Lock In Your Early Bird Price Discount For Thoughtful Money's Fall Online Conference (Oct 17th, 2026) ⬇️ The world's top experts in money & markets share their forecasts for how to preserve & build wealth as we head into 2027. Speakers include @DariusDale42, @spomboy, @m3_melody, @profplum99, and others.

Warsh’s Paradox: Hike Now, Ease Later Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, @AxelMerk and @AdamTaggart discuss the paradox at the heart of Kevin Warsh’s Fed strategy: he may need to hike rates now in order to create the credibility and flexibility to ease later. * The idea is that Warsh could hike once, perhaps twice, in 2026 as an early demonstration that his Fed is serious about inflation. It’s not necessarily the beginning of a prolonged tightening cycle. Instead, the goal may be to convince the bond market that the Fed remains committed to price stability, even when doing so is politically or economically uncomfortable. * That credibility matters because Warsh ultimately appears to favor lower rates and stronger economic growth. A central part of his framework is the belief that the U.S. is entering a productivity boom. If productivity accelerates, the economy can potentially grow faster without generating the same inflationary pressure, creating more room for lower rates. But there’s a catch: the Fed can only “let the economy run” if inflation is contained and inflation expectations remain anchored. * That perhaps helps explain why the Fed might hike even if the latest inflation data haven’t changed dramatically. Warsh’s Fed doesn’t want markets to conclude that 3% inflation has quietly become the new 2%. It needs to demonstrate that the 2% target still means something. * Warsh also appears to be trying to redefine the relationship between the Fed and financial markets. The Fed can never simply be a passive referee because every policy decision moves markets, but Warsh seems to want the central bank to have less of a “thumb on the scale” and become less directly involved in managing market outcomes. * Geopolitics makes the balancing act even harder. Warsh has to reconcile potentially stronger productivity and economic growth with inflation risks that could emerge from geopolitical disruptions and other supply-side pressures. The historical analogy is the Greenspan Fed: once a central bank establishes strong inflation-fighting credibility, it can potentially maintain easier monetary policy without markets immediately assuming it has abandoned price stability. * That’s the Warsh paradox: prove your hawkish credentials early, reinforce the 2% inflation target and earn the bond market’s trust. If that credibility sticks and inflation cooperates, the reward could be considerably more flexibility to cut rates and let the economy run in 2027. Hike now so you can ease later. #KevinWarsh# #ratehike# #bondmarket# $TLT $BND 💡 Get access to notes with the key takeaways from this interview with @AxelMerk by visiting @AdamTaggart 's Thoughtful Money Substack (link below) ⬇️

Gold’s 20-Month Signal Points To Higher Oil & Treasury Yields Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, Tom McClellan @McClellanOsc and @AdamTaggart discuss the powerful relationship between gold, crude oil and Treasury yields — and why a roughly 20-month lag in gold’s movements suggests the recent surge in oil and interest rates may have much further to go. * Oil and the 10-year Treasury yield have been moving closely together. But there’s an interesting divergence: crude has not yet exceeded its March high, while Treasury yields already have. Tom’s interpretation is that markets viewed the original oil spike as temporary and expected it to reverse. This time, the renewed rise in crude is being taken much more seriously, potentially putting greater pressure on long-term rates. * The bigger signal comes from gold. Historically, Tom finds that gold prices provide roughly a 20.5-month leading indication for Treasury yields. When gold’s chart is shifted forward by that amount, many of its major rallies, consolidations and turning points are subsequently echoed by interest rates. This doesn’t mean yields will match gold’s percentage moves. The value of the relationship is in the direction and timing of the turns. And that signal is pointing higher. * Gold’s violent advance in late 2025 and early 2026 suggests Treasury yields could experience their own powerful advance roughly 20 months later. The model points toward a steeper rise in rates beginning toward the end of 2026 and unfolding over the following year. * A similar relationship exists between gold and crude oil, using approximately a 19.8-month lag. Looking back to 2014, Tom sees many of gold’s major “dance steps” subsequently appearing in oil. The current crude rally is arriving roughly on schedule following gold’s earlier breakout, suggesting oil could still have considerably further to run despite inevitable corrections and event-driven volatility. * That creates an important macro combination: gold’s historical signal is simultaneously pointing toward higher oil and higher Treasury yields. The longer-term timing is especially interesting. Gold peaked around January 2026. Applying the roughly 20-month relationship suggests that oil prices and Treasury yields could reach an important cyclical peak around August 2028. * The takeaway: the current rise in crude and long-term rates may not represent the end of the move. If gold’s historical 20-month lead continues to hold, it could be signaling a much larger period of upward pressure on both oil prices and Treasury yields ahead. #gold# $GLD #crudeoil# #yields# 💡 Get access to notes with the key takeaways from this interview with @McClellanOsc by visiting @AdamTaggart 's Thoughtful Money Substack (link below) ⬇️

