announced that they’ve got more gold than the UK. This is a race. These central banks need to replace their dollars with gold because they can read the writing on the wall—they wrote it.”

For more analysis of the latest economic data, check out the SchiffGold Gold Wrap Podcast.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, having received a lackluster response when he pitched his ‘victory plan’ to US officials in Washington last month, now says that Ukraine must either join NATO or obtain nuclear weapons.

He made the ultra provocative comments while speaking before the EU’s European Council in Brussels, where he presented the victory plan before European lawmakers. That’s when he referenced a recent private conversation with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying he told Trump that his country needs “some kind of alliance” or be “forced to pursue nuclear weapons.” 

“In a conversation with Donald Trump I said – this is our situation: What way out do we have? Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, which for us will be a defense, or we’ll need to have some sort of alliance, besides NATO. But today we know of no other alliance,” Zelensky said.

“NATO countries today are not at war. NATO countries are not fighting. In NATO countries people are still alive. Thank God. That is why we choose NATO, not nuclear weapons. And Donald Trump heard me. He said you have a just argument,” he continued.

At one point in these comments he referenced this historic Budapest Memorandum, a 1994 agreement where Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal from Soviet times in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the US, and UK.

He also emphasized in a rhetorical question, “Which nuclear states suffered? None except Ukraine… Who gave up their nuclear weapons? All of them? No. Only Ukraine… Who is fighting today? Ukraine.”

Following the address, Zelensky appeared alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and sought to downplay the nuclear remarks, saying, “We never spoke about … that we are preparing to create nuclear weapons or something like this.”

Russian media also picked up on this moment:

Zelensky himself walked back his earlier comments at a later joint news conference in Brussels with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, saying: “I said I have no alternative except NATO. That was my signal. But we are not building nuclear weapons.”

Meanwhile former Russian president and current deputy chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev has claimed that Ukraine is working on a dirty bomb. He said the Zelensky government “has everything necessary for that: resources, technology and specialists.”

However, he dismissed the Ukrainian leader’s nuke rhetoric as nonsense, and instead focused his criticisms on the likelier potential to develop a dirty bomb.

“Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, and then it will be a defense for us, or Ukraine will be in NATO. NATO countries are not at war today. All people are alive in NATO countries. And that is why we choose NATO over nuclear weapons.” – President Zelensky. pic.twitter.com/yAv3RoozDi

— WarTranslated (Dmitri) (@wartranslated) October 17, 2024

If Kiev pushes this nuclear development line further, it’s likely to find that the US and West will distance themselves from more long-term support, amid accusations that arms and ammo supplies have been dwindling to just a trickle.

Among Zelensky’s main messages to the EU on Thursday was that a “dangerous winter” lies ahead, and therefore more immediate financial and weapons aid is urgent. “We did our homework,” Zelensky said of efforts to prepare for the winter months, at a moment Russia is gaining ground in the east.

Authored by Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov via HeadlineUSA,

Meta’s senior software engineer recently admitted to an undercover journalist at O’Keeffe Media Group that Facebook censors conservatives.

BREAKING: Senior Meta Engineer Reveals Anti-Kamala Posts Are “Automatically Demoted,” Admits Shadowbanning Tactics

“Say your uncle in Ohio said something about Kamala Harris is unfit to be a president because she doesn’t have a child, that kind of sh*t is automatically demoted,”… pic.twitter.com/4DSkvzvKmO

— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 16, 2024

Jeevan Gyawali added that those who oppose Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in their posts would see their accounts shadowbanned and their posts demoted.

“Say your uncle in Ohio said something about Kamala Harris [being] unfit to be a president because she doesn’t have a child. That kind of s**t is automatically demoted,” he said.

Gyawali also claimed that the person “would not be notified” about what happened, meaning his account would be shadowbanned. During the conversation with the undercover journalist, he also mentioned Meta’s “Integrity Team,” a team that censors content through “civic classifiers,” a system meant to shadowban those who disagree with the status quo.

“That means if anything is related to political content, it’s automatically not shown,” he said, explaining what he meant by “civic classifiers.” “There is a SWAT team that’s already set up since April… just to think about all the scenarios of how the platform could be abused.”

