# AllThingsFinancial Raw Transcripts Compendium

> Single-file export of the complete AllThingsFinancial Raw Transcripts compendium.
> Generated: 2026-03-23

---

# Table of Contents

> Generated from the AllThingsFinancial Raw Transcripts compendium structure.
> Reading order follows the official reading path defined in the index.

- [1. Raw Transcript Corpus](#raw-transcript-corpus)
- [Markets are a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient. 5-31-2025](#01_rfxfiv3sz1w)
  - [Transcript](#01_rfxfiv3sz1w--transcript)
- [TINA： The dollar in a box with no way out 6-10-2025](#02_z3fr35b0e9g)
  - [Transcript](#02_z3fr35b0e9g--transcript)
- [The Fed, Fed Balance Sheet, Global Systems and can we do QE and how much more？ 6-16-2025](#03_eqszzh_swmo)
  - [Transcript](#03_eqszzh_swmo--transcript)
- [The Five Factors： Energy The Malacca Dilemma Israel Iran Renminbi 6-18-2025](#04_wpi_6p9sdqm)
  - [Transcript](#04_wpi_6p9sdqm--transcript)
- [＂A beginning is a delicate time. Know then...The Spice must flow.＂ Trading versus Investing 7-2-2025](#05_ltmipdu6oaq)
  - [Transcript](#05_ltmipdu6oaq--transcript)
- [Clarity over certainty CEO decisions for a world in 15 years 7-6-2025](#06_ww1dadurpm4)
  - [Transcript](#06_ww1dadurpm4--transcript)
- [Secure and Control The Five Factors & breaking global systems US Steel-MP Materials-Intel 7-10-2025](#07_dxp__xwqcpo)
  - [Transcript](#07_dxp__xwqcpo--transcript)
- [Stanford Innovation Lab interview A new narrative - funding de-globalization thru new taxes 7-9-2025](#08_ytu6yk63mma)
  - [Transcript](#08_ytu6yk63mma--transcript)
- [Five Factors The Eagle - Rising Sun - The Dragon - Realignment in the New World Part 1： 7-12-2025](#09_m8oklaihd9y)
  - [Transcript](#09_m8oklaihd9y--transcript)
- [The Eagle and the setting Sun ＂politics is the reconciliation of conflicting interests＂ 7-13-2025](#10_egrzxgde9eg)
  - [Transcript](#10_egrzxgde9eg--transcript)
- [One of the great mistakes is to judge a policy by it's intention rather than their results 7-14-2025](#11_devajhp2dfq)
  - [Transcript](#11_devajhp2dfq--transcript)
- [From bipolar to multipolar flexibility Europe, Russia and China and the Five Factors  7-28-2025](#12_auuznuwha08)
  - [Transcript](#12_auuznuwha08--transcript)
- [Update  Domino Thoughts on Russian and US Empires pullbacks and MADD Malacca Straits Policy 8-3-2025](#13_xgfjgpyljlm)
  - [Transcript](#13_xgfjgpyljlm--transcript)
- [The Five Factors to invest in the new world. MP Materials-Intel-Drones Invest with the USG 8-15-2025](#14_cstxgj-scqs)
  - [Transcript](#14_cstxgj-scqs--transcript)
- [Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics. Logistics enables  power projection. 9-10-2025](#15_bjladsnwq44)
  - [Transcript](#15_bjladsnwq44--transcript)
- [Plans of the diligent lead to abundance, but he who is hasty comes to want. 9-7-2025](#16_pta9girq8d4)
  - [Transcript](#16_pta9girq8d4--transcript)
- [The Five Factors and Intel⧸Nvidia Russia, China and Poland FAFO the Five Factors 9-18-2025](#17_qrp0do7eaiy)
  - [Transcript](#17_qrp0do7eaiy--transcript)
- [Data, information, personal experience, opinion, misinformation and conspiracy theories 9-19-2025](#18_q5e20a3ict4)
  - [Transcript](#18_q5e20a3ict4--transcript)
- [Rare Earth Minerals - The Five Factors  - Options for the US for negotiations  10-11-2025](#19_twy_x5g-svs)
  - [Transcript](#19_twy_x5g-svs--transcript)
- [Black Wednesday redux. Argentina uses US dollars to paper over bad policies at US expense. 10-1-2025](#20_awftxiefzxo)
  - [Transcript](#20_awftxiefzxo--transcript)
- [The Polar Silk Road and the Istanbul Bridge. Geo-politics and the new belt & Road 10-16-2025](#21_c39gsuciqsw)
  - [Transcript](#21_c39gsuciqsw--transcript)
- [Intel and government investments according to the Five Factors Part 1](#22_zn_5lff4qqa)
  - [Transcript](#22_zn_5lff4qqa--transcript)
- [Intel and government investments according to the Five Factors part 2](#23_sowhooc_jlc)
  - [Transcript](#23_sowhooc_jlc--transcript)
- [Five Factors & crisis management investing in Japan clogs up the global financing plumbing 11-7-2025](#24_z59dbftccgu)
  - [Transcript](#24_z59dbftccgu--transcript)
- [He who solves a problem with a problem will always have problem waiting. Japan & stimulus 11-16-2025](#25_e8tw2rmrlvi)
  - [Transcript](#25_e8tw2rmrlvi--transcript)
- [Intel is the vertical hub & spokes for the US tech domestic industry. Nexperia we FAFO. 11-23-2025](#26_ykr4jh0qebs)
  - [Transcript](#26_ykr4jh0qebs--transcript)
- [Investing in Critical Manufacturing Sovereignty by counter investing 12-2-2025](#27_dkewla5wahg)
  - [Transcript](#27_dkewla5wahg--transcript)
- [Rising debt implies higher financing needs by sovereigns, crowding out corporate debt 11-28-2025](#28_a9rk6-zfoim)
  - [Transcript](#28_a9rk6-zfoim--transcript)
- [The Europe⧸Russia⧸China narrative new data points show a new future 12-21-2025](#29_rd-d9pyhhde)
  - [Transcript](#29_rd-d9pyhhde--transcript)
- [The Europeans - EU - EURO - NATO are in flux. The question is what will the EURO do？ 12-17-2025](#30_4wklrwcfpwc)
  - [Transcript](#30_4wklrwcfpwc--transcript)
- [The Fed, with yesterday's cut,  moves the Fed into managing our debt's interest rates 12-11-2025](#31_zdt2z95ldjy)
  - [Transcript](#31_zdt2z95ldjy--transcript)
- [EUROYEN Clarity is parsing distortions from structural shifts rather than chasing certainty 1-5-2026](#32_ppkgscuywps)
  - [Transcript](#32_ppkgscuywps--transcript)
- [An inherent trait of a Balkanized society is that the parts fight each other not the enemy 1-12-2026](#33_vxqw2fdhcck)
  - [Transcript](#33_vxqw2fdhcck--transcript)
- [A strategic withdrawal is running away, but with dignity. From global to regional. 12-8-2025](#34_1ob-fdyh7ji)
  - [Transcript](#34_1ob-fdyh7ji--transcript)
- [Venezuela and the Five Factors. America accelerated securing and controlling resources 1-6-2026](#35_-ol19utqqz8)
  - [Transcript](#35_-ol19utqqz8--transcript)
- [The US prepares to meet Xi by trying to align allies in a REM strategy 1-15-2026](#36_itwkesbjzq0)
  - [Transcript](#36_itwkesbjzq0--transcript)
- [The crowd is not always wrong, but the best trades usually start by looking wrong. 1-252026](#37_shxpwsu2cga)
  - [Transcript](#37_shxpwsu2cga--transcript)
- [The Five Factors - Critical Manufacturing Sovereignty - Pension Fund Capital 1-28-2026](#38_m8o5xujxp7m)
  - [Transcript](#38_m8o5xujxp7m--transcript)
- [The countries coffers become the kingdom's forge. Capital pools co-opted for investing 2-5-2026](#39_f8t04cuubxw)
  - [Transcript](#39_f8t04cuubxw--transcript)
- [COMEX circuit breakers versus market chaos. Japan insurers & JGBs 2-4-2026](#40_qz1luyrafuq)
  - [Transcript](#40_qz1luyrafuq--transcript)
- [Supermajorities enable sweeping economic changes without compromise with risk 2-8-2026](#41_pheqwbdmiek)
  - [Transcript](#41_pheqwbdmiek--transcript)
- [Taoguang yanghui, yousuo zuowei. China's strategy on REM versus US Strategy 2-23-2026](#42_jjjb74n_oj4)
  - [Transcript](#42_jjjb74n_oj4--transcript)
- [The Five Factors choke points are pervasive problems but investment opportunities for us 2-24-2026](#43_6enhydkom-k)
  - [Transcript](#43_6enhydkom-k--transcript)

---

# Full Content


---

<a id="01_rfxfiv3sz1w"></a>

<!-- Source: 01_RFxfIv3sz1w.md -->

# Markets are a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient. 5-31-2025

- video_id: RFxfIv3sz1w
- input_ord: 1
- summary: This analysis examines global economic interconnections between currencies, interest rates, and economies, all influenced by inflation and tariffs. The speaker reviews critical developments across major economies: Japan's bond market volatility and rising yields despite yen strength; US cumulative 25% inflation since 2020; and Europe's funding challenges. All major economies face similar pressures and are responding identically by shifting from long-term to short-term bond issuance. However, this strategy carries significant risks, as short-term bonds mature quickly and require refinancing at potentially higher rates. The speaker emphasizes that while central banks control short-term rates, markets control long-term rates, making this approach a precarious attempt to manage duration risk in an uncertain global financial environment.
- keywords: global economics, interest rates, bond markets, currency strength, inflation, tariffs, Japan yields, US Treasury, central banks, debt issuance, bond vigilantes, safe haven flows, stagflation, PCE inflation, short-term bonds
- topics: Global Bond Market Dynamics and Currency Flows, Central Bank Policy and Interest Rate Management, Inflation, Tariffs, and Economic Vulnerability

## Transcript

Language: en Today is Saturday and I'd like to take a step back and try to put some context around the global happenings on all the what's going on with every country. Not every country but the countries that are important. So I want to say before we start this that countries all have something in common. They have their economy, they have their um currencies and they have their interest rates. And these three things are affected by two other factors that have come in. One is what is the inflation and second what are the tariffs. These two things are affecting the other three things. They all interact with each other. Then they interact with all the other countries. All right? So how you weight these things and understand them in your mind and what you think's going to happen you have to make up your own mind. All right. Alls I'm saying is the three factors that we're going to look at are what are their economy? what is their currency and what are their interest rates. Now, this was in the Asia Times yesterday and they're saying that Japan's market bond market which you all been watching, okay, has thrown all the world into a tizzy because we don't know where our safe haven is. And we've talked about this. There's four buckets where people go. You can go to America, Europe, Japan, or China. That's it. And given what's going on around the world, people are very unsure on where to go. So you can see here in the second paragraph, it says the number one in three economies, the US and uh Japan are being monitored by the um bond bond vigilantes. And as we say, men propose, but markets dispose. And the investors in the world literally cannot make up their mind which of these major economies is more risky than the other one. Right? And if you look, so you say what do I want the US with Trump? They want Japan with their lost decade and their high inflation and their low interest rate. Or you got China with rising deflation and persistent property prices and an enclosed system. So, it's kind of hard to get in there and do what you need to do if you're a trillion dollar asset manager. So, all three things. And then Europe, we all know they're a unified currency. They're not a unified economy. And this is why they're always the fourth choice. The only thing of interest here I want to point out is is that the Japan has managed to raise their official rates to a half a percent. This is a 17-year high. And remember, we've already covered nine to 10 years. They were actually negative interest rates. And you can see here, there's two lines here. The first one, the Ministry of Finance might reduce the size of bond issues. Have a big meeting coming up, I think, on Monday or Tuesday where Japan's going to discuss that. And then Goldman Sachs says that the JGB market is a canary in the global coal mine for duration. So again, long bonds. All right. Now, the third paragraph is all we want to look at here. So, their 10-year bond is now 1 and a half and their 30-year soaring up to 3.16%. Go back, where were we? We were a half percent and we're one and a half and we're 3.6%. What's the problem? Now, the top line observes that the Japanese yen is strengthening even as US yields are rising. We consider this as evidence that foreign participation in the US Treasury market is declining which we've been talking about. But what I'm interested in is the third paragraph. Japan's GDP now is shrank is has shrank down to a only a 7% growth rate with their inflation rate running at 3.6%. Their target is 2%. But think about it, 3.6%. You're a half percent on your short. You're one and a half on your 10. You're 316. All negative interest rates. So, in no way, shape, or form should you believe that this currency is moving up. Yet, the yen is moving up. That is showing us that people are selling the dollar to buy the yen. And the last two lines point out that our tariffs, the US tariffs they were putting on Japan is going to challenge them on their growth rates, but they're only growing at.7%. So our tariffs could send them into a recession. So how do they raise their interest rates to drive up the yen as we're asking them to do? In the fourth paragraph here, the bottom line, he said, "The demand for longerterm securities is diminishing. At the same time, the supply is growing." So, and by the way, look at the last line here. They say that this could be the moment for China to step up and fill the gap, i.e. become a world currency. We've discussed this in another video. We think sometime in the next 15 years this may actually come about for China to take advantage of this but the costs are huge for China and it remains totally unresolved. I don't think it happens for years. China has to have a swift system where people can do transactions in their currency not the CIPS system which is trading commodities but they're working on it. Now let's shoot over to the US. Now, when you look at our inflation rate since 2020, if you add it up cumulative, it's 25% or 5% a year. I understand 9% in the beginning and now the CPE is down to 2.1 and I think the CPI is down to 2 and a.5%. But basically, it's at 5% for the last five years. Now look at the PCE which is the favorite Federal Reserve metric to watch came in at 2.1%. But this is for businesses. The CPI is for consumers. All right. So to understand the last time that the US had 5% inflation, a total of 25% over 5 years was in the 1970s during stagflation which had oil shocks, wage controls, unemployment. It was bad. We've done videos on this. This is when I started in the business when this was happening. Now the PCE is the business inflation metric and you can read this yourself but I just want to go to the second to the bottom line. They say the PCE what is its what what affects it? Okay. And it's business inputs materials labor supply chain. Okay. So let me ask you a question. Make up your own mind. How is this going to remain at 2.1% given what's coming down the line for us when it comes to supply chain and materials? Okay. And when you look at our consumer spending as of April 2025, you can see that remember the CPE minuses housing, food, and um and energy. Okay, no wonder it's 2.1% and no wonder the CPI for the last five years is 5%. All right, so whatever you want to watch, that's entirely up to you. But for individuals, 330 million people, this is an issue. But as we started in the beginning, no one knows really where to go. France is running out of money for social spending and they could have a liquidity crisis if that could impact their benefit payments in the future. And you can see here in the second market in the second paragraph that they're saying that it could affect France's ability to borrow on the financial markets. Then we look at the UK guilts. They were just warned by the IMF that they themselves are facing funding issues and they have vulnerabilities in the guilts market including declining role of patient investors such as pension funds and insurers of holders of the longdated bonds or guilts in this case. And you can see here in uh deepsek they say that they're shifting towards shorter term guilt reducing long-term issuance due the concerns about the market stability and the risk of sudden selloffs. Okay. So we have commonalities on the problem side. Currencies and interest rates economy all being affected by inflation and tariffs. Okay. So everyone has the virtually the same five factors going at ourselves and then you have the demographics of the countries and so forth. But everyone is solving the problem the exact same way. How are they solving it? They're going to not issue the long-term bonds which are under attack right now. They're going to issue short-term bond. Now anybody who follows this channel knows that we've always said that the central banks control the short end, the markets control the long end. So this is an attempt by all these central banks to try to control rein in the long end by not issuing bonds. What's the risk here? The risk is what America is facing today. We have to raise between 9 and 11 trillion or 12 trillion and 7 trillion of it is rolling. That was short-term rates that were put on by yelling. the your problem of issuing short-term is that they come due sooner and if the interest rates aren't lower, you get buried. So, what do we do? Tell me in the comments and like and follow and thank you for following.


---

<a id="02_z3fr35b0e9g"></a>

<!-- Source: 02_Z3Fr35B0e9g.md -->

# TINA： The dollar in a box with no way out 6-10-2025

- video_id: Z3Fr35B0e9g
- input_ord: 2
- summary: This video analyzes the current state of the US dollar and its reserve currency status amid recent market volatility. The creator discusses three competing economic perspectives: a temporary cyclical decline in US investment inflows, a more significant shift reflecting concerns about Federal Reserve independence, and predictions of reserve currency status loss. The creator argues that TINA (There Is No Alternative) remains the strongest reality—despite weakening confidence, no viable alternative currency exists for global transactions. The analysis examines foreign exchange reserves, the Chinese yuan's role, and Japan's recent decision to sell German bonds, illustrating countries' limited options when seeking capital. The conclusion emphasizes that while the dollar's reserve status appears secure, the critical question becomes what yield US Treasury bonds must offer to maintain foreign investment.
- keywords: US dollar, reserve currency, TINA, Federal Reserve independence, foreign exchange reserves, Treasury bonds, Chinese yuan, currency markets, global financial system, central banking, monetary policy, international trade, financial alternatives, currency valuation, geopolitical economics
- topics: Dollar Reserve Currency Status and Alternatives, Federal Reserve Independence and Political Influence, International Capital Flows and Bond Markets

## Transcript

Language: en Today we're going to talk about the dollar. But before I do this, I want to say that yesterday I put up a video on our big beautiful bill and about section 899. It is obvious that Tik Tok has suppressed this video. There's been a total of 265 views in over 24 hours. Even on my worst videos, I do like 2,000 in 24 hours. Normally around 4,000. So, for whatever reason, this one has hit a nerve. Okay. All right. Let's move on. So, when I started posting on Tik Tok, literally at the beginning, I talked about how I believed that we were coming to the end of an era. We called it the great central bank financial era which ended in 2019 and there were going to be a lot of things America was going to destroy the global system because we were the only people who could do it and of course that's happened but one of the main narratives that I came out of there looking around at the five factors you know do you have are you food sufficient are you energy sufficient what's your technology what's your demographics and of course are you secure cure, you know, are you easy to attack? And America has all five of those. We're not easy to attack. You have to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean. It's not easy to hit us. Okay. So, with those five factors, I felt that the dollar was going to go into an explosive up movement over the next 15 years. And when you think through it with everyone having issues, everyone doing different things, supply chain and so forth, if you don't have those five factors, your currency is not going to do that well. So what happened? In comes the Trump administration is we're going to lower the dollar. And I was like, okay, I wasn't expecting that. And uh so I was like, let's take a step back and watch and see what happened. So the dollar is down 4% I think against all currencies, 9% against our biggest trading partners. And now the question is is where what's going on? Now people are talking about the end of the reserve currency which I don't think is possible and uh and my biggest issue is will they continue to buy our debt. Okay. and that we are experiencing um the end of um 74 cents of every dollar invested in the world comes to the United States, which it was last year. So, you know, I'm kind of looking at this as is this a short-term thing. But other people have been noticing the same thing. Here's this economist, this gentleman. He posts that, you know, look, he said there are three main um views of the dollar today and everyone's arguing about them and I would agree with that. So he says first is a camp who thinks the dollar will fall only temporarily as it a short-term cyclical unwind of US exceptionalism inflows. This goes to that 74 cents of every dollar which I believe is actually happening. Last quarter, 44 billion dollars of stock were sold by foreigners. It's not a hell of a lot, but it's a lot. Okay? And they look at this as, you know, just people moving their stuff around. Then second camp that thinks a bigger shift is underway. Before the 2008 crisis and immediately after, the dollar would fall whenever US data was strong in contrast to recent years when strong US data pushed up the dollar. That correlation dollar down on strong US data reflected a market view that the Fed was more dovish than any other central bank keeping policy rates low even in the face of strong data. And the dollar weakness view is less benign. So this is worse than number one because it takes in the loss of Fed independence which the market is extremely fearful of. All right. So when you have a reserve currency, you want it handled by professionalists, not by politicians. And as we all know, even with today, the news is is that Trump is going to put Bent in charge of the Fed. So we'll see, you know, but this is what people are talking about. And third, there's a camp that thinks that recent policy chaos in Washington will lead to a loss of the reserve currency uh status, which as you know, I don't believe. and they say this has not happened as long as Tina is there and Tina is there is no alternative and anyone who follows this channel we have done multiple videos on where are people going to go if you're going to leave the dollar okay and here's the perfect example right this is official foreign exchange reserves so these are the country's reserves is what they're holding in reserve all All right. Obviously, the dollar is dominant here. And again, you have to say something when you say these are the reserve. This is where your money is. So, if you decide I'm going to move it somewhere else, look at the markets and the size of them that you have the choice to move to. And we pointed out the other day for the first time in history, the dollar is more than 50% of all financial transaction. These are trades and everything in Swift. Never happened before. So yes, are people talking about the reserve dollar as a reserve currency ending? It may happen. And we did a video on this about the Chinese that in the next 15 years during this transition from the global world to a broken down whatever you want to call it regionalized world that there will be a time I believe in the next 15 years where China can step up and let their currency go free and thereby um maybe take on the dollar as a reserve currency. Again, I don't know. I'm just projecting out. But so far you can see here that the difference between when Trump came in the first time and the second time is that the yuan is not going up the remaind. Okay. So in other words, China did not weaken their or let their currency rise up like they did the first time because you think about tariffs. We put the tariff on, they they try to make it better by, you know, lowering their currency. They didn't do that this time. So countries around the world, companies, you know, major individuals have to make a choice. If you're going to leave the dollar, where are you going to go? And so, and still be able to do global transactions. And right now, TINA, there is no alternative is the strongest statement that we have. There is no alternative at this time. Will China go that way in the future? As I said in my video that I did before, I believe in the next 15 years there will be a time when China can look around and say, "What are we going to do?" If they do it though, you have to know that the remimi is going to skyrocket. Now, it's not going to go up. It's going to skyrocket. Now, when we watch countries and we say, "What are they going to do?" So, now you're a country. We're starting this transition and you need money, okay? So, you can sell your dollar stuff, right? Um, you can print more money. Uh, you can issue bonds. Now, think of that. Print more money and issue bonds. The countries aren't really in that position at this time. So, what happens? Well, Japan, we know they need money. They need money to goose their economy. They need money to um defend their currency. Uh they need money for their economic transition. And so what did they do? They sold German bonds, $18 billion. And they've never done this before, like like this. So here's Japan making a real life decision on what they're going to sell. Now, we can argue all of us that well, they're in negotiations with uh with uh the United States as we speak, by the way. And um what's going to happen here is is that um why would the Japanese sell US Treasury bonds during this period of time? But then you also have to remember something. The German bonds don't do them any good. It's not currency you can trade. You can't settle in it. You can't do anything. you use the euro or you use the dollar. Okay. So, what does this all mean to us? Well, the dollar is going to remain the reserve currency and it's decided in two ways. Remember what I said? The dollar is always going to be the reserve currency. The question is what is the yield and our bonds going to be if they don't buy them or if they do buy them? What do you think? What's more important? Tell me in the comments and like and


---

<a id="03_eqszzh_swmo"></a>

<!-- Source: 03_eQsZZH_sWmo.md -->

# The Fed, Fed Balance Sheet, Global Systems and can we do QE and how much more？ 6-16-2025

- video_id: eQsZZH_sWmo
- input_ord: 3
- summary: This video analyzes the breakdown of global systems and its implications for monetary policy and investing. The speaker discusses five critical global systems—food, energy, technology, security, and underwater infrastructure—arguing they are deteriorating. He examines specific vulnerabilities including fertilizer supply chains (controlled by China, Russia, and Iran), food sourcing distances, and recent critical infrastructure attacks. The discussion then pivots to Federal Reserve policy, questioning the extent of quantitative easing (QE) the Fed can implement given massive refinancing needs: corporations need ~$7 trillion and the government needs ~$6 trillion within months. The speaker emphasizes that investors should focus on commodities related to broken global systems rather than companies dependent on those commodities, citing fertilizer and precious metals as strategic investments. He references Warren Buffett's 65% equity allocation despite holding record Treasury positions.
- keywords: Federal Reserve balance sheet, quantitative easing, global system breakdown, fertilizer supply chain, QT vs QE, commodity investing, currency devaluation, critical infrastructure, refinancing crisis, food security, energy systems, dollar weakness, geopolitical risk, Treasury auctions, mortgage-backed securities
- topics: Monetary Policy and QE Limits, Global System Vulnerabilities and Supply Chains, Commodity-Based Investment Strategy

## Transcript

Language: en One of the commentators asked me um what would I do personally if I was head of the Fed or the Treasury and uh and that was backed up by a lot of likes. Um so I just want to address this. This is not really anybody who follows me knows that I am not here to tell you what quote unquote my opinion is. Does it leak through how I speak? I'm sure it does. But what I would say to you is is that what I'm trying to do is explain the different situations as we see them come up so that you can make your own decision. So, but let's take a step back and think through what's going on in the world so that you can make up your mind. I talk about the five factors all the time and I believe in a world where the global system is breaking down. I think it's undeniable now. Okay, we've been talking about it for three years but it's happening. Let's look at technology. So we the five systems are food, energy, technology, security and what we call UCI underwater critical infrastructure. Okay, these are all global systems that have been built over the last 80 years. All right, and so when I look at these systems and you take them one at a time, you look at technology. Okay. Do you believe that we have broken the techn global technology system? Absolutely. Right. I mean, absolutely we've broken it. We have companies that are are banned and countries are banned and you can't do this and you can't do that. Five years ago, there was none of that, right? The system for technology is totally broken. Let's look at energy. Look what's going on. I mean, I mentioned the other day someone says, "I'm warongering." I am not. I am just I mean, look at Israel hit their gas facility. So, they hit Israel's Hifa uh uh gas facilities. Listen, if you're going to take someone out and you're going to go down, how would you go down? personal opinion, I go down in flames. And I'll point out, we did a video on this about the Japanese, right? Japanese, we cut off their oil, we cut off their steel, um, used steel, whatever you want to call that. And, uh, so they have big meetings, all their people, military, everything, they said, "We can't beat America. No way. We're 10 to one. They have more um production than we do. We we will go we'll get smoked." So what did they do? They did a surprise attack. Don't tell me countries don't act what may we may perceive is not in their best interest. And let's look at food, especially fertilizer. Now I've talked about this several times over the couple years. I have clients I work with who think I'm a total idiot on this. But let me tell you something. We are modern farming in this world for the vast majority of the food that is produced and that modern farming is based on one thing and one thing only our ability for fertilizer and whether people want to admit or not it's been 2 and 1/2 years that both China and Russia have banned all exports of fertilizer. Okay, they've already banned it two and a half years ago. All right. CH uh Iran is 52 or 54% of all ura in the world which is our oilbased fertilizer comes from Iran. How would they say we're not going to send it out? We'll just send it to China. Okay. Then just think about your food store. I saw some guy a couple years ago. that walk through your food store and as you go down the aisle, just look and see how many items come from overseas. And I will tell you something, I was blown away. I was stunned. It's unbelievable. And of course, the stat of the year is that a hundred years ago, the average bite of food on the American table came from within 10 miles of that house. All right? Today it's over a,000 miles. So when you look and you see the president stand up there and say we're going to put and I'm going to say 182 countries even though only two of them have penguins on them are going to have a minimum of 10% on them. 10. And we know there are 25 30 45% out there and these people send us food from around the world. How in God's name is the food prices not going to go up? I just can't see it. Okay. And we said today in the paper they just caught some Chinese ship in the Baltic Sea and it looks like they're going to arrest the captain and the whatever first mate and everything. Why? They hit the critical UCI underwater critical infrastructure again in the Baltic Sea. So when I say the systems are breaking. So this then leads us into well how do you invest in today's world? Well you have to be invested as I've said it billion times and Buffett is the perfect example. Everyone's talking about all the money all the cash he has. He's literally the largest private holder of treasuries in the world. Okay. But he's still 65% invested. So what do you do with the rest of the money? I say you look at the five systems. I said two years ago you should be buying in fertilizer which by the way is more than doubled in price. Okay. I liked gold and silver only because if we're going to break the system the global system then that means the currencies would go wild and I believe gold and silver are currency safe havens whatever you want to call not long term but safe haven people pile in them when they can't see how it's all going to work out. Then then you need to think that you have to look at these systems and say if we break them whoever in the world breaks any of those five system what goes up in price what goes down in price and the only thing I'll say is you cannot be buying the companies that buy the commodities you need to buy the commodities because The companies have to buy the commodities. They have to buy them at higher prices. So the money is going to be made if you invest in the commodities that belong to a global system that gets broken. That's the number one way in my personal opinion. Okay. So whether the stock market's going to go up or down here, the liquidity that we're throwing into the market right now, I really, you know, I don't know. Remember my number one narrative from 2007 89 the great is that we'll go to 2029 uh on this uh bull run. You know what? It's still in place. Okay. So then you say if I'm the Fed, what would I worry about? Now I've said this many many times on this channel and this is it. This is the Fed balance sheet. You know I see the guys on X. They're like, "Oh, we're not doing QE. We're still going down." Listen, QT is $5 billion a month. That's what it is. And look at the last 30 days. We bought $ 43.4 billion from Soma during an auction. And so far, we've bought another 20 billion through the Treasury for existing issues. That's 60some billion dollar in the last 30ome days. Okay, we're only taking off 5 billion, but part of the balance sheet is that we own CNBS, okay, mortgages. And here's the mortgages. They're about, you know, little o a little under half of the Fed's balance sheet. But notice, you know, once the interest rates were coming down, people refinanced. Okay? But they're not refinancing. We're not selling the CNBS because if we sold the CNBS, this would affect mortgage prices and nobody wants that. That is not happening. So what you're seeing here is that because the interest rates are now moving up, you're seeing less and less people refi on their mortgages. So really, here's where we're at. This is from the other day. Here's the corporation with they have to refinance over the next what 90 days or so. All right, almost like $7 trillion. The US government needs well we don't really sure here but minimum of $6 trillion over the next five months $6 trillion over the next five month. So the question is is where or how much QE can we actually do here? I mean, if we're faced with a situation this year where our interest rates on the long end and the short end start going up, our government's going to do QE. So, but how much can we do? Can we do three trillion, four trillion, two trillion? What can we do? I don't know. I don't think the Fed knows. And whether we like it or not, the dollar is under attack. Now, you have to understand something in today's world. All these companies trading now with the dollar going down, everything they're doing is they're doing forward contracts just to to uh protect against the US dollar. That means they sell the US dollar. So now there's a natural sell on the dollar. What do you think? Like and follow. Tell me in the comments.


---

<a id="04_wpi_6p9sdqm"></a>

<!-- Source: 04_wpi_6P9SDQM.md -->

# The Five Factors： Energy The Malacca Dilemma Israel Iran Renminbi 6-18-2025

- video_id: wpi_6P9SDQM
- input_ord: 4
- summary: This video examines energy as a critical geopolitical factor, focusing on the Malacca Strait's strategic importance and China's vulnerability to energy supply disruptions. The speaker explains how China's reliance on maritime trade through the narrow strait—which carries 85% of their energy imports—has driven their Belt and Road Initiative strategy, particularly the Gwadar Port project in Pakistan and a planned railroad to bypass the Malacca Strait. The analysis connects China-Iran relations, including their 2025 $400 billion trade agreement involving renminbi-denominated payments, to broader implications of Middle East tensions. The speaker discusses how Israel-Iran conflicts threaten China's energy security infrastructure and suggests Iran should accept Chinese military aid to protect mutual interests.
- keywords: Malacca Strait, China energy security, Belt and Road Initiative, Gwadar Port, China-Iran trade deal, renminbi internationalization, geopolitical strategy, maritime trade routes, Pakistan railroad, Middle East tensions, energy supply chains, currency implications, Strait of Hormuz, US naval control, economic coercion
- topics: Energy Geopolitics and Supply Chain Control, China's Belt and Road Initiative and Strategic Infrastructure, Currency Internationalization and Trade Settlement

## Transcript

Language: en So today we want to talk about energy as one of the five factors. And I want to talk about it because we're going to bring it right down to real world. What's going on today? And also extrapolate out into the future some of the thoughts that we've all had around currencies, the dollar, crypto, gold, all that. Okay? Because believe it or not, it's all interconnected. Now, I first did this. You can look back three years ago. I did a video and I said, "Listen, once the Russians cut off the European gas, that changed the world. Just like our our liberation day changed the investment world, the energy world changed the day the Russians cut off the gas. Every head of every country in the world was, how do I control my energy? That's it." And when you consider there's like 15 to 18 countries in the world that have excess energy. All right? And then not only do you have to buy it from them, but in today's world, you also have to be able to get it to yourself. All right? And hopefully that your energy doesn't come from your enemy who's going to cut you off or do they need to be friends with your enemy because they'll cut you off. All this stuff is applicable. Now years ago, one of the major Chinese general gave a very famous speech. It was called the Malaa dilemma. And what he said was is China will never become a power until they solve this riddle of the Malaca dilemma. What he's referring to is the Malaca Straits. And you can see here it's a very narrow um straight and yet I think like 60% of all trade to China goes through here. 85% of their energy goes to there and look up in the lefth hand top corner theream okay that is owned by India and anybody who knows anything about international politics India and China aren't exactly what we call bosom buddies okay and it's funny when I posted about this two years or two and a half years ago some guy from India said told me he said we've already militarized it and I looked it up they have so India sitting there with their military there right so they also have a say in what comes through there are many politicos who believe that someday India will be charging a toll for ships to go through there because they won't allow them to go all right so you can see how the Malaca straits lead you into the world of where you want to go okay so if you're going to go to China you got to go through the Malaka straight. Now, right there in the middle on the water there is Guadar. All right, this is the Pakistani city and this is also a port. But this port is very unique. Here it is. Here is being built out now. Okay, so this port, believe it or not, is controlled both administratively and militarily by the Chinese. This is literally a piece of China in Pakistan. And the reason is is it's an end point on one of the three um routes for the belt and road initiative. Okay. So what's happening is is if you think about it the northern route is already you know going through um Moscow and then into Europe is not happening. So right now a lot of the stuff is going to that southern route into Turkey, but that also is very um it's not a solid thing for the Chinese. They don't like that. And more importantly, it doesn't give them what they really want is they want their energy, all right, to be um safely sent to them. And you can see here, this is what the railroad is going to be from China, from Qashqar all the way down to Guadr. Okay. Now, this um railroad is going to be done by 2030 and is being built entirely by the Chinese. And by the way, there's all kind I could talk about that for an hour. What's going on there in Pakistan with the but that's it. And by the way, you see Pakistan there? You know what that gray is right there? That's Iran. All right. So, now that you know that, you can see you got the straits of Hermus, you got the Gulf of Oman. You you can get around that because they can build a railroad or pipeline right into the oil to China. Now, everyone knows that sending by rail versus ship, it's like it's like one/tenth as efficient. But that's not the point. The point is you're trying to control your energy. All right. So, this is probably this is um deepseek. By the way, when you ask it about the Ma dilemma, just, you know, explain the Mala dilemma. It says uh we can't we're not we can't go there. Okay? Just to let you know. All right. So, the Malaa dilemma refers to China's heavy reliance on the Malikry. straight to Mala. 80% of their oil imports, 60% of their total maritime trade. It's only one and a half miles. So you can imagine the United States could put a nuclear submarine at at one end of that and nothing would go through. And if it didn't go through in three months, China would would not have enough energy and they would not have enough food. Okay? So they're very worried about this and we could control it from Diego Garcia or whatever even Singapore. But this is what the deal is. So they talk about China's strategies to overcome the dilemma. There's the Thailand Canal, the Cray I think it's the way it's pronounced. Um the Miore pipelines and of course Pakistan's Guadar port. All right. And this is where they're really putting a lot of their attention on. And so then they talk about other things you can read it at your um leisure. So let's go back and give a little context to this. So in 2021, China and Iran signed a deal. They were going to do $400 billion worth of trade, okay, over 25 years. And in return, Iran would supply China with discounted oil and gas and helping China secure long-term energy supply. And the deal also include cooperation with banking, telecommunications, and railroads. Uh the agreement um was aligned with the Barri. So here's the rub and it's in the it's in the second part here. Well, the first part they say they're discounting the oil between 12 and 30%. So that's good for China, but I don't think that was the big thing. Look at number two. Instead of cash payment, China likely credit Iran's account in the remimi. The Chinese want and tank could then buy Chinese goods and service and convert into hard currency through intermediaries. All right. And as we know, we've done many things on this that's almost impossible to do. All right. And so what happened though was for many reasons Iran kind of like played both sides. uh they did not order like Pakistan did the package of planes, missiles and defense you know electronic system EW electronic warfare and they ordered from the Russians and the Russians got involved with Ukraine and when they got involved with Ukraine Iran has not received anything and so Iran I don't know what they were thinking but they were probably like we don't want to end up with $400 billion dollars but in the in the original agreement at least 40% % of that $400 billion was to be in the remimi. Okay. So here's the Chinese expanding the use of their currency but in a controlled fashion. We get the 15 to 30% discount on the oil. Um they pay us we credit them uh remi and China and then say what do you want to buy? Okay. Do you want to buy washers, dryers? Do you want to buy missiles, planes, EW? All right. So, but Iran did not do that. All right. So, now this deal starts. Israel attacks Iran. And if Iran falls, you have to think of what China has at risk. Pakistan is their number one indebtor. Okay? 26.8 billion building that railroad. All right? And if they get and they build it all the way down to Gdar and they can't get any oil from Iran because it's controlled by the West, that doesn't do China any good. So right from the beginning, I said China is going to be involved with this through Pakistan and maybe even directly because this affects the entire BRRI. So now we're in a situation where years and years of uh planning and spending is now under attack for China. So, what do you think they're going to do? What do you think Iran's going to do? If I was Iran, I'd be like, "Hey, that deal's good. Send me the planes, the missiles, and the EW. I'm in." What do you think? Like and follow.