"This is a really difficult market to navigate", cautions @lanceroberts That's because there's no clear trend at the moment In times like these, he recommends investors do what's hardest for them: Nothing WATCH:

Gold’s 20-Month Signal Points To Higher Oil & Treasury Yields Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, Tom McClellan @McClellanOsc and @AdamTaggart discuss the powerful relationship between gold, crude oil and Treasury yields — and why a roughly 20-month lag in gold’s movements suggests the recent surge in oil and interest rates may have much further to go. * Oil and the 10-year Treasury yield have been moving closely together. But there’s an interesting divergence: crude has not yet exceeded its March high, while Treasury yields already have. Tom’s interpretation is that markets viewed the original oil spike as temporary and expected it to reverse. This time, the renewed rise in crude is being taken much more seriously, potentially putting greater pressure on long-term rates. * The bigger signal comes from gold. Historically, Tom finds that gold prices provide roughly a 20.5-month leading indication for Treasury yields. When gold’s chart is shifted forward by that amount, many of its major rallies, consolidations and turning points are subsequently echoed by interest rates. This doesn’t mean yields will match gold’s percentage moves. The value of the relationship is in the direction and timing of the turns. And that signal is pointing higher. * Gold’s violent advance in late 2025 and early 2026 suggests Treasury yields could experience their own powerful advance roughly 20 months later. The model points toward a steeper rise in rates beginning toward the end of 2026 and unfolding over the following year. * A similar relationship exists between gold and crude oil, using approximately a 19.8-month lag. Looking back to 2014, Tom sees many of gold’s major “dance steps” subsequently appearing in oil. The current crude rally is arriving roughly on schedule following gold’s earlier breakout, suggesting oil could still have considerably further to run despite inevitable corrections and event-driven volatility. * That creates an important macro combination: gold’s historical signal is simultaneously pointing toward higher oil and higher Treasury yields. The longer-term timing is especially interesting. Gold peaked around January 2026. Applying the roughly 20-month relationship suggests that oil prices and Treasury yields could reach an important cyclical peak around August 2028. * The takeaway: the current rise in crude and long-term rates may not represent the end of the move. If gold’s historical 20-month lead continues to hold, it could be signaling a much larger period of upward pressure on both oil prices and Treasury yields ahead. #gold# $GLD #crudeoil# #yields# 💡 Get access to notes with the key takeaways from this interview with @McClellanOsc by visiting @AdamTaggart 's Thoughtful Money Substack (link below) ⬇️

The momentum just keeps building... Over the past 30 days, Thoughtful Money's YouTube channel has received over 2.4 million views That places it in the top 0.5% of the 113 million total YT channels worldwide Fantastic results -- only made possible (literally) by you, our viewers. THANK YOU! 🙂❤️

