Welcome to this week’s market wrap podcast, I’m Stefan Gleason.
Coming up in a moment, we have a special interview with former economic advisor to President Donald Trump Judy Shelton. Judy is known for her advocacy for a return to the gold standard and for her criticisms of the Federal Reserve – and we’re pleased to have her on this week’s podcast.
You’ll be fascinated by what she has to say about things right now, so be sure to stick around for that.
Well, as the countdown to Election Day ticks closer, the gold market continues to reflect a vote of no confidence in fiat currency.
Gold prices having been moving up in terms of all major national currencies, including of course the U.S. dollar. That’s in spite of a significant move up in the dollar in recent weeks on foreign exchange markets.
The monetary metal made another record high on Tuesday. It currently comes in at $2,753 per ounce and is registering a weekly gain of 1.2%.
Turning to the white metals, silver is up 0.3% for the week to bring spot prices to $33.83 an ounce. Platinum is advancing 1.8%% to trade at $1,036. And finally, palladium is rallying an impressive 14% this week to command $1,232 per ounce.
The palladium market got a lift from reports that the Biden administration wants to stiffen international sanctions against Russia – by targeting specifically its ability to export palladium. Russia produces nearly 40% of all palladium that makes its way to the global market for the strategic metal, which is used heavily in the automotive industry.
China is a major consumer, and it’s unlikely it will partake in any U.S.-led boycott of Russian palladium. But if supplies are cut off to Western buyers, that could lead to a scramble for scarce available stockpiles and potential price spikes not just in palladium but also in platinum, which can be substituted in many industrial applications.
Attempts by the U.S. to ban Russian palladium will only accelerate Russian efforts to forge ahead with alternative trading mechanisms specifically for the so-called BRICS countries. Russia’s Finance Minister said the country is currently pursuing a BRICS precious metals exchange.
A BRICS super-currency has also been proposed – one that would be backed at least in part by gold. The central banks of Russia and China have been big buyers of gold in recent years. Russia has also begun adding silver stockpiles to its monetary reserves.
Of course, the Kremlin will be closely watching political developments in the United States. The American media has long tried to portray Donald Trump as an apologist for Vladimir Putin.
But the Trump administration actually began ramping up sanctions on Putin’s government before it went on to invade Ukraine on Joe Biden’s watch. Trump has also talked about imposing large new tariffs on Russia’s trading partner, China. He went further recently and threatened to hit any country that shifts away from using the U.S. dollar in international trade with a 100% tariff.
Currency wars are heating up, and they will continue to do so regardless of who wins in November.
In other news, shares of top tier gold producer Newmont Mining got slammed on Thursday. Newmont stock plunged as much as 15% on the day after a disappointing earnings report. Even though the company reported big revenue increases on the heels of gold prices making record high after record high, its operating costs are also pushing relentlessly higher.
Here’s analysis from the Korelin Economics Report:
[Featured Clip]
Unlike gold itself, a gold mining enterprise doesn’t necessarily benefit from the effects of inflation. And like most other publicly traded gold mining companies, Newmont has lagged behind the performance of spot gold prices.
It’s not just a recent phenomenon. The underperformance of the mining sector has been going on for decades.
In retrospect, Newmont and other miners would have generated more shareholder value by scaling back capital expenditures, lowering production volumes, and using freed up cash to add physical precious metals to their balance sheet.
Holding gold and silver as real money reserves should be an obviously attractive idea to the CEOs of companies that literally dig it out of the ground. But unfortunately, few mining executives seem to believe in the monetary utility of their own product.
One exception is Canada-based SilverCrest Metals. Its management team has moved to put around 20% of treasury assets in gold and silver bullion.
That decision has paid off for shareholders. SilverCrest shares hit a record high this week. Meanwhile, Newmont, Barrick, and most other notable stocks in the sector remain well below their former highs as they underperform the metals year after year, decade after decade.