---

<a id="05_ltmipdu6oaq"></a>

<!-- Source: 05_LtmIpDU6OAQ.md -->

# ＂A beginning is a delicate time. Know then...The Spice must flow.＂ Trading versus Investing 7-2-2025

- video_id: LtmIpDU6OAQ
- input_ord: 5
- summary: This video discusses the critical distinction between trading and investing in the context of global system disruption, focusing on rare earth minerals as a key strategic resource. The speaker argues that the post-1945 global system is collapsing, requiring assessment of countries based on five factors: food sufficiency, energy sufficiency, technology, demographics, and security. Five globalized systems are identified as vulnerable: energy, food, technology, underwater critical infrastructure, and rare earth minerals. While trades are quick fixes, investments address multi-year supply disruptions. The video highlights China's dominance in rare earth processing (92% globally) and a new QUAD partnership attempting to reduce dependence on Beijing, though challenges remain regarding tariffs and cooperation among partners.
- keywords: rare earth minerals, global system breakdown, trading vs investing, supply chain disruption, geopolitical strategy, China dominance, QUAD partnership, critical minerals, processing and refining, regional economics, defense dependency, tariffs, strategic resources, five-year outlook
- topics: Geopolitical Economics and Global System Transformation, Rare Earth Minerals as Strategic Investment Opportunity, Supply Chain Resilience and International Partnerships

## Transcript

Language: en Today we're going to talk about rare earth minerals again. But before I do that, I'd like to say thank you for all the comments on trying to help me fix the Tik Tok. Um, unfortunately none of them work. Um, I don't know what to do. So, I'm back on the iPad today. Uh, because if I can't show you the data, then I'm not going to do these things. Okay? I have to be able to show you the data. This is so that you can make up your mind. Remember, the goal of this uh channel is to assist you in making the best decision for yourself. I'm not here to tell you what to do. Now, when the Ukrainian uh Russian war started, it became apparent, at least to me, that the global system that we had set up since 1945 was over. And this global system, everyone's interconnected to. And if the global system breaks, then we have to decide how we going to judge what's going to happen and where to invest our money. So there's a difference between a trade and investing. And that's really we're going to concentrate on the rare earth minerals today. So first, if the global system breaks down, the first thing we have to do is develop a system for understanding each individual country and how they're going to make their decisions going forward into a non-globalized system. Is it going to be regionalized? Is it going to be subregionalized? We just don't know. So, we have five factors that we consider when we look at an individual country. Are you food sufficient? Are you energy sufficient? What's your technology? What's your demographics? And are you easy to attack? Security. When I say easy to attack, I mean easy to attack. If you're an island, you're hard to attack. unless you're Taiwan. And even then, Taiwan is incredibly hard. Some of the roughest water in the world goes through the Taiwan Strait. So, when we look at these five factors, that tells us on a geopolitical level what countries may do to solve their issues that they're no longer in a globalized system. Now, let's put that aside. Now let's say in this world that we built this globalized system, we have these systems that are totally globalized and this is where I believe we have an investing um opportunity. So I started with four systems that I felt were basically totally globalized. They were energy, food, technology, and what now has come known as UCI, underwater critical uh infrastructure. We called that connectivity when we first started this three years ago, but again, I found out that there actually is a name for it, underwater critical infrastructure. And now I'm adding a fifth one as we're learning as the global system breaks down, and that is rare earth minerals. All right. So the concept with these global systems is this. If we're breaking the global system, which I think is inarguable at this time, then we have to say what would happen if one of these now five system break. Okay. So if someone you know let's take oil just just for an example. Okay. and it almost happened. Okay, so Israel and Iran are fighting. Iran, let's say, was losing very badly. So Iran decides to send all their missiles and they blow up all the oil wells in the um Middle East. Yes, the price of oil go up, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. If they did something like that, we are looking at two, three, four, five years before they could fix the problem. That's the issue. So when you think of when something happens in the world, you make a trade off of it and then we fix it right away. That's a trade. But if something happens and we cannot fix it for three, four or five years now that is an investment opportunity. Okay. And when you look at technology, is technology system broken in the world? Totally. Right. Totally. countries are banned, companies are banned, doesn't matter. Okay. So when we look at these, so when I look at food as a system, the people who work with me know I really look at fertilizer. In the modern farming world, fertilizer is king. So in our modern technology world, rare earth minerals are king. In our modern food world, fertilizer is king. Okay? And by the way, four or five years ago, both China and Russia banned all exports of fertilizer, right? And so we get our potassium or potach, excuse me, from Canada, like 85%. Right? So we should piss them off, too. All right? Now, how do you look at rare earth minerals? Well, obviously there's one dominant country and I'll only point out here 2010 you can see America back in the day what were we that back in 90 2000 we stopped producing and then 2010 2010 is when the Japanese and the Chinese went at it and the Chinese cut off um the Japanese and boom um America said, "Oh geez, maybe we should get back into business." All right. So, we started, but I'm going to point out there's two things with rare earth. There's rare earth mining, okay? And this is reflective of mining. And then there's rare earth processing. So, there's an announcement yesterday saying that the quad, which is the US, Australia, Indian, and Japan have formally launched a new critical minerals partnership. Okay. And they just said without ever mentioning China's name, but the context was unmistakable. Reliance on one country for processing and refining critical minerals and derivative products production exposes our industry to economic coercion, price manipulation, and supply chain disruptions. And this is all very true. So Rubio has been spearing uh this effort for the United States and notice what he says here in the second thing. Not just access to the raw material, everybody has that, but also access to the ability to process and refine it into usable material, which nobody has, especially the United States, right? And you can look at the bottom paragraph. China now controls over 80% of rare earth refining and 70 to 80% of key battery inputs and that is that dominance is set to increase by 2035 unless rival supply chains are scaled quickly. All right. So the second paragraph here is the critical one again. There's 62% of global rare earth production. mining. Again, plenty of people out there can mine it, but 92% of the processing, that's the rope. And they sit here and they say, "While there are a few other details on this new initiative, the four countries made it clear during the meeting that the one goal was to reduce their dependence upon Beijing." But as they point out in the last part, Rubio touted the grouping as a very important partnership and urged more concrete actions on key issues. This could prove challenging because our three partners, Japan, Australia, and um and India, they're all deep in negotiations with us over the tariffs. And the fact is Japan's actually just not talking to us anymore. All right. And Trump has been very u he's going to throw I think it was 35 to 45% tariffs on Japan. Um so to me I ask myself this question. So you got these four countries. So let's say Australia, we build the processing plant. Well, how are we going to get that back here? And what if Australia gets mad at us? So what if we give it to Japan and then we do Japan and Japan says forget you. I would say somehow he got to be country specific especially for us. Now these countries are moving ahead. Now this is India with their large minor vendant and guess what they say they're going to work full out and try to get rare earth production within five years. Remember what I said five years. And across the world, car industries in Japan, India, Europe, and America are closed down today because they don't have rare earth minerals. And by the way, almost everyone says that if we do get rare earth minerals, they're going to go to the defense because that's where we are at. We need them for defense. So, I'm glad we're meeting with our partners and acting like they're partners, but at the same time, we are looking five to seven years down the road before we can produce our own rare earth minerals. How do we handle it? What do you think we should do? Like and follow. Tell me in the comments.


---

<a id="06_ww1dadurpm4"></a>

<!-- Source: 06_WW1dADURPM4.md -->

# Clarity over certainty CEO decisions for a world in 15 years 7-6-2025

- video_id: WW1dADURPM4
- input_ord: 6
- summary: This video examines strategic decision-making for CEOs in a fragmented geopolitical landscape. Using Apple as a case study, the speaker discusses how companies must choose between selling to Western markets or integrating with Chinese and Indian ecosystems to access three billion consumers. The core argument challenges the traditional pursuit of certainty, advocating instead for 'clarity over certainty' in long-term planning. Apple's supply chain complexity—involving 5 million employees across China, nearshoring attempts in India and Mexico, and tariff pressures—illustrates the fundamental tension: China offers unmatched manufacturing scale and expertise, but carries political risk; alternatives have higher costs and lower quality. The video poses a critical strategic question for CEOs navigating a 15-year horizon where globalization is ending and countries are fragmenting into separate economic blocs.
- keywords: CEO strategy, geopolitical fragmentation, supply chain restructuring, Apple case study, clarity over certainty, nearshoring, China manufacturing, tariffs and trade policy, market segmentation, long-term planning, India manufacturing, economic decoupling, corporate decision-making, global business risk, just-in-time manufacturing
- topics: Strategic corporate decision-making in a fragmented global economy, Supply chain complexity and geopolitical risk management, Market choice: Western markets vs. Asia's consumer base

## Transcript

Language: en Today's Sunday and I'd like to do something a little different today. Tell me if you like it or not. Um, we've been discussing on how the globalization is ending and because of this globalization ending that we now have to look at countries by the five factors, right? Food, energy, technology, demographics, and security. Are you easy to attack? But that's on the geopolitical level. What about corporations? Corporations, you can't sell here. Your supply chain can't send it to you. Uh secondly, you can't have this technology. All these new rules coming in and now you're the CEO of a company and you're looking out, you're going, "Hey, this is going to be a 15-year process. What is it going to look like at the end of the 15 years?" And I can't wait to the end of the 15 years. There's an old saying uh by a very famous um coach. It was clarity over certainty. As a CEO of a company, all right, you don't wait for certainty. You wait for clarity. Once you have clarity, you move on it. All right? And so as the CEO of a company, we don't know what we're going to look like 15 years from now. How do you make your decision today for tomorrow? And I'm going to make it fairly easy for you. I'm going to let you be the CEO of Apple. Now, this started for me the day I saw on the internet all the people escaping in China from the Foxcom Apple plant uh jumping the fence, running down the street on their bicycles and everything and which really kind of opened up China. You know, they went about what a year and a half longer than the US or the world and being closed down and so then they opened up after this. But that's not what I'm here to talk about. What threw me off when I saw this was that they said this factory is 250,000 people. And the thought that came to my mind given what was going on even then were way worse now with us splitting from China was okay where can Apple make the phone other than China. And so I thought about it for a long time and I really came down to there was one country where it had enough people but they don't have the technical expertise or the infrastructure the um uh the power grid necessary for it to be a major producer which is India. Okay. So I decide to look into this and say, "All right, what's going to happen to Apple?" So Apple in China is far more than um the 250,000 person plant. And here's the plant here. It's in the second sentence there. It employs up to 300,000 people at its peak and currently operates around 200,000. But as you can see, there are over five million people employed in China as part of their supply chain. It's 187 countries. There's 1,600 factories in China and 286 of them are manufacturing site. They have over 5 million employees in China with only 14,000 being direct Apple employees where Foxcon employs between two and 300,000. Now, Apple a couple months ago said they went around and they were considering Bite Dance and Deep Seek, but in the end they chose Alibaba after their talks with Badu fell apart to put Alibaba on the Apple phone. And of course, Washington immediately reacted saying, "Well, this is a safety concern to the US." And so they said, "We'll only do it for our Chinese phones." Okay. And here's where they say it's a security concern and they're hoping that this stops their slide in China, Apple's selling slide in China because they're integrating Chinese software into their phone where of course we're like we don't want that phone here. Now look, I'm just putting this up here because as a CEO, you have to make a decision. Here's all the people uh companies that work with you from Foxcom to Pegatron to Lux Share and what they make for Apple. And here's some of their components from Taiwan Semiconductor uh to BYD, CL, we all know them now as um as car companies, but they also do technology. They came out of technology side. So here's your component suppliers. Now, China has millions of workers, mostly through subcontracting um in China, and they work long hours, often 60 hours a week during peak production before iPhone uh launches. And the basic wages are low, $3 to $600 a month, not a day, not a week, a month. But with overtime, they can double the earnings a month. So, $600 to $1,200. All right. And they Apple employs its own staff. So these are Apple employees who oversee production in supplier factories. Okay. You got to think of what they're doing here because this is a critically important part. And the engineers from Foxcom and Ped Pegatron work on process optimization through all their suppliers. Okay. So here's your supply chain uh managers and your logistics from Federal Express, DHL, so forth. But in number three here, the second one, just in time manufacturing minimizes inventory cost by producing D uh devices based on realtime demand. So like you order a phone, they manufacture it like right away. And so when you look and you see what you have to deal with is you have five million employees all interconnected all run by managers no matter what the supplier is all run by Apple managers to optimize manufacturing quality control and just in time delivery. Now Apple's not stupid. They know what's going on. So they've been opening up these different component plants in Thailand and Malaysia. They've been nearshoring in Mexico with Foxcon and Pegatron. They make some max in Mexico. Problem is high uh they have higher labor costs and um and two they use all Chinese components. All right? So they're under tariffs right now. All right. And again, they build the Mac Pro in Texas, but the labor costs are five to 10 times higher than China, and there's a lack of skill electronic manufacturing workforces. All right. So, as the CEO, you have some problems here. You have China's unmatched ecosystem. No other country has scale, skilled labor, and supplier network. Higher costs everywhere. Every place else is hotter. Political risk in the new markets. India and China are not buddies. And yet we know that they want I think 20% of the Apple phone sales by 2030 out of India. Okay. And so how do they control that if India and China don't get along? So as you can see well I I was wrong here. 2025 25% of iPhone production is in India. But there's something here that we should talk about. The biggest thing that we need to talk about is it doesn't matter. Look at the deal that America just signed with um with Vietnam. Anything that comes out of Vietnam is a 20% tariff. Anything that comes from China through Vietnam is a 40% tariff. So you America is cutting off the ability to build in other countries than they did before. And I also say with the India production um they actually shut it down and left but then it really fell apart in China because the India India uh manufacturing capabilities were pretty bad and so and the quality was low. So they decided to leave. Okay. CEO of your company here, Apple, you can see you have some issues. One, this is not going away. It's only going to get worse in my opinion. Okay? And so, as the CEO, here's the question I would like you to answer. You're either going to sell to America. Europe has different rules at 334 35 million people, okay? Or you can adopt the um Chinese software and the Indian software and you can sell to basically three trillion people in China and India. What should you do? What do you think you should do? I know what I would do, but what would you do? Tell me in the comments and like and


---

<a id="07_dxp__xwqcpo"></a>

<!-- Source: 07_dxP__XWqCpo.md -->

# Secure and Control The Five Factors & breaking global systems US Steel-MP Materials-Intel 7-10-2025

- video_id: dxP__XWqCpo
- input_ord: 7
- summary: The speaker analyzes the breakdown of globalization and its impact on global economics and geopolitics. Using a framework of five critical factors—food, energy, technology, demographics, and security—they explain how countries now make strategic decisions. The analysis examines how globalized systems (food, energy, technology, underwater infrastructure, rare earth minerals) are fragmenting, requiring 5-10 years to rebuild. Three case studies illustrate this: US Steel's acquisition by Nippon Steel/Tokyo Gas securing energy access; MP Materials receiving government backing through DoD to boost magnet supplies; and Intel's survival through government intervention via the CHIPS Act. The speaker predicts governments will increasingly fund critical infrastructure projects due to insufficient private capital and profit margins, expanding the list of essential factors to include copper. This represents a fundamental shift from globalization to regional self-sufficiency.
- keywords: globalization breakdown, geopolitics, critical infrastructure, rare earth minerals, US Steel, Nippon Steel, Intel, MP Materials, energy security, government funding, supply chain, regionalization, strategic autonomy, CHIPS Act, semiconductor security
- topics: Geopolitical Shift from Globalization to Regionalism, Critical Supply Chain Security and Strategic Resources, Government Investment in Strategic Industries and Infrastructure

## Transcript

Language: en Three years ago with the advent of the Russia Ukrainian war, we felt and made videos that the age of globalization, we call it the great uh financial central bank era ended in 2019. And because globalization ended, we're ending into a new world of well, let's call it minimum regionalization. And then we had to look and say how were countries going to make their decisions for their country because in the old world you would sit there and say where am I going to buy it didn't matter how much am I going to pay for it and then how much does it cost to ship that was it they were the decisions countries made there was nothing else to make a decision about okay now that globalization is breaking down and we are breaking down rapidly we're starting to experience that geez We don't have everything. And so what I felt was we had to take a step back and break each country down to its basics. And the basics that a country has to ask and I'm talking about the prime minister or you know the MPs or the president or the dictator doesn't matter. Is my country food sufficient? Is it energy sufficient? Where's our technology? Do we have good technology? What are our demographics? Okay. And finally, security, which really comes under are we easy to attack. Okay, those will be the five factors that dominate the reasons why a country makes a decision. Now, the country is going to have to look around and judge themselves, judge their neighbors, and then figure out how they're going to move forward. Now in this world of globalization that we had for 80 years, certain things became globalized and the first four that we came up with was food, energy, technology and uh UCI, underwater critical infrastructure. And we felt that if globalization was breaking down, one or more if not all these systems will break. And if they break, given the way we set up the world, it's going to take individual countries or groups of countries five, seven, ten years to rectify the situation. It's not going to be able to re be rectified in a week or two. It's just not in the cards. Now, since then, as everyone knows, we've added um rare earth minerals as another factor that's breaking down, and we are right in the middle of that now. So when we look around and say, "Geez, the world is really changing. How can we invest in it?" So two years ago or so, we came out and we did several individual videos, one being on US Steel and the other one being on Intel. Okay? And then three days ago, we did one on MP materials for the rare earth minerals. But the one on US Steel was um I felt right away and said in my video this is going to happen. Biden came out and said this is not happening. Trump got elected he said this is not happening. Excuse me. And after they said that I said this will happen. US Steel was taking over at $55 a share. Well, how do we know that this was going to happen? I'm going to tell you why. because I judged it by the new world, not the old world. Everyone said Nippon Steel is going to take over US Steel so they can close all the mills and lay off all the people and get rid of the competition. Old world thinking doesn't count anymore. Old world thinking. So look at it from Nippon Steel's point of view. Nippon Steel says, "Geez, they're putting on terrorists." Okay. And uh the biggest thing though is energy. They have to import all their energy into Japan because they don't have gas and they run what we call arc furnaces which are the most advanced technology for steel in the world. And they only run on gas. And here you can see Nepon Steel buys LG at the highest price ever paid in Japan. So here you are, the world's breaking down. You need energy, specifically gas, okay? So that you can win. So what do they do? They bid for US Steel. And of course, we deny them right away. But in Japan, Nippon Steel has a partner, right? Cross ownership. It's called Tokyo Gas. And what did Tokyo Gas do in March of 2025, this year? They took over US shield company for $525 million which is being approved by the US government. So think of Nippon Steel strategy. One they don't want to be tariff coming into the United States but I believe that totally like second or third on their list. First is that we have gas. We have the cheapest gas in the world. And the cheapest gas in America is in Louisiana and Texas. And where did they buy? They bought in East Texas. So now you have um nippon steel buying US steel which the unions were against. Do you know why? Because the old furnaces, not the new technology, needs more people. And the union said, "Well, if they bring in arc, then we're going to have less people working." Of course, no one wants our steel because it's lowrade. You need the arc to do high-grade steel. It is what it is. So now Nippon Steel is going to come over here and they've already they paid 15 billion for the company. They're putting two or three billion into the arc furnaces. It's their own patented technology into US steel. And guess what? They own the gas company to run their mills. That's why it was going to go through because in the new world it makes total sense. Okay. Now, the other day we talked about um what's going on rare earth minerals and we went through all the patents and we said look if you think this space is investable then for for us we have MP material and as of in three days that's over 46 now I think you know it's up over 50%. But here's the deal. They're surging because the largest shareholder today is the US government through the DoD. And they're doing this to boost our magnet supply, which we need for our planes, our missiles, and our drones big time. And for NEV, we need this so badly. This is only the first one. There's going to be multiples of these going on. So then the third one was Intel. Okay. Now, there's no good news on Intel. Everything you read on it is horrific. Okay? There is no reason to buy Intel. None. Zero. They have more problems than anybody else in the world in our country. All right? But guess what? It's our only fat plan. It's our one and only fat plan. It's not going away. And through the chips act, either there'll be a consortium of companies that buy Intel so they all can share in it or the US government's going to come in and own a super. So think about it. US Steel government owns MP material government owns through the chip app Intel the government is going to own. And we said three years ago when we started this because of the indebtness of the Western world, the whole world, everybody. Okay? And because we are definitely breaking down and because we definitely need to secure certain items and there is not enough money and some of these things are not profitable. Rare earth minerals very low profit margin there's no company you can go to in the world and say hey come here build this and you know and make all the profit for you know in America there is no profit the US government has to fund it. So we said, listen, the governments are going to start funding the projects that they need to secure for their countries. Period. End of story. There's no other way around it because we just don't have enough money. Plus, let's be honest. If the government comes in and works with you and then they issue bonds to finance this, how are the bonds going to be rated? What's the interest rates going to be on them? Is it going to be as high as companies or as low as the governments or somewhere in between? I don't know. What do you think? Okay. So, when you look around at the world and you say, "What are the things we need?" We're going to add in another one. Okay. So, we said there were four, now there's five. We said food, energy, technology, UCI, and then rare earth minerals. And we're going to do a video later today on copper. And guess what? That's the next one. So, there are now six items. And I don't think it's going to be the end because what it is is we don't realize that we need this until it breaks. Okay? and rare earth mineral. It broke when China said, "Stop attacking Iran or we're going to cut you off." All right? And so that's why we stopped. So what do you think? Like and follow and tell me in the comments.


---

<a id="08_ytu6yk63mma"></a>

<!-- Source: 08_yTU6Yk63MMA.md -->

# Stanford Innovation Lab interview A new narrative - funding de-globalization thru new taxes 7-9-2025

- video_id: yTU6Yk63MMA
- input_ord: 8
- summary: This Stanford Innovation Lab interview discusses a new global economic narrative centered on de-globalization costs and wealth taxation. The speaker argues that de-globalization—including defense spending, reshoring, rare earth mineral development, and energy independence—requires unprecedented capital investment across developed nations. With government debt levels rising and bond yields climbing globally, countries face fiscal pressures requiring revenue generation. The emerging narrative predicts widespread tax increases targeting wealthy populations and potential attacks on tax havens. Examples cited include Switzerland's inheritance tax referendum (considering 50% on ultra-wealthy), Brazil's proposed 2% minimum tax on the super-rich, China's new property taxes, and the UK's debt crisis. The speaker emphasizes this is a developing hypothesis requiring data validation, arguing countries cannot sustain bond issuance at rising rates without new revenue sources.
- keywords: de-globalization, wealth taxation, government debt, bond yields, tax havens, inheritance tax, revenue crisis, property taxes, rare earth minerals, fiscal policy, economic narrative, developed nations, capital requirements, reshoring, sovereign debt
- topics: Global Taxation Policy and Wealth Redistribution, De-Globalization Economic Costs and Financing, Government Debt Crisis and Bond Market Dynamics

## Transcript

Language: en Today we're going to start off with a couple news items. First, I did two videos over the weekend, the sixth and the seventh. And um even though on X and on YouTube I'm getting a lot of discourse, I will say that Tik Tok has me in jail. I don't know what's going on. The sixth one after three days has like 400 views and uh seems like they opened up the seventh one a little bit. It's like a thousand views, but it's on rare earth minerals. Um, I would say I don't know why. I can't figure it out. It's it it is what it is. Okay. Second, some of my videos have been um watched by um well, in this case, Stanford Innovation Lab, which is a lab that helps people um adjust into how to figure out the new world as a corporation and how do you plan for it and so forth. Um I think they were attracted by my five factors and the um rare earth minerals videos. Uh so the interview is on Substack under the woman who interviewed me, Margarita. Margarita is a very accomplished professional. Um I totally enjoyed I think it was between two and two and a half hours, but she condensed it down. It's not that long, trust me, to read. But it really it's very interesting for me to read someone who interprets my conversations with them. So um I will post the link below this video and um you can follow Margarita on um Substack and I have joined Substack and I have one follower on Substack which is Margarita. So if you want to follow me on Substack, I'm going to start posting into there also. Now, I've been thinking that I'm going to have a new narrative uh because of the data points that I've been seeing throughout the world, but it's based upon um you know what we see, what we're talking about every single day, which is about the country's debt, which is one thing. Okay. The second thing is del globalization is causing countries to, you know, need to spend incredible amounts of money. Just look what Europe just did. And they're just doing the basics, okay? They're trying to get their defense industry up. They're trying to do some kind of data center stuff, but they're just starting to talk about rare earth minerals. And we also have energy problems. We have uh reshoring. All this stuff costs incredible amounts of money. And that is what the new narrative is. So here's one data point. Here are the pension funds uh that and their unfunded liabilities. All right. Now I understand this is Europe but this is you know let's say this is across the world. The point being is is that we are starting this delization process which is going to cost trillions and trillions of dollars across many many um uh expertises that we need to you know get our control of. So what is going to happen? How do we do that in today's world? Now, look, I understand this is about how our debt, the yield on our 30-year bonds, which is on the bottom, is going up. This is on um all the developed countries. Okay? And you can see that you the US, Canada, Germany, Japan, and UK are 30-year yields are going up. And then you can see how our stock markets are have been going straight up. Also, anybody who follows me knows that I believe that's a liquidity issue. But the point is is that this cannot continue long term. So what's the new narrative? First I want to say what's a narrative? It's a possibility. That's what it is. It's based on observation. That's all. We look for data points that say, "Hey, this could happen." All right? And if the data points don't come in, they don't come in and the narrative is no good. If the data points come in, then we interpret them into the narrative to see if it's a valid narrative. So the narrative is is that globally I think believe that the narrative is is that we're going to see around the world a lot of tax increases especially on the wealthy people. And two, uh, the other one that I'm going to be watching. I have no data points on this is that all these tax havens around the world where the super rich hide all their money, I think they're going to um come under attack, too. Now, look, I know the people are rich, they can do what the hell they want and so forth and so on, but this is what I believe is the new narrative, and now we're going to watch it to see if it's actually true. Now, we just did the video on the UK um blowing up their budget when they did then their decision was is not to tax the rich, but to cut five billion and health benefits to the poorest people in England fell apart and now they have a $5 billion hole and now they're talking about gez, you know, we're open to higher UK taxes on the wealthy because their debts out of control, their rates are rate, their 30-year rates are racing up. So they have to do something. So now you have cuts and then you have new taxes. Who are you going to tax? When you know like in our country in the US that 1% of the people, less than 1% of the people on 50% of the wealth, who are we going to tax? We're going to tax the poor people. But look what we just did. We did tax the poor people and gave the oligarchs of America a tax cut. So, how long does this last? We'll see. Again, it's a narrative. It's a possibility. Now, here's in Switzerland, they have an inheritance tax referendum. Spooks the Swiss super rich. Now, when you say tax referendum, remember in um Switzerland, the people vote. Okay? So, just like we just saw UBS where they increased uh their capital requirements, that was voted on by the Swiss people and the Swiss people said yes, we want them to have more capital in their bank. There's nothing UBS can do about it. And now they're going to vote on the inheritance tax for the super rich. And they're not messing around. They are considering a 50% inheritance tax for the ultra wealthy in the November referendum. All right. It's a lot. Also being proposed out of Brazil, I believe, okay, is a 2% a minimum 2% tax for the super rich. And you say, "What's the super rich?" Well, it's literally 3,000 families, 3,000 people. That's what they're looking at, a 2% tax on 3,000 people. And we're not the only ones who have a tax problem. Even in China, they need to raise revenues. Um, it's hard to discern China's debt levels because remember they push it down. They have their whatever they call their regions or their states. They borrow the money, not the nationals. But for the first time in China's history, they're looking to put a tax on property. And they're going to do it several ways. Either 1.2% on the original value or 12% on the rental income. And then they have deed taxes. They're going to put in land depreciation tax also exist. So in other words, China is going to start taxing who are their rich people in China which are the uh property owner. But it's actually across the world from Brazil, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, France. Notice all these western countries, they need the money. But we're not the only ones, right? I mean, what are they going to do in Japan where they have literally they do have a 270% GDP debt level? Okay. So, so what are we going to be watching this new narrative is taxes on the wealthy and which is the one that really interests me is what are we going to do with these tax havens, right? the aisle of man, you know, Cyprus, Luxembourg, these guys are not going to be able to, I think, withstand the demands of the country's needs for uh revenue uh because they won't be able to issue more bonds. The reason you're not going to be able to issue more bonds is every time you try to issue more, people are going to sell down your existing bonds and so that means you have to refinance at a higher rate. I know here in America we're faced Trump wants 1% and so forth. We'll see how that works out. But the truth of the matter is is our long bonds are going up in yield. They're not going down in yield. And with the dollar diving as fast as it is, we're also we have to come up with a new way to raise revenues. What do you think? Tell me in the comments and like and


---

<a id="09_m8oklaihd9y"></a>

<!-- Source: 09_M8OkLAIHD9Y.md -->

# Five Factors The Eagle - Rising Sun - The Dragon - Realignment in the New World Part 1： 7-12-2025

- video_id: M8OkLAIHD9Y
- input_ord: 9
- summary: This video analyzes Japan's geopolitical positioning through a framework of five critical factors: food security, energy independence, technology capability, demographics, and military security. The speaker argues that the post-WWII era of American naval dominance is ending, forcing countries to reassess their strategic alignments based on what they can control and secure. Using comparative analysis of Japan, China, and the United States across these five dimensions, the discussion examines Japan's difficult choice between aligning with China (the Dragon) or America (the Eagle) in a new 15-year transition period. Key considerations include Japan's food and energy dependencies, China's STEM graduate advantage despite demographic challenges, and the geopolitical implications of these structural factors on international partnerships and global realignment.
- keywords: geopolitical realignment, food security, energy independence, Japan strategy, China vs America, STEM demographics, naval power, technology capability, international partnerships, supply chain security, strategic planning, LNG trade, global transition, resource dependency, East Asia alignment
- topics: Geopolitical Realignment in Post-American Naval Dominance Era, Five-Factor Framework for National Strategic Assessment (Food, Energy, Technology, Demographics, Security), Japan's Strategic Dilemma: Alignment with China or the United States

## Transcript

Language: en So it's Saturday and um people commentators have been asking me to comment basically on one thing Japan but one looking at through the five factors and the other one was um why is the Japanese yen uh going down against the dollar when the dollar is going down against all the other currencies. So, we're going to talk about these two things, but I'm going to say today's video is going to be about the five factors and then I'll do one on um what's going on with them financially uh with the and so forth because the carry trade. We all know this. Anyone who follows me knows this. Okay. But let's talk about the five factors. Now this is what we believe that countries when I say countries, your presidents, your dictators, your PMs, all your diets, your congresses, this is what we're going to have to deal with because remember something, the last error, you know, from 45 to 2019, the one thing that was the constant was that American naval power dominated the world, people made the decision strictly on what do I want to buy, where is it, how much does it cost, and how much does it cost to ship because we would not allow anyone to basically sink the ships. Okay, so that's ending. And and if you don't know why that the world is never going to go back the way it was, it's because our Navy now can no longer uh monitor the world. And I just saw a video today and a guy said, "Geez, it's unbelievable. You know, we can't even handle the hoodies." And I totally agree with that. So the five factors, we have to now break down the countries to what they can do. All right? What can they control? So this new era is going to be be dominated by two words. Secure and control. There are the two words. Okay? If you don't secure what you need and then control it, you're you're going to be in trouble. All right? So, uh I also want to say here, these are big areas. Food, energy, technology. Generalizations are only true when you're generalizing and I'm generalizing. And the second thing I want to say is remember something. As you know, we're heading into a 15y year minimum 15 year transition. So countries are going to have one, three, five, 10, 15 year plans um to do what they think they need to do in the new world. Okay? And we'll discuss that in in as we go through this. So let's take a look at the five factors for Japan. Are they food independent? They are not. Are they energy independent? They are not. Are their technology good? First class, world class. Demographics very bad. Security? Yes, they got a good navy. They're an island. They got good technology. They're hard to attack. China, are they food sufficient? They are not. Are they energy sufficient? They are not. Their technology world class. In the last 10 years, they went from second tier to first tier. Remember manufacturing there's generally three levels 3 to one. Three is you know I'll say like a Vietnam. Two is a Mexico. One will be United States, China, Japan, Germany, that type of thing. Okay. Uh, China's demographics, no, they're not good. And they seem to be getting a lot worse. But you can listen to Peter Zahan on that. And their security, incredibly difficult to attack Japan. Now, America, are we food sufficient? Yes. Are we energy sufficient? Yes. Technology, top tier. demographics. We're the best in the west from immigration and security incredibly difficult to attack us, right? Yet across the Atlantic or the Pacific, not happening. All right? Now, when I talk about being independent, America imports incredible amounts of food. All right? But we produce more than we import. So, in other words, when I'm saying I'm generalizing, I'm generalizing. Just like with energy, yes, we import over 4 million barrels from uh Canada every day. We bring in some Venezuela heavy so we can give it to our our uh our uh refiners. But again, we're energy independent, quote unquote. Okay, I'm generalizing. So, here's food. Look at Japan now. You you're the head of Japan. You got to make up your mind. And you see who has the food. Now you can see Russia's blue. They're very big exporter of food. But if you study what Russia does, Russia sends their food basically um down through the Middle East and down into Africa. This is their markets. All right? America is a tremendous exporter of uh wheat, corn, soybean, so forth. All right? Uh and when you look at Australia, they're different. They do cattle and sheep, which is fine. I'm just saying they're net exporters of food. So now when you're Japan and you sit there and say, "Who am I going to choose? Am I going to choose the eagle or the dragon?" So the first thing you ask them is, "Well, if I need food, is China going to send me food?" You have to answer that question. Okay. So what about imported energy? So if you're Japan here, you look over here in that thing. It says JPN, they import 87%. Okay? And you can see who are um importers and who are exporters. Russia is an exporter. Uh Ukraine is an exporter. America is an exporter. Brazil is an exporter and so is Australia. Australia sends a lot of coal to China. Okay? So it's all different. We're just saying are you energy independent? And if you're not, if you're going to sign a deal with whatever partner you're going to choose, can they send you the energy that you need so that you can be successful as a country? You have to answer that question. So, we see that Russia is an exporter, but notice where all their pipelines go. They go west. They haven't even finished the one going east. Um, I think it's going to open up very soon. The Chinese and the Russians are fighting over the price now. Okay. So you can see if you're Japan, can you actually count on them sending you the energy? You have to make up your mind. So you can look around and say, well, you know, who's the biggest gas, which is what Japan uses, by the way, have nuclear and gas basically. And you can see Qar is number one. They have 70 LG, but number two actually is in Japan. They operate a large LG fleet. And what Japan did about 10-15 years ago is they started buying gas fields around the world and then building the LNG U ships to bring it back to Japan. Okay. But as you're making up your mind on who you're going to cut your deal with, here are your energy exporters. So there's roughly 195 countries. 150 are net energy importers. So you have to look to the exporters as your possible partners and the importers the biggest ones in the world top three China, Japan and India. Now on technology I understand either you have it or you don't or you can build it. But I'm going to put these two things together. I'm going to put technology and demographics together. And here's the reason why I think we're moving into a new world that's going to be dominated by technology. Everyone says it's going to be the new AI era, whatever, right? Robots, so forth and so on. So technology is going to be big and that means you're going to need a lot of STEM students, right? So when you look around the world, China is graduating 4.7 million STEM students per year. United States is about 800,000 and that goes down from there, right? I think we're number two. So, if you're China and you have a demographic problem and you need to import people, is it more likely that you're going to get STEM students from the United States or you going to get them from China? Okay, this is something that people are going to have to make up their minds with. And you can see in Japan already, China, I mean, Japan does not take a lot of immigrants, right? But they're starting to bring in workers. And they're now about, you know, I think between 50 and 100,000 STEM workers, mostly from uh Japan and some from South Korea that are, excuse me, mostly from China and South Korea that are coming. These other people are just doing the regular jobs because frankly Japan's population is so old and they just don't have a lot of people. And here's the fertility rates in the world. Um I know people don't really pay attention to this, but in my personal opinion, this is going to be the one of the biggest issues we face over the next 20 years. And um we can do a whole series on just fertility, but I would say this is going to be an issue. So now you're the prime minister of Japan. Who do you cut your deal with? Do you go with China, who you fought? They hate you. The South Koreans hate you. The North Koreans hate you. or do you cut it with America and look what America is doing to you, which we're going to discuss in the next video. Can you survive America and what they're doing to you today? So like and follow, tell me in the comments.