Warsh’s Paradox: Hike Now, Ease Later Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, @AxelMerk and @AdamTaggart discuss the paradox at the heart of Kevin Warsh’s Fed strategy: he may need to hike rates now in order to create the credibility and flexibility to ease later. * The idea is that Warsh could hike once, perhaps twice, in 2026 as an early demonstration that his Fed is serious about inflation. It’s not necessarily the beginning of a prolonged tightening cycle. Instead, the goal may be to convince the bond market that the Fed remains committed to price stability, even when doing so is politically or economically uncomfortable. * That credibility matters because Warsh ultimately appears to favor lower rates and stronger economic growth. A central part of his framework is the belief that the U.S. is entering a productivity boom. If productivity accelerates, the economy can potentially grow faster without generating the same inflationary pressure, creating more room for lower rates. But there’s a catch: the Fed can only “let the economy run” if inflation is contained and inflation expectations remain anchored. * That perhaps helps explain why the Fed might hike even if the latest inflation data haven’t changed dramatically. Warsh’s Fed doesn’t want markets to conclude that 3% inflation has quietly become the new 2%. It needs to demonstrate that the 2% target still means something. * Warsh also appears to be trying to redefine the relationship between the Fed and financial markets. The Fed can never simply be a passive referee because every policy decision moves markets, but Warsh seems to want the central bank to have less of a “thumb on the scale” and become less directly involved in managing market outcomes. * Geopolitics makes the balancing act even harder. Warsh has to reconcile potentially stronger productivity and economic growth with inflation risks that could emerge from geopolitical disruptions and other supply-side pressures. The historical analogy is the Greenspan Fed: once a central bank establishes strong inflation-fighting credibility, it can potentially maintain easier monetary policy without markets immediately assuming it has abandoned price stability. * That’s the Warsh paradox: prove your hawkish credentials early, reinforce the 2% inflation target and earn the bond market’s trust. If that credibility sticks and inflation cooperates, the reward could be considerably more flexibility to cut rates and let the economy run in 2027. Hike now so you can ease later. #KevinWarsh# #ratehike# #bondmarket# $TLT $BND 💡 Get access to notes with the key takeaways from this interview with @AxelMerk by visiting @AdamTaggart 's Thoughtful Money Substack (link below) ⬇️

China Is Turning America’s AI Advantage Against It Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, Peter Alexander of @ZBenAdvisors and @AdamTaggart discuss a fascinating paradox emerging in the global AI race: America has the advantage in advanced chips and compute, but China may be finding a way to turn that advantage against it through open-source AI and global distribution. * China’s biggest constraint right now is compute. Its indigenous chips still lag the most advanced U.S. hardware, but China is finding workarounds. It can deploy more domestic chips, obtain Nvidia $NVDA, Micron $MU and other restricted technology through secondary channels, and access compute remotely through data centers in places like Malaysia and Singapore. At the same time, enormous amounts of capital are being directed toward Huawei and other domestic companies to expand China’s own capacity. Compute remains the bottleneck, but it hasn’t stopped Chinese developers from producing increasingly capable AI models. * And this is where the strategy gets interesting. China is leaning heavily into open-source/open-weight AI. Once those weights are released, developers anywhere can use, modify and deploy the models. Meanwhile, leading American AI companies such as #OpenAI# and #Anthropic# largely operate proprietary ecosystems. Peter compares this to AOL in the early days of the internet. AOL built a “walled garden,” but eventually people realized they could access the entire internet directly. Why stay inside the garden? That same question could eventually confront proprietary AI. * There’s also a geopolitical dimension. Chinese models are already spreading through markets including Brazil and Africa. The more accessible these models become, the greater China’s opportunity to build global adoption, developer ecosystems and influence—even while remaining behind the U.S. in cutting-edge compute. * Every time America restricts access or pulls back from global distribution, it potentially creates more room for Chinese alternatives. And that creates an extraordinary irony: China, a centralized one-party state, is pushing an increasingly open AI ecosystem, while America, historically associated with free markets, is building proprietary AI walled gardens. * So, the AI race may ultimately be about much more than who has the best chips or the smartest model. America may dominate the compute layer, but if China can use open models to diffuse its technology faster and more broadly around the world, the battle could increasingly shift from technological superiority to distribution, adoption and ecosystem control. #AI# #China# 💡 Get access to notes with the key takeaways from this interview with Peter Alexander by visiting @AdamTaggart 's Thoughtful Money Substack (link below) ⬇️