Well now, without further delay let’s get right to our exclusive interview with a prominent Fed critic and former Trump advisor.
Mike Maharrey: Greetings. I'm Mike Maharrey, an analyst and reporter here at Money Metals, and I'm here today with Judy Shelton. She's an economist and a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, and the author of a relatively new book, Good as Gold: How to Unleash The Power of Sound Money. Judy, thank you so much for joining me today. How are you?
Judy Shelton: Great. I'm delighted to be with you, Mike.
Mike Maharrey: Well, it's a real pleasure to talk to you, and I'm excited to talk to a genuine economist who likes gold. That's hard to find in this day and age. You do have quite the resume, and I really didn't do it justice in the intro. You were an economic advisor to President Trump. You've been in this business for a long time, and I would say it's fair to say you're among the top economists here in the United States. Now, most of your peers hate gold, and they tend to agree with good old John Maynard Keynes who called the gold standard a barbarous relic. And of course, Keynesian economics dominates today. How in the world did you manage to get a PhD in economics and avoid this mainstream bias?
Judy Shelton: Well, it's interesting, when you say most of my peers, if we break that down into pundits who write about monetary policy and gold in mainstream media, I would say they reveal a certain lack of knowledge about monetary systems that have been very successful in the past. But if you talk about my colleagues, I'm very fortunate to have longstanding friendships with Alan Greenspan, with Robert Mundell who won the Nobel Prize in 1999 for his work on historical monetary systems. And I also knew Paul Volcker quite well, so I tend to look upon colleagues who have actually been in the arena and have seen theory and reality come together.
Those people don't hesitate one bit to talk about gold as a bulwark for monetary credibility. That's why central banks tend to accumulate it as we're seeing, especially recently. So I think I haven't had my ego totally bruised by a few rather cruel op-ed pieces during the nomination process. Even during those days, I was able to go back to people like Greenspan and get back to, for example, he wrote an article called Gold and Economic Freedom, which is far more radical than anything I've written. So that's where I take my intellectual comfort.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, that's a pretty good pedigree right there. I actually invoked Volcker's name this morning in an article, talking about the fact that he actually did a real inflation fight back in the 1980s.
Judy Shelton: He sure did, yes.
Mike Maharrey: Let's just hone in on the nuts and bolts here. What, in a nutshell, is wrong with the monetary system today? I think a lot of people would say, "Well, it's fine. We've got these fine people at the Fed and they're doing a pretty good job." But obviously if you really look at it, you look at the devaluation of the dollar, there's some kind of issue. What is the fundamental problem?
Judy Shelton: The fundamental problem is that the basic functions of money have been sacrificed in terms of how money is meant to work as a tool of measurement for people in a free market economy, and instead we have allowed money to become yet another economic instrument of government that it uses to seek its own objectives. And I would prefer to see us return money to the realm of the private sector in the sense of restoring monetary integrity of our nation's money unit, the US dollar, so that it performs those primary functions. We know it's a widely accepted medium of exchange, but I think where it has fallen down is in providing a meaningful unit of account across borders.
Because there's no logical international monetary system that would provide a level playing field to support the principles of free trade, for example. And the most egregious failing I think is in having money serve as a store of value, also a fundamental purpose. And gold, the thing about gold, because it has intrinsic value, if you buy an ounce of gold today, in 10 years, you still own a full ounce of gold. But the deliberate framework utilized by the Federal Reserve in regulating the money supply and thereby being responsible for the value of the dollar is to purposely debase it by 2% a year. And that's if the Fed is able to achieve its 2% inflation target.