---

<a id="10_egrzxgde9eg"></a>

<!-- Source: 10_eGrZxGDe9Eg.md -->

# The Eagle and the setting Sun ＂politics is the reconciliation of conflicting interests＂ 7-13-2025

- video_id: eGrZxGDe9Eg
- input_ord: 10
- summary: This analysis examines Japan's economic vulnerability amid Trump administration tariffs, focusing on five critical factors shaping policy decisions. The speaker highlights Japan's unprecedented debt burden (400% of GDP), demographic decline, and the massive yen carry trade ($4-7 trillion) as systemic risks. Tariffs will pressure the yen downward while the US demands its appreciation—a contradictory position forcing difficult choices. The Bank of Japan faces an impossible balancing act: raising interest rates risks doubling budget deficits and destabilizing bonds, yet inaction allows yen depreciation. Japan must choose between accepting unfavorable US terms, risking economic collapse, or rejecting tariffs and negotiating alternative deals. This situation positions Japan as a potential 'canary in the coal mine' for global financial instability.
- keywords: Japan economy, Trump tariffs, yen carry trade, debt crisis, interest rates, demographic decline, Bank of Japan, currency manipulation, financial repression, global economic risk, trade negotiations, monetary policy, bond markets
- topics: International Trade and Tariff Policy, Global Financial System Vulnerability, Monetary Policy and Central Banking

## Transcript

Language: en Okay, let do the second part on Japan. As everyone knows, I do these free form and today I've had no form. I've done this way too many times. So hopefully this one is semi-coherent because I'm going to go with it. Okay, so listen, yesterday we went over the five factors because of delobbalization that people are going to have to make their decisions. You're going to have to factor these things in, okay? But every country ex has been in existence before Trump started tariffing everybody and everyone has their own financial situation. Some good some bad some terrible. Okay. So really what we want to think about is given the country whoever it is in this case Japan situation, how does the Trump tariffs affect this country in the sense of do they reject the terms that we give them? Um do they accept them or do they cut another deal with somebody else? Because what we are asking of Japan is I would say fairly ownorous and this is why we know that Japan has the most debt in the world. It's a fact their government you know depends on who you look at 235 to 265 so we'll say 250 but they have 400% of GDP all in between people corporations and the government the US is 250 just as a place look you can stop and read this on your own so the first point of contention that Japan has to deal with is they have all this debt the second is their demographics which are pretty bad. Actually, some of the worst in the world. All right. And this has a lot to do with the social contract. You know, we talk about demographics. Everyone says, "Well, in 20 years, in 20 years, listen, the social contract that exists in every single country um is going to break down way before 20 years because of our inability right now to finance it out of let's say cash flow. And so most of it's done through debt. So when you look around the world and you say what could be the canaries in the coal mine to the financial services financial structure of the globe I should say I would say two countries the as canaries not that they're the worst but they're the canaries the first one would be the UK Britain okay and they have the issue with issuing more debt um to fulfill all their obligations that they're trying to too and they're they're having their issues and we'll discuss them another day. But to me, I watch them to give me indication what's going to happen to other people, other countries. And if you watch what's going on there right now, they have some real issues. The second one, probably the biggest one, is Japan, and that is because of the Japanese uh yen carry trade. Uh this is a huge trade. So, as we said before, it's between four and seven trillion dollars. And this when you say why is this big is because if the yen carry trade breaks that means there's no reason for the investment world around the globe because everyone does it to buy BOJ Bank of Japan bonds their government bonds they're going to lose five four to seven trillion dollars and they can't afford that. Trust me they can't. All right. You already see their debt levels. they won't be able to roll their debt and then how are they going to maintain their social contract. So when you look and you say wow um they have the yen has been moving down now um and the reason that it's been moving down is because we the US are going to put tariffs on um on Japan which means that they're going to slow down the economy and by slowing down the economy uh then the yen goes down and that's something that the Americans are putting a tremendous pressure on Japan on one they we've already told them we weren't at 130 or higher. Okay. And uh we're 147. We're a long way away. And if we did go to 130 125, it would break the Japanese yen trade which would literally virtually practically you know sink the Japanese economy. All right. So then the next thing is is the interest rates. So the tariffs are coming on an outside force which is going to slow down the economy. And then you sit there and say we want you to have a higher yen and that's your responsibility to get it higher. So do they raise their interest rates? And you have to remember something. The growth rate in Japan is about 710 of 1%. It's the first time it's been positive in forever, right? So now because of the US demands, are they going to raise their interest rates to protect the yen? I don't know. Would you do that? They're also facing pressure because people see this happening and it's being where we see this the most is in their 30-year bond. This is their 30-year bond. Now, I want to say here in 2021, around 2022, they brought in UIA, an academic, to be the Bank of Japan's new head, you know, Dur Powell. And he was brought in for one reason, one reason only. He said he was going to normalize the rates who for nine or 10 years had been negative and when you really go back it goes back literally 1991 where they've been doing QE and you know doing financial repression. So you can see here when UIA came in and started going through the process of normalizing the trying to normalize the Japanese rates. You can see what happened with the 30-year. Now it's important to note we've said this many many times the central banks can control the short end. They can't control the long end. And just as an aside, look at what um Trump always talks about lowering the interest rate 3% on the short end because that's the only thing that the central bank can do. Whether it's the right thing to do or not doesn't matter in in this discussion. I'm just saying that's where it wants to cut. So Japan is trying to normalize. They finally got a small growth rate. They actually have inflation again. 3 point depends on how you look at it. Street.7 when you take out food, but food's going up like between 11 and 12% in Japan. It's 3%. You see where their rates are. So they have negative rates. Their rates are 25 basis points. They're short rates. So basically they're negative 3% in real interest rates. All right, that's where they are today. So they know if they raise their interest rates, geez, I guess 4%, they can't do that. They raise it 1% they double this year's budget deficit 1% because their debt's so big. All right. So they are walking an extremely fine line. And Yuida said before he wanted to raise the rates and he had a plan to raise the rates but when Trump came in and the tariffs came in that obviously went to the side because now the tariffs are going to hurt the economy. And since the Japanese already own a large percent of their stock market and I think 50 to 55% of their bonds, their government bonds, um QE is I don't know. Is that really an option now? I don't know. I really don't. So here's the question that we have to ask ourselves given the five factors and given where Japan is as an economy which is very very um you know tough spot and not only that to the fourth largest economy everyone in the world is in the encarry trade uh this is a huge issue so Japan an now has to sit there and say if we do what the Americans want us to do, we will sink the economy, blow up our bonds, and totally blow up the yen and maybe end the yen carry trade, which could have repercussions across the globe. Or we can say no, take our hit on the tariffs and then go cut a deal with somebody else to see if we can't get a better deal. I don't know. What do you think? What would you do? Tell me in the comments and like and


---

<a id="11_devajhp2dfq"></a>

<!-- Source: 11_DevajHP2DfQ.md -->

# One of the great mistakes is to judge a policy by it's intention rather than their results 7-14-2025

- video_id: DevajHP2DfQ
- input_ord: 11
- summary: The video analyzes Japan's emerging role as an economic competitor to the United States, particularly regarding bond yields and currency strength. The speaker discusses how Japan's 30-year bond yield (3.17%) now rivals US treasuries for the first time in decades, creating a viable alternative for global institutional investors. He explains the implications of US dollar weakness, Japanese yen appreciation, and rising interest rates in Japan, arguing that major capital flows may shift away from US debt markets. The analysis connects tariff policies, geopolitical tensions, and monetary policy to suggest that governments must offer higher yields to attract investment, fundamentally reshaping global capital allocation patterns.
- keywords: Japan bond yields, US treasury competition, Japanese yen, currency geopolitics, interest rates, institutional capital flows, dollar weakness, JGB yields, monetary policy, tariffs, global capital markets, 30-year bonds, central banks, yield differentials, financial markets
- topics: Global monetary geopolitics and currency competition, Bond markets and interest rate dynamics, US-Japan economic relations and trade tensions

## Transcript

Language: en So today I like to thank uh the people who comment because all last week I kept getting this stuff on Japan and you made me work over the weekend. I put it together and then on Sunday everything explodes around the world. Guess what on Japan? So what's everyone saying? So Financial Time has a huge article today. I'm not going to publish it all um or put it up here, but basically all the stuff we were talking about, they believe that this is a error redefining, okay, a reset with the United States. They do not say how it's going to come down at all. Now, for the people who follow me, we did the five factors on Japan, and I believe that the five factors clearly show, in my very humble opinion, that they're going to have to cut a deal with the United States. Now, and again, remember how we started that whole video off, countries are going to have one year, three year, five year, 10 year plans. Um, I'm not worried about the one-year plan. It's it's down the road. This is not, you know, we're not solving for the next six months. It's that's not the issue. We're solving for the new error that we're end entering into. And this error is going to be transitioning for the next 15 years. So, I understand. Yes. And all the commentators that are saying that they have to cut a deal with this, I agree a thousand%. Couldn't agree more with you. But that's not what I'm worried about. Okay. So, the lead story on the Asian Times today is guess what? That uh tariff man trashes Japan 2025. Why Trump's tariffs could hurt Japan. I didn't post this one. You can go to Asia Times, but guess what? It's all what we talked about Saturday and Sunday. It It's almost verbatim. Okay. So again, I'm not the only one, nor were the commentators asking me to comment. That's the only ones who noticed what's going on. So then when you look at this, you know, you say we have a lot of cards in our hands, the Americans. Okay, I get it. But look at Japan. All right. One, they're the biggest holder of US treasuries. Two, they have the most bases, 12 the most um armed forces of America, 50 to 60,000. They're our number one deterrent against China and um we are hurting them. As you can see, I'm not the only one saying this. So, do they have the ability um to put together a you know, security, trade, and uh you know, all this other stuff. and have a a good deal cut for them. I don't know. Uh when you read the articles, uh especially in Japan right now, they're in no mood to talk to us. So, we'll see what happens. But some other people came out and commented on things that we did not talk about yesterday. See, we talked about it, but we talked about it in a roundabout way, and that is the 30-year bond. So, the 30-year bond today. Now, they have it here at at 314 and a half. Well, it's 317. Okay, yesterday when we did the video, if you remember, we were like 304. Okay, so this is a huge move. And this is the highest level seen since 2000. And you can see here today that we have now superseded the high, right? And you say, you know, so what? they're going up. Okay, so let's think about this for a second. Let's just say on January 1st, you owned the US Treasury B 30-year and or 10 year at U 440, okay? And now here we are six months later, you have earned half, so 220, okay, on your bond. And guess what? You just lost 12% on the US dollar. So you just lost nine and a half percent. So when you think of big institutions investing throughout the world, which we have said, it's not you and me, it doesn't matter. We're talking to people who invest a trillion dollars, 800 billion, and all this other stuff. when they look around and they're holding the US dollar and then they look at the Japanese yen and they sit there and say, "Well, listen, the US wants the dollar to go down. Um, the Japanese certainly don't want the yen to go up too high, but it's going to go up." All right? And before the tariffs, um, you uda, the boj guy had laid out he's going to be raising the interest rates. So, think about the compare comparison that you have. you have now a 317 yield on a the fourth largest currency in the world. Okay? So, i.e. good liquidity. The big institutions are used to dealing in the yen because there's not one institution in the world that's not in the end carry trade. And so, for the first time in maybe 30 or 40 years, we now have a competitor to the US uh 10-year bond or long bonds. And guess what? It's the Japanese yen. And so this has huge implications because one, if you're Japanese, and we all know they're one of the we're talking about people, institutions, insurance companies, they're some of the biggest holders of US uh government bond. So why wouldn't they sell them since the US government is definitely driving down the dollar? You have the Japanese yen which is going to go up because the American authorities are demanding that the Japanese yen goes up. You have UDIDA who wants to raise the interest rates because they have a 30 three.7 inflation rate and the rates are you know whatever 25 basis point uh 150 on the 10-year and 317 now on the 30-year so they have negative real rates wherever you look. So I would say the rates are going to go up. The yen is going to go up with the dollar administration is screaming they want the rates to go down and more importantly they want the dollar to go down. So are we now going to be faced with really stiff competition for the dollar? And remember something everybody in the world knows that everyone's trying to get out of Tina. There is no other alternative when it comes to the dollar. But the dollar is being sold as we know by all the central banks, all the big institutions, and it's not a lot, but it's putting pressure on the dollar. I I don't know Endgame um macro. I do follow him. I do read him. He writes long missives. He's I think, you know, he seems to be very knowledgeable. Where he came from, who he is, I I'll be honest, I do not know. But I do read him and I thought what he wrote yesterday was interesting and last night and this is what he said. You know, hey, the Japanese 30-year bond breaking above 3.1, it's now 3.17 is a globally destabilizing signal. For the first time in decades, Japan is offering long yields y long end yields that rival US treasuries. That shift matters because global capital, especially institutional capital, this is what we're talking about, the big big money, is ultimately yield sensitive and opportunistic. And while Japan has historically never absorbed sustained flows away from the US debt market, this moment is different. Their yield curve is deanchoring towards the exact moment the US faces massive issuance needs and weakening foreign demand, which is what we have said before. And as we stated, um, uh, the Treasury is, they're going to just be issuing four, six, and eight week bills, um, because it's thick, as they say. That's where the demand is, not on the long end. They don't want to pressure the long end. And so, they're not going to be issuing any long-term bond. Remember, this percent was the one who criticized uh, Yellen for doing 23% short end. He wants to do basically 100%. So he believes that because of the JGB yields, we're entering a new phase of monetary geop politics. It's not just about interest rates. It's about yield differentials and liquidity illusions. And so we have to adapt to this fact that we now have a healthy competitor for our yields. Now, one of the base tenants that we've had on this channel is is that all the governments need money, right? Remember that video? And so thereby, they will pay up to get that money, i.e. with interest. So, what do you think? Are interest rates going down? Are people going to leave us and go to the yen? What do you think? Tell me in the comments and like and follow. And by the way, thank you for making me look into the yen.


---

<a id="12_auuznuwha08"></a>

<!-- Source: 12_AuUzNuWHA08.md -->

# From bipolar to multipolar flexibility Europe, Russia and China and the Five Factors  7-28-2025

- video_id: AuUzNuWHA08
- input_ord: 12
- summary: This analysis examines geopolitical realignment from bipolar to multipolar world structures, focusing on Europe, Russia, and China through 2040. The commentator argues current trade deals represent old-world transitions with limited immediate impact due to entrenched supply chains requiring 5-10 years to restructure. Five critical factors—food, energy, technology, demographics, and security—will determine national alignments. Europe faces severe demographic challenges, while Russia possesses food and energy resources. The presenter predicts European-Russian-Ukrainian integration as economically inevitable, with China likely claiming Eastern Russia. Spain, Italy, and Greece may orient toward Mediterranean-North African interests. Real-world geopolitics, driven by economic necessity rather than ideology, will reshape traditional alliances regardless of political rhetoric.
- keywords: geopolitical realignment, multipolar world order, Europe Russia China relations, supply chain restructuring, demographics crisis, food security, energy independence, Eurasia integration, strategic resources, rare earth minerals, NATO evolution, regional blocs, economic necessity, power consolidation, long-term forecasting
- topics: Global Geopolitical Realignment and Power Consolidation, Economic and Resource-Driven Strategic Alliances, Demographic Crisis and Its Geopolitical Implications

## Transcript

Language: en commentators been asking me what do I think about the Japanese deal and now of course we have the EU deal on the table and um this is what I believe I believe that it doesn't matter about these deals and I'll explain why first um these deals are about the old world yes it's our first foray into what the new world is going to look like but think about it a country cannot change their supply chains the contracts they signed, the shipping, all these things are been lined up for years and years and years. There's no way that a country has the ability of saying in three months, you know, you know, America, we're not going to deal with you. We're going to go another way. They don't have that capability. It's literally impossible. It's impractical. So thereby, what they do is they try to mitigate what is happening now, the first year or two years. And when you look down, you say, well, how long is this going to take them to, let's say, get in position? I'm going to say minimum three to five years, probably five to 10 years. Then we'll know. So I would say any of these deals today, we're working with a major advantage, the US is because they can't change that fast. They just can't. Five years from now, we're going to find out if these deals made sense, if it's the right thing to do, and so forth and so on. But right now, I would say this is kind of like the transition, old world, new world, the very first thing ever done. And I don't think these countries have really any good options. Um, China, you know, just got another 90 days. There is no doubt in my mind that the 90 days comes because of rare earth minerals. And now they're saying Trump's looking for the grand deal. He needs a grand deal. I saw a ex general army general last week go I don't think we'd declare a war for seven or eight years uh because of um and and I was like I was kind of taken back that our general would say that even though an exjger general if you know how the military is run they are all connected but then two days later in the stars and stripes that which is the mouthpiece of our military what comes out stars and stripes says that we actually literally cannot declare war for the next eight years. So, um that's why China's getting another 90 days. They're going to look for a grand agreement so we can get REM. Okay. Now, what I want to do today is say, okay, given that we can't really judge what's going on with these deals, and we can't. They're just, you know, there these things that we win, they lose, they're, you know, it meaningless. Meaningless. Here's the question. What is Europe going to look like in 2040, right? This is what we want to know. And because then everyone's going to have time to make the moves. And I believe that we should look at this according to the five factors. Okay? And the five factors are food, energy, technology, demographics, and um are we easy to attack? Security. Okay. So all the countries will make their decisions based on those five factors. In my mind, the biggest issue facing the Europeans are their demographics. They're horrific. And these countries are I mean this is going to be a issue much sooner than people think. People look at demographics and we think in 20ear terms. Okay. But look at Spain and Italy and Greece. Basically, they need each one of them a million and a half to two million people under the age of 25 per year for 20 years to maintain their population levels. To maintain their population levels, Germany short about five and a half million workers, trained workers. We're not talking about people who sweep the streets. We're talking about, you know, skilled workers. They don't have it anymore. So demographics is going to be a huge issue for everybody. So here's the map for uh NATO countries and again I don't believe there is any political treaty or military treaty that exists that actually exist. There a name but they don't exist anymore. You can agree or disagree. So here's the countries that use the euro. Okay. So they use the euro but they're not in the EU. here are the countries in the EU. So you can now see how do you solve this Rubik cube of different competing interests uh competing organization and actually there's no overall organization that actually counts uh because each country is separate. Look what Spain's going through now. They're using Huawei um and Europe is going wild. America is going wild. But you know, I mean, the truth of the matter is is that, think about this. In Europe, every country is responsible for their own security. They they are not the Euro. They're not Europeans. They're still separate countries. Now, I just believe that Euro, the Europeans, and the Russians are intertwined for the future because it makes too much sense. When you look at Russia, what do they bring? They bring food and energy and they got a good amount of people, but they're still their demographics are just as bad. They're just a little bigger than other countries. Okay? And so, um, I believe when you look at the Europeans, what do they need? They need food and energy. Who has food and energy? The Ukraine and the Russians. Okay? To me, if I was Europeans, I'd be in Ukraine already. But I believe as time goes on that the Russians and the Ukrainians and the Europeans will come together. Name your country. Pan Eurasia, pan European raia, I don't care. Um but they will be together because together they can solve for the five factors. So thereby I think it'll happen. So you can see Europe here in the left and you can see where Russia goes all the way to the other side. I just want to say this. At the end of World War II, towards the end, the United States was just fighting Japan and we were begging the Russians to attack into um China because the Japanese had a million soldiers there. Uh and we needed them to put some pressure on them. They waited till after the nuke and then the Russians went in and stole a bunch of territory from the Chinese. And I don't think the Chinese have forgotten that whatsoever. And when you look at the population map of Russia, you can see the population density is all in the west. All right? And so I think that um the far east for the Russians is not going to exist much longer. And in fact is there's been a um a leaked uh FSB report and they come out and they say that they believe the Russians believe that the number one threat to Russia is China taking um Eastern Russia from the Russians. And here you can go through and see what they say, but this is what they believe up here in the red. that little thing that's the Euro mountains. Okay. So there's nobody we already saw that that lives on the on the eastern side of that. I think the Russians along with the Europeans will defend this line and then this part of the world will be able to solve among themselves the five factors. They will have food, energy, technology. They will be hard to attack and their population is something has to be figured out. But let's put it this way, they're better together than they are apart. In fact, if you're reading the news today, you'll see that Putin said, "You're paying like three and a half times for the LNG from America when we can give you the cheap gas or the Nordstream." Look, it just makes economic sense. I understand the politics. I understand Russians are bad, we're good, and all this other stuff doesn't matter in the end. It's real politics and real politics are driven by need of economics. And the economics are the five factors. That's what everyone has to solve for. And so when you look around and you go China, let's take Taiwan, why would you take that? Uh look what you did with Hong Kong was perfect. And I think they just move in and take eastern Russia from the Russians. I don't think anything's going to stop them. Nothing at all. So 15 years from now, I think China will have that. Russia will be back at the Euro. The Russians and the Europeans and Ukrainians will be one. Um I'm not sure on the bifurcation. I think Spain, Italy, and Greece will go the Mediterranean, Northern African way, but that remains to be seen. So, what do you think? Are we going to be just talking oldtime politics or we going to talk about what's going to happen in the new world? Tell me in the comments. Like and follow. And thank you for listening.


---

<a id="13_xgfjgpyljlm"></a>

<!-- Source: 13_XGfjgpYLJlM.md -->

# Update  Domino Thoughts on Russian and US Empires pullbacks and MADD Malacca Straits Policy 8-3-2025

- video_id: XGfjgpYLJlM
- input_ord: 13
- summary: The speaker provides a personal update on Domino's recovery from injury, then discusses geopolitical shifts regarding Russian and American empire pullbacks. He explains that Russia, as a land empire, must focus on defensible territories, while the US, a naval empire, cannot maintain its 850 global bases. The core focus is the Malacca Strait's strategic importance: China faces the 'Malacca dilemma' as a potential chokepoint for its energy and food supplies, while it builds artificial islands in the South China Sea to create mutual deterrence. The speaker predicts China may target Eastern Russia's resources, while Europe and Russia could form a strategic alliance. He references Valina's statement about Europe's critical moment and frames global challenges around five key factors: energy, technology, food security, borders, and demographics. He argues that North America (US, Canada, Mexico) is best positioned to secure these factors and remain economically dominant regionally.
- keywords: Malacca Strait, geopolitical strategy, Russian Empire, American naval power, South China Sea, energy security, strategic deterrence, regional economics, demographic challenges, Europe-Russia alliance, power projection, mutual assured destruction, five factors framework, global empires, resource competition
- topics: Geopolitical Strategy and Empire Dynamics, Strategic Maritime Chokepoints and Naval Power, Regional Alliances and Economic Security Factors

## Transcript

Language: en Well, today's Sunday and give a little update on Domino. Um, you know, it's been quite quite the journey. He is hurt. Um, it's hard to explain. He can he can take a couple steps now. Uh, very uh very wobbly. Um, you know, you learn how he was hurt badly even though I have no idea how it happened. So, yes, he's getting better. Um, but I and under the impression it's going to be a long journey. So, we'll see how it goes. I'll keep you updated. So, I want to talk about my European Russian thing. Got a lot of comments, especially from Russians. And um but the thing is is that people um kind of indicate that they believe that I'm like pro-USA and anti-Russian and this is why I made that statement. Nothing further could be from the truth. Look it, the Russian Empire and the American Empire are pulling back. Doesn't matter. Okay. The Russian Empire is a land empire. And so you have to look to where they can defend themselves. All right. Secondly, the American Empire is a naval empire, the greatest one ever seen on the planet Earth. and our infrastructure for our naval empire are all these bases around the world 850 bases. So we do not have the navy to maintain this any longer. So as I keep saying to everybody is we really the discussion we really need to be having is where do we pull back to? Okay and I mean where do we pull back to? We are a global power. It is obvious we are a global power. The question is where do we pull back to? So here's the Mala Straits over here on the left between Malaysia and Singapore over here. And then this is the South China Sea on the other side. And so we can block the Chinese getting any food and energy through the Malaa street. Right? And the Chinese call this the Malaa dilemma. they will never be a global power until they can solve this. So, you know, we could put a nuclear submarine at one end and we can block it. So, the real question is is what is China doing to offset this? And here's what they're doing in the South China Sea with the Spratley Islands and so forth. So, you can see up here in the lefthand corner, think about it this way. If and they are doing this, right? They're building out these islands. They're putting airfields on them. They're putting missiles on them. So, I look at this as almost like they're trying to create with the Mala Strait a MAD a mutually a uh destruction um situation. In other words, we will stop them from going in and out of the Malaca Straits and they will stop us from going into the South Chinese Sea. And so when this happens over the next let's say five years or so then when you think about it from China's point of view and the five factors they then will see that uh taking eastern Russia with its farmland oil and gas and rare earth minerals that will be the move. That's all I'm saying. And then for Russia and Europe coming together it just makes so much sense. It's just ridiculous how much sense it makes. So, I guess I'm betting on common sense uh for the Europeans. And let's look at what Valina said this morning. So, now Valina says, "This is the make orb breakak moment for Europe." Okay. Now, remember the five factors and remember what we said. We're going to be, you know, the big words of the new world. We want to control, right? We want to secure. We have to secure energy. We have to secure technology. We have to secure uh food. We have to secure our borders. All these things are the new world because under the old world of globalization, we did it for everybody. Okay? Now look at what she says here. And though whether she's right, wrong or indifferent actually doesn't matter. Okay? Everything has a little bit of truth and everything is a little bit of right. Everything is a little bit of wrong. Doesn't matter. But look at the words that she's using. First one ensure okay guarantee energy secure energy mix restore competitiveness uh raise the retirement age to 70 this is all about demographics okay have social benefits demographics invest in child care and education infrastru demographics okay and by the way you can start paying people this morning to have babies where they're not going to be in the workforce for another 25 years not a lot of help Okay. And then um and then of course one rearm for our defense capability especially in central and eastern Europe. So you can see whether people realize that we're talking about the five factors. Okay. They intuitively know that this is the challenge that we all have going forward. All right. And I would say that um solving for the five factors will be everybody's goal. Now, I have said when I first started this three years ago that I believe that Canada, Mexico, and the United States, not only do they solve the five factors together, they are an incredible economic force. And I believed at that time, and I said, and I still do, I don't know how we're going to get there now, but we're going to get there. I believe that um we will have the best mix of the five factors and be the dominant economic power for the next 50 years. Okay? In a regionalized world, no region will have all the five factors like we do. China will be a tremendous competitor obviously and I think Europe and um and Russia together will be a player and if they're smart and we'll see. Okay. I think that they'll start moving south and and and come together with North Africa. Okay. um not all of Africa just the northern parts especially because they have all that gas there right so ask Spain and Italy all the pipelines run through them into Europe okay so that is why I believe this is going to happen has nothing to do with Russia the the Russian empire is ending Russia is not ending the American empire is ending it doesn't mean America is done. Okay, it's just different and different could be better. We don't know this, but different is something that we all fear and um that's the unknown future and so forth. But I digress. So, what do you think in the comments? And by the way, um, we just had our head of the Navy come out, uh, like two days ago and say what China is doing in the South Seas could exclude us from the South Seas because think about it, our naval groups are projection, power projection, and if we can't go through there and go into the Pacific, how are we going to project anything? like and follow and tell me in the comments what you think's going to happen.


---

<a id="14_cstxgj-scqs"></a>

<!-- Source: 14_cstXgj-SCqs.md -->

# The Five Factors to invest in the new world. MP Materials-Intel-Drones Invest with the USG 8-15-2025

- video_id: cstXgj-SCqs
- input_ord: 14
- summary: This analysis discusses the Trump administration's decision to invest in Intel as part of a broader government strategy addressing five critical factors in a deglobalizing world: food, energy, technology/semiconductors, demographics, and security. The speaker, drawing on 50 years of market experience, argues Intel is extremely undervalued given it's North America's only chip fabrication plant. He explains that as deglobalization unfolds over 15+ years, the government must secure control of critical infrastructure, necessitating massive investments ($50B+ for Intel, $10-30B for rare earth minerals). The speaker predicts a consortium of 4-6 companies will join government stakes in Intel, similar to previous MP Materials investments. He emphasizes that traditional capitalism cannot solve these strategic challenges alone, requiring government intervention in previously untouchable sectors despite ideological resistance.
- keywords: Intel investment, deglobalization, five factors framework, rare earth minerals, semiconductor manufacturing, government intervention, supply chain security, Taiwan semiconductor dependency, MP Materials, chip fabrication, national security, strategic infrastructure, economic policy, geopolitical risk, market valuation
- topics: Government Strategic Investment in Critical Industries, Deglobalization and Supply Chain Resilience, Semiconductor and Technology Security Infrastructure

## Transcript

Language: en Today we're going to talk about the news that came out late yesterday afternoon that the Trump administration announced that they're going to take a stake into Intel. Now on Tik Tok, I've already uh pinned at the top three videos that I did last year starting literally a year ago se uh September 4th saying that I believe that the government is going to take a stake in Intel. and the videos go on to state that I don't believe the government will allow one Intel to remain um by themselves and two allow another one company to take them over. So this is only the first move in my opinion and the government will put in their um stake into Intel and then I believe a consortium of companies between four and six of them will come together and also put a stake into Intel to ensure that they can get chips. So, if you look here, last September 9th, um the stock was $19 when the excuse me, September 4th, um when I said that the government will take over Intel. And I'll admit that certainly there's been no information for the past year that would indicate that this would actually happen. And the other thing I'd like to say is this, and I say this in the three videos. If you look at Intel as a stock, which I've been looking at stocks for 50 years, there is no way under any scenario that anyone for any reason should buy Intel. Period. Their financial problems are historic in nature. They themselves have said that they need $50 billion so that they can deliver the top end chips in the world investment $50 billion. So this is just the beginning and where some people have said well look at you know you're right again I was right on MP materials. I want to say this about this. This is all about the five factors. As I've said, I've been looking at stocks for over 50 years, and I never would have brought Intel. It's only when I started looking at the stock market in regards to the five factors. And the five factors are easy. As we delobize, we're going to want to, and we always say this, secure and control certain aspects of our economy. And that'll be food, energy, technology, intel. Okay. our demographics and our security. Are we easy to attack? They're the five factors that every government in the world right now is solving for because delobalization is over. Is it delizing in one day? No. We believe and we have stated so many time this is going to be a minimum of a 15-year transition. So, what do we care? Well, this is why we care. during this 15 years we are going to find more and more things that we as a country are going to invest in. So, one of the things that we came up with the five factors is is that one, when something breaks, it's going to take time, 5 to seven years to fix. And two, that to actually get it done, the government is going to have to invest in the process of getting us secure and control of whatever we're trying to um control. So, look at the rare earth minerals. When we came out with MP materials first time, it was $13. I just looked today. I was shocked. It's $77. Okay. It's our only rare earth mineral um processor. They don't process nearly enough, not even remotely enough. And we believe that there are going to be multiple investments in this area. And we have published in our videos all the private and publicly traded companies that are in the rare earth mineral space. And there's multiple they all do different things. I am not an expert on it. I am just saying that rare earth minerals is one of the things we have to solve for. Now what about intel? Intel to me was very very easy. This is the question I asked myself a year ago. If for whatever reason, doesn't matter, the China one day goes in and takes over Taiwan and or blows it up or Taiwan agrees and joins China, wherever it is that the ability of Taiwan to produce chips is limited or severely limited. Okay? And so then that raises the question, what would America's one and only fab plant that designs chips and manufactures them be worth the next day? Now when that stock was 19, I think in one of the uh videos I said it's going to be worth between $2 and $300 a share. I don't care if it takes $50 billion to get their chips up. It doesn't matter. It's the only chip fab in North America. Period. End of story. You have to This is the new world. You have to sit there and say, "Do we control it? Can we secure it?" These are the questions that you have to ask when you're looking at stocks today if they're investable. Because if I mean, think about it. Taiwan Semiconductor makes all the basic chips. They then sell them to Nvidia. Nvidia then adds their technology on top. Now it's chips and so forth, but you have to understand the basics are made by TSMC. So if TSMC is not here, we only have one company that can make that chip. Now what I would say to you is I believe Intel is extremely undervalued. Okay? Not a little bit undervalued, extremely undervalued given what it does and nobody else does it. What is it? Supply and demand, whatever you want to call it. This is what we're looking at. So when you look at the five factors and you start considering where am I going to invest money for the future, we have to start really breaking it down and seeing what is in the best interest of the United States. Now, we also state in these videos that we also have this issue. The issue is this. We're highly indebted. The world is highly indebted. We're highly leveraged beyond comprehension leveraged. We don't even want to think about it. Okay? So, all these things that we're going to break because of deglobalization are going to need vast quantities of money to invest in them. When you look at REMM, I have no idea, but to me, it's going to be a minimum of 10 or 20 or 30 billion that we're going to invest over the next five or six years in this space. And when you look at Intel, you know, they've already stated we need $50 billion. We know this and we've already had like qual Qualcomm, Apple, all these people look at Intel, but guess what? the numbers are even too big for these big big companies. So thereby one of the aspects characteristics of the five factors is that the government will take positions in these companies and bring in other companies to invest. There's no other solution. If you have one, please put it in the comments and tell me. You know, this morning I woke up and I was reading through X on the feeds and um almost every comment on Intel is what's going on here? I thought we were capitalist and all this other stuff. So, what are we supposed to do? Get rid of our one chip manufacturer. That's it. That's because it's quote unquote not capitalism. And look at rare earth minerals. There is no ROE. There is no ROI. None. Zero. There are no profits. That the government put in a $110 minimum price we're going to pay is meaningless. It takes billions of dollars to build out REM and we're going to do it. So when you're looking at the markets today, you must start looking at them through the five factor. So am I happy that Intel is working out quote unquote? Yes. But it's far more interesting to me that we now have a basis for judging what we should be looking at and it actually is the five factors. We didn't know for sure. We felt this was the answer. And now after MP materials, after um Intel, next will be the drone manufacturers that we're going to take into. This is going to be the way the world is going to develop in a dellobalized world. So what do you think? Tell me in the comments and like and follow. And thank you for following.


---

<a id="15_bjladsnwq44"></a>

<!-- Source: 15_bJlaDSNWq44.md -->

# Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics. Logistics enables  power projection. 9-10-2025

- video_id: bJlaDSNWq44
- input_ord: 15
- summary: This video analyzes China's strategic military objectives and the critical role of rare earth minerals, particularly gallium, in modern warfare. The speaker outlines Xi Jinping's documented "six wars" targeting Taiwan (2027), the Spratly Islands, South Tibet, Okinawa, Mongolia, and Russian territory. The analysis emphasizes that China's control of 98% of global gallium production—essential for advanced military systems and phased array radar—creates a strategic vulnerability for the US despite circumvention attempts through third-party suppliers like Belgium. With new domestic rare earth facilities requiring 10-20 years to become operational and full supply chain independence potentially costing $590 billion to $2 trillion, the speaker argues the US faces enormous economic and logistical challenges in achieving military independence from Chinese mineral supplies.
- keywords: China military strategy, Taiwan unification, rare earth minerals, gallium production, supply chain security, Xi Jinping, military logistics, geopolitical conflict, defense readiness, critical minerals, Spratly Islands, US-China competition, semiconductor technology, strategic vulnerability, defense infrastructure
- topics: China's Long-Term Military and Territorial Ambitions, Critical Mineral Dependencies and Supply Chain Vulnerabilities, US Defense Industrial Base and Logistics Challenges

## Transcript

Language: en Today I' I'd like to finish off for now the discussion on China defense, our posture and rare earth minerals as everything is connected. Now look at she's been in power for a long time and back in 2013 he had a paper published and what it was was what it was called was the six wars that China believes are going to fight over the next 50 years. So here's the start of the article and I just want to say this was published by shei. There's a big article today in the Asian times how um she is running out of time on his legacy and his legacies are these six wars. Remember, China is a country that's been around for a long, long time. And this is all about, you know, their pride that the west shredded after centuries of defeat and embarrassment. They as a country, this is big for them. Not maybe for us, but for them it's big. So the number one is obviously the unification of mainland China and Taiwan. And I believe that the date that they give for this is 2027. So they want this to be reunified by 2027. Number two is the forced acquisition of the Spratley Islands. Now, we just did a video on this about two weeks ago, and um this is to control uh the eastern side of the Malaca Straits. and they actually believe that they're going to have to, you know, fight it out with Vietnam, um, Japan, and the Philippines to take these islands, especially the Philippines. Number three is the reun reunification of South Tibet. So they talk about this. This is actually between India and um and China. This is a major um flash point between them and we're going to see how that actually goes away. Um one of my videos I'm going to come up with is I'm going to do the five factors with India and China. Okay, that'll be coming up next. Now, I'm not going to uh pronounce these islands because I don't know how to pronounce them, but this is basically Okinawa. So they actually say here that they believe that they're going to fight it out with uh Japan and America over these islands. Number five is the invasion of Mongolia. Um they go back they were there um and owned them in the 1600s. So they want to go back and take them over again. Given the amount of resources inside Mongolia, I would not be surprised at this at all. And finally, China hopes to take back the land from Russia. Okay. In China's view, Russia occupies 160 million square kilometers of land belonging to the um China since 1644. And of course, the Russians took it in 1945 when they joined the end of World War II. Now, as anyone follows this channel, I predicted this uh two years ago. I actually said that they won't go for Taiwan first. I actually go for the land from Russia first. And any statements or narratives that I've come up with, this one certainly I had the biggest push back on. Um, incredibly so. Um, alls I'll say is is that this is not my point of view. This is she's point of view on the things that he wants China to accomplish. So, China has not been, let's say, an outside aggressor, certainly not like the United States has been. Um, they still have their eyes on uh what they consider to be theirs. And so now this war, this new war that we're going to have that we've learned about through the Ukraine with missiles and drones and drone ships and so forth and so on. It's all driven by rare earth minerals. Now, we've done a lot on the rare earth minerals. I get it. This hopefully this kind of puts it in because I've been saying that we're going to be spending tens and tens of billions of dollars. I've said that many, many times. So this1 billion dollars 400 million into MP materials this is like nothing this is this is just admitting that we have a problem okay so today I believe this is there's an article in the Asian times about China's gallium grip squeezing and eroding US military's advantage okay So, China has put a de facto um blockage on us getting gallium. Okay. And this military parade that we just saw that they had with everybody there, everything in there, all these weapons were all powered by gallium nitride GN semiconductors. Okay. And this is used in phased array radar which enable rapid deployment of compact high performance systems across the armed forces. You got to remember something in the military. They talk about the kill chain. So the kill chain is basically three things. Something's coming. Do I identify it? Then I identify how I'm going to hit it and then I hit it. One, two, three. The smaller the time that we can make in between those decisions and the overall one is the person who wins the war. This GAN technology, this is across all military, everything up in the sky, everything in the ocean, all onto one thing. We need gallium. So, we invented, you know, this array technology. Okay. But um China has a near monopoly on refined gallium and mature in a mature industrial chain. And if you read down here into the third paragraph, it notes that China controls 98% of global gallium production. 98%. All right. And they emphasize that China's export restrictions which were tightened in 2023 have evolved in comprehensive embargo targeting targeting the US disrupting our disrupting our access to gallium for critical component defense systems. So is it important to us? Well, we have over 11,000 US military components dependent on gallium and 85% involving Chinese suppliers. They caution that chokeold poses a strategic threat to the US national security and our allies defense readiness. Now the US is doing what China and Russia are doing with oil. We're circumventing the um embargo from China and we're buying it from third-party um countries. In this case, the country is Belgium, we think, right? Because no one's going to admit it. But the Chinese exports of Germanmanium to Belgium surged 224% in 2024, mirroring the decline in direct US exports. All right, so we're going one way or the other. Um, gallium reexports are harder to trace and these backdoor flows undermine China's restrictions and sustains the US consumption despite a 68 to 77% drop in direct import. So in other words, from China we're down well what it is 75% we'll say. Okay. Um now they mentioned that we have reopened the mountain pass rare earth uh mine utilizing the fence production act. We gave them $400 million okay to get this up and running. So we're pursuing a friend shuring partnership with Canada, Australia, Japan and South Korea. Geez, aren't these the people that were tariffing and driving their economies into recession? I guess this is a good strategy for them to work with us. All right, but notice what they say here. Despite the efforts, he points out that domestic refining remains limited with new facilities taking 10 to 20 years to become operational. Okay. a challenge compounded by investor hesitancy, high capital cost and environmental oper opposition. These high capital costs means that we're not getting a lot of um there's no ROI ROI. So, no one wants to do it. But the last line is the critical line. All right. It says the US has invested 600 billion in rare earth related infrastructure abroad, not in America, and is unlikely to shoulder the enormous costs of fully de-risking from China, estimated between 590 billion and more than two trillion by 2024. So I rest my case. It's going to be billions and billions. Actually, it could be trillions and trillions of dollars for us to overcome this. So, here we are. We have the world's being divided up and we're on the wrong side of a couple trades. What do you think? Tell me in the comments and thank you for following.


---

<a id="16_pta9girq8d4"></a>

<!-- Source: 16_PtA9gIRQ8d4.md -->

# Plans of the diligent lead to abundance, but he who is hasty comes to want. 9-7-2025

- video_id: PtA9gIRQ8d4
- input_ord: 16
- summary: This video analyzes how different regions are approaching economic competitiveness through strategic planning. The speaker compares China's successful 10-year industrial plan (China 2025) with Europe's newly published five-point guidelines for competing globally. China's approach emphasizes infrastructure investment, manufacturing focus, and support for strategic industries like EVs and batteries, spending 2% of GDP on industrial policy versus Europe's significantly lower investment. Europe's proposed strategy includes maintaining economic openness while protecting strategic sectors, improving capital markets integration, avoiding excessive tariffs, supporting dual-use industries, and securing rare earth minerals. The analysis introduces Total Factor Productivity (TFP) as a key measurement of economic efficiency, revealing the US leads, China ranks second, and Europe lags behind, suggesting the need for coordinated national development models.
- keywords: China 2025, industrial policy, manufacturing, economic competitiveness, Europe strategic plan, EV companies, total factor productivity, rare earth minerals, capital markets, dual-use industries, tariffs, strategic industries, GDP investment, global trade, economic development
- topics: Global Economic Competition and Industrial Strategy, National Development Models and Industrial Policy, Technology, Manufacturing, and Supply Chain Security

## Transcript

Language: en Well, it's Sunday today and I want to talk about how other uh people are approaching the five factors which we always talk about. So, first in on 115 2025, we posted a video about China uh and their 10-year plan called China 2025, which is about them spending the last 10 years become a value added high-end manufacturer in the world. And here's the article that's been attached uh to that video. Um it's very interesting. I mean when you go through it there's just no way you can't say that they have been very very successful. So of course we seem to be a little bit more hit and miss. Um the Europeans are definitely under attack. I you know people I mean the Russian uh minister comment about uh Europe yesterday. Um I mean I don't know what the Europeans are going to do but they got to get their act together. But they did do things. The Germans and the French got their economists and their business people together and they said, "Hey, can you come up with a paper for us?" And so yesterday the Europeans um published their five point guidelines to how Europe can start competing in the new world. Now, of course, you can stop and read this if you want. Um I'm posting I'll attach this to this video and um and under the other video I'll attach the CSIS article on what the China 2025. So they're sitting here and they talk about what's going on with China and how it's affecting uh the Europeans. So imagine the first part of this um paper is okay where are we today and what do we want to use as our guidelines going forward. Okay. Now, the top half of this article is all the stuff we know is going on. Chinese strength and batteries, EVs, green tech machinery. And uh they sit here and they go through and they say, "Hey, listen. This is not they are not successful because of subsidies." Okay, first. Then the second thing is they point out that China spends around 2% of its GDP. It's in the second part here on industrial policy. five times more than the Europeans and six times more than the US. So when you look at AI in China and what's going on, the reason that people believe that China is actually way ahead of America is they have built this huge basically countrywide infrastructure that all these companies can build into. I mean, believe it or not, they have over 100 EV car companies in China. Over a hundred. And they're all competing. It cutthroat competition. All right. Now, in this first paragraph, they say in 2020, uh, China said, "Hey, no more lending in the property. You have to lend into manufacturing." and they believe that this has made a huge difference over the last five years in China's move to the top of manufacturing world. And in the second uh paragraph here, you can see where they have more than 100 different EV companies in China that are competing hard and so thereby going competing against us not hard at all. And they point out in the bottom right here that the German and uh French economy taking a double hit. Not only is China coming at them with cheap product, good good product, inexpensive product I should say, but they're not buying the European stuff anymore. This is really hurting them. So here in the second paragraph, they're saying that their exports are adding close to two percentage points to their GDP growth. And this last paragraph is that what they're saying here is is that given the exports that uh they have that we should have seen around a 30% um increase in the remimi we have not seen that and they're saying that is being driven because because they're exporting they're bringing in all these US dollars and they've accumulated over $300 billion dollar just in the last um year in US asset i.e treasuries. They go on in the first paragraph here it says that China does not only does not rely on unfair state aid or industrial policies but it's intrinsic to the Chinese development model. It's called non-market practices and policies are part of the overall mix but it's not there to support a company. It's there to support an industry that China believes is important to the country. Okay? Kind of the way we believe about REMM today. All right? So the first thing they say is listen, we have to maintain an openness in our economy and not naively hand over what we believe are important to us. Okay? defense technology, autonomous systems, space industries, including the industrial supply chains of batteries and electronics. Okay, so that's first they say. So one, we just don't cut everybody off. Two, they also believe that if it's not totally uh important, not one of these strategic industries, then we should allow the Chinese to send us the stuff. We get it cheaper. We get the solar, we get the EVs, we get the batteries at a cheaper level which helps our people. Okay. Now here in the top they say that we have to improve the business envir environment access to financing in an integrated capital market. Did anyone remember last year it must be a year ago that we did the uh uh video on the Italian bank trying to take over the German bank. We said we're going to watch this to see if the Europeans are actually serious about coming together so they can compete. And the first thing that should come together, you know, because of the difficulty, we're recognizing the difficulty is can we do our capital markets, can all our banks come together and so forth and so on. And that was a year ago and guess what? They're still talking about it today. So at this time, I would say they're not that serious. And in the second paragraph here, they say, 'Look, we should be very, very careful about tariffs. All right, it's while import barriers may help European companies to defend their market share at the home market, it would weaken their ability to export to China or third country markets. Overall, Europe should be very cautious in protecting its industry by tariff barriers. Um, obviously not going down the road that the United States is going down. Number four, they say, "Listen, we should really support a lot of dualuse industries, right? So, you make advanced batteries, you make them for cars, you make them for drones, military use, militaryra steel, advanced materials, composits, uh, all these things are important and they're dual use." And they're saying that the Europeans should fund these. Sound familiar? Fund them. Okay. And of course, number five here, I'm just guessing. I have no idea. But what do you think? Number five did not exist in this report a month or two months ago, and it's that we need to get control of rare earth minerals. Period. End of story. So, here's the five things that the Europeans think they should be doing. In the report they talk about this TFP um measurement which is total factor productivity. Now the reason I'm mentioning this is remember the video that we recorded on the isms and we said all the isms are all different communism socialism capitalism national social all this stuff but they deal with three things. They deal with labor capital and means of production. Okay. And so this is what TFP actually measures, right? And you can see here TFP measures how efficiently an economy uses labor and capital, okay? And how it intersects with technology, i.e. the means of production. So I'm only pointing this out in that as we move forward in this world and you see that China did their China 2025 we're doing I don't know we're not really we're not really coordinated yet and Europe has not actually really started but here is the basis of their going forward and so we have said that we believe there'll be multiple isms that are coming out um around the world as people reinvent their business models, their country models to fit the new world that's coming at us right now. Right? So TFP, guess who's number one? Yes, the United States. China's number two. Guess who's last? You got it. Europeans. So like and follow and tell me what you think in the comments.