Technical analyst Tom McClellan @McClellanOsc is poised to become "bullish as all get out" Why? The 3rd year of the Presidential cycle is usually a boom year & many existing headwinds appear to be abating For all the charts & details, watch

China Is Turning America’s AI Advantage Against It Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, Peter Alexander of @ZBenAdvisors and @AdamTaggart discuss a fascinating paradox emerging in the global AI race: America has the advantage in advanced chips and compute, but China may be finding a way to turn that advantage against it through open-source AI and global distribution. * China’s biggest constraint right now is compute. Its indigenous chips still lag the most advanced U.S. hardware, but China is finding workarounds. It can deploy more domestic chips, obtain Nvidia $NVDA, Micron $MU and other restricted technology through secondary channels, and access compute remotely through data centers in places like Malaysia and Singapore. At the same time, enormous amounts of capital are being directed toward Huawei and other domestic companies to expand China’s own capacity. Compute remains the bottleneck, but it hasn’t stopped Chinese developers from producing increasingly capable AI models. * And this is where the strategy gets interesting. China is leaning heavily into open-source/open-weight AI. Once those weights are released, developers anywhere can use, modify and deploy the models. Meanwhile, leading American AI companies such as #OpenAI# and #Anthropic# largely operate proprietary ecosystems. Peter compares this to AOL in the early days of the internet. AOL built a “walled garden,” but eventually people realized they could access the entire internet directly. Why stay inside the garden? That same question could eventually confront proprietary AI. * There’s also a geopolitical dimension. Chinese models are already spreading through markets including Brazil and Africa. The more accessible these models become, the greater China’s opportunity to build global adoption, developer ecosystems and influence—even while remaining behind the U.S. in cutting-edge compute. * Every time America restricts access or pulls back from global distribution, it potentially creates more room for Chinese alternatives. And that creates an extraordinary irony: China, a centralized one-party state, is pushing an increasingly open AI ecosystem, while America, historically associated with free markets, is building proprietary AI walled gardens. * So, the AI race may ultimately be about much more than who has the best chips or the smartest model. America may dominate the compute layer, but if China can use open models to diffuse its technology faster and more broadly around the world, the battle could increasingly shift from technological superiority to distribution, adoption and ecosystem control. #AI# #China# 💡 Get access to notes with the key takeaways from this interview with Peter Alexander by visiting @AdamTaggart 's Thoughtful Money Substack (link below) ⬇️

What If The Fed Doesn’t Hike Rates This Week? Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, @LanceRoberts and @AdamTaggart discuss why the Fed may ultimately decide not to hike rates this week, despite renewed inflation concerns and growing pressure for policymakers to demonstrate that they remain serious about fighting inflation. Lance lays out three main reasons why he believes waiting could make more sense. * 1. The latest PPI report is expected to be revised at the end of the month, potentially lowering the reported inflation rate. If policymakers know an important inflation reading could soon change, why tighten policy based on a number that may not accurately represent the underlying trend? * 2. Much of the recent inflation pressure has been driven by the tremendous spike in oil prices. Energy feeds directly into production costs and PPI, but an oil shock isn't necessarily evidence that the domestic economy is overheating. If geopolitical conditions change, oil could reverse sharply and quickly remove a significant source of the inflation pressure. That creates a potentially dangerous scenario for the Fed: hike rates because oil pushed inflation higher, then watch oil fall 20–30%, employment weaken or markets correct, and suddenly find yourself needing to cut rates shortly after hiking them. That kind of policy reversal could do more damage to Fed credibility than simply waiting for additional data. * 3. Underlying inflation isn't nearly as alarming as the headline numbers suggest. Core CPI and core PPI are much closer to the Fed's 2% target, with core CPI around 2.3–2.4%. With the fed funds rate around 3.75% and underlying inflation roughly 2.5%, monetary policy is already restrictive. * At the same time, recent employment data have been exceptionally weak. That's hardly the profile of an economy clearly overheating and demanding another immediate round of tightening. * Lance argues that the Fed should instead wait for evidence that inflation is becoming structurally embedded through stronger economic activity. If investment such as data-center construction drives enough economic growth to create persistent inflationary pressure, then the Fed would have a stronger fundamental reason to hike. * The bigger question is whether the Fed should deliver a 25-basis-point "PR hike" simply to signal that it's serious about inflation. That may sound appealing, but what message does it send if the Fed hikes this week and then has to cut at the next meeting because oil collapses, employment deteriorates or the market falls 10–15%? The Fed doesn't just have to fight inflation. It has to preserve credibility. * The key distinction is temporary, commodity-driven inflation versus persistent inflation generated by an overheating economy. If the current spike is mostly the former, hiking now could turn out to be exactly the policy mistake the Fed wants to avoid. #Fed# #ratehike# #interestrates# 💡 Get access to my notes with the key takeaways from this interview with @LanceRoberts by visiting my Substack (link below) ⬇️