We've seen in recent years it has not been able to do that, and it's already lowering interest rates when it has yet to hit the target. But it's very deliberate. If you get on the website for the St. Louis Fed, that's where you find most of the research papers, it defines very clearly that it is the policy of the Federal Reserve to cause the dollar to purchase 2% less every year. And so the Fed has interpreted the mandate it received from Congress back in the late 1970s to achieve stable prices as something quite different, which is to achieve stable inflation. And what's interesting to me is if you go back and read that legislative language, it anticipated the Fed going to a 0% inflation target, but that is not what the Fed has decided to do.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, I make that point often, that it's not that they don't want inflation. I think a lot of people think, they listen to the rhetoric on the news that, no, the government doesn't want this inflation. Of course they want it, they just don't want you to notice it. So I feel like 2% is kind of this arbitrary number they've come up with, where they can have inflation, but it's not quite bad enough where people get upset about it.
Judy Shelton: I think you're right, and yet I think people should get upset about the government skimming 2% of your purchasing power. One thing I always loved about Paul Volcker is he never bought into that theory. He said from an economic point of view or from a moral point of view, in his final book before he passed away, it was called the Quest for Sound Money. Oh, the title was Keeping At It, the subtitle was The Quest for Sound Money and Good Government. And in that book he said even low inflation, two or 3%, my mother would see through that. He thought it was a clear gimmick on the part of the government. And I would be a little more harsh and say that it's expropriation of private property.
So I think that we should question the Fed's target. For a long time, they kept it private. That is, if you look at the transcripts from July, 1996 when Greenspan as chairman was discussing how to interpret the mandate for stable prices, and around the board table at the Federal Reserve, the person arguing in favor of a two or 3% inflation target was Janet Yellen. And Greenspan, the next day, said, "I don't think we should advertise that these proceedings in the sense that Congress might not approve of our saying that a low and stable rate of inflation is the same thing as fulfilling the mandate for stable prices," because one could reasonably argue price stability means zero inflation.
Mike Maharrey: Right, that's what I would think just as a normal guy out there. You kind of alluded to it in what you've said now, but what do you mean when you say that money is a moral contract?
Judy Shelton: Well, we are required by legal tender laws to use the US dollar as our national currency. So I feel that if we are prevented from going to alternative currencies, and of course this opens up a huge issue, the fact that alternative currencies and decentralized finance are becoming much bigger factors in the world of finance and money. But they don't get the same tax treatment as dollars, we know that. Cryptocurrencies or alternative currencies, including stable coins, the preferential treatment of uniquely allowing the dollar to be the legal tender currency, I think makes it incumbent upon government to ensure that the US money unit is a reliable measuring unit, that it is a dependable store of value.
And that's why I described it during my hearing before the Senate Banking Committee to be a member of the Federal Reserve Governing Board, I think it should be seen as a moral contract between the government and citizens. Because we're required to use it, so that product has to perform for the benefit of the people, not for the benefit of the government.
Mike Maharrey: Right. And you mentioned that a couple of times, the fact that the Fiat system that we live under now really is a benefit for the government. And I've made the statement that the Fed and it's money policies in the Fiat system that it props up, is the engine that drives the biggest government in the history of the world. And we can argue whether or not the US is the biggest government, I think you could make that case. It's certainly a very big government. Do you think that's fair to say that the Fiat system props up and enables big government as we know it?
Judy Shelton: It's not only fair, it's very insightful to say that. We've had a strong example in recent years, and we currently have, where the Federal Reserve insists that it is having a restrictive interest rate, so it would technically be practicing a contractionary monetary policy, but this is at a moment when fiscal policy is extremely stimulative. So what happens is that high interest rate can become a genuine obstacle for the private sector, especially for small business. Because then they find that to maybe excessively increase the cost of doing business, they're not able to get capital at that cost, and so the expansion plans or the increased hiring plans of private business are curtailed.
But at the same time, the government jobs and the government activity that is encompassed in that deficit spending and that extra 2 trillion going into the economy, it's paid for by the government. But high interest costs, we've learned, are no obstacle whatsoever for the federal government. When Treasury sells the debt that finances the deficit spending, it's largely by auction. So whatever the interest rate turns out to be is what the government will pay. Even though now I think people are becoming very alarmed that the cost of financing the government debt is one of the most expensive outlays of government, exceeding what we spend on defense and rivaling our largest entitlement programs. That's quite frightening, and yet the government just can look ahead 10 years and add those additional hundreds of billions to its projected future outlays without doing anything to reduce government spending.