Gyawali also admitted that Meta can influence the 2024 election, just like they did in 2020. He also claimed that founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg supports the censorship of conservatives. 

James O’Keefe also published another video in which he called Gyawali to inform him that the woman who he thought was just his date was an undercover journalist.

James O’Keefe contacted Jeevan Gyawali to request comment regarding hidden camera footage in which Gyawali discusses Meta’s censorship practices. Upon hearing the details, Gyawali responded, “Ah, f*ck,” before quickly ending the call.

His comment speaks for itself. pic.twitter.com/niqckI258U

— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 16, 2024

Donald Trump has previously stated that he would put Zuckerberg behind bars if he illegally influenced the 2024 election.

After that, Zuckerberg tried to do everything possible to restore his reputation in Trump’s eyes, even telling Trump that he would never vote for a Democrat this election cycle.

“I knew Zuckercuck was just trying to save face by pretending he was sorry for all the censorship last cycle. Trump needs to follow through and throw him in prison,” @ExposeDarkDeeds wrote.

I knew Zuckercuck was just trying to save face by pretending he was sorry for all the censorship last cycle. Trump needs to follow through and throw him in prison. pic.twitter.com/tAxrhh6YNw

— Expose Them (@ExposeDarkDeeds) October 16, 2024

Many Americans continue to find homeownership financially out of reach due to rising house prices and stagnant wages, among other contributing factors. But which U.S. cities are the least affordable?

One way to assess housing affordability is through the home price-to-income ratio, which measures the ratio of the median home price to the median household income.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, shows the home price-to-income ratio of 54 large cities (population over one million) in the U.S. using data from Construction Coverage’s analysis of Zillow and U.S. Census Bureau data.

Housing Affordability Worst in Coastal U.S. Cities

Below, we show the home price-to-income ratio, median home price, and median household income, for 54 large cities in the United States of America.

Cities on the West Coast, particularly in California, face the most significant housing affordability challenges.

The top four cities with the highest ratios are all in California, while other major West Coast cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland rank among the top 15.

The top five cities, including New York City, have a home price-to-income ratio more than double the national average of 4.7, making them highly unaffordable.

While median household income in cities like San Francisco, San Jose, and Seattle are among the highest in the country, they also have some of the most expensive house prices in the country.

The Midwest and parts of the South have much lower ratios, including Detroit (1.9), Cleveland (2.1), and Memphis (3.1). Midwest cities consistently rank among the most affordable for housing and cost of living.

To learn more about the U.S. housing market, graphic that 10 fastest-growing housing markets in the U.S., based on their housing stock growth between 2013 and 2022.

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

Mexico’s Senate approved amendments in the constitution that give preference to state electricity firm CFE over other companies in dispatching electricity to the system.

The constitutional amendment was passed in the Senate with 86 votes in favor to 39 against. This met the requirement of a two-thirds majority of votes in favor of amending the constitution.

Mexico’s new President Claudia Sheinbaum continues the policies of her predecessor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to support and favor the state energy majors, including oil firm Pemex and the state-owned power company Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE).

The constitutional amendments favoring CFE will come into force after it passes a majority of state legislatures and is published in the official gazette.

Under the change, national grid operator Cenace will be required to take first and prioritize electricity from the power plants owned and operated by the state company CFE regardless of the price and whether it is more expensive than the electricity generated from private power producers.

The new Mexican Parliament is also moving to give the president more control over Pemex and CFE.

Despite the reclassification that would give the government a greater say in Pemex operations, the new government is in favor of the company working with private companies to develop the country’s oil and gas resources.

Mexico currently produces around 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil, down from a peak of 3.4 million bpd some 20 years ago.

Underinvestment has plagued the industry for years, which was the motivation for the Pena Nieto administration’s reforms that invited foreign players into the local industry.

When former president Lopez Obrador came into power, he did away with the reform, launching reviews of existing contracts with foreign entities on allegations of corruption.

As a result, Pemex has failed to increase oil production as planned by the government. In August, the latest month with available data, production dipped below 1.5 million bpd.

With Trump inching ever closer to unleashing the “most beautiful word in the dictionary” on America’s trading partners – especially after tonight’s disastrous Kamala Harris interview with Bret Baier – the European Union is bracing for the worst and according to Bloomberg, has already prepared a list of American goods it could target with tariffs if the former president wins the US election and follows through on his threat to hit the bloc with punitive trade measures.

Citing “people familiar with the bloc’s thinking”, Bloomberg writes that new levies against US firms aren’t a base case for the EU and will only be used to retaliate against a move by the White House. In other words, a threat to Trump when, not if, he becomes president again. Which is a bold move for Brussels, let’s see how it pays off for them when Trump and Europe, so desperate to export its goods anywhere now that China no longer wants much of what Europe has to sell and which exports far more to the US than it imports, launch a tit-for-tat trade war.

Trump caught the EU by surprise in 2018 when he hit European steel and aluminum exports with tariffs. In that instance, the bloc targeted politically sensitive companies with retaliatory duties, including Harley-Davidson motorcycles and Levi Strauss jeans. Since Trump’s win in 2016, the EU has adopted several trade defense tools, including an instrument to respond to economic coercion. Unfortunately for Europe, in the years since, the continent has been flooded with cheap Chinese EV models which have crushed what little is left of the German economy (now that cheap Russian gas is a thing of the past), and has forced it to fight for its “manufacturing powerhouse” survival. Which is why any trade war with the US will only lead to an accelerated demise of what is already a continent barely hanging on.

Meanwhile, Trump is unlikely to be scared off by the threat of retaliatory tariffs: “to me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariffs,’ Trump said Tuesday in an interview with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait, where he reiterated his desire to impose broad tariffs against trading partners post the election. “It’s my favorite word.”

Trump has said that as president, he would target countries like China with tariffs anywhere from 60% to 100%, with a 10% across-the-board tariff on imports from other countries. He could also impose counter-measures against European digital services taxes that implicitly go after US technology champions.

“Our allies have taken advantage of us. More so than our enemies,” Trump said. “Our allies are the European Union. We have a trade deficit of $300 billion with the European Union.”

The news is the latest development as the EU prepares an impact assessment of the consequences of the November ballot, paying particular attention to the scenario in which Trump emerges as victor. Regardless of who wins the election, trade relations with the US will be a top priority. In the event of a Harris win, the EU will seek to sort out several of the irritants left unsolved during Biden’s presidency such as a permanent deal to get rid of the remaining steel and aluminum tariffs, said the person.

Harris has cast Trump’s tariffs as a tax on American consumers, even though her senile, demented boss whom she overthrew in a quiet palace coup in July, has refused to drop any of them

Even though Biden’s rhetoric has been more conciliatory than Trump’s, and his alignment with the EU over Ukraine has helped to repair the transatlantic relationship, EU officials remain conscious that his trade policy still has much in common with his predecessor’s ‘America First’ approach. The Europeans were shaken, in particular, by Biden’s $390 billion-plus subsidy program to support green technology, which offers companies an incentive to shift investment from Europe to the US.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Zelensky finally presented the first five parts of his much-ballyhooed “Victory Plan” to the Rada on Wednesday while still keeping three of them secret per his own admission. Readers can review his full speech here and Reuters’ concise summary here.

Upon doing either, they’ll see that it’s unrealistic due to Ukraine demanding: an invitation to join NATO; the joint interception of Russian missiles; and hosting “a comprehensive non-nuclear strategic deterrence package” on its soil, among several other demands.

All three are non-starters for NATO since the bloc doesn’t want to get directly involved in this proxy war, which its comparatively more pragmatic policymakers who still call the shots fear could easily spiral out of control into World War III, hence why nothing of the sort has happened yet. That’s not to say that their hawkish rivals stand no chance of changing that, and some are speculatively working behind their governments’ backs to this end, but just that Zelensky won’t get what he wants unless that happens.

The abovementioned calculations will likely remain constant seeing as how they’ve been in place for over two and a half years so far, which he’s keenly aware of, thus raising the question of what he sought to achieve by making such demands from his partners that have already been rejected. The argument can be made that he was driven by one of two ulterior motives: hint at what he wants after possibly “escalating to de-escalate” in the near future or sow the seeds for a “stab-in-the-back” theory.

Regarding the first, this could take the form of a nuclear provocation and/or attacking Belarus, while the second was coincidentally lent credence two days prior to Zelensky’s speech by the Royal United Services Institute in an article about “The Impending Betrayal of Ukraine”.  These scenarios could be averted if the G7 agrees to comply with at least some of his military demands in exchange for being allowed to extract Ukraine’s critical mineral riches like one of the points of his “Victory Plan” strongly suggests.

That implied proposal builds upon what he promised the G7 in May 2022, which was analyzed here at the time and followed up on in February 2024 here, the point being that there’s a precedent for him offering up his country for sale in exchange for getting what he wants. If these critical mineral riches don’t tempt the West into fulfilling at least part of his “Victory Plan”, and it was explained above why they probably won’t, then he’ll likely resort to either of the two backup plans that were discussed.

The takeaway from what he just revealed is that ulterior motives are clearly at play since his main demands have already been rejected.

Even the innuendo that Ukraine’s critical mineral riches could be swapped for supposedly game-changing military support might not get the West to reconsider since it fears an uncontrollable escalation sequence with nuclear-armed Russia.

That being the case, observers should expect him to soon “escalate to de-escalate” or pin the blame for Ukraine’s defeat on the West.

Boeing was humiliated after NASA called up Elon Musk’s SpaceX for assistance in a future rescue mission to retrieve two stranded Starliner crew members at the International Space Station, slated for early 2025. SpaceX soared ahead of Boeing’s space program by lightyears, as Starship launches and Starlink deployments show, and is also outpacing Airbus’s space division. 

On Wednseday, Airbus announced its defense and space divisions would experience significant cuts, upwards of 2,500 workers over the next couple of years. 

Airbus Defence and Space is announcing plans to adapt the Division’s organisation and workforce in light of a continued complex business environment, especially in the Space Systems segment where significant financial charges were recorded in 2023 and 2024.

Intended measures will include creating a more effective and efficient organisational structure for the Division, especially with regard to headquartered functions, as well as a full operative end-to-end accountability for its business lines Air Power, Space Systems and Connected Intelligence.

It is expected that these measures will result in a reduction of up to 2,500 positions within Airbus Defence and Space until mid 2026.

As Boeing and now Airbus have found out, SpaceX has become the global leader in rocket launches and LEO satellite deployment, even beating out entire nation-states like China and Russia. 

Using data from BryceTech, SpaceX launched 525 spacecraft into orbit in the first quarter, far outpacing China and Russia. 

Musk is America’s rocket program: SpaceX launched about 429,125 kg of spacecraft upmass in the first quarter, significantly outpacing China’s rocket program (China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation), which launched a measly 29,426 kg. 

Much of this is due to SpaceX’s Starlink deployment in LEO, as thousands of these satellites provide high-speed internet coverage to millions of customers worldwide. 

Just listen to this French media outlet blaming SpaceX for being so far ahead of Airbus as one of the main reasons for the layoffs in Europe. 

NEWS: Airbus announced today it plans to cut 2,500 jobs in its Defense and Space division – Specifically in the area of communication satellites.

Airbus says it has a lot of difficulty competing against @SpaceX which has far more advanced “space conquest” technology than Europe. pic.twitter.com/PLffiJay5o

— ALEX (@ajtourville) October 16, 2024

Stateside, Boeing is in rough shape after a months-long strike. It announced 10% job cuts one week ago and risks losing its prized investment-grade credit rating. Plus, there’s no future data on when the malfunctioning Starliner craft will fly next.

What’s outrageous is that the Biden-Harris administration and Democrats seem to be using lawfare against Elon Musk to deliberately slow down SpaceX’s rocket launches. By doing so, they’re allowing America’s competitive edge in the pace race provided by SpaceX, to narrow in favor of foreign adversaries. 

Just look what SpaceX achieved last weekend.

