These archives of the Scott Horton Show are brought to you by the Future Freedom Foundation at www.fff.org.
Join the great Jacob Hornberger and some of the best writers in the libertarian movement, like James Bovard, Sheldon Richmond, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, and more, for a real individualist take on the most important matters of peace, liberty, and prosperity in our society.
That's the Future Freedom Foundation at www.fff.org.
Also sponsored by Dagny and Lane, Ionic Minerals Skin Care.
Check out their great skin and hair care products at www.dagnyandlane.com.
And www.libertystickers.com.
If you hate the state, you should get a sticker that says so for the back of your truck.www.libertystickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
So the past couple of days, actually not today, but yesterday or the day before that, I guess, or something like that.
Anyway, there are articles by my friend Charles Goyette at lewrockwell.com.
In fact, this may depend on the width of your screen.
Maybe not.
But when I went to the left-hand margin at lewrockwell.com and clicked the columnist's link, Charles Goyette is at the very top in the middle there.
And so you can find these articles very easily here.
The Great Fiscal Cliff of 2012-2013.
This is actually an interview of Charles by Martin D. Weiss.
And then the other one is Fiscal Cliff, An Illusion or Reality?
The book is Red and Blue and Broke All Over, Restoring America's Free Economy.
And the website is charlesgoyette.com.
Welcome back to the show, my friend.
How are you doing?
Scott, great to speak with you.
Well, good.
I'm very happy to have you here.
Very important book.
I really want to recommend everyone the one before this as well.
It's The Dollar Meltdown.
It's big and it's yellow and it's got a melting $1 bill on the front.
You can't miss it.
It's at the place where they sell books near you.
Also on the Internet.
You can find the links, of course, at charlesgoyette.com.
And so that one and this one both, well, this is sort of more focused on the solution.
That one really talks about the ultimate monetary crash, the ultimate crackup boom that, well, as you've been saying, is kind of going on in slow motion already.
But I want to ask you, first of all, before we get to all that stuff, about this fiscal cliff.
You know, something about December 31st, the Mayan calendar or some crap is all going to come true and something terrible is going to happen on January 1st of 2013 or something.
What?
Yeah, here's basically what the deal is.
The Bush tax cuts, the last round of Bush tax cuts, all the Bush tax cuts, are set to expire at the end of the year, the 1st of January.
So that's part of the picture.
So if nothing is done about that, then there will be massive automatic tax increases that kick in.
And they are substantial and they affect, I would say, just about everybody.
So that's part of the picture.
The other part of the picture is at the same time the sequestration, you remember when they passed the national debt ceiling increase, increasing the national debt ceiling to whatever it was, $16.4 trillion now, there was a provision in there that if the parties couldn't come to a solution, there would be an automatic sequestration and supposedly the federal budget would be cut.
Well, that kicks in at the end of the year.
That was a year ago, right?
There was one thing where everybody was talking about the illegal, unconstitutional Libya war, and then they said, you know what, instead of talking about that, let's talk about this debt ceiling thing for the rest of the summer.
And everybody agreed, and that's what they did.
Yeah, and that's what they did.
So just to remind everybody where we were a year ago was this deal that said, if we don't make a deal, then the cuts, they'll be automatic.
They'll be automatic.
And then the third thing is that right about this time, just the other day, the visible national debt, and I always like to distinguish between the visible national debt and the hidden debt, the real debt levels, but the visible national debt cracked the $16 trillion threshold, and the statutory debt ceiling is about $16.4 trillion, so we'll be bumping hard up against that at the same time.
So all of these things hit at once, and it's been dubbed the fiscal cliff by people that dub things.
They've dubbed this the fiscal cliff.
You might as well call it the harmonic conjunction of stuff that all happens in the economy at one time.
But they're just going to ignore that whole thing, right?
They're not going to actually make automatic cuts or let automatic cuts kick in.
And, in fact, I know that's true because part of it is supposed to affect the military, and they're just going to not let that happen, right, the Congress?
In my view, you're absolutely right.
You're absolutely right.
I mean, you know, this is kind of the mess they've gotten into.
You have defense contractors in virtually – let's see if this is a slight exaggeration.
Okay, it's a very slight exaggeration.
You have major defense contractors in seemingly every congressional district in the land.
So you have congressmen of both stripes, the R stripe and the D stripe, that will not let defense cuts take place.