Hike or Cut — Long-Term Yields Are Going Higher Anyway Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, @LukeGromen, @DariusDale42 and @AdamTaggart discuss why the Fed may be trapped in a situation where long-term Treasury yields move higher regardless of whether policymakers hike or cut rates. * Darius' base case remains that the Fed should hike 25 basis points, potentially more than once. The reasoning starts with what has actually driven the recent bond selloff. Since the 10-year Treasury yield bottomed in late February, it has risen roughly 85 basis points. But the overwhelming majority of that move hasn’t come from higher inflation expectations — it has come from rising real rates. * Darius estimates that roughly 55 basis points of the 85-basis-point increase reflects a higher expected path for real rates. In other words, the bond market appears to be saying that the equilibrium cost of capital is moving higher. That creates a problem for the Fed. If the equilibrium rate rises while the Fed leaves policy unchanged, monetary policy effectively becomes more accommodative relative to the economy. Darius argues that the Fed may therefore need to hike simply to keep pace with that repricing and avoid accelerating the pressure on bonds. * But here’s the paradox: hiking may not bring long-term yields down. Luke notes that higher short-term rates mean more interest income flowing to holders of T-bills, money-market instruments and other short-duration assets — much of it to wealthy Baby Boomers. That income can support consumption and economic growth. At the same time, higher rates increase the government’s interest expense, worsening the deficit and potentially adding to inflationary pressure with a lag. * A Fed hike could also strengthen the dollar, putting additional pressure on foreign currencies. Foreign investors that need dollars may then be forced to sell liquid assets such as long-term Treasuries, creating another source of upward pressure on yields. So hiking could ultimately mean stronger nominal growth, larger deficits and more Treasury selling — all potentially bearish for the long end. * But cutting rates doesn’t necessarily solve the problem either. If the Fed cuts into an economy still experiencing very strong nominal growth, markets could interpret that as excessively accommodative, pushing growth and inflation expectations higher and once again putting upward pressure on long-term yields. * That’s the trap: hike rates and the long end may go higher. Cut rates and the long end may go higher anyway. A near-term hike may therefore be less about fixing the Treasury market and more about buying time — preserving the current policy regime for as long as possible before the Fed is eventually forced toward much more aggressive intervention in the bond market. #ratehike# #bondmarket# #yields# 💡 Get access to notes with the key takeaways from this interview with @LukeGromen and @DariusDale42 by visiting @AdamTaggart's Thoughtful Money Substack (link below) ⬇️