---

<a id="17_qrp0do7eaiy"></a>

<!-- Source: 17_Qrp0do7eAIY.md -->

# The Five Factors and Intel⧸Nvidia Russia, China and Poland FAFO the Five Factors 9-18-2025

- video_id: Qrp0do7eAIY
- input_ord: 17
- summary: This video analyzes the Five Factors framework—food sufficiency, energy independence, technology, demographics, and vulnerability to attack—as a geopolitical investment decision tool. The speaker discusses Intel's anticipated government support and consortium investment of $50 billion to establish domestic chip manufacturing, positioning Intel as potentially the world's most valuable company if Taiwan becomes unavailable. The analysis extends to global geopolitical shifts, including Israel-Qatar tensions triggering a Pakistan-Saudi Arabia military alliance that disrupts the 50-year petrodollar agreement. The speaker examines China's Belt and Road Initiative vulnerability, particularly through Poland, where Poland's shutdown of railroad access in response to Russian drone attacks costs China 30% more in export time and expense. The framework suggests countries are realigning around self-sufficiency in critical areas, marking a transition from the central bank era to a new economic model resembling national socialism where governments direct corporate strategy.
- keywords: Five Factors geopolitical framework, Intel chip manufacturing, $50 billion FAB investment, Taiwan semiconductor dependency, rare earth minerals, petrodollar agreement, Pakistan-Saudi Arabia military alliance, China Belt and Road Initiative, Poland railroad closure, national sovereignty, supply chain resilience, geopolitical investment strategy, energy independence, technology self-sufficiency, MP Materials
- topics: Geopolitical Risk Analysis and National Self-Sufficiency, Semiconductor Industry and Domestic Chip Manufacturing Strategy, Middle East Realignment and Petrodollar System Disruption, Global Supply Chain Vulnerability and Trade Route Control

## Transcript

Language: en Well, today we're going to talk about Intel, but I only just want to mention that because it's part of the five factors that we've been making our or thinking about making our investment decisions on. And I will say this about the five factors. When I originally was thinking through this, you know, at the start of the Ukrainian Russian war, it was really a geopolitical thought process by country. So if you think of the five factors, it's by country. Um you know, are you food sufficient, energy independent, what is your technology, what's your demographics, and are you easy to attack? Okay. And that the two watchwords that everybody's going to be working under will be um to secure and control each one of these five factors. They're the five factors. Okay? and we've come up with new ones, uh, rare earth minerals and drones, which is really another way of saying magnets because without magnets there are no drones. Okay, but let's look at intel for a second. I posted on or pinned on on uh Tik Tok three previous videos starting year and a half ago, whatever it was, saying that Intel someday the government will take a stake in them and then a consortium will form of five to seven companies that will invest into Intel because they have to. And the reason they have to is Intel needs $50 billion to build out the FAB plant to where it needs so we can build our own chips. So the whole thing was is there's no way that we can allow our chips that run our entire economy. I mean, if Taiwan, for whatever reason you come up with disappear tomorrow, what would our stock market be? Maybe 5,000. we would lose 35,000 points. Nvidia wouldn't be worth the paper that it's printed on. And the most valuable company in the world would be Nvidia, excuse me, would be Intel because it's the only chip fab plant in North America. So to me, it was always going to happen. All right. Now, what's next? So this is first. Nvidia makes it. So, I don't know who it's going to be, but you can think of the culprits. I mean, Apple looked at them, Qualcomm, Nvidia, um, um, AMD. I wouldn't be surprised if Black Rockck puts money into this. So, what we're faced with here is that we're really still at the beginning, the next three or four months. I don't know how long it's going to take. I'm guessing I'm giving myself some time for the other companies to come on board and put up whatever the money they're going to put up. But remember the number $50 billion. So the stock this morning when I got texted like 6:30 this morning saying look at Intel was like 32 something. I think it's like 30 and a half right now. Um and they're going to co-develop data center and PC chips. And look, people are already talking about this. What I want to say to people is we have been saying that we're ending the old world, which I call the um great central bank era. ERA, not err all right. Error. Okay. And that ended in 2019 for a variety of reasons. Okay. I picked 2019. Pick your date. 20 2008 I don't care. All right. So in this new era, so all the things I've been seeing on social media has been about isms. This is communism. This is socialism. This is you know what it's most closely related to whether you want to hear this or not but historically speaking is national socialism. They believe the government is involved with the companies and they direct the companies what to do and they make all these deals with the companies. Okay. So that's national socialism. So are we starting down that road? I don't know. I don't believe so. I believe that America is going to come up with their own way of doing what China has already done. Okay? Like rare earth minerals. Rare earth minerals there's no ROI. None. Zero. And the report that just came out from the federal government says that between $690 billion and$2 trillion in 20 years is what our government's going to spend to get off China's rare earth minerals. That's how much. Now think about what they did with MP materials. So when we first looked at MP materials, it was like $13. And I was like, "Hey, this is the only publicly traded that I know of, rare earth minerals um processing firm." Now, let's go to where we're looking at. We use today 95 million tons of rare earth minerals. Okay? And our one and only MP materials produce 2.9. The rest we get from China. All right? So, and by the way, we need REMM for solar and uh everything and uh and EVs. And think about it, we have a government trying to kill them. All right? And yet, you know, if we were really moving in these areas, how many tons would we need? 110, 120 tons? I have no idea. Okay? So, we're at the beginning, not at the end. As we said, if someone can come up with something and you think it's going to be resolved in six months, that's a trade. If someone says something and you figure out it can't be solved for five to 20 years, that's an investment. All right. Now, these five factors are coming in everywhere. All right. So, look what just happened. Israel attacks Qatar, which is our ally who we give our protection to. Okay. So this freaks out the Middle East. Within days they have 52 countries meeting and out of that meeting comes that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have now signed a military agreement. Pakistan's a nuclear power and they literally said in the UN to Israel we are not building a bomb. They didn't say that. Said we're not building one. We have one. All right. So here's the deal on that. Think about this. This is much bigger than people are giving it because we cut a deal in the 70s, 1970s with Saudi Arabia because the oil price went up and we needed those dollars. So we created the thing of petro dollars. And what was petro dollars? Simple. We promised to protect Saudi Arabia if they would cir you know repatriate the dollars to our system and only sell oil in dollars. They did that. Okay. Now here they signed a deal with Pakistan. And by the way, Pakistan had the nukes for whatever 30, 40 years. I don't know how long it was. It was a long time. Okay, they got it after India. But here's the deal on that. All their delivery systems are made by China. And they're not on our GPS. They're on Badu. And being on Badu now, so is Saudi Arabia. So now the entire Middle East has changed. And think, go back to the five factors. When you look at Saudi Arabia, are they uh energy independent? Yes. Are they food independent? No, they're not. How's their technology? Well, they're working on that, but I would say it's one to two instead of the three. And then you look at, can they easily be attacked? And the moment that Qatar got attacked, they reversed themselves. So, think about it. A 50-year policy was reversed in days. So what does this mean to all of us? Look at what China did. Now up top here is the China uh Belt and Road Initiative. Okay? And if you can move big make this bigger on your screen, you'll see at the top here all those lines that go through you see when they're going through the top of Russia or the middle of Russia and everything. And then they all go and they become one line, one railroad line. And where does that railroad line go through? Poland. So Russia just attacked Poland with those 19 uh drones. Whether they did or not, people were arguing about doesn't matter. Okay? Because what matters is Poland shut down the railroad. And you say, "So what do we care?" Well, 90% of China's exports to Europe go through Poland. And now it's going to cost them 30% more and 30% more time to send them another way. This is why the five factors are when countries make mistakes like I think we made with Qar and what Russia made, they're saying to China, you're supporting Russia, you can't export through us. What do you think? Like and follow and tell me in the comments.


---

<a id="18_q5e20a3ict4"></a>

<!-- Source: 18_Q5e20a3ICt4.md -->

# Data, information, personal experience, opinion, misinformation and conspiracy theories 9-19-2025

- video_id: Q5e20a3ICt4
- input_ord: 18
- summary: The speaker discusses their approach to analyzing information and markets, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between data, information, personal experience, opinion, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. He explains his use of multiple competing narratives rather than adhering to a single viewpoint, and describes a filtering process based on historical significance—prioritizing news items that represent occurrences not seen in 10+ years. The speaker advocates staying grounded in factual data while recognizing that most opinions lack substantiation in specialized markets like bonds, currencies, and commodities. He references Buckminster Fuller's observation about the 1963 expansion of television news as the pivotal moment marking the beginning of information overload, and encourages viewers to base decisions on verifiable data rather than unsubstantiated opinions.
- keywords: data analysis, misinformation, conspiracy theories, market analysis, information pyramid, multiple narratives, personal opinion, critical thinking, investment strategy, information literacy, government statistics, bias recognition, historical patterns, financial markets
- topics: Information hierarchy and distinguishing fact from opinion, Market analysis methodology and competing narratives, Critical evaluation of claims and data sources

## Transcript

Language: en Today I'd like to talk about today's comments on my comment on the government stats that come out. People were extremely unhappy. So let me talk about how I approach information and the markets and how my thought process is. First, I don't have one narrative. I have five narratives. Three, four, five, six at all times. Believe it or not, there's a rule of teams that the team should be between three and seven. Five is the optimum. Over seven is too many people. Three or less is not enough people. So coming up with three, four or five narratives I think is important because then you don't own the narrative. Right? Then I look for information points that either support the narrative or don't support the narrative. So to give you an example, one of the narratives I've had since the great financial crisis and the reading of the panic of 1907 is that we could go and literally have the roaring 20s to 19 2029 just like we did in 1929. And in the since n 2008 when I thought of this, I've not been able to move that narrative off the board. It's still there. We could get there. We may not, but so far we could get there. All right. Now, let's talk about information. There's a pyramid in information. The bottom of the information pyramid is data. This is what we collect and store. And how you collect and store it is critically important. Second is information. When we access the data and we bring it up to be used, once we use it, it's now information. Okay. Next is personal experience. All right, that's the next step up in our information pyramid. The next one up after that is opinion. And the next one after that is misinformation. And the next one after that is conspiracy theory. So there's your pyramid. All right. So when I look at people say, okay, the government is lying about the inflation rate. We're actually deflating. A lot of people said other people said inflation is 10%. Other people say the unemployment rate is way higher, way lower, right? You're all So one, you have no data to support that. Two, you have no information that supports you. Okay? You have no personal experience to say that. All right? So thereby your opinion is based on air. So the only question that is left is are you pushing misinformation or are you pushing a conspiracy theory? Because that's where you are in the data thing. Now we're in the markets. Yes, there's a lot of opinion in the market. It has to be. But as we said in the previous video, in the end we are hooked to the real world, to real data. In the end, we can drive Nvidia up to $1,250, whatever it was, a hundred times of revenue or whatever, right? But in the end, it's probably going to come back through the mean sooner or later. When it does, who knows? Okay? So, when you're looking at the market, I try to stay as far down as I possibly can, which is in the data. All right? So you'll notice in my feed when on on Twitter, it's usually just data, right? Not information and certainly not opinion. And you got to remember something. The studies show, okay, that a person's opinion are made up 80% of their personal experience. So when we're talking the markets, bond markets, uh currency trading, commodity trading, pipelines, all this sort of stuff, we don't have any personal experience. We have none. All right? So our opinions are very very very suspect. Okay? So try to stay in the data. Now, one last point. I read a book a long time ago 1981 so whatever that is 40 something years okay pretty sure it was critical path by Buckminister Foley Bucky so in the book there's one paragraph it had nothing to do with the book it's just Bucky being Bucky and he said on September 9th 1963 the largest and most respected news organization in the entire world took their 6:00 news 6 p.m. news from 15 minutes to 30 minutes. All right. So, in my very limited opinion, which is based on no data and no information, I believe that that we can actually pinpoint the beginning of the information age. And I believe it was on September 9th, 1963 at six o'clock. All right. So after I read that book, I was a young FA at that time, broker. I was an FA, I was a broker, right? And I was already being overwhelmed. We just got scrolling news. I remember that. So we just got news scrolling by. You don't even know what that is, right? We couldn't ask for any news. They just we just had scrolling news. All right. So I sat down. And I said, "How am I going to start parsing through all the data, information, and opinion that's coming at me, right?" Because I was totally overwhelmed. So, I came up with my process. It's my process. May not work for you and it's not easy to do. And what I did was is I said, "Listen, I'm going I'm not going to put a lot of import on any news item that comes out that doesn't start first with for the first time in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years." Okay? And I would put more importance on the news item the longer it was. Is it 50 years? I'm paying attention. So I will tell you you know in the late 90s there was hardly anything okay in the early 90s there's a couple things but let me tell you something in 2007 8 and n I hit for the first time 100 years for the first time in hundred years there was like five or six item most of them were 70 80 and 90 years all right so I consider anything else as kind of like white noise I notice it I I note it and does it support one of my five narratives? Does it not support one of my five narratives? And do I eliminate a narrative when I get the information or you add another one? I never own a narrative. I don't care. What I care about is being right. Other than that, who cares, right? So listen, if you want to throw bombs, if you want to be a conspiracy theorist, if you want to pass on misinformation based upon an unsubstantiated opinion, fine. But don't, please don't come on my site and fight with me over this. I have no desire to do that. Like I follow Mr. Global. I think he was fant Man. He taught me more about oil and gas than anybody I' I've ever followed. Right. And now when you watch Mr. Global every day he's fighting with people over what they say. I don't have any desire to do that. I really don't. If you notice what I do is I try to give you the help you assist you in making your own decision. I have no decisions for you. You know more about yourself than I do. So what I would say to yourself, to you, to everybody is treat yourself good. Look down to the data, then to the information. Skip the personal experience. All right? And don't tell me about your opinion that's based on nothing. Okay? So look, it like and follow. I hope you follow me. I do hope you comment. I hope you comment a lot. And I hope you give me data and information that is useful to me and to anybody who decides that they want to follow me. Thank you very much. Comment away.


---

<a id="19_twy_x5g-svs"></a>

<!-- Source: 19_tWY_x5G-sVs.md -->

# Rare Earth Minerals - The Five Factors  - Options for the US for negotiations  10-11-2025

- video_id: tWY_x5G-sVs
- input_ord: 19
- summary: This analysis examines China's comprehensive plan for rare earth mineral distribution and its strategic implications for the United States. The speaker argues that America lacks negotiating leverage in discussions with China, as the U.S. depends on Chinese rare earth minerals for critical industries including semiconductors, renewable energy, and defense. China's recent restrictions on rare earth mineral exports—requiring case-by-case documentation, banning key scientists from leaving, and restricting machinery exports—make rapid domestic supply chain development infeasible. The speaker contends that rebuilding independent U.S. rare earth mineral infrastructure would take 5-20 years and cost $600 billion to $2 trillion, with no guarantee of success. The analysis presents five strategic options for U.S. negotiation while criticizing recent counterproductive policy decisions by both the executive and legislative branches.
- keywords: rare earth minerals, China supply chain, U.S.-China trade, semiconductor chips, negotiation leverage, critical minerals, domestic production, geopolitical strategy, tariffs, supply chain resilience, technological independence, export controls, defense industry, global manufacturing, economic strategy
- topics: U.S.-China Trade and Geopolitical Relations, Critical Supply Chain Vulnerabilities in Rare Earth Minerals, Strategic Options for American Economic and Defense Policy

## Transcript

Language: en Okay, yesterday morning when I woke up with the rest of the world, we found out that China had put out a detailed comprehensive global plan for how people can buy rare earth minerals from China, who is the one and only major supplier in the world. And people are already calling it the Sputnik moment for America when we find out that wow, we don't hold all the cards as we've been told by the administration. And in fact, it's my observation that I was reading this at 6:30 in the morning and by 11 or 12 o'clock when Trump started sending out all the long tweets and accusing China taking on the world and doing all these bad things and everything. I believe that yes, Friday, yesterday, Trump literally found out that we don't hold all the cards. He didn't he really did not realize it. That's why he canled the meeting with she and then later in the afternoon he's like, "Well, I'm not going to say it's canled. Cancelled. We'll come back to it. We'll see what we can do." And so forth and if they don't change, we're going to put 100% Terasol. Well, think about it this way. Excuse me. First, we said you can't buy our H20 chips. Okay? And then we said, "Well, you can buy a lower-end one and all this other stuff." But then China came out last week and said to all the Chinese company, you're not allowed to buy the H20 chip. So the only important part there is we don't have a bargaining chip. Then we were like, well, we own all the cards. We're not going to sell you any food. So they bought the food from ar excuse me, from Argentina and Brazil, and they don't have to buy our food. The fact is we are threatening and begging them to buy our soybeans to bail out our farmers, which I think Trump's going to have to do this next week. Okay? And so everything that we are negotiating cards are gone. Okay? and nothing that we have or offer. He's talking about airplane engines and software and all this other stuff, but it all pales pales to rare earth minerals. So, this is a map of re and look, I'm reading all these people online saying we're going to solve this in three months. We do all this stuff. You know what? It's total misinformation. Here is the global re rare earth elements. That's what we use in the end. The elements rare earth minerals has to be processed. Okay? So you can go through this and see for yourself. All you need to know is that we use 95 million pounds a year of rare earth minerals and we produce 2.9. You make up the difference the best way you can. Okay? And so this is a nice this is rare earth re rare earth elements. And again look who owns everything here. The red is China and the blue is the USA. But look what it affects. Wind turbines, PCs, smartphones, electric vehicles, all their appliances, everything. Right? We cannot make any of these things without rare earth minerals. So, we know that Trump has been saying he wants the grand bargain. He wants um unlimited or uh uh access us to rare earth minerals uh from China for us not to put on the tariffs, sell them the H20 chips and so forth and so on. We don't have any cards to play. We have zero cards to play. All right. Now, does China at this time want to totally break apart? Do they want to have a management? Do they think we should work together and all this other stuff? We're going to find out here very fast. Okay. Now, yesterday morning, I read this Alicia and she put out what the companies have to do. And you have to remember something. this these detailed um instructions on how to access rare earth minerals is um I have to say pretty humbling for an American to read through this. So I'm going to flash these up here. You have to read them yourself. This is for people who are in the supply chain or shipping product. Okay? Not for you not for the and think about it. This is also that we can't ship it to a company who makes I don't know a microwave and then give it over to our defense industry and every product that has more than.1% of rare earth elements from China this is applicable and you can see here they say here it's to safeguard national security and to cope with external pressure and to fulfill international obligations. And there's the key line here. Approvals are by their law and on a case by case. So a country can't go here, send us this much. They're like no, we want case by case and we want it documented. By the way, here you can see in the last paragraph here, this is also if you run chain in India or Europe. Uh I saw Lron came out yesterday and said that Europe gets 98% of the rare earth minerals from China. 98%. So, we're not going to steal them from them. They're they're trying to manufacture stuff themselves. And then they tell you how if you're run a supply chain or a company, the things that you should do today so that you can get rare earth minerals from them. And this woman says, "Look, I'm not talking politics here. This is tweet for people who ship product." So, not only do we not get unfettered access to rare earth minerals, every single thing must be documented down to 0.1% of any product that uses rare earth elements. 0.1%. And you have to show chain of custody and that you're not sending it off to somebody else. It is global and it you saw the global numbers. All right? There's no quick way around this. And then China also announced that they blacklisted this major chip research firm Tech Insights which operates in China and has been really giving us all our information. They said they gave you information on Huawei. They shouldn't have. Now they banned them. So we can't do that. Why am I mentioning this? They've also banned every scientist in rare earth minerals which are most of the world's scientists are in China. They're Chinese for God's sake. um they're one, they can't leave the country. Two, they can't talk to anybody on the phone. None of the um uh machinery can be shipped out, none of the chemicals because this is a chemical wash system and they're not going to allow any of that out. So, if we're going to build our system outside of China, we're going to have to do it on our own. They're going to give us no help. Then a couple months ago, uh, Trump said that any Chinese ship coming to American port, they have to pay this fee. We did a big video on this. There's nobody in America that thought this was a good idea except for Navaro and Lutnik, the two idiots. And so, guess what? China also on Friday said now starting October 14th any American ship coming to a Chinese port has to pay a fee. But stupidity doesn't exist just in the executive branch yesterday um the Senate and a bipartisan legislation requiring chip makers Nvidian AMD to priorit prioritize American customers and small businesses over Chinese check companies. And then there's a bunch of other restrictions in there. You couldn't have passed a more clueless law, I'm trying to think, in the history of the United States than what they passed yesterday. Absolute insanity. Okay, so here we are now. We don't have the rare earth minerals. And we have talked many times about the five factors. And the major characteristics of the five characters uh or the five factors is that when we break a global supply chain or system, whatever you want to call it, we won't be able to fix it like in a month or a couple weeks. It will be two to five, 3 to seven, 5 to 10 years. Okay? And we know that well it depends on who you read. It's going to be 5 to 10 years 10 to 20 15 to 20 and it's going to cost us from 600 billion to$2 trillion over that period of time and the DoD who did the study says there is no assurance that we can get off the Chinese rare earth minerals even after 20 years and$2 trillion dollars. Okay, that's where we're at. So here we are. What do you do? You're the president of the United States. Okay. So, you're looking at maybe 10 or 15 years before this works out for you. So, first thing is is do you say, "Well, it's going to get worse before it gets better. So, why don't we go to war now and and see if we can get it?" I don't know. I think bad choice. two. Do we just roll over and give them everything they want so they give us the rare earth minerals or do we cut a deal in between on some of this stuff? What do you think? What do we do? What do you think the president should


---

<a id="20_awftxiefzxo"></a>

<!-- Source: 20_AWfTxiEFzxo.md -->

# Black Wednesday redux. Argentina uses US dollars to paper over bad policies at US expense. 10-1-2025

- video_id: AWfTxiEFzxo
- input_ord: 20
- summary: This analysis compares Argentina's current currency crisis to Britain's 1992 'Black Wednesday' when George Soros profited $1 billion shorting the pound. Argentina's peso is overvalued by 20-30%, prompting the US to announce unconditional support including a $20 billion currency swap line and potential sovereign debt purchases. However, the market remains skeptical due to lack of concrete details and guard rails. The speaker criticizes the bailout as enabling bad policy without conditions, contrasting it with the IMF's strict requirements for Mexico. With Argentina owing $290 billion to foreign lenders and facing potential electoral challenges, currency traders anticipate a 30% devaluation. The US commitment appears risky, offering no tangible benefits while potentially losing billions, raising questions about why the US is supporting Argentina's libertarian leadership unconditionally.
- keywords: Argentina peso crisis, currency devaluation, Black Wednesday, George Soros, exchange rate mechanism, currency swap line, US Treasury bailout, foreign exchange reserves, IMF conditionality, libertarian economics, currency traders, sovereign debt, financial instability, unconditional support, peso overvaluation
- topics: Currency crises and speculative attacks on overvalued currencies, International financial bailouts and conditionality frameworks, US foreign economic policy and currency intervention

## Transcript

Language: en In the 1980s, there was a mechanism called the ERM or the European exchange rate mechanism. And this is where the European currencies, we didn't have the uh the euro then, agreed to trade within a band, right, high and low between all the currencies. And the British pound at that time was part of the ERM. Now there was this hedge fund guy who came along and he was like geez he says uh the British pound is overvalued by 30%. So he went out and started shorting the British pound. So Soros and his quantum fund they shorted borrowed billions of pounds sold them on the market a short position betting the value would fall. As the pressure mounted the bank of England spent billions of its reserve and raised its interest rates from 10 to 12%. And then when that failed, they had the big day and they announced a jump to 15%. An attempt to lure investors to keep their money in pounds and stabilize the rate. These failed and the pound then led to a steep devaluation. 15% against the German mark, 25% against the dollar. And on that Black Wednesday, Soros reportedly profited about $1 billion that day. Now today people believe the Argentinean peso is about 20 to 30% overvalued against the dollar. All right? And Barkley says the peso should be 30% weaker and there's other people thinks it should be 20% it uh down. So very similar in the scope percentages that people expect on a certain currency. So now after we announced Bent announced the deal that we will unconditionally support the peso yesterday it got hit. The peso plunged more than 6%. And then they said look we're going to do whatever we can to do to prop it up. It did come back up. It closed down 1.6% 6% for the day, but the Argentinian stocks went down 7% and their benchmark US Treasury uh not US Treasury, excuse me, the Argentine uh Treasury had to raise their uh rates by 1 percentage point to 12.3, very similar to what the Bank of England was doing. Okay, so you can stop and read this, but basically what the market is saying is yes, Bent has said this stuff, but there's been nothing concrete behind it. So, no one really knows what is going to happen, whether the United States is going to do this and if we do it, if we're going to put any kind of um you know, guard rails on this because so far there are no guard. And so they say they have not seen the details of the bailout and if they even might materialize. And then Malay, a libertarian economist, remember what libertarian mean? They don't borrow. They don't want help from anybody unless it's other people's money to bail them out of their bad policies, but whatever. Um, it's great to be a libertarian when you're talking about um theory. It doesn't work in the real world. All right. So, listen. They've already covered their 26 financing needs um through three possible support mechanisms meant by percent. a $20 billion currency swap line, the US purchase of Argentine sovereign debt and the direct currency purchases using the US Treasury Exchange uh uh stabilization fund. Uh and the guys here in the end says look you can have a bazooka but have no intention of using it. That's what's going on on the market right now. Now this paragraph is actually very interesting. Okay? Because you know they everyone's wondering how much money is in the exchange st the ESF we'll say. Okay. And doubts about the seniority of US debt over other debt. Now think about what they're saying here. These guys are totally in debt. They can't pay the interest on their debt and we're now giving them another 20 billion. So the question is is where does our 20 billion is it over everybody? Is it under? Is it next to it? We don't know. Okay. And if it's over, then all those people own that other debt. They have rights, too. So, how's that going to work out? Then they noted that China has an $18 billion swap line, which five billion has already been used. And we're telling them, pay, think about this. We gave them the 20 billion. We want them to take five of the 20 to pay off the five to the Chinese and then get rid of their currency swap with the Chinese. They're not going to do that because they don't have anything else. All right. And the last line here, Argentina owes 290 billion to foreign lenders. 290 billion. So finally we're seeing some opposition to this and this is coming from Republican Senator Chuck Grassley who saw what I saw was we gave them $20 billion and the next day they sold soybeans to the Chinese at a discount and it raised them $7 billion in hard currency but the US soybean exporters were were out of luck. So, in the first paragraph here, they point out the phone uh with the text on it that we talked about yesterday. And then an economist down in Argentina said that, hey, they bought 2.2 billion in the last week. Uh so they're spending the money to keep the exchange rate 30% higher than it should be. And here's the best line of the day. As the saying goes, there's no atheists in foxholes and there aren't many libertarians in a financial crisis, right? He's a libertarian in Argentina and we're his piggy bank in America. Okay, so this whole paragraph here in the middle you should read uh they've now scored two big financial support packages in 25 20 billion from the IMF which we forced the IMF to give with a generous frontloading of 14 billion and a $20 billion swap line. To top it off, the US has put pressure on the IMF, World Bank and Inner American Development Bank to speed up 12 billion dollar to them in the next few months. self-reliance. This is not so not libertarian and it may not be enough to solve Argentina's problem, but we really have real plumbing issues here. Okay. So, we stand ready to purchase Argentina US bonds and we may be unconditional. And the guy says here that is for the lack of a kinder world word unique. It's not unique, it's insane. That's the kinder word. Okay. So, Treasury lifelines come with extensive conditionality, intrusive scrutiny, and pledge sources of for repayment. The last time the EFS was used for a foreign partner in a significant way to provide a 20 billion credit line to Mexico. The terms were demanding the US got Mexico to agree on concrete policy targets, provide details about the US financing to grant Treasury a veto over any dis dispersement. None of that for Argentina free. Go get go wild. You can stop and read this. I just want to point out they're saying now the EFS are directly by pesos. no longer seems to be under discussion for the obvious reason that exposes ESF us to if Argentina's defense of the current ban falters after the October 28th election. Yeah. Down 30%. Give them 20 billion, let's lose 8 billion. And in the first paragraph they say, what does the EFS actually own? So it has 21 billion in liquid security, three and a half billion in yen, 2.2 2 billion euros to could be deployed but that's it. All right. So the EFS pool of foreign security is less than Argentina's 32 billion in gross foreign exchange reserves. Right? There's no way this works. So they say first sentence unconditional bailouts incentivize bad policy. This is what it is. Okay. So there's no way this and listen this is just not about Argentina and the US currency traders are the best traders in the world. They have to be they have to know everything. They have to know all five factors that affect the markets because it's the currency market. They're also a huge market. Uh you have to be good to be in this market. And these guys smell blood in the water. And if you don't think, they're looking at that 30%. So they got two things they're looking at. Is Melee going to get reelected on the 26th of October? Odds are no. Okay. What happens? Do they break it before the election or after the election? If they break it before the election, the peso declines 30%. The inflation rate in um Argentina does what? Straight up. Okay. If it happens afterwards, same thing. They're stuck in this thing and we are giving them help that is totally negative for the United States of America. There's nothing in it for us other than this is Trump supporting a libertarian. Tell me in the comments and like and


---

<a id="21_c39gsuciqsw"></a>

<!-- Source: 21_c39gSUCiQSw.md -->

# The Polar Silk Road and the Istanbul Bridge. Geo-politics and the new belt & Road 10-16-2025

- video_id: c39gSUCiQSw
- input_ord: 21
- summary: This geopolitical analysis examines China's strategic interests in Eastern Russia and the Arctic, arguing that China is more likely to expand westward into resource-rich Siberia than attack Taiwan. The speaker highlights the stark development contrast between desolate Eastern Russia and prosperous Eastern China, suggesting China may seek territorial expansion to secure farmland, energy resources, rare earth minerals, and coal. The recent maiden voyage of the Istanbul Bridge through the Polar Silk Road demonstrates the strategic value of Arctic shipping routes, reducing travel time by 50% and cutting costs by 40% compared to traditional routes. FSB intelligence reportedly identifies Chinese takeover of Eastern Russia as Russia's primary threat. The analysis connects historical territorial disputes dating back 200 years with current geopolitical realignment, suggesting Russia's weakened position due to Ukraine conflict creates vulnerability for Chinese expansion into the resource-rich Far East.
- keywords: Arctic trade routes, Polar Silk Road, Eastern Russia, Chinese expansion, geopolitics, Istanbul Bridge, Siberia resources, NATO strategy, Russia-China relations, climate change Arctic, maritime logistics, territorial claims, energy security, Belt and Road, geopolitical analysis
- topics: Arctic Geopolitics and Strategic Trade Routes, China-Russia Relations and Territorial Expansion, Global Power Dynamics and Resource Competition

## Transcript

Language: en A few years ago, four years ago, something like that, I read an article, I think it was online, it could have been a magazine article about this young man who's traveling across Russia in all the way to Beijing on the train. Okay? And he was very u observant and he talked about many things. But as he got farther and farther into eastern Russia, you know, was all desolate. There's nothing there, you know, that's why they use trains there. and uh he commented on it was very potenum like uh the villages you know it seemed like we're going back 150 200 years no running water um outouses no bathrooms in the houses right and they have very tiny farms and no people I forget what he said for every thousand kilometers square kilometers there were like three Russians okay and he asked them how come you have bigger farms. And he says, "Well, Putin only gives us 300 hectares for free." And they say, "To be wealthy, we need 3,000. He's not doing that. He's only giving us 300." So, whatever the numbers were, it wasn't enough. Okay. But that wasn't the interesting part. Interesting part was when he crossed over into China. In the moment that he crossed the border, he came into these beautiful cultivated lands, cities, countries, towns, unbelievable farming. And they had 30 million people there. And he was absolutely stunned. He it was night and day. He felt he went forward 200 years into the future by just crossing the border. But he thought to himself this observation, he was like, "What was going to stop the Chinese from just crossing the border?" Okay. And that is the original thought on how I started to look at the Chinese Russia Europe situation. Okay? Because when you think about everyone's like, "Oh, they're going to attack Taiwan." And I said, I think it was now two years ago, they're not going to attack Taiwan. They're going to go west and they're going to take eastern Russia. All right, think about it. The five factors are are you food sufficient? Are you energy sufficient? What's your technology? What's your demographics? And are you easy to attack? Okay. So, what's in eastern uh Russia? Farmland, rare earth minerals, oil and gas, and coal. And now something even maybe more important that will drive the Chinese to say, you know, Russia's all locked up in uh Ukraine. They've been decimated. Um people are pulling away. Aberan pulling away. Armenia. Um all the stans um the Russian Empire I think I believe is over. Russia is there. It has there's a difference between Russia and the Russian Empire. We have America. We have the American Empire. Our empire is over. We're still a very powerful country. America is not going anywhere. But it's going to be different. All right. So, what happened? I think it was now maybe a week ago, two weeks ago that I think is a game changer. And what happened was a ship, a brand new ship, maiden voyage called the uh [snorts] Istanbul Bridge went through what they're now calling the Polar Silk Road. And you can see it up there in red. They went around the north using ice breakers. Okay, still using ice breakers, but climate change is not getting colder. It's getting warmer. All right. And notice the difference in the miles. It's 13,900 versus 20,900. And when you read through and you can see here the Stanbul Bridge, they were sent EV, solar panels, and other exports going to the UK. All right? And this trip normally takes 40 to 50 days and now it takes 20 days, which literally cuts the price by 40%. Okay? In travel pricing. All right. So, Russia continue to invest heavily in Arctic infrastructure because if this opens up, this makes Russia a powerful player in global trade. All right? And so, I'm sure they're going to try to do that. And you must remember something. Going through the Panama Canal, not like it used to be. Ships have to wait in line because Panama Canal is fed by fresh water and they're in a drought. They've been there for a couple years and the water's not high enough. So they have to manage the ships going through there. It's, you know, sometimes you have to wait 20 days to get through. It's not a good situation. All right. And it could actually challenge NATO's northern posture as both power grow their logistic and potentially use maritime capabilities along the route. Okay. So they are transforming the Arctic from a remote frontier into a strategic trade and energy corridor. And that's looking at the world the way it is today. Okay. But what we want to look at it and say historically speaking what is going on and what will be the next moves by these two countries. Now I made a video two years ago. I was attacked unbelievably. Okay. Especially by some guy actually DM me directly. I think he's Midwestern socialist or communist or something like that. Some young guy still living in 1950. that Russia I don't get it but whatever he attacked me and u but what I said was that I believe Russia and Europe are going to come together and that China is going to take back the lands that they lost and take back more. They're going to take Eastern Russia. Why? Farmland, energy, oil, gas, coal um and uh in the Arctic. Okay, this is going to be very valuable to the control. All right, so now look, this goes back 200 years u the different places where Russia has taken land from the Chinese. I totally get it and you and I may think who cares, right? 200 years ago, but some of this was from World War II. Is that about 90 years ago? But over in China, when you read through what they're talking about, they believe that not only should they take back these lands, but they should take all Eastern Russia. And when you get printed in China, you you get permission to print that. And this is what they're talking about in China, not what I'm talking about. Okay? And so in in spite of attacking me personally, these people, look at what the current scenario is. They say there was a leaked document from the FSB about six months ago, four months ago, whatever it was. And the Russian intelligence service said in the leaked document that the number one threat to Russia was China taking over Eastern Russia. That's their number one threat. They're in the middle of the war with the Ukraine saying they're going to fight NATO and nuke London and all this other stuff, but the number one threat is the Chinese taking um Eastern Russia. And you can see where they claim the land, but you know, read the second paragraph here. Russia's international isolation, economic sanctions, and military engagement in Ukraine have weakened Moscow's position and focus, creating a geopolitical environment where Beijing might push to reclaim or exert influence over resourcerich, sparsely populated parts of Siberia and the Far East. Now, we're back to this map for one reason. I want you to look at Vastak, okay, over here. It's all the way at the end. Okay. So, it's been reported that since the Russian Ukrainian war has started. All right. And as you know, China has been giving support and I don't know the way but we can imagine you know you know military and so forth. But here's the interesting part. Around two years, so like a year after the war started, Vlad Vastto came under administrative and military control of the Chinese government, not the Russian government. So the city itself, the port itself is now under administrative control of China and military control. still part of Russia, but they've taken it probably for support in the war. So the question that we have to ask ourselves is, you know, will they attack Taiwan? I have no idea. I personally think Taiwan will be folded in, you know, Taiwan will go, okay? Because 15 years from now, everything is going to be different. But if you want to control, and the Chinese do your ability to send your product anywhere in the world, they're going to want to control the Arctic. And you can see that that Arctic is being controlled by Russia now. And we will see in the future who's going to control it. What do you think? Let me know in the comments. Thanks for listening and please


---

<a id="22_zn_5lff4qqa"></a>

<!-- Source: 22_zn_5lFf4QqA.md -->

# Intel and government investments according to the Five Factors Part 1

- video_id: zn_5lFf4QqA
- input_ord: 22
- summary: This video discusses Qualcomm's potential $90 billion acquisition of Intel and its implications for the semiconductor industry. The speaker analyzes why Qualcomm, which doesn't manufacture chips, would acquire Intel, which operates a foundry business. Drawing a historical parallel to Bulova's bankruptcy caused by Texas Instruments entering the calculator market, the speaker argues that companies now prefer being chip designers (like Texas Instruments) rather than manufacturers. Given TSMC's concentration in Taiwan—only 60 miles from China—the speaker suggests government support for the merger may be likely, as Intel represents America's only domestic foundry capability. The discussion emphasizes geopolitical risks and the importance of the Chips Act in ensuring domestic semiconductor manufacturing independence.
- keywords: Intel acquisition, Qualcomm merger, semiconductor manufacturing, foundry business, TSMC, national security, chip industry, Taiwan geopolitics, Chips Act, vertical integration, antitrust concerns, domestic manufacturing, supply chain, chip design vs fabrication, government investment
- topics: Semiconductor Industry Consolidation and M&A Strategy, Geopolitical Supply Chain Risk and National Security, Vertical Integration vs Specialization in Chip Manufacturing

## Transcript

Language: en Today I'd like to talk about Qualcomm's approach of Intel this past week for a possible merger takeover. We're not really sure um because this would be $90 billion and the US government would definitely have to be involved on many different levels. It should be noted that um Intel has around 54 billion in sales where Qualcomm has 35 billion in sales. And yet Qualcomm is the one who's approached Intel. In the first paragraph here, it says that Qualcomm unlike Intel doesn't manufacture its own chips. Instead, it re re uh relies on TSMC and Samsung uh to handle the production. And Intel has been um I would say under the gun because of what they call the foundry business. Now the foundry is where you manufacture your own chips. And Intel believes that this could cost another hundred billion dollars over the next five years for them to put this together. And it could be, you know, like I said earlier, the potential deal would be complicated by antitrust and national security matters because both Intel and Qualcomm do business in China and uh you know TSMC is in Taiwan. Now, my first uh engagement with chips happened when I was in high school. My father, who was one of the first management consultants in history, came home and he brought home this new personal electronic device, first one I've ever saw in my life. And um it was a sleek, beautiful, had these uh orange LEDs and right across the top it said Bular. And I said, "Dad, what's this?" He goes, "It's a calculator." I was like, "Wow." I said, "What does it do?" He goes, "It adds up." And uh I said, "How much does this cost?" And he says, "Cost the firm $1,000." This was 50 years ago. Okay. And uh Bulmar at the time I believe was the original manufacturers of a calculator and more importantly it was the largest calculator manufacturer in the world. So I go off to college. After college, I become a broker. And one of the first things I did was I wanted to look up this company because now I'm can buy companies cuz I felt that this calculator was, you know, the best thing ever. And to my surprise, I find that Bulmer is in bankruptcy and that they have filed a suit against their chip manufacturer. And their chip manufacturer, as you can see here, was called Texas Instrument. Okay? And so Texas Instrument decided that geez, you know, why don't we wrap plastic and an LED screen around our own chips and sell them as calculators? And this then in the end bankrupted Bulmer. When I went on to the web to uh find a picture of this fantastic calculator that I remember in my mind, what comes up was the vintage calculators web museum is where the bulmars are. So 40 years goes by, now it's 2023 and Intel's coming out with their earnings and for the first time they're going to break out their foundry quote unquote revenues losses and for the quarter, I forget what it was. It was 6 or 8 billion. It was a lot. And the discussion at the time was what is Intel going to do? Should they spin off the foundry business? Uh do they need outside partners? um because the amount of money uh to build and maintain and have a you know highest technological advantages and the foundry was very very expensive. So one of my colleagues we talk about this stuff all the time. We were going back and forth on this and uh you know and he says well maybe just in the end I said look they could go bankrupt. They need so much money. And he says, "Well, maybe the best thing for them is just to spin off the foundry." And so I said to him, I said, "Yeah, but what about Bulmar?" He goes, "What's a Bulmar?" And I go, "Exactly. That's the whole question is what is a Bomar?" So I told him the story. So here's what we all have to make our minds up on. Okay. TSMC manufactures all the chips. We do all the software on top of them, but we don't make chips. You saw that, okay? We buy them from Samsung or TSMC. And so my issue with this, and I'm a big supporter of the Chips Act, is because Taiwan is 60 miles off the coast of China. You know, think of Cuba is 90 miles off our coast, okay? 60 miles off the coast. and 6,000 miles away from us. All right. So, my opinion is is that everyone now has figured out that you don't want to be Bulmar, you want to be Texas Instruments. And so whether the government approves um Qualcomm taking um over Intel or not, I really don't think it's going to matter much. In fact, there is just it's just opinion. I have nothing to base this on other than how extreme our need is on chips. I believe the government may actually be for this. Okay. But if they're not, right, the question I'm asking you is how long before someone else takes intel, right? Because they're the only foundry here. Yes, we have 15 or 16 plants being built now. TSMC's been building their plant in Arizona and, you know, delaying it and everything because they don't want anything out of Taiwan, but it's too late. Okay, so here's the question, right? Is Intel saving America from being Bomar? What do you think?