So you're right.
The $54.7 billion in defense cuts, there's no question that they're going to kick that can down the road.
I think that this is useful for people that take a longer-term look at the state of America's solvency when they see that even these – these are minuscule cuts in my view.
Scott, this is – supposedly the sequestration talks about cutting what amounts to about $109, $110 billion a year for nine years or so.
That's nothing.
We run a deficit of about $100 billion every month, and they're talking about getting a handle on spending by cutting $100 billion every year.
So this is nothing.
This is insignificant.
But I think it is like a – it's a dash of cold water in the face for people to see that even these minuscule cuts that are for nothing but show cannot withstand the way that politics is constituted in America today, the military Keynesianism that prevails.
All right.
Now, it sounds to me like wouldn't most people in D.C. say the end of the Bush tax cuts is going to be good for the budget?
Because here, whatever, even if they're – the cuts aren't big enough for you, here this is going to be a bit of a some kind of cut for somebody maybe, and then at the same time the government will be increasing their revenues by raising taxes on the very richest billionaires only.
And so that will be great, right?
Why does that make everything worse when that sounds more like the Congress is finally being fiscally responsible?
Yeah.
Come on.
I'm trying to pretend that I watch CNBC all day and I think what they want me to think.
Look, here is what has become political orthodoxy as well.
Even Democrats are scared to death of raising taxes.
They are frightened to death of letting these tax hikes take place, and the repressive effects that they will certainly have on the economy will then be hung on them, the Democrats.
Because even the Democrats understand how destructive it would be to raise taxes.
Of course they do.
And so they've struck the position as – and it's more politics, not very good politics, but it's more politics than economic substance.
They've struck the position that they want to tax the top 2% of the American people, so it's a little class warfare, and that seems to do them well in the polling and stuff.
So they're trying to take the position that we won't let these tax cuts expire on the middle class, but we want to increase taxes on the top 2%.
Well, the net effect of this is – I mean, this is all eyewash for the public as well.
If they succeed in increasing their taxes on the top 2%, it's enough to fund the federal government for like eight days.
I mean, it's insignificant in the scope of our problems, and the scope of our problems are much, much greater than the $16 trillion that we're talking about in the visible debt.
All right.
Now, so they have this bookkeeping trick, right, where they can create new bonds, right, just print up a bond, and then they order the Mint or whoever to print up some more money, or they hit Enter and create some more money and then buy the bond that they just created, right?
Right.
So since the collapse of 08, can you tell us how much new money has been created to buy those bonds, or is it – that's not really the right question.
The question was to buy all kinds of different debt.
Yeah, it's a good question.
So let's just say at about – let's say the monetary basis, the balance sheet of the Fed, what they have on their books.
Let's just say the monetary base of the Federal Reserve was running around about – let's just say it was about $800 billion.
So it's $800 billion, $800 billion, $800 billion, $800 billion.
It's running along at about that level.
And then all of a sudden, you get the mortgage meltdown, and you get the Fed buying the junk paper, the trash paper, the mortgage securities that are on the books of all of these banks, whether it's Bank of America and Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers and AGI, the big insurance company.
They're buying all of this trash paper from all these financial institutions.
And bam, it's like a hockey stick graph, Scott.
So they start at – they buy hundreds of billions of dollars worth of these bonds from these financial institutions, but it doesn't stop there because that's the first step.
Then they have QE2.
They buy hundreds of billions of dollars of more bonds, and the net effect of all of this is that it provides an underpinning for the stock market.
It's good for Wall Street, right?
If you had a bunch of trash paper in your portfolio and somebody came in and bought it, it'd be great for you.
So it's good for Wall Street.
The stock market likes it.
It's crack cocaine for the stock market.
The stock market looks moderately strong.
And at the same time, the banks are able to begin to reliquify their balance sheets and pay themselves bonuses.
But all of these losses then get transferred onto the books of the Federal Reserve, and it's not just the trash paper of the banks, the securities they bought.
Now the Federal Reserve has become the largest buyer of U.S. Treasury debt.
Let me back up and explain that.
You hear about how China lends us money.
We're dependent on China.
I always like to say we're dependent on the kindness of foreign strangers to keep our government operating.
The government has to borrow money from foreigners, from foreign governments, from places like Japan and China to keep its current level of spending.
Well, now the Federal Reserve has eclipsed China or Japan as the largest holder of Treasury debt.