Hike or Cut — Long-Term Yields Are Going Higher Anyway Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, @LukeGromen, @DariusDale42 and @AdamTaggart discuss why the Fed may be trapped in a situation where long-term Treasury yields move higher regardless of whether policymakers hike or cut rates. * Darius' base case remains that the Fed should hike 25 basis points, potentially more than once. The reasoning starts with what has actually driven the recent bond selloff. Since the 10-year Treasury yield bottomed in late February, it has risen roughly 85 basis points. But the overwhelming majority of that move hasn’t come from higher inflation expectations — it has come from rising real rates. * Darius estimates that roughly 55 basis points of the 85-basis-point increase reflects a higher expected path for real rates. In other words, the bond market appears to be saying that the equilibrium cost of capital is moving higher. That creates a problem for the Fed. If the equilibrium rate rises while the Fed leaves policy unchanged, monetary policy effectively becomes more accommodative relative to the economy. Darius argues that the Fed may therefore need to hike simply to keep pace with that repricing and avoid accelerating the pressure on bonds. * But here’s the paradox: hiking may not bring long-term yields down. Luke notes that higher short-term rates mean more interest income flowing to holders of T-bills, money-market instruments and other short-duration assets — much of it to wealthy Baby Boomers. That income can support consumption and economic growth. At the same time, higher rates increase the government’s interest expense, worsening the deficit and potentially adding to inflationary pressure with a lag. * A Fed hike could also strengthen the dollar, putting additional pressure on foreign currencies. Foreign investors that need dollars may then be forced to sell liquid assets such as long-term Treasuries, creating another source of upward pressure on yields. So hiking could ultimately mean stronger nominal growth, larger deficits and more Treasury selling — all potentially bearish for the long end. * But cutting rates doesn’t necessarily solve the problem either. If the Fed cuts into an economy still experiencing very strong nominal growth, markets could interpret that as excessively accommodative, pushing growth and inflation expectations higher and once again putting upward pressure on long-term yields. * That’s the trap: hike rates and the long end may go higher. Cut rates and the long end may go higher anyway. A near-term hike may therefore be less about fixing the Treasury market and more about buying time — preserving the current policy regime for as long as possible before the Fed is eventually forced toward much more aggressive intervention in the bond market. #ratehike# #bondmarket# #yields# 💡 Get access to notes with the key takeaways from this interview with @LukeGromen and @DariusDale42 by visiting @AdamTaggart's Thoughtful Money Substack (link below) ⬇️

Westerners see China imperfectly, cautions analyst Peter Alexander of @ZBenAdvisors To understand its aspirations -- in geopolitics, in energy, in AI -- as well as what's actually going on inside the country, he provides an insider's perspective WATCH:

5% Bonds: Get Paid To Wait For Stocks To Get Cheaper Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, @MichaelLebowitz and @AdamTaggart discuss why bonds are becoming increasingly attractive as yields approach 5% — but also why they’re not ready to aggressively call the bottom yet. * The biggest difference between today and the painful bond selloff of 2022–2023 is that investors are finally getting paid to wait. When rates were near zero, falling bond prices came with almost no coupon income to cushion the losses. Today, Treasuries are approaching 5%, while some high-quality corporate bonds already yield more than 5%. That creates a very different risk/reward proposition. Imagine buying a 5-year bond yielding 5%. If nothing dramatic happens, you can hold it to maturity, collect roughly 5% annually and get your principal back, assuming the issuer pays as promised. * But there’s another possibility that makes bonds particularly interesting. Suppose stocks eventually fall 30% while bond yields decline from around 5% to 2.5%. As yields fall, bond prices rise. You could potentially sell the bonds for a capital gain and use that money to buy stocks after a major valuation reset. In that sense, bonds can offer income, defense and optionality: get paid while you wait, then potentially rotate into stocks when valuations become much more attractive. * There may also be a natural institutional “put” developing around these yield levels. Pension funds and insurance companies don’t necessarily need to perfectly time the top in yields. At close to 5%, many can begin locking in returns that help satisfy long-term liabilities. They can buy some now, buy more if yields rise and gradually ladder into the market. * But attractive value doesn’t mean the bottom is in. Mike still wants to see technical evidence that the bond trend is reversing, bearish narratives beginning to change, more economic data and greater clarity about what the Fed will do over the coming months. That leads to an important point: it could actually be better to buy the 10-year at 4.5% after a confirmed reversal than at 5% while yields are still climbing. You sacrifice some yield, but gain confidence that yields may be heading toward 2.5% rather than 5.5% or 6%. * The takeaway: bonds near 5% are becoming increasingly compelling because investors can finally earn meaningful income while waiting for a better opportunity in stocks. But don’t confuse attractive yields with a confirmed bottom. Sometimes it’s better to give up the first part of the move and wait until the market confirms that the tide has actually turned. #yields# #bondmarket# $TLT $BND 💡 Get access to my notes with the key takeaways from this interview with @MichaelLebowitz by visiting my Substack (link below) ⬇️