---

<a id="23_sowhooc_jlc"></a>

<!-- Source: 23_soWHOoC_jLc.md -->

# Intel and government investments according to the Five Factors part 2

- video_id: soWHOoC_jLc
- input_ord: 23
- summary: This video continues analysis of Intel's strategic importance in the semiconductor industry, examining recent developments including Apple's potential acquisition interest and government concerns about Intel's viability. The speaker discusses Intel's unique position as the only American vertically-integrated chipmaker designing and manufacturing leading-edge chips domestically. With Intel employing 120,000 people and exporting $40 billion annually, the speaker argues Intel is "too big to fail" from a national security perspective. The video explores potential outcomes, including government intervention through a consortium approach where multiple chip companies (Qualcomm, ARM, Nvidia) collectively invest in Intel rather than allowing single-company acquisition. The speaker emphasizes the shift from price-driven supply chains to security and control as primary factors in the new world economy, highlighting the geopolitical risks of relying solely on Taiwan and Samsung for advanced chip manufacturing.
- keywords: Intel, semiconductor manufacturing, supply chain security, geopolitical risk, vertical integration, government intervention, chip manufacturing consortium, Taiwan semiconductor, Apple acquisition, CHIPS Act, national security, American chipmakers, Qualcomm, ARM, Nvidia
- topics: Semiconductor Industry Competition and Consolidation, U.S. National Security and Supply Chain Independence, Government Policy and Strategic Investment in Technology

## Transcript

Language: en Today I'd like to continue the discussion on Intel. Not so much because I'm focused on Intel. I think Intel has now become an example of the old world versus the new world. The old world, as you know, I believe ended in 2019. We're now in the new world as the supply chains are redone. Intel has now become a perfect example in my mind of what's going on. So, I've repinned my two videos on Intel uh uh at the top here so you can go back and look at them. And today, we're going to talk about the new news that's been coming out on Intel since the last video. The first thing that came out was Apple is now rumored to be considering buying Intel as a chipmaker. And this article, which I will I will put in the comments so you can go uh see it, read it yourself, is very interesting. They say they they went off of Taiwan semiconductor and Samsung too close to China, which is basically what we've been saying. and that they have taken the new chips from the new ASML uh machine that no one else has but Intel and they've worked through them and they find them acceptable and in fact is Apple has indicated that they're going to use this chip in all their devices. So this is just another thing and then people are like um Apple's going to take them over. Now this needs to be discussed. Okay. So if Apple is allowed to buy Intel, they'll be a vertical producer, right? So Intel is the only vertically integrated chip manufacturer that we have. And then when you put Apple on top of them, Apple would be in a commanding position if, and I say if, something happened with Taiwan and Samsung, right? And so as a country I believe we should be supporting strongly that we need to be building our own chips at scale. Okay. So we're few years away from that but Intel is the first step. So today there's a big article in tech industry that Intel may be too big to fail and Washington policy makers are already discussing potential solutions if the chipmaker cannot recover. And they say that these discussions are preliminary. Okay. Uh because they just did have a pretty strong report and the stock went up a little bit, but it's still way down. Okay. And they point out that although AMD and Nvidia, semiconductor giants in their own rights, are also American companies, Intel is the only one that both designs and manufactures chips. Intel is the only American company that designs and manufactures leading edge chips. It's playing a critical role in enabling a globally competitive semiconductor ecosystem in the United States. And it goes on to say that if Intel goes, then we are totally reliant on Taiwan semiconductor and Samsung. And there's also something else here. One, Intel employs 120,000 people aiming after their 16,000 layoff. And by the way, they export $40 billion a year in product. So, they are an important company. Now, the article goes on to mention like in my videos that Qualcomm and ARM are all looking uh to take a piece of Intel, if not the whole thing. And because they now want to secure control their chips. So remember what's the difference between the old world and the new world. The old world was where's the lowest price? Where can I go get it and have it shipped? In the new world, how can we control and secure our supply? That's number one, not price. Secure and control. And that's what the government is talking about here. What are they going to do? So what does this mean to us? Well, look, there's no way that we can let Intel go down. But with the government involved and the stakes being as high as they are, in my personal opinion, they're very, very high. There's no way we can allow one company, a Qualcomm or an ARM or Nvidia or anybody to control intel. I think that if I was the government, this is just my point of view. I have no articles to back me up, nothing whatsoever. If I was the government, I would form a consortium of all the chip companies and say, "What do you want in on?" I mean, Qualcomm said they'll give five billion to Intel. Several other companies that three, five or 10 billion dollars they give to Intel. And this is all so they can have access to those chips. So think about that as a US government. We don't want Apple to take Intel and then Apple hold everybody else up if Taiwan's semiconductor goes down. All right. So that's would be the worst situation whatsoever. Government picked the winner and then supported it because the chips act. We're going to give them a lot of money. So I think the government formed a consortium. All the chip manufacturers on the second end, not on building the chip end, which is only Intel, they all come together and they take a piece of Intel and thereby our companies then are supplied through Intel and they can buy them from Taiwan while they can and Samsung or whatever, right? But we need this in our country, okay? Period. So, Intel is too big to fail. Like we said, the Bulmar syndrome is Intel is too big to fail. So, how do we work this out? What do you think? What's the end game here? Because it's going to happen and it's going to happen soon in my mind. So, what do you think? Like and follow and certainly comment in the comment page.


---

<a id="24_z59dbftccgu"></a>

<!-- Source: 24_z59DbftccgU.md -->

# Five Factors & crisis management investing in Japan clogs up the global financing plumbing 11-7-2025

- video_id: z59DbftccgU
- input_ord: 24
- summary: This analysis examines Japan's new Prime Minister Tekki's $65 billion economic stimulus package and its global implications. The discussion centers on Japan's competing fiscal and monetary policies: expansionary government spending versus the BOJ's monetary tightening cycle under Ueda. Key focus areas include the 'five factors' of economic security (rare earth minerals, semiconductors, AI, nuclear fusion), currency dynamics affecting the yen-dollar relationship, and the potential impact on global financing systems including the yen carry trade. The speaker compares Japan's situation to other Western economies facing slow growth and high debt, noting that 90% of Japanese bonds are domestically held, providing more flexibility than the UK's experience. The critical variable is whether increased stimulus spending will weaken the yen, potentially triggering Treasury sales by Japanese authorities and broader market instability.
- keywords: Japan economic stimulus, crisis management investment, five factors economic security, yen carry trade, monetary tightening, fiscal spending policy, currency intervention, BOJ interest rates, Treasury bond holdings, global financing systems, geopolitical regionalization, inflation expectations, semiconductor and AI investment, yen-dollar dynamics, deflationary pressure
- topics: Japan's Economic Policy and Currency Markets, Global Financial System Stress and Central Bank Coordination, Crisis Management Investment and Economic Security Strategy

## Transcript

Language: en Okay. So, today, Friday, let's talk about Tekki in Japan. Uh, she's been, you know, elected. She's now in office. Uh, she met with I don't know how to pronounce it, AC, the, uh, organization. She met with she, um, she met with the people from South Korea. Now she's home. Okay, we know what she said before. She believes that interest rates should be much lower. um forget the inflation rate. She believes that the government needs to spend money and um and and boost the economy. So, let's go through what's going on in Japan because, as you see, it's going to affect us. So, here she is. She's in office and the first thing she's doing is she's working on a $65 billion economic stimulus package. Now in Japan for the last seven eight years I believe they've been working on what we call supplemental budgets almost every year difference in size biggest years being co okay and um she's instructed her ministers to devise a stimulus package called it three pillars of ensuring security of livelihoods addressing rising prices and realizing a strong economy through crisis management investment and growth investment Okay. And listen, the key words here are crisis, management, investments. These are key because this is the five factors. In other words, as the world is is rearranging itself from globalization to let's say regionalization at this time, you have to figure out how you deliver the five factors. And if you don't have one or two of the five factors, you have a choice. You can either sign up with an ally or you can do it yourself. And when you say do it yourself, it really comes down to it doesn't matter what the budget is. Look at America. We have issues with our budget. We have issues with our debt. Is there anybody in our country who doesn't believe that we should now spend a trillion dollars on rare earth minerals? Not me. I would say yes. But we need a plan. We need a strategy. Not this thing of going around just buying give them companies money but crisis management investments is another word uh another words for how do you address the five factors for each country and so they she's also told them don't worry about exceeding the $13.9 trillion yen supplementary budget if it is necessary for crisis management investments and I stop and read what she's going to spend the money on. It doesn't matter to us, but the last paragraph does matter to us. Crisis management into stimulus focusing on advanced technologies like AI, semiconductors, nuclear fusion, and strengthen economic security. Okay, the five factors. an like the US is now speaking about it. I don't know what how we're going to do this, but she now wants a government-ledd uh fund, sovereign fund with about a trillion dollar yen in it, which is to help build ships and anything else for crisis management and dusting. Right? So, that's where they're at. Now, a couple weeks ago, Bent came out, was it asked, and he said, "Hey, we should let Japan hike before the market forces it to." All right. And this is about global plumbing and we know what we want. So the USA wants the dollar to go down around 20 to 30%. It wants the yen to go up 30%. We have told them that. All right. Now the problem is is they've had zero growth now. So sending the end up 30% makes no sense to Japan. Makes total sense to the US. No sense to Japan. raising the interest rates when they have zero growth rate makes no sense to Japan, makes sense to the United States. That's why we're asking for it. So, I want you to read through Endgame macro here. Um, I'll give you some more on this and read what he says. We're not here to discuss that, but it is critically important for the global plumbing. And the LA and again, stop and read, but the last paragraph is this is diplomatic language about anchoring inflation expectation. This is about control. Control the yen. Control the US bond stability and control the funding system that's been quietly stretched for a year. We're talking about the end carry trade. All right. Now in the Nikk uh Asia Nikke or Nikk Asia I think it is. All right. Today they say that Japan is not immune to the trust shock. So what was that? Liz trucks came in an overdebted economy. And so what did she say? We're going to I think it was just around $65 billion dollars in a stimulus package which was tax cuts for the oligarchs in England. And then she said when and we're going to look for how we can spend another 40 or 50 billion uh pounds on um the poor people when we can figure that out. Um the markets rejected it. trust was forced to resign and uh and to save their economy because it just didn't work. And what they're saying here is which we have talked about in many videos, the west, all of us are basically in the same situation. Slow growth, highly in debt. Our fiscal our annual fiscal is is uh in debt, you know, at a deficit. Our our central bank balance sheets are at a deficit. So we all kind of have the same issue. So what are we going to do? We need more money for crisis management investment trying to figure out our own five factors. How do we do that? So you can see here and read about what they say. The BOJ is moving towards the monetary tightening cycle. Remember Udida was brought in. He's an accommodician. He came in to make the interest rates in Japan normal again. So he raised them up. Now they're at 25 basis points or 50 basis points. They were negative for nine years. Okay. And but now you have a government who's coming in and saying we're going to do more fiscal spending. So it's like what do you do with these situations? Now I will say there's a difference between the UK and they point this out. 90% of Japanese bonds are held domestically where like 90% were held internationally by the UK. So not much they could do. All right. So, what do you watch? You watch the yen. Now, listen. Gold and silver's kind of slowed down here, okay? And had a slight correction compared to where they were. Not important. My point on that though is this. The currencies for the last month or so have been basically flat, not going anywhere. All right? And this means that, you know, we're not really sure how this competing policies are going to work out. Um, I would say now that and and most people go read the endgame macro. They don't believe that Japan's going to raise their interest rates through the end of the year. And UDIDA says he's not going to raise them until January, February of 2026. Okay? So they're holding off on raising them because they have a brand new prime minister. She believes, and what cracks me up about Bent saying this, she believes exactly what Bent believes, forget the deficit, forget the inflation rate, lower the interest rates because we have to pay that and that helps us with our deficit. So what he's telling the Japanese to do is an exact opposite of what he's telling us, the Americans, that we should be doing. So Bent is willing to undercut the Fed u make the Treasury um our new Federal Reserve and go against all economic rules and then tell Japan go follow the economic rules. You go figure. Okay? So you want to watch the yen and if the yen starts going down which means up in price, okay, but down in value. So if it hits 160 or above, there's going to be real issues here. And why would it go down? If the budget comes in, it comes in at like 6570 billion. Um, how does the market react to that? We're going to find out which leads us back to the 10-year. All right. Now, this was just 171, I believe, yesterday. Okay. So, um we need to watch this. If this continues to move up to, let's say, 180, 190, um what's happening is is every single day the Japanese are intervening in the currency market. And how do they intervene in the currency market? They sell their treasuries and they buy the yen, right? Because they own 1.1 trillion in treasury. That's what they're doing. So, the West, we're all faced with kind of the same scenario. It looks like um Japan is going to be the first one up the bat, which then could affect the yen carry trade. So, does the yen go down? Um do they raise the interest rates and drive the yen up? Um I don't know. What do you think? Um they're going to she's definitely going to do the uh spending. So, that's coming in. I think y down. What do you think? Like it or follow? Tell me in the comments.


---

<a id="25_e8tw2rmrlvi"></a>

<!-- Source: 25_E8TW2rmrLvI.md -->

# He who solves a problem with a problem will always have problem waiting. Japan & stimulus 11-16-2025

- video_id: E8TW2rmrLvI
- input_ord: 25
- summary: This video analyzes Japan's economic stimulus strategy under new Prime Minister Ishiba Tekachi, focusing on a 110 billion USD stimulus package designed as 'crisis management investing' in defense, semiconductors, AI, and batteries rather than traditional stimulus. The analysis examines how Japan's monetary policy—avoiding interest rate hikes while implementing large-scale fiscal spending—will weaken the yen and Japanese government bonds, potentially breaking the yen carry trade. The speaker argues this represents a critical test case for Western economies facing similar challenges of aging populations, high debt, labor shortages, and currency pressures. Japan's approach demonstrates the tension between maintaining financial market stability and prioritizing economic growth and citizen welfare.
- keywords: Japan stimulus package, yen carry trade, crisis management investing, monetary policy, fiscal deficit, Japanese government bonds, Prime Minister Tekachi, interest rates, aging demographics, currency depreciation, BOJ policy, five factors investing, labor shortage, Western economies, government debt
- topics: Japan's Economic Policy and Stimulus Strategy, Currency Markets and Yen Carry Trade Dynamics, Aging Populations and Fiscal Challenges in Advanced Economies

## Transcript

Language: en Well, it's Sunday morning and let's revisit what's going on in Japan. And we did a video early last week of Tekachi and she asked she took office, okay? And we know three things about her. One, she believes that the interest rates have to be lower. Two, she believes in stimulus package. And three, um, she's not big on, um, either supporting or not supporting the yen. Okay? So, in other words, currencies, as we said in yesterday's video, they go where they want. You know, we can try to control them, but we don't really have a lot of control. Now, in that last video, uh, Tachi had told her ministers, hey, look, you know, a $65 trillion, I think it came out to like 80 billion, okay, in USD, um, is fine. And she said, but if there's any crisis management investing, um, don't worry about the deficit. What does this mean? Her version of crisis manage investing is my version of the five factors. So she said if it's for defense, for ship building, for AI, for REMM, for batteries, this is crisis management investing. We want to set up Japan for the next 10 years in the new environment. So that's what our five factors is. We need to reset ourselves up in the new environment. So this is what's happened. Their Japan's finance minister says the stimulus package is now going to exceed 110 billion. So basically somewhere between 30 and $40 billion higher than what the market was anticipating. Now this gentleman um writes about what we were just talking about you know the crisis management investing. Okay. And it the intention is to relieve the blow of the li uh rising living costs and pour money into future growth sectors like AI, semiconductors and areas Japan can't afford to lag in the global economy fractures and supply chains get rewired. In other words, this is not pure stimulus. It's stabilization. Japan is trying to help households absorb higher prices without forcing the central bank to slam on the brakes and at the same time fund the industries that must anchor the next decade. Okay, this is what we've been talking about with the five factors. There's no way no matter how much in debt the r the west is and we're all in debt. We all basically have older population. We're overindted. We're running fiscal deficits every single country. And yet we have to do what I call five factor investing and TACI is calling it crisis management investing. And I agree 100%. And he goes on to say the US is going to watch this very closely because it's a dress rehearsal for the challenges the US faces in a few years. Okay, I'm going to disagree with this paragraph on one thing. This is all the countries. Look what's going on in the UK as we speak. Look what's going on in France. Look what's going on in Germany. All these countries are faced with the exact same issue and are all kind of like, you know, trying to figure out how they're going to do this. Okay? And so, think about what's going on here. First, Uda is not going to raise the interest rates. Just came out. They're not going to raise them in October and November. They're looking at January, February at the first chance. Um, now you have a huge 17 trillion dollar or$ 110 billion dollar um, USD stimulus package coming. So, you're not raising the interest rates and you're going to have the stimulus package. Down will go the yen. Down will go the pricing of the JGBs which will mean there'll be a higher yield which as they say will compete put pressure on the long end of the US curve just when it Washington is issuing records amount of debt and the last paragraph is what happens if the yen goes down right and we all know what happens it's the end of the yen carry trade and yes I know someone pointed this out the other day and I want to talk about this just for a Second, the yen can go up and break the yen trade. And that's what we'll call a cost problem because the cost of doing the end trade then gets out of whack and people get out of the yen. On the other hand, it can break because of economic activity. In other words, we have the um the stimulus package. We don't raise the interest rates. Down go the yen, down go the JBs. And if you're doing the yen carrier trade, you're long the yen, you're long the JGBs and you took your money and you went over to another country. Well, now you can get better yields or higher yields at home and don't have half the problems. This is when the encry breaks on the other side. So there's two ways the end carry trade breaks. This paragraph here in the first paragraph kind of sums up what we're going to be facing here. They're saying if the 110 billion package goes through, keeps the households afloat, prevents its bond market from convulsing, and gives every other advanced economy with aging demographics and heavy debt a green light to push fiscal harder, it broadens the perceived safe zone for deficit spending because remember, Japan has the largest uh biggest deficit uh bond market. So, if they can get away with it, we can get away with it. And the last paragraph is Japan is the test case. The US is the audience. I would argue the entire Western world is the audience. So here's the yen. Here's what I think. You know, the other day we said 160 it's going to go to. Now I'm going to sit there and say 160 165. That's what the traders in Japan are saying now. Um you know the stimulus package almost twice as big and now UDA is out of the way. He said seven days ago, we're not going to raise the rates. By the way, there's 13 people on the BOJ board. Eight of them said they should raise their rates. You did squash it because of the t the kachi. And the other thing is the 30-year treasure uh BOJ bond. Okay, I know we watched the 10-year here, but in this case, we're going to watch the 30-year. This is actually the competition. So again, if the yen starts going down, then people are going to ask for a premium on the interest on their bonds and the bond prices are going to be going down, which is another issue they have to face. And here's the two-day meeting from the BOJ where there are some people, there's two board men who said they should hike the 75 basis points. odds are if you're dealing in the world of finance, you know, let's keep the markets going and alive, I would say do the 25 basis points to 75 basis point. If your job is to take care of the economy and the people of your country, I would say do the stimulus package, let the yen go down and let your JGPs go down. I don't know. What do you think? And why is this stimulus so important? Well, listen, we all know Japan has one of the oldest societies in in the country. And we also know they don't actually allow a lot of um non-Japanese citizens into the country and thereby they have major labor shortages. And they finally did a study and they feel that it's cost them 2.6% 6% of GDP from the labor crunch. Now remember something. They're growing at 0% GDP. Inflation is three to 3.7. Listening the government listening to me. It's between three and 3.7. This is what's going on in Japan. So we're all in the same boat. We really are. There's different strengths, different reasons, different little different demographics, different um abilities to um uh to manufacture and you know have different strength. But the big things, we have older societies, we have huge debt outstanding. Um our central banks have huge balance sheets. Our fiscal debt every year is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And thereby the currencies are under attack. Our bonds are under attack. We all know what's going on with all the Western world's long-term bonds. They are they are under attack. We're in a bare market. So, we're all going to watch Japan here. But I would think and what do you think? I think the yen's going to go between 160 and 165. They may be forced to raise next year, but we're going to have to see because they're not going to do it now. What do you think they should do? Should you take care of the finance and keep the markets up or should you take care of your people, your economy, and your industry? What's the way to go? Thank you and uh like and


---

<a id="26_ykr4jh0qebs"></a>

<!-- Source: 26_Ykr4jh0Qebs.md -->

# Intel is the vertical hub & spokes for the US tech domestic industry. Nexperia we FAFO. 11-23-2025

- video_id: Ykr4jh0Qebs
- input_ord: 26
- summary: This analysis examines the strategic role of Intel in the US semiconductor supply chain following the Nexperia crisis. When the Dutch expropriated Chinese-controlled Nexperia, global chip supply was disrupted because 100% of chips require packaging in China. This exposed the critical importance of packaging in semiconductor manufacturing. The US government, recognizing supply chain vulnerabilities, has positioned Intel as the central hub for domestic semiconductor production and advanced packaging services. By recruiting TSMC's former advanced packaging executive, Intel is attracting major customers including Microsoft, Tesla, Qualcomm, and Nvidia. The speaker questions why Intel, controlling the entire US tech supply chain from R&D to distribution, is valued at only 5% of competing chip companies.
- keywords: Intel, semiconductor supply chain, Nexperia, chip packaging, US domestic production, TSMC, advanced packaging, China-US relations, foundry services, technology sovereignty, supply chain resilience, Microsoft, Tesla, Nvidia, geopolitical competition
- topics: US Semiconductor Industry Strategy & Domestic Independence, Global Supply Chain Vulnerabilities & Geopolitical Risk, Intel's Role as Technology Hub & Vertical Integration

## Transcript

Language: en Well, it's Sunday morning and it's a snowy Sunday morning. So, today I want to talk uh not about the five factors, but one of the five factors, the technology. And in this one, we're going to be talking about the chips because we've seen over the last um well, the big discussion everywhere between China and America and then of course what happened with the Dutch with Nextperia. So to briefly go back on this next the United States has a new regulation from Lutnik and Navaro um I think it was B301 or something of that nature and but basically it said that if a company is more than 50% held basically by Chinese a Chinese uh China that they're going to be cut off okay can't come to the United States all right and so the Dutch two days before this rule came in, they took some law from like 50, 60 years ago, and they expropriated, you know, depend what you think, legally or illegally, um, Nexperia from the Chinese and fired the Chinese um, CEO. And you must remember seven years ago, Nexperia was bankrupt. China took it over and then they make chips. What do they do? They make 110 billion chips a year that basically go into our cars and this is across the globe. All right. So these next period chips are used in Europe, India, Japan, America, basically everywhere. Okay. So um what happened was is um China said we're not going to ship out of China anymore. So looking into this I found out that 20% of the chips are made in the Netherlands and 80% are made in China. So I was like okay so you know this is not a you know the Dutch didn't think this through but you know double triple the production let's get going if you have to you know what's going to happen here. But then I read that none of the chips were being shipped and the reason being was is that 100% of the chips so the 20% manufactured in Netherlands and the 80% in China are packaged in um China for shipment. And so I've seen that word package before but for the first time I went and looked it up and it's pretty simple. Once you make a chip, okay, and I want you to think about this because this is critically important, right? You have um TSMC makes a chip, they sell it to Nvidia, Nvidia does their stuff with it, whatever it is. Okay. Then they ship it back to uh TSMC for packaging. And the packaging is is that TSMC puts on the electronics that allows the chip to talk to whatever you're plugging it into. So the packaging isn't a nice little box, right? This is the final step of electronics, right? So, as we know, like TSMC has that plant in Arizona, but under contract, all the chips must be shipped back to Taiwan for packaging before they can uh be shipped out because building the chip in Arizona is meaningless if you can't package it. Okay. So, what basically happened was nextia in the entire world were cut off from chips, right? So, what happened? Well, basically the only thing that could happen next says, "Hey, you know, forget if you remember from our whatever you want to call it on our report on what's going to happen in the in the China US negotiation, I said in the end, next is just going to say never mind. It never happened." So, if you're interested, you can stop and read this step by step, date by date. It's up to you. So we're going to read this backwards. We're going to read the second paragraph first. So the Netherlands has considered its right moment to take a constructive step by suspending the order under the goods availability act in close consultation with European and international partner. No, they just suspended what they did. But the first paragraph tells us why. Okay. Um, the Dutch government is positive about the measures already taken by the Chinese authorities to ensure the supply of chips to Europe and the rest of the world. Okay, this is what it's all about. Now, you can read this where they're saying, you know, supply chain fragility and everything, but I thought the last paragraph I just had her say this. So this is a European saying, "China's decision to deescalate was likely motivated by the desire to avoid triggering accelerated decoupling of its semiconductor supply chain." Who the what is this guy talking about? We blinked a thousand%. We actually suspended the 50% rule for a year. We're not even going to implement it because we didn't know all the supply chains we were breaking. This is a typical Western article, by the way. All right. So, I'm going to post this whole article under on every social media site. I just want to say that um uh this is just a piece I'm jumping around. Okay. So, the Netherlands thought it could settle the issue by taking control of Nextia's headquarters and management, but it failed to grasp that 80% of Nexia's wafers need to be sent to Nextia, China for packaging and testing. Same thing happens, right? So, I am not a chip expert, but I can say I now have come to the conclusion. I just read this woman the other day who said that we have learned that we are not experts on supply chain. And I would say, wow. I mean, talk about just ridiculous u I mean, one, we came up with the rule, but the Netherlands put it in. And it's just we're we're insane. Okay, but we're not stupid. So, two days or one day after this comes out, all of a sudden pops up on my screen on Friday. Intel is reported to secure Microsoft, Tesla, Qualcomm, and Nvidia as advanced packaging customers in the US led by its newly hired XT Taiwan executive. So let's talk about Intel for a second. Intel is our foundry. So we now have two foundaries in the United States. Fab foundaries. Okay. One is an Intel and one with TSMC in Arizona. Okay. That's it. You can see in the first paragraph here. That's all we have. All right. Now Intel needs $50 billion to upgrade their facilities to do the new generational state-of-the-art chips. Okay. That's something that we have not solved for. What we solved for is that Intel is going to be that person. Okay? Because read this second paragraph. For those unaware, the US pursuing an independent supply chain which involves setting up all stages of manufacturing including semiconductor R&amp;D, volume manufacturing, and advanced packaging. Okay? And guess who they're going to build this all around? Intel has the widest and most advanced packaging portfolio which is why Digit Time reports that the firm is attracting attention from Microsoft, Tesla, Qualcomm and Nvidia. All right. I think you know, look at is the guy right in what he's saying? But let's be honest. We knew for the last six weeks we were getting our heads handed to us on nextia. We learned on the fly. Okay? And so this doesn't happen in one day. We know this has been happening. We knew we were going to lose nextia. We couldn't shut down all the car industries across the world, right? Not happening. So what this is is do you really think Microsoft, Tesla, Qualcomm and Nvidia got together one day said hey let's make this announcement we're going to use Intel as our packaging service really can't be right it was done by the US government and so in this report they say we've hired this former executive Dr. wage and low. And um guess what? He was in charge of advanced packaging at TSMC. Who did he do it for? Most of the American customers. And they hired him. Now, we're touting this. But if you go read the Taiwanese newspapers, they're they are not happy. Okay? They think that we did them in, but they can't do anything about it because they need us to support them against China. So, it is what it is. So, they talk about the longer term strategy. In this first paragraph, I just want to point out here in the second paragraph here is that currently companies like Nvidia are required to ship the wafers produced in Arizona to Taiwan for packaging which has overhead blah blah blah blah blah blah. We don't care about that. We want everything in this country and we're demanding that it happens. So here's Sunday's question. How can the hub of all the tech in the United States, Intel, from the beginning to the end, servicing all the big chip companies be valued at basically 5% of all these other chip companies? Matron.


---

<a id="27_dkewla5wahg"></a>

<!-- Source: 27_DKEwlA5wahg.md -->

# Investing in Critical Manufacturing Sovereignty by counter investing 12-2-2025

- video_id: DKEwlA5wahg
- input_ord: 27
- summary: This video discusses critical manufacturing sovereignty as an investment strategy in response to geopolitical and supply chain concerns. The speaker introduces the 'five factors' framework—food sufficiency, energy sufficiency, technology, vulnerability to attack, and critical infrastructure—that countries use to guide economic decisions. Drawing parallels to Japan's critical management investments, the speaker advocates for 'critical manufacturing sovereignty' as a key investment thesis. The core strategy involves a 60/40 portfolio foundation: 60% in the S&P 500 for market exposure, with 10% in AI ETFs, and the remaining 30% in counterinvestments (physical assets like gold, silver, oil, potash, and real estate). The speaker emphasizes that successful counterinvesting requires understanding appropriate investment vehicles—preferring direct ownership of commodities over company shares. Historical market analysis demonstrates that despite periodic crises, long-term equity investments have proven resilient since 1920.
- keywords: critical manufacturing sovereignty, five factors framework, counterinvesting strategy, supply chain resilience, S&P 500, alternative investments, geopolitical risk, portfolio allocation, commodities, reshoring, financial assets vs physical assets, investment vehicles, tariffs and trade, market cycles, risk management
- topics: Investment Strategy & Portfolio Allocation, Geopolitical Economics & Manufacturing Sovereignty, Alternative Investments & Counterinvesting

## Transcript

Language: en Well, hello from a very snowy northeast today with the nor easter so snow all day. So, we have plenty of time. Today, I wanted to take a little step back. Um, a lot of people have been approaching me asking me um through DMs and so forth um how to do the investing given the five factors. So the first thing I want to say is you know three years ago when I saw what I believe was going to happen and what is now happening is I named it the five factors that countries would make their decisions based on new factors and it would be are we food sufficient energy sufficient where's our technology um um can we be easily attacked and and critical underwater um infrastructure cui those are the five things that people were going countries PM dictator doesn't matter you're going to have to resolve for these issues then we saw Taki get elected in Japan and she called it critical um critical management investment okay so she looks at it the same thing saying that she wants to invest in the future the in the chips ship building defense and REMM all right and then I saw someone the other day They called it, and I happen to like this one, but this is what I want an opinion of, critical manufacturing sovereignty. Actually, the person was manufacturing sovereignty is the new buzz term. And I think it's critical because we're already blowing away all our tariffs on things we do not make and don't care to make. What we're talking about is the things we have to make. And these things cost an incredible amount of money. And it's money that none of us really have unless we borrow it. So this is going to be an issue going forward. So to me, what do you think? I think it's critical manufacturing sovereignty. That's what I think it is. What do you think it is now as for investing? Okay. Now [snorts] when I look at the world, none of us know what's going to happen. I have no clue what's going to happen. I develop narratives that everyone knows. I follow multiple narratives. I don't care which one uh makes it through as long as I'm invested in it. I could care less. All right. So, it when I'm reading through the news every day, it seems that we're kind of in some kind of doom loop. Everyone's looking for the end of the world, right? That this is going to break. It's going to be the reverse repo. It's going to be the debt. It's going to be this. But it always ends with the end of the world. And that's where I disagree. I have found in my 50 years in the businesses, the world does not end in one day at all. Now, if you studied the markets, you would know that the number one investment asset class, okay, um since 1920 has been the S&amp;P 500. Okay. So yes, I just saw today that gold now has outperformed the S&amp;P for the last 30 years. But when you look at it over a 100redyear period, the number one investment asset class is the S&amp;P. Now when you go back and you look at the moves here, you see 1929, you see down it went, it was bad, right? And you look at um 1968. I mean, the thing that gets me is look at 1987 in there. It's barely a blip. Trust me, when I went through that, I thought it was the end of the world. And I just want to point out here, I got hired in 1975. Okay? And so, you can see my first six, seven years in the business. We had what we called stagflation. We were in trouble, right? And everything happened to us. This is why I know about picks, right? Payment and kind bonds, inflation, gold and silver, because that was my life. There was no stocks and bonds. Trust me, we didn't do any stocks and bond. We did oil trust and oil, excuse me, um, gold and silver. Now, you see the up, you see the great financial crisis. And, you know, when you look at it, it was the great financial crisis, but you know, this is what it was on the chart. And I want you to point out March of 2009. Anybody who's been following the channel from the beginning knows we've spoken about this multiple times. What happened in March of 2009 was is that uh the government, the FASB, so our accounting association passed a new rule, Fazby 157, which said that if you decide um uh to hold something to maturity that you can carry 100% on your books. And notice what happened from that day forward. We went straight up and basically have continued to go straight up. So my point here is that you always want to be invested in the market. Okay. Now here's the questions you have to ask yourself. One is what percent are you going to build your foundation? It's like building a house. How big is your foundation? What is your foundational investment? Now to me your call I believe that the number one investment asset class is a good place to start. So let's say I decide 50%. 50% is going to be in the S&amp;P 500. That is my foundation. Then I like a AI. I don't. But let's say I do. I I love AI. So I want to buy an AI ETF. I don't care how you do it. Stocks, bonds, only six or seven to buy. I'm going to put another 10% in AI. That's 60%. Now we know we have all these issues. we have uh the problems with uh the reshoring with the supply chain with our debt uh all the tariffs all this stuff's going on and so three years ago I quote unquote turn negative on the market but I was like I'm not sure what's going to happen. So thereby I believe that I would put 60% into the S&amp;P 500. Now, the S&amp;P 500's done well and I got 60% of that performance. On the other hand, I believe in counterinvesting. So, if you think about it, the S&amp;P 500 represents financial assets, paper. And if you're going to do counterinvesting, that normally means you're going to go into a new world of alternative investment. So you're talking about fixed investments, property, gold, silver, oil, um podash, um now we know all these things are are not financial assets. But if you're going to invest in them, you have to decide what vehicle how are you going to invest in them? And trust me, that is the difficult part. This is the part that separates the men from the boys or the women from the girls. your ability to counterinvest in the best and most efficient costefficient and risk efficient way that you can participate in counterinvesting. Now for the people who follow this channel, I will I would argue that MP and Intel were counterinvestments. Yes, they were stocks, but they were bought specifically saying that if things happen, then these things should go up. So, we don't have the if China cuts us off, is going to be an issue. And it is. Look at Intel. Intel is all about Taiwan. If if it's 60 miles off the coast of China, that was the answer. So, the answer was is we need to build it on our own country. And I would say now everyone's discussing it's going to be Intel that's going to do this. Now, everyone sees this chart all the time. This is Birkshshire and he has a record. And by the way, this shows I've seen from 325 billion up to 384 billion. I don't know what it is, but basically Bergkshire Hathway is the largest private holder of treasuries right now. Cash and cash equivalents. Okay. So there's they have about 42 billion in cash. The rest are in cash equivalents which are basically treasuries. Okay. So notice this is what everyone talks about. Birkshshire has all this cash. End of the world doom doom cycle, right? But this is the percent of Birkshshire that is in cash. It's around 27 and a half. That means there's 71 a.5% invested in the market, which is exactly what I'm talking about. The one thing I'm going to say about counterinvesting, and you're going to have to, you know, if you want, I'll discuss it in other things, is the vehicles, right? Do you buy a mutual fund? Do you buy the stock? Do you buy an ETF? Do you do a structured product? How do you buy podash, right? We don't want companies that buy podash. We want to own podash. We don't want companies that buy gold and silver. We want to own gold and silver. So when you get into counterinvesting, your knowledge of investment vehicles on how you can express your views is now critically important. All right? So constantly understand what your risk levels are. I'm not here to tell you what to do. My I train FAS and I train them one way that our job is to assist people in making the best decision for themselves. This channel is about helping you assist you in making the best decision for yourself.


---

<a id="28_a9rk6-zfoim"></a>

<!-- Source: 28_a9rK6-ZfOiM.md -->

# Rising debt implies higher financing needs by sovereigns, crowding out corporate debt 11-28-2025

- video_id: a9rK6-ZfOiM
- input_ord: 28
- summary: This video analyzes how rising sovereign debt is creating a crowding-out effect in corporate debt markets. The speaker discusses how heavily indebted Western nations, particularly the UK and Japan, are issuing increasing amounts of government debt to finance spending and investments. As sovereigns compete for capital with higher yields, corporate bond spreads over treasuries are expanding, making it more expensive for corporations to borrow. The video examines real-world examples like OpenAI seeking government bond guarantees and Japan's $120 billion stimulus package, questioning whether corporations will need government backing to refinance debt. The speaker compares different policy approaches—the UK's tax-focused austerity versus Japan's growth-focused stimulus—and asks whether raising interest rates can offset inflation and currency pressures while maintaining stimulus spending.
- keywords: sovereign debt, crowding out effect, corporate debt issuance, credit spreads, government bonds, bond yields, fiscal stimulus, interest rates, debt-to-GDP ratio, corporate financing, treasury yields, monetary policy, currency pressure, government guarantees, refinancing risk
- topics: Sovereign Debt and Fiscal Policy, Corporate Debt Markets and Credit Spreads, Central Bank Policy and Interest Rates

## Transcript

Language: en Well, I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving yesterday and now we're back into the markets today and uh I must say first off the bat, Intel's having quite the day. But it's more interesting reading through the news, I think people are starting to connect the dots and they're starting to realize that the hub and spokes of our technology ecosystem is a company called Intel. Um so it's going to be very interesting. I think that um we haven't remotely um just come to the point where we understand how valuable it is. The way I look at it is you have all our tech stocks and then you have Intel selling at basically 5% of the value. That is going to change. So whether it goes to 50%, 100% or 200% of the value of these other stocks, I have no idea. What I'm saying is is that Intel's value is going to be much higher than it is today. Okay. Now, several years ago when we did introduce the five factors, we said the characteristics of the five factors is going to be one when we break a global system. All right. Um it's going to take years not weeks to fix. All right? and we use like a hurricane hitting uh the Gulf of Mexico. Close them down couple days, reopen it, oil up, oil down. All right. Not going to be that way. Now, when I did that two and a half years ago, I certainly didn't believe that we were going to end up with rare earth minerals that maybe probably a 10 to 20 year uh time frame to fix and estimated by our own government $2 trillion and we may not fix it. The point is is time and money. Okay, that's my point. It's the characteristics of our new world. Now, for us in the West, this is a real issue. I'm not saying the West is the only one, but we all are heavily indebted. All of us are, okay, in the West. And this is going to be the give and take. And we're seeing this across the world as fascinating as can be. When you look and see what's going on with the UK budget that they just introduced and what's going on with Japan with their budget that they just introduced, they have almost the exact same characteristics. Very low growth if no growth. All right. Highly indebted where Japan's way more indebted than the UK, but still highly indebted. And and the biggest difference I think between the UK and Japan is growth rate. The UK has nothing going for them. They just put out a budget that helps the people, the poor people, gives them more money, more food, and all this other stuff, but the businesses are complaining. They didn't do anything for business, for growth. Then you look over at Japan, more debt, but they actually passed a stimulus package of $120 billion. And it's what Takachi calls crisis management investment. They did about 10% of the money to help the people out with the inflation. Japan has about 2.7 2.8% inflation rate. All right? And food is like 15 16%. So that's where they gave money. 90% is for crisis management investing. They're putting it into ships, into defense, into chips, into rare earth minerals. These are the things they're investing in because as Tekkashi says, we need these things for the next 20 25 years to grow. All right? So even though they're heavily in debt, they're issuing more debt to invest in themselves to grow. This is what we figured was going to happen. And as we said in that original video, we're going to watch because we believe that we could end up in a situation where we the government's issuing of debt will crowd out the corporate issuance of debt. Now when I say crowd out doesn't mean corporate issuing goes away. It means that the spreads between treasuries and corporate are going to go up as corporates are forced to compete with the sovereign debt. All right, so let's take a look at some numbers. So the first thing here is this is a chart of all the cuts or keep them the same interest rates by central banks. And as you can see we're basically around 90 what 93 94% have cut or kept them the same. No one's raising interest rates. So first we've all seen this. Here's our our debt over GDP. And as we can see, Japan is by far and away number one. And you can see the UK is way down there. But they h both have basically the same problem. So here's our corporate debt issuance. Um this was ending in 2024. You can see it was um almost $7 trillion from uh in 2024. When I asked perplexity, we're at 5.95 trillion. After 10 months, we're going to be between seven and 7.2 trillion in corporate issuance this year, 2025, which is an all-time record. Now, we've done several videos on the longterm sovereign debt, how it's just every sovereign debt is just breaking up when their interest rates just go higher and higher and higher. Okay? So you have corporations that issue their debt and how do we price it? We price it what over treasuries. So there's a deal last a couple days ago. It was two and a quarter over treasuries. So treasuries are 4%. It came out at 6 and a quarter. This is the credit spread of junk and investment grade. Now you can see when we stress um people sell their corporates and up go the spread over treasuries and they buy treasuries. But if you look here, you can see over here in the right hand side, we're starting to see the spreads expand. So while the sovereign debt is being issued at higher interest rates and more and more debt is being issued and the corporations are at record levels of issuance, the credit spreads are rising up more and more and more. So what does that mean to us and how is this going to be resolved over a period of time? Well, I think all we have to do is look at open AI. Open AI as we know has made 1.2 two trillion in commitments um to build data centers and all this other stuff. And um basically they just announced that they lost 15 billion dollars for the quarter. They have no money and as we know they leaked I don't know on purpose or not that they think that the US government uh should guarantee their bonds. So think about what we just showed you. If the corporate bond is issued and guaranteed by the US government or the UK, whatever it is, right? Whatever government, then the yield would be the yield of the government bonds. So here you can see you're going to be saving on let's say junk, you know, low uh rated bonds almost 3%. And on your um investment grade is about one and a half. But it's now turning up as a demand for money is starting to skyrocket across the world as everyone is starting to invest. Look at Japan. They just pass they're going to issue another 120 billion in the stimulus bill. And here's Open AI. They float that the federal government should support. Um and they point out that this is not the first time this has happened. We did this with the railroads. Then I guess you could actually make the the argument that the railroads were, you know, our old way of moving things and today it's going to be through technology. So is this the way we should do it? I don't know. Tell me in the comments. And you can see now people are starting to look at this debt that the corporations have and they're asking how are they going to refinance it? And more importantly, at what rate? at where is the difference between treasuries going to be? And if we break treasuries and our yields on our 30-year Treasury goes up, then all these other yields are going to go up also. How is this going to work out? Now, with the introduction of the $120 billion U stimulus bill in Japan, we all saw that the yen collapsed. It went from basically 151 to 157. I think it's 156 something. They're intervening in the thing. and UNIDA on Tuesday or Monday said I may raise the rates in December. Okay, so this is interesting you know so the UK went the other way. The UK said, "We're just going to raise the taxes, stabilize our system." Where on the other hand, the Japanese said, "No, we're going to do the stimulus and bill and invest in growth for our future." But think about this. Is it possible that you can raise your rates as the offset? In other words, have the stimulus bill raise your interest rates, which could stabilize the yen and allow you to get away with it until the growth picks up. I don't know. What do you think? All governments are going to have to make the same decisions that's going on. So to me, when I look at this as the US, what way are we going to do? Are we going to do it like the UK did or are we going to do it the way Japan did? What do you think? Tell me in the comments and like and follow.


---

<a id="29_rd-d9pyhhde"></a>

<!-- Source: 29_rD-D9pYHhdE.md -->

# The Europe⧸Russia⧸China narrative new data points show a new future 12-21-2025

- video_id: rD-D9pYHhdE
- input_ord: 29
- summary: The speaker analyzes emerging geopolitical shifts using five economic factors: food sufficiency, energy independence, technology capability, demographics, and defensibility. Two years after predicting Europe and Russia would eventually unite economically, recent developments support this thesis, including Putin's proposal for a Russian-EU superalliance with combined GDP exceeding the US. However, China views Russia as weakened and vulnerable, with Chinese officials openly discussing territorial seizure of Russian Far East resources, particularly Siberia's water reserves and minerals. Meanwhile, European integration faces internal obstacles, exemplified by Italy's resistance to banking consolidation. The speaker emphasizes these are data points indicating long-term structural shifts, not immediate political changes, requiring 5-10 years to fully manifest.
- keywords: geopolitical realignment, Europe-Russia alliance, China expansion, economic factors, energy independence, Siberia water resources, EU integration, great power competition, demographic decline, territorial disputes, economic superpowers, Putin speech, supply chains, global power shifts, resource competition
- topics: Shifting Global Power Dynamics and Multi-Polar World Order, Economic Drivers of Geopolitical Alignment, Resource Competition and Territorial Ambitions in Asia

## Transcript

Language: en Two years ago, I made my first video on all the countries but including Europe and the five factors how countries will make the decisions going forward into the new world. I also was very clear that I don't think we should pay attention in these first one, two or three years. They're indications but you can't change countries, their supply lines, their allies overnight. It takes time. We won't know I don't think for five maybe 10 years how this all you know shakes out for the US or for anybody. So when I looked at Europe and put the five factors are they food sufficient? They're not. Are they energy sufficient? They're not. How's their technology? I would say it in I do one two three I think it's a one. Um, when you look at their demographics, well, every country in Europe has terrible demographics and then are they easy to attack? And most of Europe over the history of the world has been very easy to attack. That's just the way it is. Okay. So what I said was it looked to me that in the future China would take back Eastern Asia. The stand would rise in the middle and Europe and Russia would come together as one because it made economic sense. I realize it makes zero political sense and people go they'll never cut a deal with Putin. I didn't say they're cutting a deal with Putin. I said, "10 to 15 years from now, Europe and Russia will be together." Now, the Russian trolls went crazy on me because of the end of the Russian Empire. Then I made another video saying, "I think the end of the American Empire is here, too. Doesn't mean Russia's going away. It's not. Doesn't mean America's going away." It's not. We're still going to be big players in the world. We're just not going to be the empires that we were for 70 or 80 years. Okay? So, it's a narrative. I don't know if it's going to happen. We're talking, we're watching Europe right now. I don't, my personal opinion, they're not going to make it through in the form that they are today, but we're going to find out. But then Putin this past week gave a speech. And what does he say? They say Putin drops a geopolitical bombshell. And he says that the Russian EU super alliance could have an economy bigger than the US economy. If we join our efforts, Russia and the European countries and our joint GDP would be higher than the US. This is what I'm talking about. He's not looking at it politically. Um he's looking at it economically. And by the way, don't be um fooled that oh, China and Russia are buddy buddies. They're not buddy buddies. There's no way. Okay, if they were really really buddy buddies, China would have a much heavier footprint right now in the war going on with Ukraine. They're not. And to me, my personal opinion, which I have no proof of, I think they're bleeding Russia on purpose. Now, in China, now this is December 19th. They are openly stating that Russia will collapse and they need to seize at least a third of its territory. So if you read Chinese, you can read this or you can read this. So the Russian economy is in a difficult situation. GDP is even inferior to any single Chinese province. Uh the war Ukraine's been going on. Uh they stripped there's less than 50,000 military personnel in the Far East. It's an empty shell. If Russia really collapses, the 7 million kilometer uh border, the Far East should not be lost in vain. History's already taught China bitter lessons. A forcible seizure is impossible to lead to international isolation as in the case of Crimea. But the region is sparssely populated, cold, poor infrastructure, and Russia is not effectively able to manage it. China by helping to close these gaps is actually taking control of key arteries. Due to depopulation, the region turns into deserted zones. Chinese migrants already working there. But it's important not to provoke resistance. In the event of a Russian collapse, the risk of fragmentation of Far East will be high. China should be prepared to advance. All these things they said there, we said two years ago, okay? That there's nobody there. And uh by the way uh that we put up a another news item I don't know about maybe two months ago if someone remembers saying that North Korea and China have already grabbed hundreds of thousands of square kilometers on their borders from Russia already. Okay, it's happening. It's because Russia can't defend itself. All right, that's what's going on there. Now with the Europeans, we know what's going on there. They can't agree on anything. And again, it's the difference between the political world and the economic world. Look at Maloney. She wants to be a big player in the EU, but she can't get out of her own way. She just denied the EU the Maroser deal. Okay. Now, they say they're going to sign on the 12th and she says, "I only need another week and all this other stuff." the the reading I'm saying from the European papers is she's putting pressure on the EU to give Italy more money in the budget. So basically she's holding up the EU. And it was interesting what was said to her. They brought her in the EU and they said, "Hey, you've got to start thinking like a European and stop thinking like an Italian." And in fact is Lulu actually called her up on the phone and told her the same thing. He said after 25 years in negotiation if you don't sign this deal we will never negotiate with you again ever. Okay. So Maloney does I don't know there it's 50/50 from my reading in Europe whether they're going to sign them a kosher deal or not. Okay. So hopefully they do. All right. But the point being is is in Europe they're realizing what's going on. Italy's leading newspaper just printed on Friday, okay, saying that we need a United States of Europe and it's been signed by 53 other prominent um Europeans. The point with this being is they're starting to realize in our first video two years ago, we said a good test for the Europeans and the reason we made the video was that the Italian bank was trying to take over. I think it's Unicredited was trying to take over the postal bank in um in Germany. And we said unless the Europeans can allow this to happen, they're never going to be a United States of Europe. Well, it's two years. It's totally blocked in um in Germany, but it looks like they would allow it. But in Italy, um, Maloney is backed by a northern, uh, Italian bank is her main supporter, main money person. And if the Unicredit, I believe it is, takes over the postal bank, then um, they'll be bigger than her backer. She won't allow it to happen. Okay. Again, unless the Europeans get out of their own way, this is not going to happen. I saw someone speak the other day. Um I believe it was Sarah Payne, P I N. And uh she has written many books uh at least five on um Asia and particularly China. And um she came on and she was saying exactly the same thing. So you can look at her on Tik Tok, she's on YouTube, she's everywhere, okay? Plus you can read her books. But she comes on and says, you know, the northern China plane, okay, they have sucked all the water out of there, right? [snorts] They just don't have the water. And we're seeing this in Iran and so forth. So, you know, water not a big issue today, but trust me, it's going to be a huge issue over the next 50 years. Just no way it's not. Okay. So, what happened? What she says is look at they're going to take northern China, northern eastern Russia, north of China, okay, Siberia. She says, "Oh yeah, it has the Antarctic. It has rare earth minerals, has oil, gas, gold, silver, all that stuff. But more importantly, it has Lake Ball." Okay, that's up there in the middle. That's that blue. It is 20% of the world's fresh water. 20% in Lake Ball and anybody who knows anything about the Chinese their ability to construct dams and so forth they are experts and I mean experts at huge water projects. So her point was, as she says, the moment, the absolute moment that they think they can do it, they will take Siberia for all the other stuff, but mainly because they need the water. And she said, and Russia can't do anything about it. So again, I just want to say this is a narrative. These are data points. Nothing set in stone. We watch. We watch the data points to see what's going on. What do you think? What are your data points?


---

<a id="30_4wklrwcfpwc"></a>

<!-- Source: 30_4wkLrwcFpwc.md -->

# The Europeans - EU - EURO - NATO are in flux. The question is what will the EURO do？ 12-17-2025

- video_id: 4wkLrwcFpwc
- input_ord: 30
- summary: This video analyzes Europe at a critical inflection point as global negotiations shift from political to economic frameworks. The speaker examines how the EU faces multiple pressures: the Mercosur trade deal (25 years in negotiation, approved one week after Liberation Day), tensions over China policy with disagreements among member states, and the Ukraine conflict creating east-west divisions. With Trump's Christmas deadline for NATO decisions, Europeans must resolve competing interests in chip technology, energy sovereignty, and critical minerals. The speaker suggests if the euro destabilizes from internal disagreements, investors might pivot to the yen or dollar, potentially creating significant currency volatility. These decisions will fundamentally determine whether the EU remains unified or fragments into separate economic blocs within months.
- keywords: European Union, Economic negotiations, Mercosur trade deal, China tariffs, NATO commitment, Ukraine conflict, Euro currency, East-West divide, Energy sovereignty, Supply chain management, Chip technology, Currency volatility, Political fragmentation, Trade agreements, Yen appreciation
- topics: European Political and Economic Fragmentation, Global Trade and Economic Sovereignty Shifts, Currency Markets and Investment Implications

## Transcript

Language: en I've been trying to do this video. I can't get it straight. I can't get it in a way that I want to talk to you about it. But this is really what I'm trying to say is I believe that the Europeans are at a um inflection point. You got to remember something in the old world when America dominated the world. All the agreements around the world were political agreements backed by military agreements. Example, EU, NATO, okay? But that's around the whole world. [snorts] But here's the issue. Everything's now changed. Everything that we're negotiating is economics. Economics of bringing it back to our own countries, right? Critical manufacturing sovereignty. Um setting up REMM, rare earth minerals. um your supply chains, where you get everything, where do you get your chips from, where do you get everything from. So in other words, our world has swapped from everything was politics because think even during the last 70 years, you know, you have Russia, China, and all this sort of stuff. We traded with everybody. Everyone traded with everybody. That was if there's a characteristic of the PAX Americana, it was that we didn't care who you traded with, which shocked everybody. Okay, that's over. It's totally over. So now all the negotiation is being done according to the five factors. Can you feed yourself? Do you have your own energy? What's your technology? Um what's your demographics? And are you easy to attack? If you're sitting in the middle of Europe and you're Austria, let's say politically you agree with Hungary, but on your north and you have Poland and they don't like each other and you have to make a choice between the two. Do you go with Poland, the biggest military power in Europe, or do you go with Hungary who can be overrun in five minutes? I don't know. That's their call. My point is being easy to attack is something that people have to deal with whether you like it or not. And that's what the Europeans are dealing with Ukraine. They feel that when the Ukraine falls, they're next. We'll see. Okay. Now, here's the deal. As these ne economic negotiations are coming to fruition as we speak, okay, Macron just came back from China. He comes back and says, "We need to put immediate big-time terrorists on um China." Well, not everyone agrees. Maloney just flew to um China after Mccron and was like, "No, we're not going to do it." Spain, China's building a billion-dollar battery plant there. They're like, "No, we're not going to do it." Again, I don't really care what people are saying, why they're saying it, or anything like that. Doesn't matter to me. What matters is is they can't agree as an entity, the Europeans, how they're going to work with China. That's it. Okay? And as of this moment, they don't agree at all. Now, Europe doesn't feed itself. Right? So, think about it. Think of how Europe was hurt when they cut off when Russia cut off the gas. They've gone. They're paying three and a half times more than Americans pay for gas. All right? Didn't work out well at all. This war with Russia, but it is what it is. Now, look at this more kosher deal. So, this Makosher deal is between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay for food. So they're going to have special tariffs around food and Europe going both ways. Okay? So that both sides, you know, Europeans get more food and the Europeans can send their specialty foods down to the four countries. Okay? How many years did they negotiate this deal? How many years? 25 years. 25 years. Okay. And guess when it was approved? Shocking. A week after Liberation Day. Oh my. So once all the tariffs are put on, then the Europeans with the cold um bucket of water in the face said, "Hey, you know, after 25 years, let's get this up." Well, people, the vote is December 20th. So the EU as a regulatory a agency approved it. Now, each state has to approve it, but you need x amount of states. And if enough states, 35% of the population, vote against it, it's rejected. Who's against it? Italy and France, the two biggest food people. So, they don't want to approve it. What's the issue here? I could care less what they do. All right. The issue is this. The EU has said themselves that if they don't approve this deal, the EU doesn't really exist anymore. We have no credibility. We who are we going to negotiate with period after 25 years? Who are we going to negotiate with? I happen to agree with them. This could be a gamecher. Notice what they were. They're both economic deals. Now, they have issues with the Ukraine, which is a military deal. I totally get it. All right? And they're going to have to make up their minds what they want to do, and there's difference of opinion. I always thought it'd be e north and south, right? The south and the north would not agree, and the Europeans would divide up. But it's become far more evident that yes there's this north south divide but actually the east west you know the old um iron uh curtain countries um they spent 30 years under the thumb of the Russians they don't want to go back okay not a chance so they could go into the Ukraine and the others not does the EU stay together if that happens and these decisions are coming now because Trump says if you don't do this approval by Christmas, we're pulling out. If they pull out and the Europeans decide to go in, what Europeans go in? What don't go in? And does the euro and does the EU and the euro hold together through this uh stress factor that's going on? Okay, this is where so what I'm saying is we see these major economic issues that need to be decided by the euros coming up right now right the Ukraine's right now the mourser deals right now the China deals right now this is only the beginning you know that they're trying to decide where are they gonna how they're going to dom they have to do it together or they're going to do it apart one way or the other going to do What are they going to do with their chip technology? What what are they going to do with their data centers? All this stuff either going to do it together or they're not. It's like there is no ifands and buts on this. And the biggest issue is most of this stuff's coming due in the next one, two, three months. Okay? So, it's going to be messy no matter what happens. So what have we been experiencing for the last couple years? As we said many times before, there's only four major buckets that big money can invest in. You invest in the euro, the dollar, the yen, or the remimi. Let's take the remimi out because it's too closed of a system and people can't actually afford to put trillions of dollars there. I'm going to downgrade the dollar only in this sense. Everyone holds the dollar. People are trying to cut how much they hold of the dollar facing what paper said they want to do and the taxes and and the force conversions and everything. So people are trying to lower their their money in the dollar. They can't get rid of it. It's Tina. There is no alternative. No way. It's over. So now you got the euro and you got the yen. We all know the problems with the yen. We've talked about it. ad nauseium, high inflation, negative growth, interest rates going up, stimulus package, highest indebted country. We all know this stuff. But here's what I'd say to you. If you just take a step back and say when you raise the interest rates on Friday in Japan, is that good or bad for the yen? It's good for the yen, right? If you pass a stimulus package, which you did, is that good or bad for the yen? It's good for the yen, right? Because that's what drives up your currency is that you have economic activity. All right? So, with all the uncertainty in Japan over the last couple years, which has come to a head and we actually know what's going to happen now with Tekkachi, look at what happened. So, about 13 14 months ago, the cross rate was 155. Today, it's 183. Right? So if in the next couple months the euro starts fraying and countries start opting out, right, or other countries decide we're going to go forward and go into Ukraine or we're going to cut a deal with China. If you don't come with us, then the hell with you. We're moving on. Who knows what's I have no idea what's going to happen. I'm just saying this is what could happen. So where if the euro starts declining okay because of all the issues of changing from political to economic all right what's going to happen are you going to run to the dollar you going to run to the remimi or you going to sell the euro and buy the yen and you can buy a ETF so you have no timing sometimes single double triple I think there's a quintuple on the way up and now. So, it's something to consider if you think this is going to happen.


---

<a id="31_zdt2z95ldjy"></a>

<!-- Source: 31_zdT2Z95lDJY.md -->

# The Fed, with yesterday's cut,  moves the Fed into managing our debt's interest rates 12-11-2025

- video_id: zdT2Z95lDJY
- input_ord: 31
- summary: The Federal Reserve's recent interest rate cut signals a fundamental shift in its operational mandate from traditional inflation and employment management to actively managing U.S. debt servicing costs. With 83% of federal debt maturing within one year due to short-term issuance strategies, the Fed is prioritizing rate reduction regardless of long-term bond market consequences. The central bank plans to purchase $40-45 billion monthly in short-term treasuries while allowing long-term rates to rise uncontrolled. This strategy aims to reduce debt servicing expenses from approximately 30% to 15% of the budget by driving rates toward 2%. The speaker argues this represents a deliberate pivot toward supply-side economic management and structural economic reorganization, with implications for currency valuation and global leverage trades.
- keywords: Federal Reserve interest rate cuts, debt management strategy, QT ending, short-term treasury purchases, long-term bond market, federal debt maturity, interest rate policy, quantitative easing, Fed balance sheet, dollar devaluation, supply-side economics, debt servicing costs, leverage trades, monetary policy shift, currency management
- topics: Federal Reserve Policy Transformation, U.S. Debt Management and Interest Rate Strategy, Global Economic Restructuring and Currency Dynamics

## Transcript

Language: en So, it's Thursday morning and yesterday the Fed cut the interest rates as we've been saying they were going to do in our last couple videos. But the last couple videos we were focusing on that the Fed's entire um reason for how they act is now changed because with the ending of QT and our $6.5 trillion um [snorts] uh balance sheet and they're seemingly um that they do not care if the long bond goes up as long as they're driving down the interest rates. And we then found out that 83% of our debt is due in the next year. Okay. Because Bet has only been issuing short debt. So was there anything in yesterday's um um announcements that confirm deny our narrative that the Fed is on a totally different course. So, here's the article in the Financial Times, and right off the bat, you know what you notice? It was a fractious meeting. Okay, what did we mean by that? And by the way, look down at the bottom. They're saying that the bar for further rate cuts in the new year was high. And I'd say we'll see about that. So, I skipped over to QE. He he broke it down, right? There were uh six officials in total wanted no change in the rates. Okay, that is incredibly high for the Fed. Seven want no changes next year. 11 only want one cut next year. And the Fed idiot Moran Mor Moran the wants rates down to 2.12% next year. right? I agree with that. But he's a when you look at the Fed the old way. If you're going to look at the Fed the new way, then we have to start thinking to ourselves, they don't care. They want they're going to drive down the rates and it'll have nothing to do with inflation and nothing to do with employment. It's all about how we do not pay any high interest rates. So, the reason is downside risk to employment rose in recent months. Uh but when you read this whole article, they actually go in there and say what we said yesterday is that, you know, we're basically at a hundredyear low in in unemployment. It's like insane. And then they indicate that inflation remain somewhat [snorts] elevated. Again, you and I both know it's more than elevated, but they don't care. They're moving on from this. Okay. And notice this last line. Three of the dozen voters on the Fed policy setting board objected to the central bank's quarter point cut, the most powerful revolt since 2019. So I'm not surprised by this. If you're going to transform the Fed from doing one thing one way for 50 years, employment and inflation, to the new world of managing how little we can pay in our interest, people are going to totally disagree. In this page of the article, they're just saying what we just said, okay? That the jobless rate remains low by historical standards. Duh. Okay? You know, watching um the social media and television, you would think that these people were born yesterday. They never look and take anything in context. And then they say that given the inflation that it means the Fed has little room to cut borrowing costs. I get that. Remember, we control the short rates. The market controls the long rates. So, if you don't care about the long rates, you can do what you want with the short rates. All right? And they also said, last line here, that resume buying shortterm treasuries to ease strain on the US money markets. I want you to consider what they just said there. We know that we control the short rates. we can drive them down, but we can lose control of the long rates, which we are doing. The 10 and the 30 are going away from us. We're not controlling them anymore, and they don't seem to care. In fact, is I would argue they do not care. All right. So, in this thing where they're saying that we cut by a quarter point, as you know, Moran wanted to cut by a half a point, which Trump supported, and Moran said the interest rate is supposed to be 2% next year. Um maybe they'll get there because they're gonna have to control the Fed to get there. But more importantly, they announced they're going to be buying between 40 and 45 billion dollars to treasuries every month. So I mean, think about it. We can control the short rates. So there's no big deal there. We if we lower or raise the interest rates, we control that. Okay? It's the long rates that we don't control. So, if we're going to be buying4 to4 billion dollar a month, you would think that the Fed would be buying long-term bonds, right? To help control the long-term rates. Guess what? They're not. They're going to do 40 to4 billion dollar a month on shortterm rates. What does this mean? This means that they are going to drive down the interest rates. And if they get more control of the Fed, what's they're desperately doing is they're going to drive them down to, like Ron said, down to 2%. And we could lose control of our long bonds. Now, you would say, well, we could lose control of the dollar. Guess what? That's the whole goal. Go read Moran's paper. How do we drive down the dollar 20 to 30% while remaining the currency for the world? This is this is the question that they're trying to solve for and to do that they believe the best way is not to pay interest to people who own treasuries especially central banks any anything held outside the country they don't want to pay interest on now they'll go at the short rates because our world has changed everything about the treasuries is about investment leverage the basis trade in the Cayman Island all treasuries All short-term treasuries, the yen carry trade, same thing. This is what's going on. They're going to feed the two biggest leverage trades in the world so that they can lower down the interest rates and not pay the interest. Also, yesterday, Eleron wrote a um opinion piece in the Financial Times. I have to say, I've been following Elon for 30 years. you know, he's up for something at one of the big universities in um in um England. And since that time, I have to say that I have found him to be um less than um what's the right word here? Um forthcoming on what is happening to our markets. He's more playing the political thing. So, in this article, it's a long article. It's mostly, you know, politics, but you have to read at the end. This is right at the end. Again, I will point out any financial article you read in the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, and everything. Don't read the headlines. Go all the way down and read the last four or five paragraphs because that's when they actually tell you what's going on. All right. So, notice the sentence up here in the top. It also requires a pivot from an obsession with management of demand. What are we talking about? employment and inflation in the economy to pay greater attention to the supply side developments. This is a fundamental shift. This is saying that we need to control our interest rates at a much lower level so we can continue to issue debt. Right? And he says, and by the way, this is exactly what we've been saying on this channel. We're living through a a significant structural change, right? From a fragmentation of the global to the rise of AI, backward-looking Fed models have not and cannot adequately address. This is coming down to this critical manufacturing sovereignty, uh the five factors, whatever you want to call it, regionalization. It's an incredible amount of money we have to spend. Incredible amount, trillions upon trillions. and we're spending trillions. Okay, so this is additional money and how can we do this? So he says if the new chair could move the Fed forward, they'll have done something far more valuable than just cutting rates. So here we are. Um it's all now about how can they lower the interest rates. And think about something. Let's say our overall interest rates last year were 4%. Okay? And if we can drive now 83% of our debts due in one year. So if we can drive the rates down to 2% like Moran said, think about it. We go from 30% to 15% of our debt and as you know interest is not anything that we can work with. Okay. So I look for I actually now at first I said I don't think Hasset is going to make it. I think Hasset will make it because Hasset will do what the president and Mran want. Cut the interest rates. don't care about the long bond and support the cut in the interest rates by buying 40 uh billion a month in short rates. What do you think? Like and follow.


---

<a id="32_ppkgscuywps"></a>

<!-- Source: 32_ppKGScUyWPs.md -->

# EUROYEN Clarity is parsing distortions from structural shifts rather than chasing certainty 1-5-2026

- video_id: ppKGScUyWPs
- input_ord: 32
- summary: This video analyzes currency dynamics and structural shifts in global markets, with focus on the euro-yen relationship. The analyst discusses Japan's clear policy direction under PM Takaki—combining fiscal stimulus with BOJ rate hikes to 75 basis points—versus Europe's political fragmentation and inability to coordinate economic responses. Key argument: clarity of government purpose backs currency strength more than certainty of outcomes. Japan's commitment to energy security, rare earth minerals, and defense signals structural competitiveness. The analyst predicts Europe faces major instability through 2026, forcing capital reallocation toward yen as investors flee euro uncertainty. The yen carry trade unwinding could further support yen appreciation as Japanese investors repatriate US securities. Framework emphasizes parsing actual policy distortions from structural shifts rather than chasing price certainty.
- keywords: euro-yen currency dynamics, BOJ monetary policy, Japanese government fiscal stimulus, clarity over certainty, European political fragmentation, yen carry trade, interest rate divergence, currency safe haven flows, structural shifts vs distortions, Japanese bond yields, capital reallocation, EU political crisis, yen appreciation outlook, central bank coordination
- topics: Currency Markets & FX Strategy, Central Bank Policy & Monetary Divergence, Geopolitical & Structural Economic Shifts, Capital Flows & Risk Reallocation

## Transcript

Language: en Well, it's Monday morning. Everyone's getting back to work. And before we talk about what I want to talk about today, I want to say that I just saw a few minutes ago that over the weekend there were no repos, which I'm just saying if you watch my last video, you would see that this was what basically I was predicting. Okay. So, the bank that's going bankrupt, I don't know who it is, but it isn't anybody big. And the second thing I'd like to say is people have been asking, and so I'm asking you, okay? They want me to do a live. I've never done one before. Um, I'm, you know, I'm a little afraid to do one. I've never done one. Um, so here's the question. What platform? When I asked AI, they said the two best ones are YouTube and Tik Tok. Um, so one, which platform should I use for my first live? Won't mean I won't use other as time goes on. I'm just saying here's my first one. And then the second question is is what subjects would you like me to speak on? And how do the formats do it? Do I go on and speak for 10, 15 minutes, then people come on? I mean, I'll I'm open. I've never done one. So why don't you give me your clues of what you think should be done if you would even uh listen to one and oh yeah that's the other time what what day and time right is it Friday night Thursday afternoon I mean any any comments are helpful okay now one knows we believe that there's four buckets for the currencies and that's the yen the dollar the euro and the um [snorts] Chinese raimi Now the remimi we take out of this equation at this time. It's about 30% undervalued. I think everyone realizes that. But China does not seem to be interested in on bringing it up at this time. Anyone follows me knows that I believe sometime in the next 15 years, China's going to have a choice of whether they want to become the new currency for the world. We shall see if that actually happens. Okay. And then the dollar. I think people are loaded on the dollar. I really do. I think they're just trying to reduce the risk uh exposure especially if you're a central bank given the Moran paper and how we want to tax it and how we want to uh force conversion into a 100redyear zero coupon bond. I just think you're going to see less and less people say let's load up on the dollar. That leaves us with two. That leaves us with the euro and with the yen. And this is about clarity over certainty. All right. So what I'm trying to say here is is that yes, every country, every block, you know, the four blocks all have their issues. Every single one of us, okay, we all can talk about America forever. When people talk about China, the Europeans, everyone talks about them and then Japanese. My point on this is is that clarity over certainty means that we have clarity of purpose by the governments. Okay? because clarity of purpose by the government backs up your currency. All right, so let's look at what's going on um with the yen. Here's the 10-year. It continues to move up. Um you can see it went above its previous high there in um in December uh which was like 197 or something like that. Now it's 218. Here's the 30-year again sitting alltime highs or at least for the last 30 years, 40 years. Here's the 40-year. Okay. So, why are these yields important to us? Because people compare them against the dollar. All right. So, now our 10 years 410. All right. 411 somewhere around there. 412. It was just 418. So, it's going it we we haven't been moving there. And so, we'll explain at the end, but this is what people are watching. Okay. Now, here's the yen. Now look, you can see the spike up there when uh Takachi passed her budget and everything, which is down. Okay, so when it hit 15758 or something like that, which was the high um and everyone say, "Oh, it's going to go right to 160." It did not. And in fact, as you can see, it's been trending here a little bit sideways. And why is that? This is this is what we're trying to figure out. Now, Tekachi, she talks uh tough on debt and and as as the bond yields spike, which we're seeing happen, okay? And she says, "Yes, our debt's too high, but rejected any irresponsible bond issuance or tax cuts." You can stop and read this. Everyone talks about this. Here's all the negative stuff happening in Japan. We agree. We sign off. Okay. Now to me this is Tekachi talking about how she's addressing the five factors or as we say critical manufacturing sovereignty. All right. So she wants a responsible proactive fiscal policy. All right. She wants to leave with a strong and competitive uh economy not just one with nominally uh sound government finances. It's a down payment in her mind. the supplementary budget on energy security, rare earth minerals, strong health care, cyber security, national disaster mitigation and other priorities which is defense. Well, think of our five factors people, energy, food, now rare earth minerals, um demographics, and uh can you defend yourself? So, she's not going to do what she considers um tax cuts just to have tax cuts, which seems to be what we do here in the US. Okay? And she wants to reduce the size of the government. So, we'll see how that works out. Now, in here, you can again, you can read this has all the relevant information in there. We know that the BOJ raised the rates to 75 basis points, the highest in 30 years. But Uda does come out and signal he's going to raise the interest rates again even if he has to go up to 175. And Tekachi declined to comment on how much more tightening her government is ready to accept. All right. Now here, think about what's going on in America with the Fed and the Trump administration. Okay. We expect the BOJ, their central bank to run a monetary policy in close coordination with the government. The 2% inflation target needs to be supported by wagedriven inflation rather than cost push pressures if it is to achieve in a sustainable stable way. All right, forget all the politicking in there. This is the government saying that their BOJ, their central bank, and the government must work hand and glove. Um because one, they're going to spend more money. Okay, they're going to have to raise the interest rates. They have to fight inflation and they're over in debt. Sound familiar? Sounds like us, right? This is the future. And here's Udida on January 5th saying, "I'm going to keep raising interest rates." All right, he's going to do it. So, how can this be interpreted? All right, I want you to compare the two. When we say clarity over certainty, when you look at Europe, do we understand even remotely how they politically are going to solve all the economic, political, geopolitical, military um um tariffs, all these issues coming down. They c and they can't agree on anything. Um we're seeing more and more articles out there that the EU may not make it. So, I want to say this now, okay? the EU will not make it. But that's the good news. In other words, we have to destroy the old to build the new. And the old was built a certain way. The EU, it doesn't have any taxing power. It doesn't have any real legislation power. The regulatory power. They have to switch it up. And we're seeing articles all across Europe now. They want a United States of Europe because they have to react militarily, economically, and so forth. I think that's going to happen. Okay. But before that happens, unless they're better at this than I think they are, they're going to fall apart first. Then they'll reconstitute themselves and that will become the entity that we're going to deal with. So that process there, I think the euro is going to get hit and get hit hard. So then the question is is where do people go? and people are going to go where clarity and certainty are clearly laid out. So, we understand what Japan's going to do. They're doing the stimulus package to drive the economy, which is good for the yen. They're going to raise the interest rates to protect the yen, okay? Which is good for the yen. And then if Europe runs into these issues, whatever they may be, doesn't matter. I don't think they make it through 2026 without major consternation. Now you say, I'm in Europe. They have 20% of the world's currency. The eur is in euro. Where do they go? Do they run to the dollar? I would say yes. Some people will. Are they going to run to the raimi? I'm going to say, ah, I don't know. Remember, it's the hotel California. I believe that you're gonna see him run to the yen. And then when you take in the yen carriage trade, what is that? When the bonds on the Japanese yen go so high that they're forced to sell the United States securities, bring the money home, yen goes up, and they pay off the JGP.


---

<a id="33_vxqw2fdhcck"></a>

<!-- Source: 33_vXqw2FDHcCk.md -->

# An inherent trait of a Balkanized society is that the parts fight each other not the enemy 1-12-2026

- video_id: vXqw2FDHcCk
- input_ord: 33
- summary: The speaker analyzes Europe's transition from a political to an economic-based organization, driven by five critical factors: food, energy, technology, demographics, and defensive capability. He argues that the EU, Euro, and NATO as political entities no longer function effectively in addressing modern challenges. Key data points show Europeans increasingly identifying with their nations rather than a unified Europe, yet paradoxically support common defense (80%). The speaker highlights significant shifts: the EU developing independent satellite infrastructure (Starlink alternative), proposing a 100,000-troop European army, reforming fragmented legal structures for startups, and negotiating independently with China on EV tariffs (35% vs. US pressure for 135%). These indicate Europe is redesigning itself economically and militarily without US guidance, establishing new power structures around taxation, weapons production, and defense capabilities previously absent from EU authority.
- keywords: European Union restructuring, NATO dissolution, European defense integration, Five factors framework, EU political to economic transition, National sovereignty vs. EU unity, European military independence, Starlink satellite infrastructure, China EU trade negotiations, Economic regionalism, Defense spending, Geopolitical realignment, EU autonomy from US
- topics: European Political and Economic Realignment, Defense and Military Independence in Europe, EU Institutional Reform and Integration

## Transcript

Language: en Okay, it's Monday morning and I try something different with the volume for the people on um YouTube uh who complain about the volume. I have to say on my YouTube it sounds just like it does everywhere else, but I enough people complain. I'm not I'm not stupid. I'm not in denial. So, I'm trying something today. Tell me if it's better. Okay. So, listen. I want to talk about Europe again. And you know how I think I think on narratives and I look at data points to see if the narrative is being supported or changed. Doesn't matter to me. And my narrative on Europe is pretty simple. I believe that they're organizations. The EU, the Euro, and NATO basically don't exist anymore. They're political organizations for a time when all decisions are made by politics. Today the decisions are made by the five factors right food energy technology demographics and are you easy to attack and I think this easy to attack is really changed around what's going on in the world today so I just so long term overall my view of Europe is this one the issues that are coming now fast and hard to the Europeans will force them to start making decisions that they've kind of like sloughed off for the last couple years. They don't have a choice. Okay? And these decisions are going to be economic uh and five factor decisions. All right? That's what they're going to be. They're going to be five factor decisions. They're not going to be political decision. And the biggest issue I see inside the EU is this. They're basically equal in the EU. Every state has a vote. Every state is president for six months. Everybody is equal. Okay, but that's a political world. If you change it to an economic world, what's it going to look like? Who's going to be more powerful? Do you really believe that Slovakia is going to be more powerful than Germany? Okay. Or Luxembourg is more powerful than France? No. The the EU is going to have to rearrange themselves economically. Okay. So, let's look at what's going on in Europe. These are data points. These are not these are data points. Okay. So, I'm going to tell you now, I believe what I just told you is what's going to happen. Now, this map has been flying around Europe and um as you can see, this is all why don't we ask Canada in and then we would control the Arctic at least aspects of it along with Russia and with uh America through um Alaska. And all I'll say is looking at this map, given what I said before about China, okay, and given that Russia has no people over here at the top there, um I think in the end that's going to be China, okay? But that's just my opinion. You can have your own opinion. All right? But notice one thing. whole individually inside Europe people are now saying we have to change who we are at the base level economically militarily politically that's g a given okay but this is going to be a challenge okay so here's in Europe and how people think of themselves do they think of themselves as Europe that's red okay so that's out they think of themselves by their country or by their region in the country. Okay. So look at north Italy right and totally different than the south just the way it is. Okay. And you can see over here in Spain the differences which we all are fully aware of of the historical differences that they have. So let's run through here. So um these are data points. That's all they are data points. Okay. So Mertz has now agreed uh with an agreement for um with India. This has been negotiated for years with no end to it. Okay. So as we saw everyone thinks of themselves as a country but 80% of EU citizens support a common European defense which they need. We did a video on this before. America is the largest arms producer in the world. We have like I think it was like 24 23 companies inside the industrial military industrial complex. Okay. Europe, which is maybe 5% of our production, has over 70 companies. And this goes back to the European setup. If you're going to build something, you build it in your own country. So they have four fighter jets, they have 20 tanks, all this other stuff that has to end. This is big news, right? Airbus was given um to put up a Starlink, all right, a structure for Europe, right? And it will be online by 2026, end of 2026. Okay, huge move. Why? Because we were Musk and the United States were shutting off the Starlink to the Europeans when they weren't when they wouldn't do what we wanted them to do. So they're telling us, well, see you. Now, this article is just saying they're quietly redesigning the future without the United States. Okay, this is what's going on. The EU defense commissioner, he called to create an army of 100,000 troops to protect Europeans against global threats. So, think of the new world. In the old world, they were a political organization. They had none of the they don't they didn't spend any money on defense. Now, one of the five factors is, can you defend yourself? Guess what? Now, they're starting to defend themselves. Not going to happen in a day, but it's starting. Spain called on the European to do their own um army, 100,000 people. The only reason I'm showing this twice is this is Spain. Have you any idea that for them to say this is literally unbelievable? Okay, now this is hysterical. Okay, I mean when I read this I was shocked. Okay, so Europe wants to reform for startups and finally a chance to end the fragmentation. The proposed 28th regime, 27 are in the EU offers a single panuropean legal structure and instead of 27 national one. Imagine you're a startup in Europe. You have 27 national legal structures. How can you be successful? You can't. Okay, they're going to create a 28th. So, the last time we talked about the Mccorser deal, um the EU did not sign it on the assigned date. It was all because of Maloney. Okay. So, after the new year, Maloney, you know, got bribed by the EU and she then signed it even though France is going crazy over this. Okay. And but I just want to point out they negotiated this treaty for 25 years. The EU approved it like a week after liberation day. The EU has now said that they're obligated to defend Denmark if America uh invades. Then they say this the most ridiculous statement it also be the end of NATO. NATO's over people. It's gone. Doesn't exist. We didn't go to the last meeting. We told them we're not going to defend them. We said if we sell them arms, but that's it. And as you know, they don't want to buy our arms anymore. They're buying other people because they don't trust us anymore. And finally, China has reached an agreement on the European Union over EV exports to the block. And what they've come up with is it's 35 point something 35.2 or 4% um uh tariffs on um the uh Chinese EVs coming into Europe. Now America put incredible pressure upon the European to adopt ours which are 135% and they said no we're going with 35%. Um you can see this is happening. So all these data points indicate that they get it right. They need to take care of the five factories. Uh think about that they're going to have you know fix the the 27 countries where you have to have different legal structures. Okay, that binds them together. When the EU is formed, they gave the power in Brussels to pass regulations. That's it. They can't tax. They can't do anything. They can't build a military. Nothing. All they can do is pass regulation. And now the Europeans are shocked that the EU only deals in regulation. They have no other power. So now you're seeing everything you're seeing here are power structures. The ability to tax, the ability to build weapons, the ability to defend ourselves, the ability to set global i.e. European standard. This is the next stage for Europe. My only point is is I think it's going to go down first. The people you saw, if they don't agree with this, they're going to come together after it hurts. like him.


---

<a id="34_1ob-fdyh7ji"></a>

<!-- Source: 34_1oB-fDyh7JI.md -->

# A strategic withdrawal is running away, but with dignity. From global to regional. 12-8-2025

- video_id: 1oB-fDyh7JI
- input_ord: 34
- summary: The video discusses the United States' strategic shift from global dominance to regional focus, analyzing newly released military and national security strategies dated November 2025. The creator examines the implications of American military base reductions (from 845 bases), the emergence of a multipolar world, and the government's pivot toward the Western Hemisphere under a renewed Monroe Doctrine. Additionally, the video covers economic concerns including interest rate trends, long-bond movements, and Japan's paradoxical decision to raise rates despite economic contraction. The creator explores how heavily indebted nations worldwide are managing fiscal challenges differently and speculates on potential currency implications, particularly regarding the euro's stability.
- keywords: US military strategy, global dominance retreat, multipolar world, Monroe Doctrine, military bases, national security strategy, interest rates, long bonds, Japan economy, currency markets, debt crisis, manufacturing sovereignty, geopolitical shift, economic policy, dollar strength
- topics: US Geopolitical Realignment and Regional Focus, Global Economic Instability and Debt Management, Currency Markets and Interest Rate Dynamics

## Transcript

Language: en Well, it's Monday morning and I wanted to start off today this video with some news about Tik Tok. I've been highly critical of Tik Tok and they've been highly unresponsive. But two days ago or two and a half days ago, they did respond with an email and say, "Hey, could you send in your um a picture of your license or your uh passport?" So, the next day I did and um I haven't heard from him since and I can see my account. I'm not verified or have a blue check. But here's my page. I just want to remind everybody I'm all things financial zero. Everybody else is a copycat. But as you can see here, um, for the first time two days ago, I went above 4,000 and right now I'm about 5100 on yesterday's video. Now, before this issue all started, I was averaging, as I said, between four and six, five and 7,000. That was the normal every day. As you can see here, I went down, if I went down even to the next couple rows, I was at 800, 1,200. Um, but maybe something good is happening. So, we'll see. Um, now in the last video, I took some criticism. Um, I I know there's a lot of new people starting to follow me um on that I was like a uh Trump derangement syndrome. Anybody who's follows this channel knows that that's not true. I believe Trump is just an accelerator of processes, greater processes that are happening around the world that no individual individual country has control of. Now for the United States it was is that you know we set up the world at the end of World War II Brettton Woods agreement and the way we set up trade and how our um military basically our navy u controlled the world through bases around the world and here's all our bases around the world and you see there's 845 of them I will guarantee you in five years we won't be remotely close to 845 bases And I've said in multiple videos, the question we should be asking ourselves is where are we going to pull back to? This is what we have to decide. And we now have an indication of what's going to happen. Now, there's been two reports. One from the Marines, uh, what's their strategy by the Mar by the way, the Marines are really under the gun. people don't see why there's a reason for the Marines. Um, which would be from a military historian, you know, amateur historian, it would be terrible. And then of course, we came out with our national security strategy for 20 November 2025. I you can just Google them and they'll come up. I would encourage you to read them. As a military guy, I found them interesting. But what I did was some people uh kind of put together like a synopsis and I'll show you the two synopsis. This is basically the points from the um from the marine one and you can read about this and then the question that you have to ask yourself what the military is actually doing is this something that we want to throw into harm's way and the Marines are struggling to come up with the answer that they can survive and this is their own report and you tell me do you think they actually survive? Is this much worth it? You know, I I don't know if the Marines are going to make it. So, in our national strategy, basically the word is the multi-olar world is finally emerged. We do not dominate any longer. We haven't pulled back yet, but we are about to pull back. And here the second paragraph kind of sums it all up. dominate the Americans, Americas, respect China, undermine Europe, ignore India, retreat from the Middle East, and don't give a damn about Africa. So, so this strategy is the first official US acknowledgment that the US can no longer run the world. A US retreat from global dominance is welcome and overdue. Now we have to decide like I've asked for the last year and a half where do we pull back to and they say one thing's clear this is in our own report only by standing up these are other countries for their own interests in showing self-confidence will the nations be respected by the United States look you can stop and read this but you know people say what's going on in Venezuela he want their oil and everything you know people I'm going to totally disagree with that I don't believe that's remotely the case. I believe if we cannot dominate the world and we're going to pull back, if I was the president or if I was the military, then I would say to myself, well, what do I want to dominate? And come on, what's the words over the last 11 months from Greenland to Panama to Venezuela to Brazil, the attack on Brazil, uh what we did in Argentina, I think it's called, you know, a hefty Monroe doctrine. Whether we get away with it, I don't know. [snorts] Then you can see what they say about Europe, which is not good. We just diss them totally. And then we see China as a pure power and will compete. And uh so Taiwan is no longer an ideal ideological issue. And um what this is is that this is the strongest possible proof that the Chinese strength is finally understood in Washington and they could care less about um Europe. You can stop and read this, you know, but the last line, the old world dominated world is in tatters. The new world is yet to be shaped. Let's shape it together. This is what we've been talking about the what we now call the critical manufacturing sovereignty which involve the five factors characteristics on how our world is going to be designed. Okay. So, while we're here, I just want to do this real quick. So, we're supposed to cut our interest rates this week. It's 85% that the market is betting on it. And um all I want to say is when we wake up when we woke up this morning, this is what we see with our long bonds. Our 10 years now at 418. Look, it is moving up. We have cut our interest rates by 150 basis points. We do another quarter, it's 175 basis points. And now our interest rates are up um on the long bond. In other words, we can control the short. We can't control the long. The 30-year is even going higher than we anticipated. So, what does this mean to us? This is what we were talking about in yesterday's video. Okay, the video is about that we can control x amount of things. Okay, when you talk about government spending, stimulus, that's about the economy that supports the currency. All right. when you talk about um our inflation. All right, that's the currency. All right, if our currency goes down, inflation goes up. That's just the way it is. All right. And then finally, where the interest rates are. This is about our debt. All right? So, we have three things. We control one of the three. Now, look what's going on in Japan. They are going to raise their interest rates and and Takachi government has just signed off on UDIDA if he wants to raise them this week I think or next week. But here's the deal. The Japanese economy has contracted faster than estimate. It was estimated to be 1.8% down. the economy is shrinking, but then it came in at 2.3%. And what are they about to do? They're going to raise the interest rates. You understand that? So, you have a stimulus package going into a down economy. Then, they're going to raise the interest rates on the other side. This is when you don't know what the heck is going on. They need to borrow the money so they can invest into the future so the economy can grow. And yet all the other issues then jump up. Now all these heavily indebted countries, ours, everybody, and we all need huge amounts of money. Okay? Now look at what the British are starting to say. They're starting to say, "Hey, look at we have pension funds, and if we just do 25%, we can unlock 95 billion to invest in these critical manufacturing sovereignty issues that we need to do." So, we all can see going around the world, everyone's in debt. Everyone's handling this a little differently. Uh, we talked about what the United States is going to try to do through the Moran paper, whether they get that. I just don't know, but we're going to find out. I have a funny feeling. What is Japan going to do? And by the way, I know we're all watching Japan and we're all watching the US, but our next video is going to be on the EU. And maybe it's possible that the euro is about to break up and we're going to talk about that next and what are the implications for the dollar and for the yen. So like and follow, tell me what you think. Um and remember I'm all things financial zero. Everybody else is a copycat. But thank you for following me. Thank you for the comments.


---

<a id="35_-ol19utqqz8"></a>

<!-- Source: 35_-oL19UtqQZ8.md -->

# Venezuela and the Five Factors. America accelerated securing and controlling resources 1-6-2026

- video_id: -oL19UtqQZ8
- input_ord: 35
- summary: The speaker analyzes geopolitical shifts driven by the 'five factors' (energy, food, technology, demographics, and vulnerability to attack), arguing that global politics are transitioning from a political framework to an economic one centered on securing and controlling resources. Using Venezuela as a case study, they contend that the U.S. is accelerating historical resource acquisition patterns under Trump, including potential actions toward Greenland, Panama, and Mexico. The speaker frames these moves as inevitable consequences of American decline in global influence, requiring strategic consolidation within the Western Hemisphere. They emphasize a 15-20 year timeline for these shifts, suggesting allies will now face transactional relationships rather than traditional partnerships, and predict institutional reorganization in Europe and Asia as powers compete for resource control.
- keywords: geopolitics, resource control, five factors framework, Venezuela, Greenland, Panama Canal, Trump administration, economic imperialism, hemispheric dominance, U.S. foreign policy, energy security, strategic resources, global power shift, China expansion, transactional diplomacy
- topics: Shifting from Political to Economic Global Order, U.S. Resource Acquisition Strategy and Hemispheric Control, The Five Factors Framework for National Power and Security

## Transcript

Language: en So, it's Tuesday and people have been asking me to comment on Venezuela and that's probably because um they know that I'm totally unsurprised by this happening. And this has nothing to do with my personal approval, my personal beliefs. And if there's one thing people have noticed about this channel, I've always said a lot of this stuff is going to happen because it has to happen. The old world is dead. The only difference is is is that um the new world is setting us up in an entirely different way from the old world. The old world was a political world. Um just look at Europe. The EU they have these whatever 22 countries and every six months a country becomes the president of the EU whatever they call Congress and they can control everything. So, like they've had orbit in there for the last six months and you know they're they're getting ready to throw them out of the EU because he doesn't even believe in the EU. Think of that. He wants the EU to break up and they put him as president for six months. It It's insane. That organization has to crumble and rebuild themselves and what they're going to be in the future. And I believe as they crumble and this goes down, the thing that's going to happen is on the other side of Russia. It the Russia is is Greenland to the Chinese. All right. You look at America, we say we're going to go to Greenland. We get access to the Arctic, rare earth minerals, farmland, and um oil and gas. Okay? Then you turn around and you say what's going on in eastern um Russia? you get farmland, rare earth minerals, water and um and oil and gas and China. Their maps in China in Chinese show the areas that Russia co-opted at when the Chinese lost wars from 1858, 1900 and then the end of World War II. All that in China is still shown as China with all the cities have Chinese old Chinese names. none of the Russian names. Okay. And now they're saying that the Chinese have been crossing the border into Russia because there's no Russians there. On Tik Tok, there's some dude running around Siberia, I think it's called, looking for men, the men in Siberia or something like that. There are no men. He goes, in fact, I saw one woman in all his Tik Toks. That's it. There's nobody there. So, the Chinese are crossing over the border. So now they say there's more Chinese living in Eastern Russia than there are Russians. Okay. So it's just a matter of time. Now with stuff with Trump and everything, everyone knows they believe he's just an accelerator. If you ask me and you go back and look at my original videos on the five factors, you'll see that I said, "Listen, you can't think of this in one or two years. You have to think of this over the next 15 to 20 year." Okay? And I believe at the end of 15 to 20 years, I don't know all the stuff that's going to happen, who's president, who runs anything, who what the countries are doing, all sort of stuff. I have no clue on that. But what I would say to you is the existing powers today are going to co-opt the resources they need to compete in the future. Whether you're the Chinese or the American, the Japanese, we don't know how Asia is going to go. Totally different. Um, you know, South Korea, Japan, and Australia just met the former defense pack. But the pre the president of South Korea, he's in China right now with Z saying, "I want full open and totally normalized relationship with China. So don't judge everything that's going on. Keep your eyes on the long-term picture. The long-term picture is this. as the world before was. It was a political world. Everyone had their political stakes. But guess what? We could trade with everybody. It didn't matter. We traded with Russia. We traded with China. We everyone traded with everybody. That was the American pox Americana. Okay. Now, we're noticing in the pullback is what what are we saying? Oh, we can't have chips from China. We can't have this and they can't have this and we won't sell you this and all this. So, so everything is now economic and everything economic is the two main characteristics of the new world are secure and control. Like we said three years ago that countries will make the decision on their ability to secure and control the five factors. Energy, food, technology, demographics, and are you easy to attack? And I know I got a lot of push back over the last couple of years on this easy to attack. What do you mean by that and everything? Well, go ask Venezuela or even better go ask Colombia. Go ask Gana today. What are they doing? Right? Because we take out one, we can take them all out. If you know, can we do that? I have no idea. Are we going to be successful in Venezuela? I think that's an open question. I don't know how that's going to come down. The Venezuelan people may not agree. Now, I know the right-wing Venezuelan in Florida and Boston, they agree, okay? They ran the country. They stole all the money and then when they got thrown out by Chavez, they came here and they're all a bunch of right-wingers, you know, saying, "Go invade Venezuela." That's all they've been doing since they got here. Okay. So, we did it. So, it's over. They say we're writing a paper up for Green Greenland right now. We're not even going to go to Denmark. Copenhagen were going to Greenland and saying, "Here, vote on this. We will give you money and we will let you keep your local government. Uh, but we get to run the whole uh, whatever that is. Greenland's an island, I think. They get to run the whole island, all the stuff on it, and you have no say. We just We're not going to make you part of America. You can stay yourself." We're we're drafting the document as we speak to give to them. Okay. This is what's going to happen. So the thing is that when we first did this five factor, everyone saw this breakup as a political thing, but it's not political. It's economic. And so that's why Trump is an accelerator. Economically, what's happening today, I believe, would happen, how do you want to say this, kind of naturally over the next 15 to 20 years. The acceleration is Trump. He's not waiting. He's saying, "Let's take Venezuela. Let's take Greenland." And by the way, I don't even think Greenland's next. I think we're going to go uh steal the Panama Canal from the Chinese company that owns it. We're going to steal it from them. Okay, we tried to do it before, we failed. We're going to do it again. So, we'll see. So, Venezuela is gone. Um we threatened Mexico with invasion. Uh we've already threatened Canada with invasion. So, how's this all going to work out in the long term? um if Trump is not president, if Trump is president and all this other stuff is all going to be driven by economics, okay? Um and the economics of the situation says that each [cough] each sphere of influence will secure and control everything under their spear so they can manufacture, defend themselves and so forth. Okay. And this is all happening now because we just have admitted in our military strategy paper, we're out. We're out of Europe. We're out of Africa. We're leaving Asia. Okay. And it's like I said three years ago in my first um five factors video since we can't control the entire world and we are pulling back. We have to pull back. We practically cannot control the world. It's over. Never coming back. Never will come back. It's over. Okay. So then the question becomes where do we pull back to? And I think the what did uh someone sent me in the comments? Trump literally said this is our hemisphere and I said that we'll pull back into our hemisphere. Now you look at the hemisphere which what do you want to dominate? Okay. And I'm going to say we're going to be trying to dominate a lot. So um is it right? Is it wrong? I you know right now I think right and wrong is basically on how we do it because I would argue that in the end America can't go on it on its own that we have to have allies. Okay. Um, now we, the allies that were developed over the last 80 years, they had certain rights and things that we did with them and we treated them nicely and all this other stuff. That's all over. It's all transactional now. If you don't want to be with us, then we're not going to be with you and uh, you know, we're not going to defend you. We're not going to help you. We're going to hurt you if we can. That's where we are. That's what I think's going on. What do you think's going on? Um, are we going to invade Mexico? I think that's a tough one for us to do, but we're going to do something there. I would say Panama's next, and we'll just try to cut an agreement with Greenland. Um, and we'll see what the EU does, but that could be the slip that blows up the EU, which then allows them to reconstitute. And we'll see what happen. Like and follow.


---

<a id="36_itwkesbjzq0"></a>

<!-- Source: 36_ITWkeSbjzq0.md -->

# The US prepares to meet Xi by trying to align allies in a REM strategy 1-15-2026

- video_id: ITWkeSbjzq0
- input_ord: 36
- summary: The transcript discusses the US strategy to secure rare earth mineral (REM) supplies ahead of a meeting with Xi in April 2026. The administration is pursuing bilateral agreements with allies rather than multilateral forums, allocating $2.5 billion for domestic mineral production while recognizing the scale of the challenge—the US currently refines only 200 tons annually versus China's 620,000 tons. The speaker highlights geopolitical shifts, including European realignment toward pragmatic partnerships, Canada's negotiations with Beijing, and the G7's declining global economic share (30% versus BRICS' 35%). Key focus areas include aluminum refining in Louisiana and establishing critical mineral supply chains independent of Chinese technology.
- keywords: rare earth minerals, US-China relations, bilateral agreements, critical minerals supply chain, industrial sovereignty, state capitalism, G7, BRICS, mineral refining, geopolitical strategy, Xi Jinping meeting, allied cooperation, economic realignment, Trump administration, global power shifts
- topics: US Critical Minerals Strategy and Supply Chain Security, Geopolitical Realignment: G7, BRICS, and Bilateral Diplomacy, Industrial Sovereignty and State-Led Economic Competition

## Transcript

Language: en Today we're going to continue what the US is doing about rare earth minerals. But before we start that, we had two more data points come out on Europe. I just want to put them out there because I don't want to save them because I'm not going to talk about it for a while until there's actions that actually that actually happened. Okay. So Maldova's president two days ago came out and said, "Hey, listen. If we put together a referendum to join Romania, I will support it and vote for it." And you can stop and read this, but the second paragraph is the key one. It's getting more and more difficult for a small country like Moldova to survive. It's a democracy. It's a sovereign country. And of course to resist Russia, but actually it's anybody. So when you think about it, this is goes to the five factors. We're too easy to attack. They have to come together. Okay, just another example came out the day we did the European. And here's Merch of Germany. He says, "Hey, listen. If we succeed in the longer term, remember what I said when I said that Russia and Europe will come together. I was saying 15 years from now. I just went through this with somebody. They were saying, "Well, Russia is this today. Today, today." I get it. Okay. I don't care. What is it going to be in 15 years? If China grabs Eastern Russia, these guys are going to come together. It makes economic sense. It makes no political sense. None. Zero. Zero. I get it. Economics. That's what it's all about today. Do not judge the world on old political things. All right. Here. Remember NATO? I said NATO's gone. So, basically, the Europeans declared article five for NATO and sent troops to Denmark to protect against the United States. who's in NATO. Think about it. So, look, there's a bunch of articles now coming out on the United States effort and the and our lawmakers are now debating a bill to propose a $2.5 billion dollar agency to to boost the production of rare earth minerals and other critical minerals. And they say, "Look, it workers use machining to dig a rare earth mine." But guess where it is? Yes, it's in China. Okay. So again, here's now the thing. They're going to do two and a half billion to spur the production because they're crucial to high-tech products. Cell phones, electric vehicles, jet engines, and missiles, everything. Okay? Solar, everything. Now, here's what I would say about this.$2.5 billion dollar billion dollars. Our defense department says that we have to spend one and a half to two trillion dollars and it's going to take us 20 years to do this. So, they literally say in this article, it's too early to see if the bill will pass. Wow, what are we doing here? But this paragraph is also interesting. Trump and Xi agreed to a one-year truce in October in which Beijing would continue to export critical minerals while the US would ease export controls on US technology on China and we shelled out over $5 billion. By the way, how many companies has America now invested in in our country? Yes, it's 15. Okay, it's 15. And again, here we've spent another $4.5 billion dollars. I think we've now spent a total of like $20 billion, but we're giving it to companies. We're not making the investments ourselves. Okay. Notice what we do. We give them 150 of preferred equity into Atlantic aluminum. This is the last aluminum refinery. Uh and it's in Louisiana. And you say, "Okay, but aluminum, who cares?" Well, here's the deal with aluminum. When you take boxite and you make aluminum, what's left is what they call red dirt. Out of red dirt comes what? All all of our um rare earth minerals. Guess what? We have one plant. It's a tiny little plant. Okay. We get most of our aluminum from Canada because they have hydro power and the hydro power is a lot cheaper and it takes huge amounts of power to make aluminum. But again, Canada is over in uh Beijing today signing deals with uh Beijing, not with America. And they say this is drastic. We're taking equity stakes. And it's saying that Washington's pivoting to state capitalism to compete with Beijing. We call it state capitalism. I think it's called state socialism. All right, but what's a word? Now, listen. Read this second thing here. Despite the dangers of political in in interference, the strategic logic is compelling. Of course, it's compelling. You know, it's a way to ensure our autonomy and industrial sovereignty. Notice they say industrial sovereignty. What do we call all this thing? Right? Sovereign manufacturing, right? This is what it's about. [snorts] Now, look, we gave eight and a half billion to Australia to invest in mining. Mining. Okay, as I said, we don't need mining, we need refining. Okay, big difference between those two words. All right, and then they say here that on Monday, the finance from G7 needed huddled in Washington over the vulnerability of the critical uh mineral supply chain. and uh he it was Bent who's leading this meeting and thankked them for their willingness to work together towards defisive action and lasting solutions. This is the same Scott Bent who stated in late 2025 that the G7 has no longer relevant due to the shifts in global economic power towards bricks nations and US unilateral priorities under the new administration. He argued the grouping originally formed for coordinated Western policy now hampers US interest amid China's rise dd dollarization pressures and Trump's tariff focus agenda amazing to me the G7 US Japan Germany UK France Italy and Canada are now 30% of the global GDP down from 70 while the bricks now at 35%. Wow. Okay. So here we have you know so now percent advocates bilateral deals over multi multilateral forums. America first means taking directly talking directly to suppliers not through Brussels or Tokyo translators. Now remember this mean bilateral deals. Okay. [snorts] Now you can read this and we've been over this a billion times but I thought this was interesting. The United States is in the posture of calling everyone together, showing leadership, sharing what we have in mind going forward, said the official. We're ready to move with those who feel a similar level of urgency. All right. Till they realize how serious this is. So all the people who keep coming on here telling me that we're going to solve the REMM in a year, six months and everything, obviously the administration entirely disagrees with you. So they go through how we're investing. In October, the company announced its first rare earth refining facility. Refining critical with zero reliance on Chinese inputs, equipment, or technology in New Hampshire with a current capacity of 200 tons per year. How many tons per year does the United States use? million tons. years. People, here's just some more data. We did 67,000 tons. [clears throat] China did 620,000 tons. Okay, that's where we are. We use 97 million tons a year. Also, here I want to look at there's these startups here, Alter Resource Technology, DCVC, um, where the government's investing in. I don't know if they're public or not. something you should look at. So here is the critical minerals center stage. Here's everything all the companies everything you want to know. I don't do work along these levels. I don't go down to the company level. Uh I work with people specifically that will talk about companies but I will never talk about companies here. Here are your set of companies to analyze to see which way you should go. Okay. So, we're trying to get to G7 by um February 4th. Remember, we meet with X in April. Okay. Secondly, we want by the 22nd of um January that the European countries sign bilateral agreements with the US. Okay? So Germany signs, France signs, you know, every country signs a bilateral agreement with the United States and Europe has said no, it's as Europe or none at all. And we will see how that works out. Tell me in the comments and like and follow.


---

<a id="37_shxpwsu2cga"></a>

<!-- Source: 37_sHXPWsU2cGA.md -->

# The crowd is not always wrong, but the best trades usually start by looking wrong. 1-252026

- video_id: sHXPWsU2cGA
- input_ord: 37
- summary: In this market analysis video, the speaker discusses the yen carry trade and recent market movements, clarifying misconceptions about dollar-yen dynamics. He explains that the yen is actually strengthening, not weakening as some claim, driven by Japan's stimulus spending, tax cuts, and rising interest rates under new leadership. The speaker breaks down how institutional carry trades work across different markets (yen, guilt, and basis trades), emphasizing that these trades are investment-driven rather than currency-manipulation schemes. He argues that while the Fed may be intervening, the narrative about deliberately crashing the dollar to save the yen doesn't align with market mechanics or institutional behavior. The key insight is that the best trades often appear counterintuitive initially, and understanding the underlying fundamentals—growth, interest rates, and investment factors—is crucial for predicting market movements.
- keywords: yen carry trade, currency markets, Fed intervention, interest rates, institutional trading, dollar weakness, JGB bonds, carry trade mechanics, market misconceptions, stimulus spending, basis trade, gilt carry trade, investment strategy, market fundamentals, currency intervention
- topics: Yen Carry Trade Mechanics and Institutional Dynamics, Currency Markets and Federal Reserve Policy Intervention, Investment-Driven Bond Markets and Interest Rate Implications

## Transcript

Language: en Well, it's Sunday afternoon and I was not going to do a video today. Sitting here having a glass of wine watching the football game and like everybody else, you're always looking at your phone and I saw this come across and you know, we just did the video yesterday on how the end carry trade works and then I saw this and I just felt compelled to come on here and make a comment. So the first thing is the yen today continues to move up. Can I say that again? The yen today continues to move up, not down. It closed at 15571. You can see there on the right. And now today, Sunday, and whatever you want to call it, pre-market, shadow market, it's 1544. Okay. So, the yen started on Friday and we talked about this in yesterday's video. I suggest you go watch yesterday's video if you want to understand what we're going to talk about here. So, this person, I don't know who he is, this is what got me to do this video. The US will save Japan by crashing the dollar. Forget the tariffs. Forget gold hitting all-time highs. First time in a decade, the New York Fed is signaling intervention. They're about to save the yen. This is a massive deal. The end yield are soaring. Yet the yen is tanking. It's going up. There is the sign the market is broken. The Fed is stepping in to fix it. The strategy to sell US dollars and buy yen. And he's not the only one. But this one is a little bit better. Japan liquidates reserves like US treasuries that prop up the yen. This is what this is all about. Okay? Not about the yen going down when it's actually going up. And two, the US sells the dollar into the market to buy yen. This is totally in my mind false. It's math, not mathing. I don't know why people look at the chart on the yen. It's going up. That's the problem. Step back from Japan for a second, okay? And you ask this kind of question. If a country passed a massive stimulus package, would that be good for the currency or bad? It'd be good, right? If after 23 years of having negative interest rate, the country starts raising their interest rate and have said they're raising them again next week, this week. Is that good or bad for the yen? Good for the yen. Okay. So, the yen is moving up. Now, I know people look at these little moves, but if you watch yesterday's videos, we showed you yen went from 80 to 160. 80 back down 150. Right? These little moves between 53 and 58, they're not moves. This is the problem. The yen carry trade is a huge trade and it's done by institutions, not by you and me, right? They move entirely different than you and I do. If you and I decide that we're going to do something, we sell it and buy it two minutes later, one minute, doesn't matter. Okay, you can't do that when you're an institution in the end trade. It's impossible to get done. So then that's the first thing, the size of the trade and who does it. Let's look at the three trades. Okay, in Japan, the trade, the yen carry trade is executed with 40-year bonds. Okay, why? because the 40 years pay a higher interest rate and then when you minus out how much you have to pay to borrow it you get the most carry. Okay. In the basis trade in the U in the Cayman Islands they use Treasury bills. In the guilt carry trade they use 10-year guilts. Okay. So the trades are different for reasons of investing. Not that where the yen's going up or the guilts are going down. It's about investing. All right. So now you're a big investment manager. You got a trillion dollars. You're loaded on the dollar. Okay. You are. Everybody is loaded on the dollar. As loaded as they were a year ago, no. But we're still all loaded on the dollar. So we know the administration says we want to drive down the dollar. But in driving down the dollar, we have to be very careful. We could break trades like the guilt or the basis trade or the yen carry trade. There's danger everywhere. Everywhere. And the currencies are the least of the issues. What we want to know is the 40-year still going up in yield. Well, we know what happened on Friday. It got hammered and today it's down again. All right. It's down in yield. How does a bond go down in yield? That's right. People buy the bond. And when they buy the bond, now think about what we're saying here. This is the Japanese 40-year bond. The JGB. For it to move as much as it did in two days, I would say it's a lot of money. It's like moving the Treasury market. It's a lot of money. It's hard to do. Okay. So now Japan has the heavy debt. They they have no good choices. Okay. None. All right. And actually I think Tachi where I just to disagree totally with their politics. I must say that I like her thought process. Her thought process is is we need to spend money. Period. End the story. we need to spend them on the five factors. And she laid them out. We did a video on this. And so she believes that the stimulus helps make them economically competitive for the next 10 years. So she's spending the money. She just made a speech on Friday saying, "I do not believe in a restrictive monetary policy." She was there. So think about that. She does the stimulus. She cuts the taxes. All right? And then she raises the interest rates. Do you see how the offsetting? So, if she just did the stimulus package and cut taxes, the yen would be collapsing. Okay. But it's not collapsing. It did. It went from like 53 up to like 58.80 somewhere around there. Now it's back down to 54. Why is it 54? Well, because now they're going to raise the interest rates along with the stimulus and along with the tax cuts. Actually, it makes perfect sense. But that is bad for the yen carry trade. Why is that? Well, you're a trillion dollar investment manager, okay? And you have your long dollars a lot. And now you look out and you sit there and you see what's doing and you sit there and you say, I think this is good for the yen. Right? And not only that, their interest rates are going to move up. So where they've got their 40 years at like 3.99, our 10 years, so we used the 10, they used the 40. You have to, you know, they're not, look at our 40, our 10, their 40. We're 423. So we're just a little bit better. So now people look at and say, geez, Bent and Trump and all these guys are we're going to drive down the dollar 25 30%. We're down 10 this year. So with that another 15 10 to 15 we'll say. Well, we say 20 10 to 15%. And then you look over what the country is doing, you can say, you know, the yen could really go up here. Okay. And what I would do then is I would sell my treasuries and I would then go to Japan and buy the JGPs with the yen. You know, you swap over to the yen. Now, the yen's going to be moving up. So, the US does not want the yen moving up. Trust me, the trade breaks more times when the yen is moving up. But it's not because the yen is moving up. It's because of what's going on with the growth in interest rate factors. In the end, all these trades, the guilt, the basis, and the yen carry trades, they're all based on investments. They're not based on I'm going to break the yen. I'm going to do this. I'm going to be I'm in. They don't think that way. They think, how can I maximize my profit with the least amount of risk? That's it. Nothing else. Okay. So, I don't know what's going on. I know the Fed is up to something. We talked about yesterday's video. Um, but to sell the US dollar to buy the yen, which would make, if people knew that we were selling the dollar to buy the yen, then these big institutions, they would move to the yen. And how would they move to the yen? They'd sell us. I don't think that's what they're doing. But what do you think? Tell me in the comments and like and


---

<a id="38_m8o5xujxp7m"></a>

<!-- Source: 38_M8o5xUJxP7M.md -->

# The Five Factors - Critical Manufacturing Sovereignty - Pension Fund Capital 1-28-2026

- video_id: M8o5xUJxP7M
- input_ord: 38
- summary: This analysis explores the five critical factors of national sovereignty—food production, energy independence, defense capabilities, technology, and demographics—and how governments worldwide are weaponizing them through policy. The speaker examines Japan's stimulus package and tax incentives designed to repatriate capital into strategic industries like AI, quantum computing, and clean energy. Similar trends appear in the UK, Canada, and EU, where pension funds face increasing pressure to invest domestically in critical manufacturing. With nearly $25 trillion in foreign assets held by Japanese and European investors in US markets, the speaker predicts a significant capital repatriation within six months as nations prioritize domestic strategic investments over international holdings, reshaping global financial markets.
- keywords: manufacturing sovereignty, five factors framework, geopolitical capital repatriation, pension fund policy, strategic industries, national security economics, critical technology investment, energy independence, government incentives, global capital flows, UK stimulus strategy, Japan economic policy, trade protectionism, defense infrastructure, domestic investment mandates
- topics: National Economic Sovereignty and the Five Factors Framework, Government Policy Weaponization and Strategic Capital Repatriation, Pension Fund Regulation as National Security Tool

## Transcript

Language: en Today we're going to talk about the five factors or critical manufacturing sovereignty. And I want to talk about it in a way that they're beginning to be weaponized by the governments around the world and what that means, what it could possibly mean to us in the United States. First of all, I think most of us have seen, read, or heard about Mark Cony's speech on Davos, but to me, there was one line that stuck out, right? And he stated, "A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options, three of the five factors." Okay? And what have we said that leaders around the world are going to make their decisions based on can you feed yourself, fuel yourself, defend yourself, what is your technology and what is your demographics. These are going to say and again remember most countries cannot be the United States or China. Most country needs allies. And so really what we're saying is is how do you choose your allies? you're going to choose them on the five factors. Um, I know right now the United States doesn't think they need any allies, but I think that's going to prove shortsighted, but we'll find out. Now, this is in the Financial Times, so a couple days ago, June 20, January 21st, so seven days ago. Again, I don't want to talk about Japan and what's going on with the yen. You know, we think it's going up, no one else does. But I want to concentrate on two lines in this article here. And the first one is in the second paragraph here where she's promising to pursue responsible fiscal expansion. What does she mean by this? In other words, she's doing a stimulus package. They're already in deficit. That means they have to issue more debt. By issuing more debt, people think the yen's going to go down. But she's saying, "Look, we need to do this because if we don't do this, then the next 10, 20 years, we're going to get wiped out. We must invest in this now." Okay? And so, she's willing to take the chance now to invest in the five factors. But the second line that caught my eye, this is the fir, this was the one. Giant Japanese investors are being increasingly incentivized to sell their overseas holding and bring the money back home. This is starting to hurt longerdated global bonds everywhere else in the world, says Fidelity International. What do they mean by increasingly incentivized? Well, this incentive package actually incentivizes and subsidize strategic funding critical manufacturing, right? To lure investment back home amid yen strength and BOJ normalization. All right, so think of what they're saying. They're raising the interest rate. The end is going to gather strength. They still need the money. But I want you to look at this as like the first one, right? Bold investment tax breaks. Largest ever package offers immediate depreciation or 7% tax credits on building software large-scale investment in productivity boosting equipment. You know, we're talking data centers and stuff like that. Okay. So, number two, 40% tax credit for strategic tech like AI, quantum, biotech. This is on technology. The first one is on infrastructure. Third one, clean power subsidies over five years for firms switching to 100% decarbonized electricity. You say, "So what?" Well, listen, Japan imports all their energy. Their number one concern as a country is where do they get their energy from? And as I'll point out, as I read yesterday or the day before, Japan is starting their large the largest nuclear power plant in the world, which has been closed since the tsunami. It's now reopening. I know it could take a year. I have no idea, but it's going to take a while. So, I think with confidence we can say that leaders are focused on the five factors. They may not call it the five factors, but they're focused on the five factors and then they have to focus on themselves. So that if you're the UK, the EU, America, Japan, if you say that this is critical, this is national security. If I said to you today, the United States should invest a trillion dollars in REMM or we're going to get wiped out. What would you say? You say invest a trillion dollar. Well, where do we get it from? We borrow the money. Okay. Are people going to allow us to borrow the money? Now, take it out of America, go around the world, everyone's faced with the exact same question. They're all in debt. Japan worse than anybody. But still, she did the stimulus package. So, when I saw that Japan was incentivizing, you know, I was like, "Wait a minute. Didn't I see this just a little while ago?" And I was like, "Yes, it was the UK." So, the UK, they're broke. I mean, and they're they're broke in a way that they may not be able to borrow the money. Okay, so that you're broke. Okay, they can't I don't think they have the ability to borrow the money. So, what did they do? The UK said, "Hey, pension funds, we want you voluntarily to invest in um UK companies in these industries." They literally listed it. And guess what? to the five factors. Okay, we want you to do 5%. Okay, and so I saw that and I just kept on moving and this was maybe five, six weeks ago until I saw what Japan's doing. So then I went back and I checked on um UK and it seems since the last time I looked that there's now been a bill introduced into the common that says pension funds must by law invest 10% of their assets into UK companies that are doiciled in the UK and they must be invested in these critical industries. So I said, "So we got Japan, we got the UK." So I asked perplexity, "Are there any countries out there encouraging in their pension funds to come home?" Now you can stop and read these, but you'll see that Canada, the UK, and notice what they want. UK growth companies and infrastructure, Australia also doing it and Japan. And when you look at the EU, we can only look at defense right now. Okay. But they want only defense companies in the EU to get any contract. And the in fact is McCron has told UK no money for you because you don't belong to the EU. So again, I'm just saying remember the EU and UK is all politics. Now it's down to economics, those five factors. There's no way that the UK remains separate from the EU and they're already discussing how to come back. Okay, so just to understand, right, here's what the U E Europeans own of US now a record $10.4 trillion as you can see an all-time high this year. Okay. And um also [clears throat] that um it's all the countries. Everyone's in here. It's almost $20 trillion. So whether it's stocks or bonds, it doesn't actually matter if they have to sell. And when you look at Japan, um that 342 trillion yen, that's about 2.22 22 uh trillion uh US dollars. Okay. So just between the EU and Japan, we have close to um 25 uh trillion dollars. And on the other hand, you throw in the money from Canada, we're talking a lot of money. So think about this next phase. So the first phase is we recognize we have the five factors. Okay? We start putting on import export controls understanding that start taking positions and companies start promoting things to be done reopening nuclear power plants all that stuff right but then it comes down to look at Japan everyone's watching Tekachi is she going to be able to get way with the stimulus package to into the new five factor industries is that going to be able to happen and can you count on that as a country and Then you look around and you go, "Look at all this money sitting in our pension plans for our people and we're invested in another country driving their technology." How long do you think that's going to last? I would give it maybe six months. In the next six months, countries are going to order all their pension funds to start selling US and coming back to their countries investing in critical industries. Thank you.


---

<a id="39_f8t04cuubxw"></a>

<!-- Source: 39_f8t04CuUBxw.md -->

# The countries coffers become the kingdom's forge. Capital pools co-opted for investing 2-5-2026

- video_id: f8t04CuUBxw
- input_ord: 39
- summary: Governments worldwide are fundamentally restructuring capital allocation by mandating pension funds invest domestically rather than internationally. Countries including Canada, Europe, Japan, and Australia are requiring 10% of pension fund investments to support local industries aligned with strategic factors like energy, water, and manufacturing. Japan is consolidating its $3 trillion in public assets into a sovereign wealth fund to fund policy priorities. Europe aims to increase domestic manufacturing from 50% to 70%, mirroring China's successful 2010 strategy. This represents a shift from post-1946 globalization toward economic nationalism and de-globalization, with governments redirecting capital pools previously invested abroad—particularly in US assets—to build domestic industrial capacity. This structural change will significantly impact corporate valuations and international investment flows.
- keywords: pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, de-globalization, domestic investment mandates, capital allocation, Japan foreign exchange reserves, European manufacturing independence, government spending priorities, wealth tax, asset repatriation, strategic industries, five factors framework, economic nationalism, valuation changes, international capital flows
- topics: Government-directed pension fund investment mandates for domestic industries, De-globalization and economic nationalism reshaping capital markets, Sovereign wealth fund consolidation and strategic asset deployment

## Transcript

Language: en Today's Thursday and uh the markets are quite interesting today. And yes, we could do another one on silver and gold and Bitcoin today. What are the crypto bros going to do? I mean, I saw a guy today saying no one can make a case for what they said Bitcoin was. So, that'd be interesting. But on 129, January 29th, we put up a video on the pension funds. And what it is is around the world um governments Canada, Europe, Japan, um there are four, Australia, they're all ordering their pension funds to buy local companies. Okay. Um into the pension funds in the industries that we identify with the five factors. And by the way, Renee, you're 100% right. Water should be one of the uh five factors or six factors. I'm trying to work it out, but I'll be back to you. But Renee, you're absolutely correct. All right. So, so many things. So, what the concept I want you to think about [snorts] is is that governments, all the governments, we said this a million times. Look at us. We need money. Everybody needs money. You see countries around the world, everyone's doing the quote unquote wealth tax. This is just the beginning. Uh I know all the wealthy are fighting it. We'll leave or go that. Trust me, it won't matter. Every government's going to have a wealth tax for sure. There'll be nowhere to hide. And in fact is one of the things I predict is is that these tax havens, name them around the world, the Cayman Islands and and the British and all this stuff, they're going to be gone. Sorry. Okay. They're going to be gone. Why? The governments need money. So the pension funds that we talked about, this is the first time where the governments are looking saying, "Wow, this is a pool of money for us." And they quote unquote invest in companies and stocks. They should invest in ours instead of going over to America where they're then turning around and hammering us and won't give us anything. And you know, it's going around the world. So you have four countries have already said our pension funds 10% have to be invested in our companies. And it was very interesting the comments. Everyone's like, "Oh, you're supposed to do the best and all this other stuff." Well, when you're down there and you need your country to move, these are the things that they're going to take advantage of. And look what's going on in Japan. So, there's an election going over there. And as of right now, it looks like Tarachi is going to get over 60% and have uh for the first time they have a lower house there where they're going to have a majority if everything goes the way that the polls are indicated. But Tachi is not done. She's still talking. She wants to use Japan's vast foreign currency reserves to help fund the country's policy priorities. suddenly coming into the forefront of the campaign. Um people disagree with this but there's something called the foreign exchange fund special account and his coffers are brimming says Tekki. All right. And what do they do? They issue u government bills BOJ you know Japanese bills u to raise the yen which it sells for dollars using those dollars to buy assets like US treasuries basically part of the yen trade yen carry trade except this is the government okay the government sells those dollar assets to buy the yen which it used to pay off the bills previously to raise the yen okay so there's a little circle there but you know they have 1.37 trillion in foreign exchange change reserves at the end of 2025. Okay, this account uh gives the government 34.5 billion. No, wait a minute. They had uh 34.5 billion in gains. Okay, I believe that it's like they give 60 billion a year in income to the general account. But the opposition in Japan, they've now said we need a sovereign wealth fund. And how are they going to do that? So I guess over in Japan, it must be very popular that they're cutting the nation's consumption tax on food because even the opposition is saying look what let's do the sovereign wealth fund to uh fund uh cutting the tax on food. So it must be pretty big over there that this is what they're doing. Now, the first paragraph they say sovereign wealth funds around the world are usually based on commodities such as gold or gas, right? Or if you have diamonds or whatever it is. Um, but here's the thing. Japan, despite having the one of the world's largest public sector balance sheets, has never had a full-fledged sovereign wealth fund. It does manage enormous pools of public money, including the government pension investment fund, the foreign exchange fund, which we just talked about, and the Bank of Japan's large holdings of exchange rated funds accumulated through its unconventional easing policy. Remember something, the BOJ owns over 50% of the ETF, stock ETFs in Japan. Okay? And the question is, do you sell them? What do you use the money for? and so forth and so on. All these assets are managed separately with specific mandates. All right? And so you can see what's going on here. Japan is going to have a single mandate. It'll take into account all these accounts, uh, which by the way is probably around $3 trillion, maybe more. and they're going to use that money to invest in the industry that helped them solve the five factors. Okay. Over in Europe, they say it's controversial. This is in the Financial Times uh to buy um European rules. Okay. This is being fought by the businesses. So, it's very interesting. The Europeans are around 50% of their manufacturing product comes from Europe and they want to make it 70%. Now, this is not crazy. China in 2010 when they did their 15-year plan, which we did multiple videos on, and now they're kicking our butts. One of the things that they one of their five factors they did was is that they wanted to move I think it was around 52 53% of everything sourced in China, they wanted it over 70. 15 years later, I believe they came in around 74%. So when you have a product in Japan, 74% the of everything that makes that product is from China, not Japan, I'm sorry, is from China. And they say our European independence comes at a cost, but it's much smaller than the cost of our dependencies. China has made in China, the US had by America, Canada has buy Canada. It's time for Europe to stand up for itself and have a similar sheen. So what does this mean to us? Well, look at the world was set up a certain way, a globalized world. Pension funds were in all the countries, right? And all these countries have all these accounts. Look at how Bent is using our Treasury accounts now uh to go down and and bail out Argentina without any oversight using one of our funds. That's what he did. He went down there. we did our stabilization fund and took the money out of there and went down and gave 30 or40 billion dollars to um Argentina. Okay. So, as we are delobilizing, everyone's saying, "Well, I need to build this. We need to have this. We need to mine our own stuff. We need to manufacture our own stuff." All of their stuff cost billions and billions and billions of dollars. Now, when you look at a corporation, corporations, guess what? They're at all-time debt levels. You look at individuals, all-time debt levels. Look at our government, all-time debt levels. Where are we going to get the money? And what we're starting to see is the governments are going to look at pools of money where it came from. If it came from the UK people or if it came from the German people, the Europeans or the Japanese, they're going to say that must be invested with us, which is a monumental change from what we've been doing for the last since 1946 for so now we can't oh we can't sit there and say look at all the money coming to America because people no you have to keep it home and invest in our industries. ries. You see the Europeans, they're going to cut out our tech. You say, "Okay, let them do that." Well, that's 30% of their revenues, 30%. And they're saying, "No, we want European. We want European Starlink. We want European Facebook. We want and we control it. You do not." And how are we going to argue that when we just stole from China Tik Tok and gave it to um Ellison because he's Trump's buddy. Okay. So all these flows are going to start changing and you must be prepared that valuations are going to change too and they're not going to be higher. Like and follow and tell me in the


---

<a id="40_qz1luyrafuq"></a>

<!-- Source: 40_QZ1lUyRaFuQ.md -->

# COMEX circuit breakers versus market chaos. Japan insurers & JGBs 2-4-2026

- video_id: QZ1lUyRaFuQ
- input_ord: 40
- summary: This video discusses critical stress points in global financial markets, focusing on COMEX silver futures and Japanese government bonds (JGBs). The speaker analyzes why circuit breakers weren't triggered during a volatile silver trading day, suggesting regulators prioritized matching institutional liquidation orders over halting trading. With 760 million ounces in silver contracts expiring March 1st and insufficient physical delivery (104M vs 660M ounces needed), the speaker predicts paper silver prices will decline sharply. The analysis then shifts to Japan, where insurers holding $1 trillion in JGBs face declining bond values as yields rise. These insurance companies, already implementing hedging strategies and shifting toward foreign credit bonds, represent a critical stress point as the yen carry trade approaches potential breakdown.
- keywords: COMEX circuit breakers, silver futures, physical delivery crisis, Japanese government bonds, JGB yields, insurance companies, yen carry trade, margin calls, bond impairment, monetary policy, financial stress, March 1st expiration, portfolio hedging, global markets, regulatory intervention
- topics: Commodity Markets & Silver Crisis, Japanese Financial System & Bond Markets, Global Monetary Policy & Market Stability

## Transcript

Language: en It's Wednesday morning and I want to address a couple of the questions that have been coming out of the silver um uh videos which are now four up there. So the first thing I'd like to say is remember in the five factors we said that if we break a global system, one of the characteristics that we're going to discover is that we're not going to be able to fix something in a day or two or week. It's going to take months if sometimes years. And the first one we came across was REMM. And of course that one right now is 15 to 20 years I think and uh the actions even today uh by the administration I think that is 15 to 20 years we're going to be challenged. Now on the other hand um silver it can't be fixed because the comarmac operated a certain way for 80 years and they operated with in their own words way less than 1% physical. Okay. And the day that everybody in the world wants physical then your contracts are what are they worth? if you can't deliver physical. So the second bit uh the the next thing I want to address is people were asking um how can a global trading uh uh platform not employ their um circuit breakers which is a fantastic question and I don't know the answer and here's my thoughts on that though the market was crashing that day the volumes were the biggest ever on silver Okay. And so the Fed and the Treasury, they're talking to all the institutions. They have teams out there who know where everything is and they're watching everything and they're telling some of these institutions, you must liquidate this, you must or come up with more capital. So as an institution, you basically got two choices. either you sell so reduce the amount of capital necessary to hold your position whatever you have left or you add in more capital given that everyone's leveraged to the eyeballs I'd say most of it was selling and we do know that CTAs were selling so I just want to again take a quick step back you're in a day you they no one knows everything I mean people act like these guys have like the finger on the pulse that's not the way it is watching everything they're is worried they need to do something. So here's the question I think the regulators ask themselves. The market's crashing. The volumes are intense. We are telling institutions to sell. You must sell today to meet your margin. Okay? And remember we raised the margin that day up to 15%. So we raised the margins and plus the price went down. So, if you're the regulator and you sit there and say, "Well, look, we're really moving down here. May let's let the circuit breakers kick in and we'll close the markets for 10 minutes." Because that's all they're closed for, 10 minutes. Not closed for days and weeks. 10 minutes. Okay? And then you sit there and you say, "Well, then the institutions that we called on the phone and told them to sell, they can't sell." All right? And then the market see the market closed and they saw no bids. And so now, you know, we may have put in the circuit breakers, I'm making this up, $90 an ounce, okay? Uh or $75 an ounce. And if we close the markets, could it gap down? Could it gap down to $55, thereby causing more margin calls, more institutions in trouble, or is it better to We know what these people have to sell. Can we match it off? Right? because the Fed and the Treasury knew what they told these people to sell. Okay? And to me, they called up JP Morgan and said, "They're selling this. Go in and find the price, buy it all off, and let's see if we can get at it today." All right. Then everyone says, "Well, what's happening next?" To me, it's all about March 1st. According to the data, and you can watch the videos, there's 760 million ounces that are in contract that are for March 1st. Okay? I'm not saying 760 million ounces are all want to be physical, but remember what we said in the v video that one last year was 16% of all contracts were physical, up from almost nothing. Okay? And there were contract months were 100%. So, you can imagine in November and December contract month, people weren't 100% physical. All right? And so, here's the thing. I think, and we'll be able to watch it, every day we get closer to March 1st, that the paper silver will go down farther and farther and farther when people realize there's not going to be a delivery. Now, things could change. Cromx would come up and say, "We got 300 million ounces. Okay, we got 400 million. We got 100 million. They have 104. They need 660. Okay, so if they don't come up with that silver, that's what's going to happen in my personal opinion. Okay, enough of silver. I'm tired of talking about it. I will say though, it is the most fascinating stress point that I have seen since the great financial crisis. It's it's fant it's fascinating. Okay. Now, let's go over to Japan and what's going on with um with the long-term government bonds. So, as we've stated um on our videos, we believe it has nothing I shouldn't say that has very little to do with the yen. has everything to do with the bonds because that is what um the insurers and the banks have borrowed against are the JGBs and they have so many 40-year bonds which we have said in our previous videos six months ago were par they're 83 and I would say given what's happened in the last couple probably down around 81 now okay and so the question remains if the bonds continue go down. Does the end carry trade break? Now notice what they say here at the top. Japanese bond you hit hit the insurers which we said are the ones the issues but stock prices offer buffer. Again you can always stop and read that this is in the NIK Asia Asian Nikk and they point out that the bond prices continue to go down as the yields continue to go up and we talked about all the reasons why. All right. And they say that market believes the Bank of Japan will keep monetary policy accommodative levels. So you can stop and read this again. It's all what we've talked about already. And we know the central bank is considered behind the curve according to Bent and when it comes to raising interest rates to keep up with inflation. But third paragraph critical paragraph. According to the data from the Ministry of Finance, Japanese insurers were the second largest holders of JGBs following the BOJ. So the BOJ is the biggest holders. The insurers are the second and they own 170 trillion yen or $1 trillion. And if you remember, they're no longer able to buy the 30 and 40year JGBs because there's mismatch in liabilities and assets. And by the way, if you want to watch stocks to see if the stocks started to decline to give us an idea what's going on in Japan, here you go. You got Dichi, Sumamoto, and Japan Postal Insurance. Now, in this first paragraph, I wonder if they have the same hold to maturity portfolios that we do. bonds that we can sell, those that we not hold to maturity, we have sold or swapped in the higher yields as we look for medium to long-term income gains. All right. And you look at the uh Japan Post, they have 60 trillion yen in assets, 34 trillion in JGBs, but the others in stocks in the stock, global stock markets have boosted to the tech rally. So right now, it's kind of offsetting the downward move of the JGPs with the upward move of stocks. And you can read how the banks or the insurance companies are handling this. Um, again, the only point I'm showing this to you is to say portfolio managers not sitting there going, "Oh, geez, I hope that the interest rates go up." No, they have strategies that they employ to mitigate the risk. Okay. But this first paragraph, the written statement, the insurer told Nikke Asia that although on an accounting basis, there's a risk of impairment losses if the market value of their bond holdings falls significantly below their book value. We have already implemented me measures such as replacing our bond holdings. So I read this as that they already have fallen below their book value. They're saying if it falls significantly below, this is a critical page. She says look at we have been overweighting foreign credit bonds primarily US credit corporate bonds investment credit but given the rate gap narrowing yen interest rates have risen to levels that make them attractive investment. So we believe it is time to reassess short position and yen bonds to some extent. So in other words the end carrier trade is holding but we can see that it's on the verge of that it could break. So we know what to watch. Tell me in the comments what you think and like and follow.


---

<a id="41_pheqwbdmiek"></a>

<!-- Source: 41_phEqWBdmIEk.md -->

# Supermajorities enable sweeping economic changes without compromise with risk 2-8-2026

- video_id: phEqWBdmIEk
- input_ord: 41
- summary: Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba won a supermajority in recent elections, securing over 316 of 465 lower house seats. This victory enables sweeping economic and political changes without compromise, including potential constitutional amendments to expand military capabilities. The supermajority has significant global implications, particularly affecting the yen carry trade and bond markets. Major international investors and sovereign funds view Japan as an attractive destination for capital repatriation, especially given tax incentives for money returning home. While the yen may depreciate due to increased government spending, the broader economic strategy aims to strengthen Japan's domestic economy and geopolitical position amid shifting global alliances and Chinese trade tensions.
- keywords: supermajority, Japan elections, Shigeru Ishiba, yen carry trade, constitutional reform, Japanese government bonds, economic policy, geopolitical implications, capital repatriation, LDP victory, bond yields, military expansion, global markets, tax incentives, pension funds
- topics: Japanese Political Leadership and Electoral Outcomes, Global Financial Markets and Currency Implications, Constitutional and Military Policy Changes

## Transcript

Language: en Well, it's Sunday evening, I guess, getting ready for the Super Bowl. Um, but I thought I'd jump on here because the election in Japan happened today in Tokachi um was a little bit successful. Now, I don't think her winning is a surprise. I mean, the we did we made a video what 10 14 days ago that she had 70% approval rating going into this election. it was still like 60 64%. And uh she did way better because she has actually won a supermajority. Now just for edification the LDP had lost like the last two elections had lost the majority. They were basically hanging on to the P PM by by a hair and then she then the other guy quits. She comes in changes everything. Okay. And they went from all the way over to the left to all the way over to the right. A super majority. That's more than 2/3. And we're going to talk why that's important. So what happened is she's won at least, okay, I think it's actually higher now 316 of the 465 seats in the lower house. Now in Japan, the lower house is stronger than the upper house. her party doesn't control the upper house but now they can move forward to changing the Japanese constitution and this would need twothirds majority which she already has and you would also need voters support in a referendum. So this big victory also has economic effects on the world because of the yen carry trade. And so, um, you're going to see that the yen will probably go up, which is down in value. And as you can see, we were just like 152 or something like that, 15250. And in the last when it became apparent she was going to win and win big, you can see that the yen is now moving down. Up is down. Okay. But what we think we should be watching is actually the 40-year bond. So, we know that the insurers and the banks are no longer able to buy the 40-year bond. And as you can see here, I think it went up to like four, I don't know, like 15 or 16, and now it's at 383, even though it's now moving up in yield because of the election, but it's only, you know, a little bit right now. So, just like we had the Trump trade, they call it the Tekachi trade. And it has driven Japan's stock market to record highs since she became prime minister in October. And by the way, they think it's going to open way up today. So, the pledge of more government spending and a pre-election pledge to suspend consumption tax on food for two years have rattled the bond markets and sent the yen sharply lower. you know, when they use these words sharply and everything. So, basically, we've been trading between 153 and 15, let's say 158, okay, for like six months. I I don't get this. All right? And some analysts predict that it could fall further when the markets reopen. So, I just want to speak on the possibilities of what these uh people are speaking about. If you think about it from an investment point of view, okay, it's negative for the yen to go down and their bonds more more that their bonds go down in price and up in yield because it could break the yen carry trade, which of course to you and I is negative. All right. But when you've been reading and we made a video about this like seven or 10 days ago that um the big sovereign funds and the big hedge funds and the big investment black rockck and everything, they see what's going on in Japan as this is where we want to move our money. Yes, the yields are going to go up, but guess what? We'll capture those yields. Now, they say the yen's going to go down, but we know that the Japanese have at least three and a half trillion dollars invested around the world. Okay? Mostly in the US. And when you think of Tekachi's trade, we went over all her tax breaks she's given to the money to come home. All right? [snorts] And so, they're going to come home. I mean, you know, these tax breaks are big. So, look at Amazon. They just announced the earnings. had $90 billion in revenue. They paid $1.2 billion in taxes. And the reason that they paid that is because we gave everybody accelerated depreciation. And what are all these companies out there running racing around doing? They're building these data centers. And basically, you know, you get a 100% depreciation the first year. So every dollar you get a dollar back in taxes. This is what's going on. So my point is is that the Tekachi trade, think of what they said, stock market's going up. She's going to invest in the country and the stock. They want the pension funds to do that. And they want the money to come home. All right. So it's a two-part trade here. That's all I want you to be aware of. Yes, it's negative at the end carry trade breaks. Definitely, I agree. But when you look at all these guys around the world, they're looking like, "Where am I going to move a lot a lot of money, trillions of dollars, and actually have a good environment for it?" Make up your mind. Now, listen, we mentioned the Constitution before, and they want to change the constitution, and guess what they want to change? They want to change the military so that they can go be militaristic. Okay? So, they need a twothirds. Now they have a very strong peace party in their um country but it definitely looks as they say here with the geopolitical conditions where the US commitment to old alliances have driven the voters towards Tekachi a nationalist who presents herself as a fierce proponent of Japan on the global uh uh stage. So you know this has implications on many many levels. Okay. So, I think both these statements here are pretty important. Okay. They're saying the LDP is back in the driver's seat and would accelerate investment to support the economy and that's going to support their stocks. It's going to support the yen, too. Even though the yen could go down because they're spending the money. I get that. All right. But you have to remember something. It's like these competing um uh flows. All right? And to me, the biggest flow will be that one, Japan wants their money to come home to invest in Japan. They need it. They're in debt. 240%. Okay, we're 130. They're 240. So that they're going to make it come home. And now that she's in control, it's going to happen a lot faster than we think. And then there's, you know, she took on Japan even though, you know, Trump ducked her, you know, and just wouldn't talk about it. But Japan will no longer fear or tolerate Chinese trade trade threats, but will invest to negate them as investors have a whole new Japan to reconsider from Monday. So what would I be watching? I'd be watching two things. One, yes, we want to watch the yen, but I don't I think that's relatively I'm not going to say unimportant, but it's way less important than watching the bonds. Okay. So, that 40-year bond and the 30-year bond, but in particular, the 40-year bond, if it jumps back up to, let's say, four and a quarter, all right, then you're going to start seeing pressure on the yen carry trade. All right? So, we know at about 410, the bonds were down 17 points from par down to 83 and a half, 16 and a half points. And that's what breaks the UN carry trade when they need when they get marching calls on their JGBs. So, um, Tekkashi is definitely, like I said, I'm not a fan of hers, her polit politics, but I have to say the way she clearly articulates what's happening around the world and how Japan fits into it and how they have to invest in certain things like the five factors. I think the young people were like, "Look, she has a plan. Maybe not perfect, but she had overwhelming support from the young people, and now she's in control." So, let's see what happens. So, like and follow, tell me in the comments what you think, and have a good Super Bowl.


---

<a id="42_jjjb74n_oj4"></a>

<!-- Source: 42_jJjb74N_oj4.md -->

# Taoguang yanghui, yousuo zuowei. China's strategy on REM versus US Strategy 2-23-2026

- video_id: jJjb74N_oj4
- input_ord: 42
- summary: This analysis examines China's strategic approach to rare earth minerals (REM) versus the United States' evolving strategy heading into April 2026 negotiations. The speaker discusses China's ancient philosophy of 'hide your strength, bide your time' and how it applies to current geopolitical competition. Key tensions include whether the US will prioritize economic agreements over traditional security concerns, the shift from political to economic frameworks in international relations, and America's dependence on Chinese rare earth minerals critical for technology and defense. The speaker argues that internal US administration debates reveal disagreements between China hawks and those favoring economic focus, while noting that actual policy direction will become clear during Trump's anticipated April state visit to China. The discussion emphasizes Taiwan's security, semiconductor trade dynamics, and pharmaceutical supply chain vulnerabilities.
- keywords: rare earth minerals, China strategy, US-China relations, hide your strength bide your time, trade negotiations, semiconductor exports, Taiwan defense, geopolitical competition, economic vs security policy, supply chain vulnerability, Nvidia chips, April 2026 talks, China hawks, international relations, strategic competition
- topics: US-China Strategic Competition and Trade Policy, Rare Earth Minerals as Geopolitical Leverage, Taiwan Security and Defense Alliances, Economic versus Security-Based International Relations

## Transcript

Language: en Well, it's Monday morning and I had several subjects that I was going to speak on today, but yesterday's REMM um provoked several commentators to come on and make comments that I would encourage you to read at the other side of the coin. It's what makes a market. Um I find them to be totally um devoid of reality, but hey, everyone has their opinion. But that was my opinion yesterday. And I want to say that today on the front page of the Financial Times, they have their big read. And guess what? The big read is on the big read is on the um Trump C April meeting coming up. Now, before we go through this article, and it's the big read, so it's much longer. it's behind you know the um have to pay for it but this is what I want to say we do the five factors all the time okay now the five factors is dominated by the fact that we lived in a political world all our agreements were political agreements okay and we have been saying for the last three years that this is all going to swap over and become economic agreements that's why the EU will break up because it's a polit political agreement. They have to agree economically what's going on. All right? So, when you're when we go through this, I just want to point out that there are two sides to this argument in the United States. We're not talking about China. We're not talking about anybody in the United States. There is a huge argument in the administration on what we should be focusing on. So, let's go through the article and see what they have to say. Now, the Chinese uh been around for 5,000 years. They have a saying for everything. And one of their main sayings is um hide your strength, b your time. So, in other words, when you're not equal, then hide your strength so they don't see it and then b your time before you take advantage of this. Okay? And this came out from Dengping and several other leaders. Now we don't have to worry about the Chinese. The American administration, our officials started to use the FA uh phase phrase hide and buy to describe the new conundrum facing US policy towards Beijing. In the spring, China started slowing down export of rare earth to the US. But in October in Malaysia, they announced a draconian export control regime that would have used its dominance of rare earth industry as a potent weapons against the US for the first time. As US companies struggled to get critical minerals and magnets used to make everything from phones to fighter jets, Washington felt snookered. You know, when you say that they were shnookered, when you go back and read how we acted when Trump first got we own all the cards, we own all this and all happened right up until Rare Earth Minerals and then all of a sudden we don't own all the cards. This is a the changing our entire tactics. Okay. So when you read through this you say but the question now is whether Trump is using a tactical daton to help the US cut its reliance on China for rare earth or whether this is the start of a different approach where the US puts greater focus on trade and economic issues and ahead of more traditional national security. Okay, think about what we just said with the five factors. The old world was all about national security politics, okay? The new world is all about economics. As everyone is re-swapping, look what Canada's doing. Look what Europe's doing. Everything is up. And so for us, America, the biggest thing is we need rare earth minerals. And there's only one country in the world that can give them to us, and that's China. All right? And now this saying this is starting to have considerable confusion among US allies. Now Kyle Bass who did well during the great financial crisis and I can say I've always had this belief that you get one great call in your life just one. Okay. And Kyle since the great financial crisis what 17 years ago has been wrong basically on everything. Okay. But he says America is held captive by China strangle hold on rare earth minerals. Again, go read the comments of our commentators about our video yesterday. It's absolutely not true. They say essential for our tech and defense industry. All right. While Beijing desperately clutches that Nvidia AI chips. Now, we argued, remember when in our previous videos that China said, "We don't need your chips." But as soon as we led up to H200, they bought 10 billion dollars worth. So, we do have something to trade. Okay. We do. All right. So, as you start reading through these comments about coming out about from the administration about our administration, remember something. There are a lot of politicians in America on both sides of the aisle who are China hawks. Okay? And in fact is you don't have to go any further than Navaro and Lutnik to see the two biggest China hawks, the two biggest idiots in the administration, but the two biggest China hawks. Okay? And they say here, look, it's not doesn't mean we're going weakness on security. We want to avoid self-inflicted wounds for the next phase of competition. But we've done videos on this. Trump has now imposed no new controls in order. No one in the administration is allowed to do anything anti-Chinese at all. Nothing. Only Trump can do that. All right. And again, they're arguing in here. You got to go back and forth. it has nothing to do with what kind of deal that we're going to have to cut. This is us arguing among ourselves. And he said and whether we're being tough on China. I mean, this is what everyone wants. It's ridiculous. Now, here in the per paragraph, they say, "One key issue for American allies is what will happen once the US cuts its reliance on China for rare earth to a point where it's no longer being held hostage. Some believe Trump will piv pivot to more aggressive security measures while other thinks he will stay focused on economic issues. Think about the five factors. This is what we're talking about. China hawks when security issues. But notice what this first line says. Trump will revert to a tougher approach on security issues once he has pulled the US out from under the rare earth sorted democracies. Think of that, right? It's over our heads. It's undeniable even to the people denying it. Even yesterday they were denying this. So if you remember back when he went to Malaysia, um it triggered a warning. He said he might let Nvidia export Blackwell chips, the most advanced to China. The blowback, they actually introduced a law in Congress saying that he could not do that. All right? And it was bipartisan in the end. And so in the end he let them do the H200 which they then bought10 billion dollar worth and the critics are saying that he's unwilling to upset China and an indication of the lack of focus on security threats. I totally agree with that weak. And so they point out that Trump is not ignoring security reasons. You just put Alibaba and BYD on a group that allegedly have ties to the Chinese military. But the Pentagon abruptly requested that its own list be removed from the federal wide website, sparking specula speculation. The White House was worried they would undermine the deal and complicate relations ahead of Trump's expected state visit to China in April. Okay, what have I been saying? So when you start thinking about security, remember something. We've done two or three videos on um this. We came out with our um national strategy which said we want to we're going to pull back and do the Western Hemisphere. And down at the bottom here in the last paragraph, it says um we want to reinforce the ability US and allies to deny any attempt to cease Taiwan. In those papers, we wrote the papers. We said those efforts will require higher defense spending from Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Taiwan. Here's what the paper said. Those four countries defend Taiwan first, then we will back them up. That's what we actually said in the paper. These four countries got together immediately and start and formed a defense treaty because now they can't count on the United States. So, stop and read. This is all about Taiwan selling them arms and so forth and so on. again, you know, they just had a conversation. Trump told us, he called Z and said, you know, they had a discussion on the arms and they've come to an agreement. We won't know until April what that agreement is. So, here they say, look, there's other choke points like I I forget. It's like 80 90% of our medicine comes from China. I mean, drugs, I don't know what we're going to do there. Um, what they say here is Trump is his own China desk officer. So, we all can argue whether America is in a good or bad position, but I would say this. In the first week in April, we're going to find out for sure. I'm going to do a video on what I believe we will agree to with China in the first week of April. What I want you to do is think about what you would do and let's match and let's see what anyone has to say. who I can follow


---

<a id="43_6enhydkom-k"></a>

<!-- Source: 43_6EnHyDKOm-k.md -->

# The Five Factors choke points are pervasive problems but investment opportunities for us 2-24-2026

- video_id: 6EnHyDKOm-k
- input_ord: 43
- summary: This video analyzes supply chain vulnerabilities and geopolitical choke points as investment opportunities. The speaker discusses how global competition and supply chain disruptions have created critical bottlenecks across multiple sectors, from rare earth minerals to semiconductor components. Key examples include the Malacca Strait, low-enriched uranium supplies, memory chip production, and Japan's Nitto company's monopoly on semiconductor materials. The analysis emphasizes identifying essential products and processes where companies hold monopolistic positions with no viable substitutes. The speaker argues that investors should focus on companies controlling critical supply chain components that will receive premium pricing and government support as nations reshape global trade relationships.
- keywords: choke points, supply chain disruption, geopolitical risk, semiconductor materials, rare earth minerals, Nitto monopoly, investment opportunities, trade tensions, critical minerals, manufacturing resilience, global supply chains, tech competition, strategic materials, government subsidies, market monopolies
- topics: Geopolitical Supply Chain Vulnerabilities and Choke Points, Critical Material Monopolies in Semiconductor and Technology Industries, Investment Strategies in Essential Global Supply Chain Components

## Transcript

Language: en Today I'd like to talk about the five factors and choke points. From the very first video we did about the five factors, we pointed out in this geopolitical world that one of the biggest choke points in the world is the Malaka Straits. And we felt in the five factors with all the um supply chains being rerouted and you know can't deal with China, can't deal with these guys and so forth that we would find these choke points that break the supply chain. And you can see right now we have six and seven are wide open. If we attack Iran, those two choke choke points are going to come into play and we could see two $300 barrel oil if we attack. You know, my opinion, I don't think we are, but these are the choke points for the movement of goods across the world. But we also almost immediately found out there were different kinds of choke points. One of the choke points being rare earth minerals, something that I would argue that none of us heard of a year ago and yet today it's probably in my my opinion I'll say that um the biggest issue facing the United States for the next 10 to 20 years with I think there's no doubt about that. Okay. But we've also learned that the world is learning to look at themselves and us and other competitors and they're now understanding choke points within the supply chains of each individual process or product. So the Europeans this past week like I think two days ago came out with a I think it's a 100page report on choke points that they can hit the US with since we're hitting well everybody with terrorists that they're saying what do we have all right so the first thing and we know and and we've spoken about this before I think it's absolutely going to happen our seven tech firms over here 30% of their market shares in Europe I think most of them are going to be you know whatever you want I don't know how you want to say this you know regulated out of the market then we find out from the Europeans that 80% of our lowenriched uranium used in the US for all our nuclear power plants come from the EU and now these turbines are used for these data center power centers okay and there's two firms Seammens and one in um South Korea And they now know that if they just sit there and say, "No, give us, the Europeans, our own turbines," that that could be a 50 billion um euro hit to our our US tech firms. But again, it's not so much that these are there. I mean, yes, learn these things, understand them, but the most important lesson is that the Europeans are now looking at themselves and how they fit into the world and how they fit into different processes and different choke points. So, in the last two weeks, we've all come to understand that we have another choke point and this choke point is uh global memory chips shortage. I mean, from what I've been reading, this literally could be like a major AI choke point. U everyone, you can read this. It's in Business Insider. But here is another choke point on the memory chips. Now, Japan has gone in and offered to Samsung and SKH Highix a um attractive proposal that at this time they have turned down to build memory chips in Japan. The tax breaks and the funding that Japan would give to those two firms would cut the cost by 50% to build that plant. These plants don't cost $100 to build. They cost billions to build. So, and think about it. There's a choke point that Korea has, right? And Japan wants to solve that. So, they're willing to fund it to to where they'll cut the price of building the plant by half. Okay. And we've seen with negotiations with Canada, right? Um, Trump threatened Carney and Carney said, "Well, we're going to cut off all Quebec hydro into the northeast, which would drive up our bills. One, we wouldn't have enough energy and then two, our bills would be up whatever 50%. And two, um, they're not going to send the gas into along the whole northern border there. All those gas prices would shoot up." And basically Trump backed off because he couldn't overcome those checkpoints. And now, of course, we're suing um the Canadians over frozen French fries. The only problem with that is they're 97% of our French fries and all all frozen French fries. All the firms, all Burger King, McDonald, everybody. Okay. And they're going to start shipping them to Asia. What are we going to do then? We don't have the processing plants. It would take years to build. So what looked to me like it was going to be I don't know I don't know what I was thinking kind of straightforward uh my whole things were like big things like the malaca straits and now I realize that we have to look at processes every single way how something is made all right so last week we m mentioned nito let's go over the same gentleman put out another piece and I'm going to run through it and you can make up your own mind but again think about it a choke point but inside a process inside a supply chain. So look at I got a lot of slides here so you're going to have to stop and read. He's just saying it's the most mispriced monopoly in a semi uh conductor stack. So building a semiconductor all the different processes this is the most mispriced monopoly in that stack. So there's a solution. It's called NE-Class, low DK, whatever that is. Nitabo controls 90% of the global market for this material. If you're building a Blackwell cluster or M5 series map, you're paying the Nitto tax. There's no substitute. Shall I repeat that? There is no substitute. Competitors in Taiwan are still 36 months away from matching Nitabo's uh chemical purity. Okay? And then you can read the rest here on what they have. I want to point out that Nitto has 2735 employees and we just did this in the last video. And all the major chip manufacturers in America, they've all flown representatives to Nitabo to bend the knee to beg for this product that they need to build their chips. Okay. So this gentleman, he this is his stock, not mine. He's saying it's a triple play. It's a structural monopoly which we just talked about and you're acquiring an asset in historically cheap uh yen and the dividend is 30% of payout. So one, two, three. Okay. He calls it the ASML of glass. All right. And he ends it here in in this paragraph in the middle. When Apple starts fighting Nvidia for Japanese glass makers capacity, you know, the cycle has shifted from growth to survival. Okay. So everyone's trying to manufacture and now we have to manufacture in our own home states and we we can't do with certain people and so forth. These are the things that we have to start looking at for investing. So it's just my opinion given all the things that are made around the world that have input from all around the world. What are these processes or products that we're making that are necessity? And inside that, we'll call it a stack like this gentleman did. Inside that stack of producing this product or process, what is in there that is monopoly that nobody in the world can get around. These are the stocks we look at. New York Times this morning has a big spread on that. No one's talking about Taiwan. It is the biggest weakness in our entire technology system. Front page of the New York Time, not me. Okay, I don't get the New York Times, so I can't show you. My brother sent it to me. So, here's the point with all this stuff. If you will get premium pricing, you will get government support. You will have the stocks that will go up even when stocks are going down because of what's going on in the world. So as the five factors rearrange the world, there are going to be investments that we can make across the globe for all these special products and processes that puts us in a position to win in the investment world. So, what do you think? Um, by the way, can you mention any other stacks or processes or products and who fits in? Let me know in the comments and thanks for following.