And I've long said you can't have sound money in the absence of sound finances if you're going to have a Fiat system. And so this is, again, I fault the Fed for being silent on this issue. Obviously I'd rather see Congress supervise itself more closely and work toward a balanced budget. I'm hoping that the next administration, I'm convinced the next administration will take seriously the need to cut the size of government, to cut spending, to eliminate some of the layers of bureaucratic civil servants who may be well-intentioned, but I think that tends to foster excessive regulations and ends up inhibiting the growth of the private sector. I would rather count more on the real economy by reducing taxes, reducing regulations, and having a leaner government.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, you and I are definitely of the same mind on that issue. And it's interesting too, you mentioned the Fed. Anytime that Powell is asked about, and I'm talking about Federal Reserve, Chairman Jerome Powell, anytime he's asked about the fiscal situation, he will not talk about it. He's constantly, "Oh, that's not our purview. We just do monetary policy here. We're not worried about how the government's financing, and the debt and all that," which I think it's absurd for him to say that in the first place, but that is kind of his position, isn't it? That this isn't our problem, not our circus, not our monkeys, I guess.
Judy Shelton: Well, and he is different than say Paul Volcker in that respect. When President Reagan came in in 1981 with plans to cut taxes and regulations, and put forward a supply side, economic agenda, Volcker said, "I understand the need to have incentives for working and investing and saving." He didn't fight the idea that you needed economic growth and you had to do those other things that Reagan wanted to do in order to achieve it. But he very much emphasized that we cannot have unbalanced budgets as far as the eye can see, and he wasn't afraid to keep bringing that point up.
When I hear Jerome Powell say that we take fiscal policy as given, I see it as a bit of a cop out in the sense that he won't address that issue. But at the same time, and often in his speeches, Chair Powell will repeat this comment, he will say, "Price stability is a responsibility of the Federal Reserve." But that cannot be the case if there's no limit on deficit spending. We saw how fiscal transfers, especially during COVID, really swelled the money supply, and in a way that went straight into the bloodstream of the economy. Because you put fiscal resources in the hands and the banking accounts of people all over the country at a time they were being asked not to work. So we have a normal level under our government of paying people not to work, I think that is inherently inflationary, and yet the Fed just refuses to comment on that, as if.
I think of this sort of example, if you were to provide, say universal basic income, give everybody $10,000 a month, no matter what, they didn't have to work for it. That was just a new policy. There is no interest rate high enough that the Fed could impose that would prevent the immediate pressure on prices of the extra money in the hands of people who are ready to spend it. So I think it's not realistic to pretend that you can have monetary and fiscal policy working across purposes, and I just think we need to resolve this, and I don't see the current Fed doing anything toward that end.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, unfortunately that seems to be the reality. Now, you make a case for a gold standard, and of course there's different ways that that could be implemented. But even looking at the big picture, when you start talking about sound money, you start talking about gold, you're automatically going to get the pushback. "Well, we tried that and it didn't work." How do you respond to folks that just have this instant knee jerk reaction to any kind of proposal that involves sound money, gold, or anything remotely resembling such?
Judy Shelton: Well, I want to respond to that in two ways. So the order I guess is I will first just say that some of the monetary systems in history, the ones anchored by gold, have been extremely successful. And I'll even invoke Greenspan again. He thought the era from the 1880s through roughly World War I, say 1913, worked extremely well under the classical international gold standard. And he said that even a year or two after he ended his 18 year reign as the chair of the world's most powerful central bank, he said he favored that approach.
And during the Bretton Woods system from 1944 through 1971, you had a gold anchored system. It was called a managed gold standard, where you and I didn't have the right to convert currency into gold, but foreign central banks could convert US dollars into gold at the rate, the pre-established rate, of $35 per ounce of gold. And at the same time, they were required to maintain fixed exchange rates within a 1% variance of their own currencies relative to the dollar. And so you had another extremely successful period of economic growth, reduced wealth inequality, increasing productivity, and it was anchored by a gold convertible dollar.
So people who say it just doesn't work, I think need to be a little more careful in defining economic success. A Bank of England study said both of those eras provided for more financial stability than what we have had since. But I also think I need to define for your listeners what I'm suggesting, because you're correct, when you say I'm for a gold standard, that's not exactly true if we're saying I think that currency issued by the US government should be convertible into gold. And what I'm saying is we have 2.4 trillion in Federal Reserve notes, 70% of which largely circulate outside the country. Our holdings of gold at today's prices would be worth over 700 billion, which is no small sum, but you can see that you couldn't even maintain convertibility at today's prices for just the paper money.
So I'm not proposing something that is not realistic out of the gate. What I am suggesting is let's set up a marker to make it clear to ourselves and to the world that the United States is going to face up to this challenge of fiscal unsustainability. And I think we have a unique opportunity as the world's largest holder of gold reserves, the US government has 261 million ounces, to do something that would be rather attention getting, and I think could perform as a barometer of our fiscal and monetary intentions going forward. I think the windfall profit that is inherent in the 261 million ounces that are now worth over 700 billion and what we carry them on, their book value, on both US Treasury, financial documents and for the Federal Reserve, they carry them at $11 billion. So that's quite a potential gain that could be captured.
The last thing I want to see is for the US government to sell off that gold, because that money would disappear down the usual rat hole of redistribution. I would hate to see that, but what I would like to do, instead of letting it just sit there for another 53 years as it has since it went into the books at that statutory rate of $42 and 22 cents per ounce, why not issue a long-term bond? I think it could even be as long as a 50 year bond, something we looked at when I worked on the transition team for the incoming Trump administration, and I was assigned to Treasury as a lead advisor on international affairs. I think that US Treasury could issue what I'm calling Treasury Trust Bonds, they could mature in 50 years. Let's say if they issued them on July 4th, 2026 and they matured on July 4th, 2076, the 300th anniversary of the signing of our nation's Declaration of Independence, that would be a signal that first off, we intend to be standing tall at that point, we think the US is still going to be in business.
We intend to have the most trusted currency in the world, the continuingly dominant reserve currency. And yes, we're doing something quite amazing. We are restoring some form of gold backing to the US dollar. I acknowledge it would be in this delimited way over a specified time period, and maybe some people would even say, "Oh, well that's underwhelming. That's just another treasury instrument. If you want to link it to gold, go ahead." I think there would be plenty of people who would say, "That's extremely, radically dangerous. We should never be talking about linking the dollar to gold." And anyone who would suggest that, you never want to let them get anywhere near the Federal Reserve,
My point would be, let's have that debate. And I realize we are staking the family jewels if we put together a Treasury trust bond, but I think we are looking at a family emergency as far as the fiscal sustainability of our nation. And I think we need to reestablish the credibility of the value of a US dollar, given that people who've been going through these recent years of inflation and finding themselves forced to keep asking for cost of living adjustments to keep up the purchasing power of their own salaries, I think it's time to do something for those people, for all of us as citizens, to say that we understand that monetary integrity is important.
Our faith in the omniscience of the Federal Reserve has been shaken when they got as high as 9% inflation. The Fed may say we're responsible for price stability, but I have not seen real accountability. Nobody got fired for the situation that was created and not foreseen by the Federal Reserve, and I just think it is reasonable to ask that a tangible symbol of a new commitment to monetary integrity is provided by the US government.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, what I love about that is that you're not trying to overhaul the entire system in one fell swoop. It's a practical step that is doable. And I think you're right, it would send an important signal and take an important step in the right direction. I think you get a lot of people, when it comes to politics, I call it, I use an analogy with bread. So many people think that we have to get the whole loaf of bread, and they'll step over slices of bread in order to try to get to that loaf. And I like the fact that what you've got is an actionable plan that takes a solid step forward. What are some-
Judy Shelton: Thank you for saying that. Thank you for saying that, that's very important to me because it is meant to be an actionable plan. We can talk about our frustration with decreasing purchasing power or an unreliable dollar, but it's just ranting, unless you can translate that into a specific initiative. So that's what I'm trying to do. I want to be at that nexus between theory and reality, and say, "Let's do something real. Let's provide that tangible signal, that we believe in the importance of a dependable store of value. And try to make the US dollar much more compatible with the founding aspirations expressed in the Constitution when Congress was given the right to regulate the money."
It was always meant to be a measure, an unvarying standard. And I would welcome the debate that might be caused by trying to usher through the introduction of Treasury trust bonds. And I think at the very least, they would provide a very useful information tool, a signal for the Federal Reserve. Because if we saw that the rate of return or let's say the interest rate on Treasury trust bonds, which would be the amount the government has to pay to raise money that way as compared to what it pays when people purchase a conventional Treasury security, that could tell the Fed a lot about the aggregate expectations that people have concerning the stable purchasing power of the dollar into the future when you use gold as a surrogate for the real economy.
We have something comparable in TIPS bonds, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, because they provide a cost of living adjustment, but it's based on the CPI, on the consumer price index. Gold to me is much like the CPI, but instead of being this somewhat artificial basket that's put together by a government agency to represent what people purchase on a daily or normal basis, gold for a lot of people is a link to reality because they look more at commodity prices as their signal about the performance of say, productive economic growth, real economic growth.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, I don't think you can understate the importance of even small steps. Have you followed much some of the stuff that's gone on at the state level? We work real closely with the Sound Money Defensive League here at Money Metals, and so trying to try to work to eliminate sales taxes on gold and silver, which is effectively a tax on money, which is silly. And then even having states where they've declared gold and silver legal tender within the state, which is kind of symbolic if we really get down to brass tacks, but I think it does the same thing. It sends this signal that people want change and they're aware of the fact that the current money system is not working right. Have you followed any of those state level initiatives at all?
Judy Shelton: Yes. I greatly admire the work of the Sound Money Defense League, and I'm enormously encouraged by the advances at the state level. I especially thought it was interesting when Texas set up a bullion depository as part of the state apparatus of government. I spent a lot of time in Utah. I got my doctorate at the University of Utah, and I think that they have been very forward-looking in terms of moving towards sound money. And if you even look at the platforms for the Republican Party in 2012 and 2016, they talked about having a commission to consider alternative ways to regulate the money supply, including the use of a metallic standard.
So I think that states, especially since you look at the Constitution, and states are specifically mentioned with regard to using gold and silver as money, I think that's extremely important. I would love to see a case go to the Supreme Court that would involve these issues. And so yes, anything you can... Tell me more, do you know how many states, I know there's different routes to maybe not taxing gains from gold and silver and the way they're treated, but what is your sense? I read as many as 20 or 30 states have put forward initiatives to move in this direction, towards sound money.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, absolutely. There've been a huge number of initiatives. I think a lot of them have focused on the tax aspects of it because that's an easy first step, an easy bite of the apple. And I think we're up to now where there's only five or six states, maybe not even that many, that have actual sales tax on gold and silver. There are four states that have officially declared that silver and gold are legal tender in the state. Once again, I know it's symbolic, but I think it gives you an idea that people are talking about this. And I just got an email the other day from a state legislator in Utah who's working on some more state-level proposals, so I think this is something, I'm also the communications director at the Tenth Amendment Center, and we do a lot of state-level legislation, and sound money is one of our issues. And I've really seen an uptick in interest in sound money issues really over the last four or five years.