In other words, borrowing by the United States government, which is evidenced by bonds from the Treasury.
So when China buys Treasury debt, when China buys bonds, they're effectively lending money to the United States.
When China does this, they take real resources.
They dig somewhere in the dirt.
They dig something up, and maybe it's metals, and they refine it, and they turn it into something.
Then it goes into a factory, and it's made into something.
And then it's packaged, and then it's sold.
And it takes real work and real capital to make all this happen and real resources.
And they make stuff, and they sell it to the United States.
Americans go to Walmart or any other store, and they buy this stuff.
And the money that they spend, Walmart keeps part of it.
The rest of the money goes back to China.
And the workers get paid out of it, of course.
But in the exchange back to the Chinese currency, the government keeps a big, big chunk of it.
And they take these U.S. dollars and loan it to the United States government.
They buy U.S. bonds.
So when China buys bonds from the Treasury, when China loans money to the United States, they loan money that they actually earned by making real things that real people wanted that they sold for real money.
When the Federal Reserve, which has now eclipsed China and Japan as the largest holder of Treasury debt, when the Federal Reserve starts buying U.S. Treasury debt, they do it with money that they just made up out of thin air that morning.
They create a bookkeeping entry, and bam, there it is.
Do I understand it right, Charles, that the mess that they've gotten us in now is that if the economy ever does, you know, because in spite of all the new money that they've created out of nothing, there's still a lot of bad debts are being liquidated among those of us who don't get bailed out, right?
So maybe we can get to some sensical prices, at least in some sectors of the economy, get the economy up and going again.
If we do, then because of the fractional reserve ratio and all that, all that brand new money, the new monetary base is going to, through that multiplier, drive us into worse-than-70s madness, double-digit inflation.
And then they'll have to force the recession that they did all this inflation to prevent in the first place.
They have no way to get out of this mess.
Look, anybody that thinks that the Federal Reserve can create $2 trillion in money just made up, which is what basically we started off talking about, the monetary base, let's say it was about $800 billion, now it's $2.8 trillion, or in that neighborhood.
So they created $2 trillion out of thin air to buy things.
They bought bonds from the Treasury.
They bought securities from the banks.
Anybody who thinks that the Federal Reserve can create $2 trillion out of thin air and buy stuff with it, and it will have no consequences, is like guilty of magical thinking.
Of course it will have consequences.
At one time or another, there are consequences of that money.
Right now, it's just sitting on the balance sheet.
It's sitting in accounts of the banks.
But you're right, when the banks start to lend again, it multiplies in the fractional reserve banking system, and there are serious economic consequences for all of this stuff.
It astonishes me that there are grown-up adults, and particularly people with Ph.D.s in economics that literally the campuses and the halls of government, that somehow believe in this magical thinking.
If the federal government can create $2 trillion in made-up money to buy things without consequence, why don't they make $8 trillion, $10 trillion, and pay off all the debts in the United States?
Pay off the pension funds that are about to go bankrupt.
Pay off the municipalities that can't pay their own bills.
Pay off the state government debts.
Pay off household debts for the American people.
Just make up money and pay for stuff, because there are no consequences.
People that believe this are like in a childish, infantile state, mesmerized by magical thinking.
Well, the only other alternative is that the federal government is their enemy.
That they're destroying our society.
Well, I mean, I don't mind making the case that the federal government is the enemy.
It's clearly destroying our prosperity.
You know, it's making war all over the world.
It's destroyed the American people's prosperity.
It's effectively destroyed the American dream.
You know, you tell me you think that, you know, life will be better for your kids and more prosperous.
They are struggling under a load of debt that has been created by the current generation, the greatest generation, all of these self-indulgent generations for current spending, over which, you know, newborn little kids, little children, kids on the playgrounds of America's schools and stuff have no say-so.
Yet all of that debt is loaded on these people.
Here's the real number.
I mean, if you look at Washington's total debt obligations, I mean, here's the real number.
The real number is this is, you know, stuff that's off the books, but promises that have been made to people that people are depending on, promises for their future health care that the government has made, promises for their retirement and Social Security, promises to guarantee their deposit to the banks, all of these promises of government.
You start looking at them, and you realize that the shortfall, the amount of money the government has to put away now to earn interest, to meet its obligations, the promises it has made, is $222 trillion.
That amount of money doesn't exist in America.
Nobody has $222 trillion to put aside to make this whole thing balance out.
I mean, it comes out to $2.8 million for every family, four of the nation.
You know, where do all the people listening to this now get their share if they want to restore American solvency?
So, yes, the American government has destroyed the prosperity of the American people and generations to come.
It's a very, very grim situation, and it's much bigger than – it astonishes me, Scott, that it's much bigger than people realize.
You know, people, you know, they kind of realize they have a MasterCard debt, and maybe they hear a little bit about the federal debt, and you watch these conventions, and they barely talk about the debt.
Oh, yeah, the Republicans had a debt clock up there about $16 trillion only because it's a Democratic president.
They feel like they can hang it on the Democratic president.
But nobody talks about the unfunded liabilities, the hidden debt, you know, the nine-tenths of the debt iceberg that's hidden underwater that we're steaming right toward.
So nobody's talking about the aggregate debt, the federal debt, the unfunded liabilities, you know, municipal debt, pension debt, guarantees made by government that cannot be met.
This all ends very badly.
The numbers do not work in any other way than that it cracks up.
That's the end of the story.
Well, you know, when you talk about how people just don't understand how bad it is, I think, you know, it's like James Bovard says in Attention Deficit Democracy, where first and foremost what we all learn about America as little kids or our system of government as little kids after George Washington and the cherry tree is that it's a self-correcting system.
As long as everybody can continue to vote and we have our Constitution and whatever, it's all going to work out eventually.
And part of that is, like you mentioned, household debt, right?
You can only go so far, spin out so far on your MasterCard before the consequences kick in and you have to adjust your behavior.
And people just assume that that's the way it is with this too.
Okay, fine.
So they go completely crazy and wage world empire for a decade.
Then they've got to scale it back because of the economic consequences.
But because they don't, because they have a government monopoly on running this whole monetary game, they actually can continue to just push, as you've explained to me before, all these bubbles, the bubble that popped in 88, in 92, in 2000, in 2008, these are all the small bubbles on the back of Nixon's big bubble left over, you know, not left over, but created since 1971.
They can create all this malinvestment in the economy through bubble gum and string and smoke and mirrors and whatever in a way that distorts everything for decades before the real consequences come due.
So when the real consequences come due, this doesn't end well and whatever, like you're talking about.
It could be really bad.
It could be really bad.
And, you know, this is a great argument for a free, non-intervened economy in which, you know, one financial institution, one bank, one pension fund screws up, they do things badly, they have some moron running it, and, you know, they make promises that they can't keep and they go upside down and people are hurt.
This is, you know, in normal times, these problems are localized.
They're parochial.
You know, a bank goes bad here and a bank goes bad there and so on.
But in the current era of Big Brother, of the big overweening government involved in all of our affairs and all of our economic activities, these problems are systemic.
So, you know, when the stuff hits the fan, it's national and it's enormous in scope.
It's not just like, you know, something can happen, you know, in Winslow, Arizona, where somebody's standing on a corner and, you know, it's really disruptive in Winslow, but the rest of the country is going along fine.
They've nationalized all of these problems.
And so, you know, they have succeeded in sending the same signals by Federal Reserve policy to states and to governments, to pension funds and to investors and to Wall Street, you know, send these signals that drive malinvestment.
I talked about it actually in the dollar meltdown as all of these activities of the Federal Reserve and the Great Central Oz in Washington are like the pirates of old that would create, you know, phony lighthouses.
And so the ships at sea on a dark and stormy night would see, you know, they'd get their signals, you know, these signals, and they'd think, oh, that's the lighthouse, then I can sail here.
You know, well, the pirates would want to crack them up on the reef during the storm so that they can plunder them.
And that's what's going on now.
Everybody's responding to the same signals, these false signals, phony signals about the state of the economy because the Federal Reserve has decided that interest rates can be near zero.
So we have a universalized or a systemic problem because everybody in the economy now responds to these massive signals that are institutional, that are created by the Federal Reserve and sending bad signals out to everybody about, you know, what interest rates should be.
And so the entire economy, not just, you know, a guy on a corner in Windsor, Arizona, but the entire economy cracks up on the reef at the same time.
They have created a disaster for us.
Yeah, well, so how many other things in the world are Richard Nixon's fault that we're still dealing with, right?
I know.
Well, these guys are totally capable.
The Republicans and Democrats are totally capable of, you know, of adding to our fault.
I mean, I was thinking the other day, I was thinking yesterday about the, you know, the Arab Spring Revolution and all of that.
All of that was actually triggered by food prices, by rising food prices.
Right.
And you saw the report the other day that corn and wheat prices, World Bank says world food prices are up 10% just in the month of July.
So you've got, you know, escalating corn and wheat prices, part because of the drought, but, you know, it's also in part because of federal policies, these absurd agricultural policies like the production of ethanol that really drove the food prices so high that triggered off the Arab Spring.
So, you know, it may be true, I'm not prepared to acknowledge this, but it may be true that, you know, the drought is not the fault of the Republicans and Democrats, but all the conditions that exacerbate the effects of the drought are the fault of the Republicans and Democrats.
They work together jointly to exacerbate these problems.
They both serve the same cronies, corporate agribusiness in this case.
You have Barack Obama from a corn-growing state, Illinois, writing a bill about, you know, sharply mandating, mandating a sharply increased level of corn-ethanol production, right?
And then you have Bob Dole back in those same days.
Oh, they called him the senator from Archer Daniels Midland because he carried water for them in all these crony deals and subsidies and stuff that exacerbate the food problems now when there is a real drought.
But it's not just, you know, it's not just Bob Dole in the Senate, the senator from Archer Daniels Midland.
A lot of people started calling Tom Daschle.
They started calling the company Archer Daschle Midland because of the way the Democrats, so you've got a Republican majority leader, a Senate majority leader in different eras, you know, all carrying water for the same cronies for the same agribusiness boondoggles.
So every problem of nature like a drought is exacerbated to heightened levels by the interference of the Republicans and Democrats.
And I'll tell you, this food thing has the potential of being a real serious kick in the head to people struggling, you know, to make it on reduced wages and reduced, you know, family income and so on.
Well, you know, they always say, well, defense spending in the wars and whatever, it's such a small part of the budget that, you know, you just can't complain.
But Chris Hellman at the National Priorities Project says they've spent $8 trillion on the national security state since 9-11, 2001, so far.
And that's, I think, I actually think I got it wrong in that speech.
That does not include the future costs of caring for the wounded veterans and all their benefits, et cetera.
That's actually has been spent.
I wrote in red and blue and broke all over citing somebody else, but I concluded on other people's research that the national security state's about $1.2 trillion a year.
You start compounding that, you know, over a few years.
I mean, it becomes real easy to understand how the national debt went from, you know, I don't think it was even $6 trillion when Bush came into office to $16 trillion today.
Right.
Well, and even with the way artificially low interest rates, the interest on the national debt's still, what, more than half a trillion a year or something, deciding on just in the interest.
But so that goes right to the self-destructive nature of the empire, that rather than any kind of gain for, you know, America as a whole, as opposed to, say, just Lockheed shareholders or something like that, they basically drove all of their sock puppet dictators in the region into complete crisis.
They lost Ben Ali and Mubarak.
They had to compromise on Saleh in Yemen and replace him with his cousin or whatever.
Tortured and murdered all kinds of people in Bahrain trying to, you know, hold on to their kingdom there.
And it's true that they've got to co-opt one of the revolutions there in, well, a couple of them in Libya and Syria.
But it's been a major problem for them, and it was all the inflation, all the new money that they created to pay for their giant terror war and the expansion of their military footprint in the Middle East and all those lily pad bases and all that stuff, as you said, that caused all the riots in the first place, that upset the whole thing.
And, of course, made everybody, radicalized everybody, the Iraq War especially, made everybody hate their American sock puppet dictators that much more for being the sock puppet dictators of the people waging the Iraq War 100 miles away over there.
And they're not done with their empire yet.
I mean, these guys never get the message.
So we have a choice now.
Now the world seems to think, well, you know, we have a choice in this election.
Maybe we can elect, you know, Mitt Romney.
And what's that other kid's name that's running with him?
Paul Ryan, who wants to increase spending.
They both want to increase spending.
They want to increase defense spending.
I haven't seen his bellicose acceptance speech at a national convention.
I think in all my life as, you know, Romney, man, he was picking off enemies.
You know, he's got a problem with China.
He's got a problem with Russia.
I'm sure he said something about Iran.
I don't know what he said about Syria.
But, I mean, you know, this guy is a world-class warmonger.
Man.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, they ask him, you know, you've got to differentiate yourself from Obama somehow.
Well, let's threaten war against people who actually can fight back.
That'll be interesting.
Yeah.
Let's threaten war with people that, you know, that we're dependent on, people that, you know, are funding the United States government by loaning us money.
Yeah, let's make war on them.
That's really smart.
Yeah.
Well, like you say, it's all going to come to a bad end.
Do you think when?
Do you have a, or is that an Austrian economics thing where you're not supposed to say when you think it's all going to fall apart?
No, but, you know, in my view, this is a case I've been making for some time.
In my view, it's falling apart before our very eyes.
Yeah.
It's in slow motion.
Everybody expects it to be cataclysmic.
Oh, it gets cataclysmic at the end.
You know, at some point, you know, when people start waking up, it gets really, really cataclysmic.
But you look at this.
You know, not only is the debt compounding, but it's compounding now.
We're servicing it at interest rates that are, you know, generational lows because they're artificially kept down by a couple of things, primarily the Federal Reserve, I guess.
But, you know, what happens when interest rates restore, return to a more normal level?
I mean, you know, we've seen interest rates 3%, just 3%, 3% higher than this, you know, many, many times over the last 20 years.
What happens when the federal government's debt portfolio has to be funded at 3% higher?
Well, $16 trillion, $16 plus trillion, add another 3% to the cost of servicing that debt, that's another half a trillion dollars a year.
I mean, Scott, it just doesn't pencil out.
We can't pay the bills.
We cannot pay the bills.
And so, you know, it's a slowly unfolding situation.
The story in the paper this morning is, you know, that I, at least in my local paper, is about these pension guys trying to figure out how this is going to work because it isn't.
And, you know, somebody goes on Meredith Whitney or whatever her name is, goes on TV a year or so ago and says, you know, municipalities aren't going to be able to make it.
Everybody laughs at her.
Of course they are.
Municipalities are going to be just fine.
This is America.
Things like that don't happen in America.
And now they're cracking up everywhere you turn, you know.
Well, you can't flee to Spain, according to the headlines this morning.
Yeah.
Everybody in Spain.
I was thinking, well, that might be a nice place to live, you know.
I've heard nice things.
And then I read in the paper, everyone's running on the banks in Spain right now.
Oops.
Yeah.
We can't all 300 million of us flee to New Zealand, can we?
This is how naive people are.
And it's because they only understand these things to the extent of the headline.
So the headline says, hey, things are being worked out, good restoration of order plan, economic solvency plan in Europe.
And Wall Street goes, oh, that's great.
And Wall Street's up, you know.
But there is no plan.
It's something scribbled on a cocktail napkin somewhere.
And they've done this.
They've run this same play.
You know, if you watch NFL football, they run the same play, you know, six or seven or eight times in a quarter.
You might get the idea they might run it again sometime before the game is over.
They've run this play about, oh, we've figured out the European problem.
You know, we're going to extend more liquidity to some of the European banks and some of the sovereign nations and more liquidity and more liquidity, more liquidity.
And the headline is, oh, solution, we've solved it, and the stock market rockets up and yada, yada, yada.
But they're not addressing the real problem.
The real problem isn't liquidity.
The real problem is solvency.
You've got bankrupt countries, you know, like just as the United States is a de facto bankrupt company, just as pension funds are de facto bankrupt, as municipalities are de facto bankrupt.
So, and actually, I look around the world and I see, you know, I see signs that, you know, this is starting to have real economic effects, this widespread debt and the bankruptcy of all these institutions and sovereign nations.
China's coming in for a hard landing.
The economy's turning down all over the world.
You've got half a dozen European nations in recession.
Emerging nations that were the toast of Wall Street are quickly becoming toast themselves.
You know, all of these things that have created the illusion of a sound economy and growth are starting to turn down now.
So there's a curve that, you know, maybe somebody would want to get ahead of, Scott.
Yeah, well, you know, you can learn how if you read Charles's books.
He writes all about that.
That's actually the subline on the subtitle on the dollar meltdown is how you can protect yourself, and there's a bit of that here, too, in red and blue and broke all over.
Restoring America's Free Economy by Charles Goyette.
CharlesGoyette.com is the website, and also read him at LouRockwell.com.
Thanks very much.
Great to talk to you, Scott.
Thank you.
Okay.