POV @SpaceX catching a rocket pic.twitter.com/cZvNj4UlDn

— Shaun Maguire (@shaunmmaguire) October 13, 2024

Mechazilla has caught the Super Heavy booster! pic.twitter.com/6R5YatSVJX

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 13, 2024

Americans need to ask the tough questions of why Democrats would want to undermine SpaceX—essentially America’s rocket program. Are these far-left radicals being influenced by foreign powers? 

Authored by Liz Heflin via Remix News,

Desertion is rampant in Ukraine, and attempts to escape military service continue to be a major issue for Ukraine’s armed forces, reports Do Rzeczy. 

“Ukrainians who do not want to go to war are looking for various ways to avoid conscription. Border guards near the border with Moldova detained two groups of men who tried to escape from Ukraine. They received administrative notices of having committed a crime,” the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine reported.

Officers detained two groups, consisting of eight and 11 men. In order to flee the country, they had paid $3,000 to $5,000 for online instructions from an organizer via the Telegram channel, which had them split into two groups to be more mobile and less conspicuous. 

The men have been written up for attempting to illegally cross the state border of Ukraine.

This is not the first such situation.

On Sept. 6, border guards from the Volyn detachment detained two men who intended to illegally cross the state border, and on Sept. 7, four fugitives were detained in Zakarpattia who had been hiking in the mountains for five days and wanted to cross the Tisza River.

Meanwhile, in the Rivne Region, fugitives who tried to get to Belarus almost ran into mines.

Ukraine is now instituting a new law, whereby parliament has banned the mobilization of men under the age of 25. Support for the change was high, and the law is now on President Zelensky’s desk to be signed.

The act prevents the mobilization of people aged 18-25 who have not completed military service or studied at military universities but fall under the status of so-called “limited usefulness.” This means a person who is not suitable for military service in times of peace due to their health condition but can be called up for service during war.

Another law, however, was passed back in April, whereby a soldier can no longer decide to end his service after 36 months, as had previously been allowed.

Read more here…

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told his parliament while presenting his ‘victory plan’ on Wednesday that future membership in the NATO alliance is a central part of the plan.

The military bloc’s secretary general Mark Rutte, who recently took over after Stoltenberg’s term expired, responded in a generally positive manner to this, expressing that his vision is for Ukraine to eventually become a member; however, comments made ‘between the lines’ which were intended as a message caution are sure to disappoint Kiev.

Referencing the Washington-hosted summit of NATO leaders in July, Rutte said that “Ukraine will be a member of NATO in the future. That is what we decided in Washington.” He claimed that Ukraine’s path to NATO was deemed “irreversible”.

While many Western media headlines seized on this ‘path to membership’ aspect of his remarks, Rutte at one point admitted that another nation could be in line first.

He spelled out that another candidate may “pop in front” in the line, following the recent admission of Sweden and Finland. The following words of the NATO chief:

“At the moment it seems that it will be Ukraine as number 33 but maybe somebody else pops in front of him,” Rutte said.

With this remark it has become clear that there is no guaranteed timeline of Ukraine’s accession whatsoever.

As for Zelensky’s victory plan, it is has received a less than enthusiastic response in the West. Rutte in reflecting on it called the plan “a strong signal from Zelensky” but also included a key caveat: “That doesn’t mean that I here can say I support the whole plan,” he said.

“The plan has many aspects and many political and military issues we really need to hammer out with Ukrainians to understand what is behind it, to see what we can do, what we cannot do,” he added.

“In the meantime we will continue massive military aid moving into Ukraine. Russia has to understand we will keep on doing that as long as they continue the war effort,” the NATO leader pledged.

Still, Ukraine has complained this aid is not coming fast enough, or in large enough quantities. At this point Russian forces are capturing new towns and villages in Donetsk on a weekly basis and could soon conquer the whole of the Donbass.

Meanwhile…

Zelensky gives the West an ultimatum: NATO membership or he will acquire nuclear weapons
– Either way, Europe ends up in nuclear war pic.twitter.com/EAGoA8r3D0

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) October 17, 2024