And of course that makes sense when you put it in context of a 9% inflation rate based on the CPI. So I really do think there's a growing grassroots public awareness of the need to do exactly what we're talking about here. I don't want to take up any more of your time, and we've hit the time limit that I promised, but I do before we go want to allow people to have the opportunity to find where your work is, how to get your book, and where they can find all things Judy Shelton.
Judy Shelton: Well, that's nice of you to ask. The royalties from the book will go to the Independent Institute. I think they're an excellent think tank.
Mike Maharrey: Outstanding.
Judy Shelton: Well, I am glad we agree on that. The book is available pretty much everywhere. I checked on Amazon this morning, and it's the number one new release in three categories of money and monetary policy, economic theory, and there's one on economic policy and development. So that's very gratifying.
Mike Maharrey: That's encouraging, yeah.
Judy Shelton: Well, I see it as maybe I am radical. I see nothing wrong with being radical, but I see other people agreeing. The fact that the book is resonating in that way makes me feel that we can start a movement and join the work that you've been doing towards sound money across states. I think we need to look at the taxation of gold and silver holdings at the federal level. I might just mention, I noticed back in 2011, long before Donald Trump was running for president, he took three gold bars, kilo bars, in payment for a deposit on real estate. And he even had a press conference about it at the time. He said he was unhappy with the way the dollar was being treated, I think as something incidental to the other goals of the US government and the administration at the time. And he said, "I'm doing this to make a point."
And I later thought, I wonder if he would be aware that what counted as a deposit at the time would be taxable. That is he could take the gold, but it would suffer the differential tax treatment. And that gets back to our agreement, I think, on the morality of sound money. If it's legal tender and we have to use it, it better be as good as gold. The dollar better be as good, because I think it's quite unfair and inappropriate to then tax people who use gold or silver as a monetary asset. That's the sort of case I would like to see go to the Supreme Court.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, absolutely. So you produce work over at the Independent Institute, correct?
Judy Shelton: Yes, they post all my articles.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah. What's the email or the web address over there? I don't have it off the top of my head.
Judy Shelton: Oh, let's see. I guess I just look at them on X, I don't want to give wrong information.
Mike Maharrey: Hold on, we'll find it.
Judy Shelton: It's Independent Institute.
Mike Maharrey: Dot org. It's independent.org.
Judy Shelton: Very good, thank you.
Mike Maharrey: Well, I really appreciate you taking the time, and I'm really excited to see somebody with your stature and at your level really pushing forward practical initiatives where we can at least start the discussion about reestablishing sound money. Because I would argue that it's the number one, in my view, the number one issue facing the United States, is getting the fiscal and monetary house in order. And if we don't, I think we're going to pay dearly for our lack of urgency on the issue. So thank you so much for your work, and thank you so much for spending a little bit of time with me. And we'd love to have you back on some time as we move forward.
Judy Shelton: It'd be a pleasure, and thank you for all your good work. And I'm very comforted to have such great allies. Thank you. Thanks, Mike.
Well, I hope you enjoyed that back and forth with Judy Shelton. We’ll be watching these matters closely, particularly as we head into 2025.
And that will do it for this week. Be sure to check back next Friday for our next Weekly Market Wrap Podcast. And of course, you’ll want to check in to the Money Metals Midweek Memo each Wednesday, hosted by Mike Maharrey. To listen to any of our audio programs just go to MoneyMetals.com/podcasts or find them on whatever podcast platform you prefer.
Until next time, this has been Stefan Gleason with Money Metals Exchange, thanks for listening and have a wonderful weekend everybody.
About the Author
Stefan Gleason is President of Money Metals Exchange, a precious metals recently named "Best in the USA" by an independent global ratings group. A graduate of the University of Florida, Gleason is a seasoned business leader, investor, political strategist, and grassroots activist. Gleason has frequently appeared on national television networks such as CNN, FoxNews, and CNBC, and his writings have appeared in hundreds of publications such as the Wall Street Journal, Detroit News, Washington Times, and National Review.