What If The Fed Doesn’t Hike Rates This Week? Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, @LanceRoberts and @AdamTaggart discuss why the Fed may ultimately decide not to hike rates this week, despite renewed inflation concerns and growing pressure for policymakers to demonstrate that they remain serious about fighting inflation. Lance lays out three main reasons why he believes waiting could make more sense. * 1. The latest PPI report is expected to be revised at the end of the month, potentially lowering the reported inflation rate. If policymakers know an important inflation reading could soon change, why tighten policy based on a number that may not accurately represent the underlying trend? * 2. Much of the recent inflation pressure has been driven by the tremendous spike in oil prices. Energy feeds directly into production costs and PPI, but an oil shock isn't necessarily evidence that the domestic economy is overheating. If geopolitical conditions change, oil could reverse sharply and quickly remove a significant source of the inflation pressure. That creates a potentially dangerous scenario for the Fed: hike rates because oil pushed inflation higher, then watch oil fall 20–30%, employment weaken or markets correct, and suddenly find yourself needing to cut rates shortly after hiking them. That kind of policy reversal could do more damage to Fed credibility than simply waiting for additional data. * 3. Underlying inflation isn't nearly as alarming as the headline numbers suggest. Core CPI and core PPI are much closer to the Fed's 2% target, with core CPI around 2.3–2.4%. With the fed funds rate around 3.75% and underlying inflation roughly 2.5%, monetary policy is already restrictive. * At the same time, recent employment data have been exceptionally weak. That's hardly the profile of an economy clearly overheating and demanding another immediate round of tightening. * Lance argues that the Fed should instead wait for evidence that inflation is becoming structurally embedded through stronger economic activity. If investment such as data-center construction drives enough economic growth to create persistent inflationary pressure, then the Fed would have a stronger fundamental reason to hike. * The bigger question is whether the Fed should deliver a 25-basis-point "PR hike" simply to signal that it's serious about inflation. That may sound appealing, but what message does it send if the Fed hikes this week and then has to cut at the next meeting because oil collapses, employment deteriorates or the market falls 10–15%? The Fed doesn't just have to fight inflation. It has to preserve credibility. * The key distinction is temporary, commodity-driven inflation versus persistent inflation generated by an overheating economy. If the current spike is mostly the former, hiking now could turn out to be exactly the policy mistake the Fed wants to avoid. #Fed# #ratehike# #interestrates# 💡 Get access to my notes with the key takeaways from this interview with @LanceRoberts by visiting my Substack (link below) ⬇️

Both @LukeGromen & @DariusDale42 think the trajectory we're on eventually ends in a painful, inflationary breakdown, preceded by a bond market crisis So I ask them: how close to the end do you think we are? Find out. WATCH:

5% Bonds: Get Paid To Wait For Stocks To Get Cheaper Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, @MichaelLebowitz and @AdamTaggart discuss why bonds are becoming increasingly attractive as yields approach 5% — but also why they’re not ready to aggressively call the bottom yet. * The biggest difference between today and the painful bond selloff of 2022–2023 is that investors are finally getting paid to wait. When rates were near zero, falling bond prices came with almost no coupon income to cushion the losses. Today, Treasuries are approaching 5%, while some high-quality corporate bonds already yield more than 5%. That creates a very different risk/reward proposition. Imagine buying a 5-year bond yielding 5%. If nothing dramatic happens, you can hold it to maturity, collect roughly 5% annually and get your principal back, assuming the issuer pays as promised. * But there’s another possibility that makes bonds particularly interesting. Suppose stocks eventually fall 30% while bond yields decline from around 5% to 2.5%. As yields fall, bond prices rise. You could potentially sell the bonds for a capital gain and use that money to buy stocks after a major valuation reset. In that sense, bonds can offer income, defense and optionality: get paid while you wait, then potentially rotate into stocks when valuations become much more attractive. * There may also be a natural institutional “put” developing around these yield levels. Pension funds and insurance companies don’t necessarily need to perfectly time the top in yields. At close to 5%, many can begin locking in returns that help satisfy long-term liabilities. They can buy some now, buy more if yields rise and gradually ladder into the market. * But attractive value doesn’t mean the bottom is in. Mike still wants to see technical evidence that the bond trend is reversing, bearish narratives beginning to change, more economic data and greater clarity about what the Fed will do over the coming months. That leads to an important point: it could actually be better to buy the 10-year at 4.5% after a confirmed reversal than at 5% while yields are still climbing. You sacrifice some yield, but gain confidence that yields may be heading toward 2.5% rather than 5.5% or 6%. * The takeaway: bonds near 5% are becoming increasingly compelling because investors can finally earn meaningful income while waiting for a better opportunity in stocks. But don’t confuse attractive yields with a confirmed bottom. Sometimes it’s better to give up the first part of the move and wait until the market confirms that the tide has actually turned. #yields# #bondmarket# $TLT $BND 💡 Get access to my notes with the key takeaways from this interview with @MichaelLebowitz by visiting my Substack (link below) ⬇️

Why Stablecoins Could Create Massive Demand for U.S. Treasuries Please ❤️like, bookmark🔖, and 🔁share with fellow investors In this Short video, @TheMichaelEvery and @AdamTaggart discuss why stablecoins could become much more than a crypto or payments innovation — they could become a powerful tool of U.S. economic statecraft, creating structural global demand for dollars and U.S. Treasuries while potentially helping lower domestic borrowing costs. * Imagine trillions of dollars of global capital flowing into dollar-backed stablecoins whose reserves are held primarily in T-bills. Stablecoin issuers would need to acquire those Treasuries, creating an enormous new source of demand. More demand for T-bills means higher prices and, all else equal, lower yields. * But the bigger idea goes beyond Treasury rates. If dollar stablecoins become increasingly important outside the U.S., America could theoretically create two different dollar environments: strong international demand for dollar-backed assets while maintaining lower financing costs domestically. The U.S. could reinforce that demand by encouraging stablecoins to become a settlement mechanism for international trade. * Imports could increasingly be paid for with dollar stablecoins, while major commodity exporters could potentially be encouraged to accept them for energy. In that scenario, the traditional “petrodollar” begins evolving into a “petro-stablecoin.” Countries and companies that need energy would also need access to dollar stablecoins, creating another source of structural demand for dollar-denominated assets. * The balance-sheet implications are particularly interesting. If a stablecoin issuer holds a U.S. Treasury bill domestically and issues a digital token against it, a foreign exporter can receive that token while the underlying Treasury asset remains inside the U.S.-centered financial system. The foreign holder receives a dollar-denominated claim, but the reserve backing that claim remains anchored in U.S. government debt. * And expanding stablecoin supply does not automatically create additional U.S. government liabilities. The Treasury liability already exists when the T-bill is issued. The stablecoin issuer simply purchases that security and issues digital tokens backed by it. That creates a potentially powerful flywheel: global stablecoin demand → stablecoin issuance → T-bill purchases → greater Treasury demand → potentially lower U.S. funding costs → deeper global dollar adoption. * That’s why the stablecoin story may ultimately have far less to do with crypto speculation than with the future architecture of the global dollar system. If dollar stablecoins become a major settlement layer for global trade, commodities and payments, they could simultaneously extend dollar dominance and create massive new demand for U.S. government debt. The petrodollar may not disappear. It may simply be going digital. #stablecoins# #USdollar# #Treasuries# #yields# 💡 Get access to my notes with the key takeaways from this interview with @TheMichaelEvery by visiting my Substack (link below)⬇️

De-globalization has kicked into a higher gear, says @TheMichaelEvery The US is now forcing the nations of the world to choose sides: are you with us, or Iran? And obviously this pressure further complicates America's relations with China To learn the repercussions, watch: