The Root of America’s Problems [Podcast]

The Root of America’s Problems [Podcast]

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  July 9, 2025

In today’s podcast, we take on a provocative question from a reader: What is the single root cause behind America’s decline?

 You might think it's overspending, or the Federal Reserve, or career politicians. But what if it’s something even more fundamental… like letting just anyone vote?

 Should someone be allowed to vote if they don’t understand basic concepts like what a deficit is, or how the government even works?

This episode digs deep into the consequences of letting uninformed masses steer the ship of state — and why it leads, predictably, to disaster.

 We also address:

• Term limits — and why replacing career politicians might not matter if voters keep electing clowns.

• Why 2033 is the year to watch — and what happens when Social Security goes bust.

• How the “One Big Beautiful Bill” may have accelerated that to ‘Crisis 2032’.

• How foreign central banks are quietly ditching US Treasuries and buying gold — and what that means for the dollar.

• Eisenhower’s lost wisdom — how a general who faced down Hitler and the Soviets feared inflation more than war.

Click here to listen to the full episode.

For the audio-only version, check out our online post here.
Finally, you can find the podcast transcript for your convenience, here.

To your freedom,  James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/podcast/the-root-of-americas-problems-podcast-153125/?inf_contact_key=f6616894ddb0ca5d69a81cc3781410781f4656d5a280bd26233b3d1e6f4a07a6

How A Crypto Billionaire’s Crazy Plan Could Save Social Security [Podcast]

How A Crypto Billionaire’s Crazy Plan Could Save Social Security [Podcast]

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  July 17, 2025

Bitcoin today is trading at around $120,000. If you’re willing to pay double the price, i.e. $240,000, please contact me immediately. I’ll happily sell you some of mine.

Why would anyone do that? I don’t know. But that’s exactly what investors are doing when they buy shares in “Strategy,” formerly known as MicroStrategy.

The company currently holds about 580,000 Bitcoin, worth roughly $69 billion. But the market values the company at more than $124 billion. In other words, investors are paying nearly double just for the privilege of owning Bitcoin through a corporate intermediary.

Crazy, right? Yet Strategy’s Executive Chairman and co-founder Michael Saylor has managed to convince legions of investors to do just that— pay 2x the Bitcoin price.

He does so by presenting a bunch of made-up metrics to investors— terms like “Bitcoin Yield”, “Bitcoin Multiple”, “BTC $ Income”, and my personal favorite, “Bitcoin Torque”.

One of Saylor’s most clever ideas was to borrow money from investors to buy Bitcoin; the company issued billions of dollars of corporate bonds (which are supposed to be a ‘safe’ and stable asset), then used all the money to buy Bitcoin— an extremely volatile risk asset.

And this is why I think Michael Saylor should be the next Treasury Secretary— or at least be tapped to save Social Security.

I’m only half joking. Because Saylor’s idea to borrow money to buy Bitcoin might be one of the only ways to save Social Security without a serious tax hike or other financial pain.

Let me explain—

The Social Security system was built on a simple formula: workers and businesses pay taxes into the system, and those taxes fund the retirement checks to beneficiaries.

For decades, Social Security ran a surplus—more payroll tax revenue coming in than benefits going out. And that surplus was parked in a giant trust fund.

Unfortunately, though, Social Security’s trust fund was only allowed to invest in one thing: US government bonds.

The result? Pitiful returns averaging a measly 2%.

Now Social Security is running a deficit— the monthly benefits are exceeding payroll tax revenue. So the program’s administrators make up the difference by dipping into the trust fund.

The Social Security Administration officially estimates the fund will be fully depleted by 2033. And when that day comes, benefits will be automatically slashed by about 25%.

Cutting Social Security benefits would be political suicide. So the most likely solution is a major increase to the payroll tax.

But there may be another way.

What if the government were to borrow a bunch of money to start a Sovereign Wealth Fund... And that fund could invest in a diversified, real-world portfolio run by America’s many talented investment managers. Real estate. Commodities. Equities. Precious metals. Crypto. The kinds of assets that can actually grow.

This is exactly what Michael Saylor did. He borrowed heavily from the bond market to buy risk assets. Maybe the US government should do the same.

If the fund could manage, say, 9% annual returns over the past few decades— they could easily pay 6% to bond holders and pocket the extra 3%. Mathematically it works— such a return would reverse Social Security’s looming insolvency if the fund were of sufficient size.

There’s obviously risk in the plan, which is why I’m half-joking. But Social Security is in dire enough shape that all options ought to be considered.

Coincidentally, Congress is discussing setting up a Sovereign Wealth Fund this week... Though I’m not holding my breath on this, let alone any meaningful reform on Social Security.

Peter and I both believe that the inevitable outcome here is that the Federal Reserve will step in to print money and bail out both Social Security AND the Treasury Department.

In fact the White House is already identifying potential candidates to replace Fed chairman Jerome Powell when his term expires next year, as well as other members of the Fed’s board.

It’s pretty clear they want people at the Fed who will cut rates, print money, and bow to the President. So there’s a very good chance that, next year, the Fed will become much more subservient to the White House.

Such a Fed would not hesitate to engage in ‘quantitative easing’ (i.e. ‘money printing’) to the tune of trillions of dollars in order to save Social Security, or to finance massive US government deficits. 

The end result will almost certainly be a major bout of inflation— probably similar to 1970s style stagflation.

It’s why we continue to assert that real assets are very sensible investments because they tend to perform so well during inflationary times.

You can hear my complete thoughts on this wild idea in today’s short video, which you can watch here.

For the audio-only version, check out our online post here.
Finally, you can find the podcast transcript for your convenience, here.

To your freedom,  James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/how-a-crypto-billionaires-crazy-plan-could-save-social-security-153184/?inf_contact_key=0f2a3e818718e268287453d654c835d48dcae2ba3297e07f93219ba341147496

Congress Looks To Hijack Crypto To Pay For Deficit Spending [Podcast]

Congress Looks To Hijack Crypto To Pay For Deficit Spending [Podcast]

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  July 16, 2025

It’s “Crypto Week” on Capitol Hill with all sorts of crypto legislation on the docket— including the so-called GENIUS Act that aims to regulate stablecoins.  I’m not sure the GENIUS Act is in fact genius, but it might be a pretty clever given its potential benefit to the Treasury Department and government bond market.

On its surface, the bill aims to provide a formal regulatory framework for anyone who wants to issue stablecoins, i.e. digital assets that are typically pegged to the US dollar to maintain a “stable” value.

But beneath the surface, the GENIUS Act is a way to funnel more money into US government bonds.

I’ve written about this many times before: the US government is hopelessly addicted to irresponsible spending. Multi-trillion-dollar deficits are no longer the exception—they’re the baseline.

And these massive deficits require the Treasury Department to borrow more money from the bond market.

Problem is that some of the biggest buyers of US government debt securities— specifically foreign governments and central banks— are starting to lose their appetite to invest more money in Treasury bonds.

So Uncle Sam is feverishly trying to drum up more lenders.

Enter the GENIUS Act— which requires stablecoins to be backed by “safe” assets, like... US government bonds!

The Treasury Department is probably hoping that some of the crypto wealth tied up in Bitcoin’s latest all time highs will flow into stablecoins... and thus into the US Treasurys backing them.

But if they think this is the silver bullet to fix America’s fiscal mess, they should think again.

Unlike traditional long-term bond buyers who help lock in funding for decades, stablecoin issuers (according to the GENIUS Act) will only be able to buy the shortest term US government debt, like 90-day T-bills.

This means that the Treasury Department will face constant pressure to refinance a major chunk of its debt every few months.

We discuss this in today’s podcast— where we also answered some reader questions about stablecoins.

One reader, for example, asked if stablecoins are a good way to diversify out of the US financial system.

My answer? Not really.

Once the GENIUS Act passes, most of these stablecoins will be issued by US-based companies and regulated by US government agencies. And over time, more and more agencies will likely encroach into the stablecoin industry— the SEC, IRS, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, etc.

That means if the government wants to restrict, freeze, or confiscate your digital dollars, they won’t even need to break a sweat. It just takes a phone call and a compliance letter.

More importantly, even if the coin maintains its 1:1 dollar peg, it’s still tied to the dollar. And if the dollar loses value due to inflation—which it is and will almost certainly continue to do—then your stablecoin will depreciate right alongside it.

Bottom line— holding a stablecoin doesn’t matter if the underlying currency is unstable. You’re not really diversifying any sovereign or currency risk.

If you're looking for real diversification—something that actually hedges against the US dollar and protects your purchasing power—stablecoins aren't the answer.

Gold, productive assets, other crypto, foreign stocks and financial accounts… those are the tools for genuine financial diversification.

If you want to hear my full thoughts on the GENIUS Act, stablecoins, and the implications to the US Treasury market, listen to this short podcast here.

 For the audio-only version, check out our online post here.
Finally, you can find the podcast transcript for your convenience, here.

To your freedom,  James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/podcast/congress-looks-to-hijack-crypto-to-pay-for-deficit-spending-podcast-153173/?inf_contact_key=ba595f2d77e748d6b5635b37d628a3ec4f9b01715505ef303c31d9437c9672ec

Apple Will Pay Anything for This Crucial iPhone Metal

Apple Will Pay Anything for This Crucial iPhone Metal

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  July 10, 2025

We’ve all heard the legend: there was a beautiful girl, kidnapped, a thousand ships launched, and the mightiest warriors of the ancient world descended upon the city of Troy to win her back.   Obviously this was all a myth. But Troy itself existed. And the Trojan War very likely happened as well. Though not over some pretty girl.

 Instead, the Trojan War likely started as a dispute over scarce resources— then quickly escalated to a full blow shooting (or stabbing/slashing) war.

 And the scarce resource in question? Tin.

 Back in the Bronze Age when the Trojan War was likely fought, tin was the technological linchpin of ancient civilization. Without it, there was no bronze— and thus, none of the era’s best weapons and tools.

 Copper was the other half of the chemical formula, i.e. tin + copper = bronze.

 The Greeks had plenty of copper mines. But the tin component was very scarce— and distant. It came all the way from Central Asia, hauled across the Black Sea, and through the narrow strait called the Dardanelles (modern day Turkey) into the Mediterranean.

And that was only if Troy— the city perched strategically at the mouth of the Dardanelles— allowed the ships to pass.

 This meant that whoever controlled Troy controlled the Greeks’ access to tin. So it’s easy to see why they probably fought a war over it.

 This type of resource competition is common throughout history. But it’s a lesson that has been forgotten over the past 80 years in which global trade has been open, cooperative, and free.

 Today that comity is rapidly deteriorating. Given the trade wars, regional shooting wars, and increasing global tensions, access to certain resources and real assets can no longer be taken for granted.

 Some of these are obvious; oil prices, for example, regularly gyrate based on the potential for supply disruptions. And despite the Left’s absurd fantasies about wind and solar, oil is going to remain critical to modern civilization for the foreseeable future.

 But with nuclear energy emerging as a clear solution to provide cheap, clean energy, uranium—whose production is highly concentrated across just a handful of countries— may become a new conflict point.

 Other resources are less obvious and take a little bit more digging to understand their importance in the global economy— and their scarcity.

 And that includes the forgotten ancient metal tin.

 Tin is the glue that holds the modern world together... almost literally.

 More than 50% of all tin demand today comes from solder, which is used to connect the billions of components on electronic circuit boards. Without solder, there are no smartphones, no electric vehicles, no AI computer chips, no cloud servers, no missile guidance systems.

The more technology progresses, the more tin is needed; AI growth alone is expected to double tin demand between now and 2028.

 Yet tin is an incredibly small market. Only around $12.5 billion worth was produced last year. Given that the worldwide commodities trade is more than $6+ trillion per year, the tin market is less than a rounding error. It’s minuscule.

 This creates an odd situation. While tin is a critical part of the iPhone, for example, only a few cents worth goes into each unit. And this is typical across the electronics industry.

 So the price of tin could increase 5x or 10x, yet the impact on Apple’s bottom line would be negligible—maybe 50 cents more per phone.

 Apple would still pay for tin at 10x the price. So would every other tech manufacturer.

 In other words, if tin supply tightens, buyers won’t blink… but investors will make a fortune.

 And supply is tightening.

 Classic tin-producing regions have gone offline or become politically unstable.

 With supply tightening and demand rising, just one major Western producer is left to pick up the slack.

 Production has been kept artificially low for years as Cold War strategic stockpiles were drawn down. But those stockpiles are now depleted.

 There is also no substitute metal. And no feasible way to do without it.

Yet demand continues rising—steadily, predictably—year after year.

 A critical metal hiding in plain sight, where even a modest supply crunch could generate enormous returns.

 This compelling supply and demand dynamic is the focus of our latest issue of the 4th Pillar, our premium investment research service.

 The recent July issue— published just last week— features a profitable, growing tin producer in the developed world. The company is debt-free, cash-rich, and trading at just 2.2x earnings—an insane valuation for a company producing one of the world’s most critical tech metals.

 Tin is just one of many examples of the real assets that are absurdly undervalued, with extreme catalysts on the horizon.

 We’ve uncovered similar stories in platinum, oil, and even iron—where supply disruptions and political pressure have created massive mispricings… and massive upside.

 But some our most successful investments over the past year have come in the precious metals sector.

 While central banks have been buying metric tons of gold— driving the price to all time highs— they haven’t been buying gold producers. That’s left many of the world’s best gold and silver producers trading at absurdly cheap valuations.

 We’ve been writing about this for nearly two years, and the results speak for themselves:

• One of our top picks is up 153% in just three months.

• Another surged 146% in eleven months.

• Two more have gained 133% and 51% in a matter of months.

• Most others have delivered steady returns of 27–34%.

Only one has gone the other way—down 27%. But even that company is sitting on strong fundamentals and multiple catalysts— so we believe it’s just even more undervalued.

To your freedom,   James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

TO READ MORE: https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/apple-will-pay-anything-for-this-crucial-iphone-metal-153131/?inf_contact_key=252456e361c67a6daa797b2e3bec7e2d884ed2f1f7951fdcd8e857139321e873

Crisis 2033 Is Eight Years Away Are You Ready?

Crisis 2033 Is Eight Years Away. Are You Ready?

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)   July 8, 2025

US President Dwight D. Eisenhower was absolutely terrified of inflation.

 And that’s really saying something for a guy who had commanded Allied forces against the Nazis, faced down the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and overseen the dawn of the Atomic Age.

 Sure, those threats might seem more serious than a 5% increase in the price of milk. But Eisenhower felt strongly that inflation was a matter of national security.

In a speech on May 19, 1957, for example, Eisenhower told the American public that inflation “weakens the foundation of our defense. We must maintain a dollar that holds its value, for without it, our ability to sustain our military strength and support our allies would falter.”

 And he wasn’t kidding. That same year the US economy fell into recession, and plenty of politicians wanted to stimulate the economy by increasing government spending.

 For example, Congress passed two “make work” bills (HR 9302 and HR 7441) designed to support the economy and boost employment.

 But Eisenhower was true to his word. He felt that excess government spending and deficits would invite inflation… so he vetoed both bills.

 Eisenhower’s resolve turned out to be right; the US economy quickly recovered, and the recession ended in early 1958. The following year, inflation was only 0.7%.

 In fact, inflation averaged just 1.4% during his entire Presidency, with strong economic growth and budget surpluses.

 Things started to change in the 1960s; John F. Kennedy admitted that he knew very little about economics and even confessed that he didn’t know the difference between fiscal policy (government spending) versus monetary policy (the central bank’s control of the money supply).

 Nevertheless, on June 7, 1962, President Kennedy announced his intention to pass a major tax cut.

 At the time Kennedy’s proposal was highly controversial. The US economy was in good shape, inflation was low, and unemployment was low. So, the idea of passing a tax cut (which would almost certainly cause a budget deficit) was seen as reckless… even heretical.

 Kennedy was assassinated before he was able to win enough votes in Congress. But his successor, Lyndon Johnson, took up the mantle and kept pushing for the tax cut.

 He finally succeeded when the Revenue Act was passed in 1964.

 The US economy was in great shape that year. Growth was robust, the job market was heating up, and inflation was low. So, the government deliberately running a deficit to stimulate such a strong economy was still considered bizarre and unnecessary. But they plowed ahead anyhow.

At first the US economy became a rocket ship, growing by a whopping 8.5% in 1965. Unemployment fell to just 4%. And inflation sat at just 1.9%. It was a hell of a year.

 But the boom very quickly started losing steam. Federal Reserve Chairman William Martin even gave a speech suggesting that the economic boom was unsustainable and might lead to a 1929-style crash.

 President Johnson was furious… and even asked his Attorney General if he could fire the Fed Chairman. He couldn’t. So, Johnson instead tried to undermine Martin in every way possible… including pushing him to cut interest rates.

 Investors were aghast at the public feud between the President of the United States and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. But things only got worse.

 Johnson began demanding that Congress increase military spending to fund the war in Vietnam. Yet he also wanted more spending for his “Great Society” domestic programs-- welfare, Medicaid, federal housing assistance, etc.

 Quite predictably, the US federal deficit ballooned as a result of so much spending. So did the federal bureaucracy, with dozens of new laws, thousands of new regulations, and hundreds of thousands of new federal workers.

 Economic growth stalled (with GDP growth eventually falling to 0%). Inflation rose.

 And investors-- already uncomfortable given the feud between the White House and the Fed-- became very pessimistic about the inflation and the deficits. So, they started demanding higher rates on US government debt to compensate for the additional risk.

 Bond yields on the US government 10-year note, for example, rose from less than 4% when the Kennedy/Johnson tax cut was passed in 1964, to more than 7% at the end of the decade.

 More importantly, foreign governments and central banks began losing confidence in America’s finances. The national debt was rising rapidly, and foreigners began selling (redeeming) their US dollars and holding physical gold instead.

 If this story sounds familiar, it should… because the circumstances are very similar.

The US government passed its One Big Beautiful Bill on Friday, which is essentially a combination of the Kennedy/Johnson 1964 tax cut combined with Johnson’s enormous spending programs.

 Granted the OBBB priorities are totally different-- like cutting Medicaid versus spending more on it. But the end result is a massive deficit spending bonanza that the US simply cannot afford.

 It also comes at a time when the US economy is in reasonable shape and in no need of government stimulus. This deficit will likely invite more inflation and higher interest rates, causing an eventual recession.

 The White House and the Fed are in the midst of their own public feud-- which has shocked investors.

 And foreign governments and central banks have been swapping their US dollars and Treasury holdings for gold at a record pace-- pushing gold to an all-time high.

 The government’s pitiful finances in the 1960s resulted in the painful stagflation of the 1970s. Unfortunately, the extreme irresponsibility of the 2020s may result in something much worse.

 At least back then, the US government only spent around 10% of tax revenue to pay interest on the national debt.

 Today it takes nearly a 25% of revenue. And by 2033, it could easily take 40 to 50% of tax revenue just to cover the interest bill.

2033 is crucial because that’s the year Social Security’s major trust fund will run out of money and require a multi-trillion-dollar bailout. It’s an extremely predictable crisis.

 Look I’m all for tax cuts; they’re clearly linked to more robust economic growth… which the country desperately needs right now.

 But tax cuts are pointless if they are not accompanied by serious spending cuts and major reform-- like overhauling immigration, fixing Social Security, and slashing federal regulations.

 So, if we’re being intellectually honest, it’s important to acknowledge that this OBBB brings the country even closer to Crisis 2033. It’s eight years away, at best. Are you ready?

To your freedom,  James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/crisis-2033-is-eight-years-away-are-you-ready-153118/?inf_contact_key=bb4de52f37bf887931e2f50bfc682fa63a5186b0959d36194e900cf71a9c9586

The Deadline for Moving Money Out of the US

The Deadline for Moving Money Out of the US

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  July 3, 2025

The Senate passed the “Big Beautiful Bill,” and it’s about to make America’s financial house of cards a whole lot shakier.  Already today interest on the national debt costs more than the entire— very large— defense budget. The runaway national debt is literally a matter of national security.

And the bill will add about $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, in addition to the  $22 trillion the Congressional Budget Office already-projects for the same period.

Do the math, and by 2033, the US national debt will hit a jaw-dropping $56 trillion.

And that’s only if they decide not to pass another big beautiful budget buster next year. It assumes control of the government doesn’t swing in 2028 giving the Left another shot at free college, universal basic income, reparations, or a green new deal.

But why are we so focused on 2033 in particular?

Because that’s also the year when Social Security’s biggest trust fund runs out of money.

The Social Security Administration circles a date each year in its official report, signed by the Secretary of Treasury. That date tends to inch closer each year.

Based on the promises of various politicians NOT to touch Social Security, it’s very likely this problem will be ignored until it becomes a major funding crisis.

By 2033, we also forecast that interest payments on the national debt could devour more than half of all tax revenue.

Foreign investors, already uneasy, will likely continue to sell their US government bonds, putting pressure on the Federal Reserve to “print” trillions of dollars to bail out the Treasury Department. This would almost certainly trigger massive inflation.

Then come the social consequences.

History shows that economic depressions like these lead to crime spikes—especially property crimes and theft. Riots erupt in cities across the country, sparked by shrinking benefits and deep economic anxiety. Local governments declare bankruptcy, unable to keep up with exploding costs and plunging tax revenues.

And into that vacuum steps an invigorated political movement: Socialism 2034.

Fueled by anger and desperation, it promises salvation through universal basic income, rent cancellation, and debt forgiveness. Capitalism is blamed for the crisis.

The calls grow louder for price controls, nationalizations, even capital restrictions.

I’m not saying it is going to play out exactly like this, but this is the trend that America is currently on. It’s hard to dispute the facts.

You and I don’t control Congress, the political parties, or Social Security. The only thing we can do is give ourselves the tools to respond to this— entirely predictable and avoidable— crisis from a position of strength.

That’s what a Plan B is all about.   And we talk about elements of this all the time.

Real assets—especially gold and other precious metals, but also economic necessities like industrial metals, energy, and productive technology—can help guard your wealth against inflation.

Second residency abroad can give you a place to go if your home country ever becomes too chaotic or dangerous.

And then there is financial diversification, so that all your savings isn’t under the control of one jurisdiction—especially when that jurisdiction is the US, the most indebted country in the history of the world.

Without serious reform, 2033 is when everything comes to a head—the debt bomb explodes, Social Security craters, and inflation goes nuclear. That means you have a hard deadline for having a portion of your wealth safely outside the United States.

Recent history is filled with examples, from Cyprus to Argentina, of countries in financial crisis implementing capital controls, withdrawal limits, and even wealth confiscation.

When confidence in government bonds evaporates and inflation spirals, it’s not hard to imagine Washington freezing capital outflows “temporarily” or simply forcing retirement accounts to buy “patriotic bonds” to fund Social Security.

By then, the window to move money abroad might be functionally closed.

It’s already becoming harder. Banks around the world have steadily tightened rules on Americans. Thanks to laws like FATCA and global information-sharing regimes, foreign banks now face enormous compliance burdens when dealing with US clients. Most don’t want the risk.

We detailed a few of the options still available in an international banking report we just released to our Total Access members

The main takeaway: it’s far easier to open a foreign bank account when you don’t urgently need one.

If you wait until things get chaotic—whether that’s 2033 or earlier—it may be too late.

That’s why acting now, while the system still works, is crucial.

Foreign accounts aren’t about hiding money—in fact, US citizens generally must report foreign  assets to the US government.

But they do let you store some of your savings in other countries, which gives you a legal barrier, and diversifies which jurisdictions can get their hands on your assets.

They give you flexibility if US banks freeze or restrict access. And they put you one step ahead of whatever “emergency measures” Washington dreams up next.

 To your freedom,   James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LL

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/the-deadline-for-moving-money-out-of-the-us-153095/?inf_contact_key=e3a7fba8e80ec718a9dbe38a7e2927b5837ca8eedd5950759fe76410ed6224c9

“Zeus” Just Made The Most Predictable Crisis In History Even Worse

“Zeus” Just Made The Most Predictable Crisis In History Even Worse

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  June 30, 2025

It was September 29, 2021— nearly four years ago— that then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference about their $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” spending bonanza.

Despite the outrageously high price tag, Pelosi told reporters at the presser, “the dollar amount [of the Build Back Better bill], as the President said, is zero.”

She then made a little circle with her right thumb and index finger to emphasize her point, pivoting to all the cameras from left to right as if to insist that there was no cost to her $3.5 trillion legislation.

Yet despite defying every arithmetical and logical postulate known to man, the Left went on to repeat this idiotic lie.

“My Build Back Better Agenda costs zero dollars,” tweeted Joe Biden. The bill “will cost zero dollars” said Press Secretary (now MSNBC host) Jen Psaki.

Those on the political Right justifiably lost their minds over such intellectual dishonesty. So it’s ironic that they’re now doing the same thing with their own multi-trillion dollar “One Big Beautiful Bill”.

The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis shows that the One Big Beautiful Bill will add $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade—on top of the other ~ $22 trillion that they already expect to be added to the national debt between now and 2034.

Well, the Senate’s current rules state that any legislation which adds $3 trillion to the national debt must automatically be subject to more onerous voting requirements.

And these stricter voting requirement will make it almost impossible to advance the legislation through the Senate.

As a result, the Right has decided to do what the Left did in 2021—make up a new form of mathematics to pretend that the bill costs nothing.

Senate Budget Committee chairman Lindsey Graham is in charge of the faux-math: “I’m the king of the numbers,” he declared to reporters. “I’m Zeus, the budget king.”

Something tells me that ‘Zeus’ won’t be awarded the Fields Medal anytime soon for his mythological mathematics.

Now, don’t get me wrong— I like tax cuts. They’re almost always great for growth, which the US economy desperately needs. 

But tax cuts alone don’t get the job done unless there are commensurate spending cuts too. Otherwise the deficits will continue to grow, and America’s fiscal crisis will become ever closer.

We’re written about this a LOT: the United States is headed for a serious crisis— which we project will take place in 2033 at the latest.

Irresponsible, reckless spending is the primary reason why. The US already has a $36 trillion national debt (that is set to explode higher this summer). Even today, the interest bill on the US national debt costs $1+ trillion per year, more than 20% of tax revenue.

By 2033, the government itself projects that the national debt will be at least $55 trillion. At that point, based on their own forecasts, the Treasury Department could spend >40% of tax revenue just to pay interest on the debt.

Oh, and that same year— 2033— Social Security’s biggest trust fund will run out of money, causing an immediate and permanent cut to benefits.

The government will have one way out at that point: pressure the Federal Reserve to expand the monetary base, i.e. to “print” tens of trillions of dollars in order to fund government and prop up Social Security... resulting in a crippling level of inflation.

This is one of the most predictable yet preventable crises in human history. But Congress is not only doing nothing about it, they’re making it worse.

There is another way— one that is conceptually simple.

For starters, Congress could actually do its job and spend responsibly. It’s not like there isn’t a mountain of waste to cut.

They also need to pass much-needed reforms to both Social Security and immigration; the country would be better off if there were an efficient way for smart, talented, law-abiding, hard-working people to become legal residents.

The executive branch, meanwhile, would need to undo mountains of red tape and regulatory sludge that it dumped onto the economy over the past few decades.

I’ve written about this before— “Liberation Day” should have been the day that countless pages of useless, job-killing, productivity-killing regulations were eliminated. This can still happen.

Most importantly, the entire federal government needs to stop its make-believe accounting and show the world (plus American voters) that they are trusted, serious professionals.

It’s bad enough that the US has to sell $2 trillion worth of additional debt each year to fund its annual deficits.

But that’s not even close to the real requirement.

Over the next twelve months, roughly $9 trillion worth of existing US debt securities will mature; this was money that the government borrowed years ago... and will soon come due.

In theory the government has to pay that money back. Naturally they don’t have the funds to do so... so instead they’ll borrow new money to pay back the old loans... essentially refinancing $9 trillion worth of the national debt over the next twelve months.

So realistically they must sell ~$11 trillion in debt over the next twelve months: $9 trillion to refinance existing debt, plus another $2 trillion to cover this year’s budget deficit.

$11 trillion is an enormous amount of money... which means they’ll need every investor possible ready and willing to buy US government bonds.

And that’s a problem. Because right now, foreigners (which own a HUGE chunk of the debt) are aggressively backing away from US government bonds.

That’s a big part of why gold keeps going up—foreign governments and central banks are dumping their US government bonds and buying gold instead.

And who can blame them? It’s hard to take a guy seriously who refers to himself as Zeus and makes up his own arithmetic.

Would you lend money to someone who doesn’t know the difference between ‘free’ and a $2 trillion deficit?

If Washington wants to attract capital and stabilize the economy, they have to start acting like grown-ups. Demonstrate to the world that they can tackle hard problems, cut spending, and govern responsibly.

And right now, they aren’t doing any of that.

To your freedom,  James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/zeus-just-made-the-most-predictable-crisis-in-history-even-worse-153067/?inf_contact_key=6bce3afe055f6630db347792ac647001e0f86069758a2429ff9291df2b7d96e2  

I’m Far More Concerned About The Deficit Than World War 3

I’m Far More Concerned About The Deficit Than World War 3

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  June 24, 2025

I can understand why so many people are worried about World War 3 breaking out. It’s a completely rational concern. I just don’t happen to share it.

Why? Because regardless of the debate over whether the US strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities were a good idea, or a reckless risk of another expensive foreign entanglement, one thing is indisputable: America reminded the world of its immense military capabilities.

There’s not a single adversary nation that wants to risk armed conflict with the US after watching those stealth bombers obliterate their targets.

And the proof is already here: Iran’s foreign minister flew to Moscow seeking military support from Russia... and Putin offered absolutely nothing except for strong words.

This is why I’m more convinced than ever that World War 3 is NOT going to break out over this conflict: no other country wants F-35s or B-2 stealth bombers in their airspace, let alone the 75th Ranger Regiment and ‘Delta Force’ special operators.

There’s now a great deal of debate over the wisdom of the air strikes, including within the President’s own party.

I’m extremely sympathetic to the view that America cannot afford yet another foreign occupation brought on by regime change in the Middle East; it should hardly be controversial to say that a country should avoid pointless and unwinnable conflicts.

At the same time, it should also be uncontroversial to see obvious benefit in ensuring that your sworn enemy does not have nuclear bombs.

As I wrote yesterday, a fairly conservative cost estimate of the air strikes, naval deployment, and assistance to Israeli air defense is around $1 billion. That’s not nothing.

But it’s also clear that the government spends a lot more than that on completely idiotic and pointless programs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics spends more than $1 billion each year just to publish dubious economic reports that private companies (like ADP) already produce for free... and with greater accuracy. Would anyone rationally argue that the Bureau’s reports are more important than neutralizing a nuclear threat?

Unfortunately I’m not sure anyone in Washington is engaging in this kind of rational cost/benefit analysis... which is why the US has a $36 trillion national debt.

Private businesses and individuals have to make these rational decisions every day about how to allocate scarce resources— primarily time, money, and energy. The government, on the other hand, pretends that it has unlimited, infinite resources.

And this ‘unlimited resource’ mentality is FAR more concerning to me than the prospect of World War 3.

Without a change, the US could easily find itself in an existential financial crisis within the next eight years. I’m not being dramatic.

And in today’s podcast, we explain why and how that’s likely; we discuss:

Why the Social Security cliff is coming faster than expected—and how even its predicted 2033 insolvency is optimistic.

How this problem—and America’s debt addiction— could be solved, if any politician were willing to even address it.

How the US missed a golden opportunity to refinance its debts at much lower interest rates just four years ago.

How the US used to be capable of making wise investments— like the Louisiana Purchase or buying Alaska.

What the looming fiscal crisis means in practical terms for Americans (Spoiler: inflation).

Why foreign governments and central banks are shifting their reserves away from US dollars and towards strategic assets— not just gold, but platinum, industrial metals and even uranium.

And why the companies that produce these real assets are remarkably cheap.

CLICK HERE to listen to the podcast.

For the audio-only version, check out our online post here.
Finally, you can find the podcast transcript for your convenience, here.

To your freedom,   James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

P.S. The clock is ticking—America likely has eight years at most before a financial crisis unleashes runaway inflation.

Foreign central banks know it. They’re dumping dollars and buying gold. But they’re not buying small, overlooked gold companies—some producing for $1,000/oz and trading below their cash on hand.

That’s where the real opportunity lies: low downside, massive upside. Our 4th Pillar research has already uncovered multiple winners—up 2–3x—and others could take off any day.

TO READ MORE: https://www.schiffsovereign.com/podcast/im-far-more-concerned-about-the-deficit-than-world-war-3-podcast-153033/?inf_contact_key=c8e5f9064d267fde59e97d68ed18ed8f266def61f88c0e3dcc6731a9f494e737

The Missing Part RE: Iran— No Rational Discussion About Costs

The Missing Part RE: Iran— No Rational Discussion About Costs

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  June 23, 2025

If the Land of the Free wasn’t already divided heavily along ideological lines, it is even more so after the US military bombings in Iran over the weekend. Even on the political right, which would ordinarily be unified over a US military engagement, there seem to be two distinct camps.

On the one hand, there are those who hold the view that America doesn’t need more foreign entanglements.

Tucker Carlson summed up this side when he told Ted Cruz in a fiery interview that "we should be very careful about entering into more foreign wars that don’t help us when our country is dying."

On the other side are those who who see a clear and obvious benefit in preventing one of America’s harshest adversaries from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Personally I believe both sides are partially right.

I believe it’s self-evident that the Iranian government despises the United States and the West; and they have a history of direct action against Americans, and/or funding terrorist groups who cut off US citizens’ heads on YouTube.

And I can easily understand why the President of the United States wants to ensure these people cannot manufacture nuclear weapons.

I also imagine most of the world agrees with him. Publicly they may disagree and put out strongly worded statements of condemnation.

But think about it— Russia has a long history of conflict against its Muslim minority. China has literally imprisoned its Muslim minority. Do either of these countries honestly want Iran— an aggressive Islamic dictatorship that supports radical Muslim terrorist organizations— to have a nuclear weapon?

It wouldn’t take a whole lot for Iran to arm one of those terror groups with a nuke and take out half of Beijing or Moscow in an act of vengeance.

At the same time, I know from first hand experience during my time in the military that another absurdly expensive foreign entanglement is just a terrible idea. The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan nearly bankrupted America.

What I feel is distinctly lacking from the conversation, however, is rational discussion over costs and benefits.

I would love to see leaders articulate national priorities where they assess the benefits. Then  determine how much they’re willing to invest to yield those benefits. And then actually allocate responsibly for the costs in their budget.

This just almost never happens.

My analysis, with a lot of help from Grok, is that a conservative projection of munitions costs, aircraft fuel costs, naval deployment, and even US assistance for Israeli air defense, comes to around $1 billion.

And that would leave a bit of extra money on the table for follow-up and contingency operations.

Is $1 billion a reasonable cost to ensure Iran doesn’t gain nuclear capabilities?

I think so—simply because the cost of Iran obtaining nukes and potentially blowing up a major American city could easily run into the trillions. So neutralizing a multi-trillion dollar threat for $1 billion feels like a good deal.

But I’m not sure that’s the way they’re approaching it.

For example, I noticed during the President’s remarks on Saturday night that he was flanked by Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

The Treasury Secretary was notably absent. And for a government that should be taking deficits seriously, there needs to be a discussion about the costs its willing to bear, and—more importantly—how are they going to pay for it?

Was Treasury even consulted? Did someone ask, “How are we going to pay for this?” to which Treasury (or DOGE) might respond, “Oh, easy, we’ll cut $1 billion from X, Y, and Z idiotic programs that clearly provide less benefit to America than taking out Iranian nukes.”

I’m not adamantly opposed or in favor of either scenario. I just want my government to do good deals. I want them to rationally address costs and benefits, risks and rewards, and then make an informed decision that balances national priorities.

America should be able to walk and chew gum, to take out a credible nuclear threat AND be able to cut the deficit (and slash regulations).

It’s incredible to me how much ink has been spilled, how much Internet bandwidth has been wasted, on America’s outrage of the week— the latest being “No Kings Day” just nine days ago.

We’ve been subjected to Leftist idiots who glue themselves to the pavement in the name of climate change. Endless debates about who gets to use which bathroom. And ongoing Gaza protests by people who don’t even know which river or which sea they’re chanting about.

We’ve had outrage over the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade (after which abortions in the US actually increased!). Outrage over kneeling at NFL games. Outrage over ‘threats to democracy’. And now there will be outrage over the President’s use of the War Powers Act.

Sure, some of those issues are important.

But what’s REALLY important for every single person living in America, plus billions of people around the world who depend on the US dollar in some capacity, is a looming US fiscal crisis.

Endless irresponsible spending has grown the debt to over $36 trillion, with interest payments already topping $1.1 trillion per year— higher than the defense budget.

The Federal Reserve has lost its ability to control interest rates, and it’s becoming more expensive for the government to finance the debt.

Last week we explained how this all comes to a head within eight years once Social Security runs out of money in 2033.

By then, the US government could likely be spending 40% of all tax revenue just to pay interest on the debt. And at the exact same time, tens of millions of Americans will see their retirement benefits immediately and permanently cut by nearly 25% due to Social Security’s insolvency.

The government’s only ‘solution’ will be for the Federal Reserve to step in and ‘print’ trillions of dollars to bail out the Treasury Department (and Social Security), resulting in pretty catastrophic inflation.

And yet there is zero-outrage.

No one is in the streets engaged in “mostly peaceful protests” over the deficit, or demanding sound currency or financial responsibility from the government.

In fact, it’s the opposite. People are actually outraged that Elon Musk tried to cut the deficit by rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse... so outraged, in fact, that they started blowing up Tesla dealerships. How dare he try to cut the deficit!

A rational, cost/benefit analysis is absent at every level of decision making in the US.

And if that doesn’t change, there is no reason to believe the US can solve its many long-term problems. Where’s the outrage in our professionally-outraged society?

To your freedom,  James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/the-missing-part-re-iran-no-rational-discussion-about-costs-153023/?inf_contact_key=bfd8282458b98af051031dedee84f44b611c10abb7b3657801e6f799df81c049

The US Likely Has 8 Years—At Most—Before Crisis

The US Likely Has 8 Years—At Most—Before Crisis

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  June 19, 2025

Yesterday afternoon the US government published its annual report stating plainly that America has eight years left before a major financial crisis.

This is not hyperbole. This is not conjecture. This is not some wild conspiracy theory.

In fact, eight years until a crisis is probably the BEST CASE SCENARIO unless Congress takes serious action soon.

That’s because the most critical trust fund in the Social Security system (called OAS, or “Old Age Survivors) will be fully depleted.

That’s precisely what it says in the 2025 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of Social Security, signed by the US Secretary of Treasury just yesterday.

And once that OAS Trust Fund runs out of money, the report states that Social Security benefits will be immediately and permanently cut by at least 23%. And then the benefit cuts will likely become worse over time.

This will constitute a broken promise to 70+ million Americans who spent decades paying into a system that was supposed to be solvent by the time they retire.

Now, Social Security’s biggest trust fund running out of money in 2033 would be problematic enough.

But on top of that— by 2033, the total US national debt will be $52 TRILLION according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates. And the CBO notoriously underestimates deficits... so in all likelihood the national debt will be event greater.

$52 trillion is so large that the government could easily be spending 40% of all tax revenue just to pay interest on the national debt.

Think about that. Not on defense. Not on infrastructure. Not even on the bloated entitlement programs Washington refuses to reform. Just interest.

These two things together— a massive annual interest bill combined with Social Security’s insolvency— will likely combine to a gargantuan fiscal crisis in the US. It’s eight years away.

Amazingly, politicians are not concerned. There is very little will to cut federal spending, or make necessary reforms that would allow Social Security to continue operating.

Foreign governments and central banks, on the other hand, clearly understand this problem.

They see how difficult it will be for the US to pay its debts in the not-so-distant future. And that’s why so many foreign institutions are dumping their US dollars and US government bonds.

In other words, foreigners are losing confidence in the US government, so they’re cashing out.

One of the biggest beneficiaries of this trend has been gold; we’ve been talking about this for a couple of years— as foreign governments and central banks dump their US dollars, they have been buying up record amounts of gold bullion.

This isn’t some ideological crusade—it’s a rational move for foreign governments and central banks; gold is liquid, fungible (i.e. standardized), globally recognized, and the market can absorb massive capital flows— hundreds of billions of dollars or more.

This is how they diversify to protect themselves from what will likely happen down the road in the US. You can do the same.

We have pointed out many times, however, that foreign governments and central banks buy gold. They do not buy gold companies.

This key difference has created a major disconnect between the price of gold (which is near a record high) and the valuations of gold companies (many of which are laughably cheap).

We have been writing about this trend for nearly two years, during which time the portfolio of gold companies (and other real asset businesses) has performed exceptionally well.

In our 4th Pillar investment research service, we pinpointed companies with world-class assets, great management, strong balance sheets, and dirt-cheap valuations. Then we shared them with subscribers.

The results speak for themselves:

• One of our top picks is up 153% in just three months.

• Another surged 146% over the past eleven months.

• Two more have gained 133% and 51% respectively in just a few months.

• Most other companies have delivered steady gains of “only” 27–34%.

For the sake of transparency we’ve had precisely ONE precious metals related company go the other way—it’s down 27%. But the fundamentals are solid, and with key catalysts on the horizon, we see it as even more undervalued now.

And in our most recent issue, we spotlighted a profitable gold company trading for less than the cash on its balance sheet.

Talk about limited downside—you could buy the whole company, get all your money back in cash, and still own a cash-flowing gold business for free.

We are exceptionally proud of this research and the returns that we deliver to our subscribers. 

To your freedom,   James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

TO READ MORE:  https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/153000-153000/?inf_contact_key=99400b39c62a352aa0525390c1c5b04ee0f86069758a2429ff9291df2b7d96e2

$1.2 Trillion Later, and Air Traffic Control is Still Using Floppy Disks

$1.2 Trillion Later, and Air Traffic Control is Still Using Floppy Disks

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  June 18, 2025

In 1988, a Professor of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico named Joseph Tainter published a book called The Collapse of Complex Societies. 

Now, “collapse” is a strong word that conjures images of apocalyptic scenarios... Mad Max or Hunger Games drama. But that’s not what Tainter intended.

He uses the term ‘collapse’ in its academic, anthropological meaning, i.e. a breakdown of strength and order in  society. In fact Tainter’s entire career has been devoted to investigating how large, sophisticated civilizations throughout history ultimately “collapsed”.

I first read Tainter’s book more than 15 years ago. And, even though it is a work of anthropology, it is, in my opinion, one of the best books on economic history ever produced.

From the Roman Empire to the Mayan people, Tainter explores how civilizations are born, grow, peak, and decay... and how, more often than not, the decay phase is a direct result of failed government or leadership.

In the early phases of their life cycles when a society is beginning its rise, there aren’t yet enough resources for governments to squander... therefore leaders tend to make very smart, shrewd decisions.

Easy example: the US government purchased over 2 million square kilometers from Napoleon in the year 1803 at a total cost of roughly $15 million. Using gold as a proxy for inflation, that works out to be $2.6 billion in today’s money.

Talk about a bargain. Just the 5 biggest cities which exist today because of that land purchase— Minneapolis, Denver, St. Louis, Kansas City, Oklahoma City— contributed more than $1 trillion in economic activity to the US economy last year, i.e. roughly $170 billion in federal tax revenue.

That’s a hell of a return.

Another example: back in the 1950s, when America had just become the world’s dominant superpower, the Eisenhower administration built the federal highway system that cost about $250 billion in today’s money.

That $250 billion infrastructure investment easily repaid itself many times over in terms of tax revenue and economic growth, let alone quality of life improvements for Americans.

Yet, as Tainter argues, when a society peaks, it begins to lose its ability to make sensible, long-term decisions or to solve complex problems. They set bad priorities, they make bad investments... and they often fail to tackle problems at all.

In contrast to the original $250 billion highway project in the 1950s, the US government allocated $1.2 trillion in 2021 to invest in infrastructure. And how did that work out?

Well, we know former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg spent $7.5 billion of this money to build just seven electric vehicle chargers.

And precisely $0 of that money was used to upgrade America’s air traffic control systems, which have been under intense scrutiny lately for being outdated, overwhelmed, and insufficient.

Talk about something that puts Americans’ lives at risk.

You might be interested to know that these air traffic control systems— which are responsible for making sure that airplanes flying at 500 miles per hour don’t collide with one another— are still relying on floppy disks.

If you’re under the age of 30, you probably don’t even know what a floppy disk is. If you’re under the age of 40, you probably have never seen one.

Floppy disks were removable storage technology that were prevalent in home computers in the 1980s... sort of like a USB memory stick, only MUCH slower and with a fraction of the storage capacity.

A typical 3.5” floppy disk could only hold 1.44 megabytes of data, i.e. not even enough to store even a single photo from your mobile phone’s camera.

Yet this is the technology that America’s air traffic controllers still have to use... because the Transportation Department thought it was a better idea to spend billions of dollars on a handful of electric vehicle charging stations.

The new Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, recently called for replacing floppy disks, Windows 95, and paper flight strips; he says this is “the most important infrastructure project we’ve had in this country for decades.”

Somehow, no one thought to use some of the $1.2 trillion authorized in 2021 on the most important infrastructure project in decades.

To be fair, Duffy’s predecessor Pete Buttigieg had other priorities— like ensuring “racial equity” in highway construction and forcing vehicle manufacturers to use female crash test dummies.

But even without all the woke distractions, Secretary Duffy expects the transition to take four years and cost tens of billions of dollars. And many believe this estimate is wildly optimistic...

This is what government problem-solving looks like in the United States in 2025: as Tainter argued in his book, it is an obvious inability to solve problems.

Let’s be intellectually honest and acknowledge the many advantages that the US still has. The private sector is one of the most productive, diversified, and technologically advanced in the world.

The US is also rich in vital resources, from fresh water and farmland to energy and essential minerals.

And, as the world found out over the past several days, US military capabilities and weapons systems are still tip-top. I explained this in yesterday’s podcast about why World War III is less likely because of the Israel/Iran conflict. 

But none of those advantages will matter if the US government fails to solve obvious problems.

If they can’t even manage to upgrade the air traffic control system from floppy disks, how can we expect them to save Social Security or cut the deficit?

To your freedom,  James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC  

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/1-2-trillion-later-and-air-traffic-control-is-still-using-floppy-disks-152992/?inf_contact_key=06cd274a0ca0ad3d3769b0317b77c8c1459d0255b16dfcaa9646d76d6fbd43e1

Some Clear Thinking On Why World War III Is NOT Happening Anytime Soon

Some Clear Thinking On Why World War III Is NOT Happening Anytime Soon [Podcast]

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  June 17, 2025

Today’s topic is so far-reaching, deep, and important that we had to dedicate an entire podcast episode to it.  Frankly, it is one of the most interesting we have ever done. With so much conflict in the world—and the potential for even more escalation, particularly in the Middle East—we have heard a lot of worry, concern, and even hyperbole in the media about “World War III.”

I actually have the opposite view: that after the recent strikes and counter-strikes between Israel and Iran, I wholeheartedly believe that World War III is far less likely than it was even just a couple of months ago.

Read that again: in the wake of growing conflict in the Middle East, and even with the potential for US involvement, World War III is less likely.

In today’s podcast, I put on my old hat as an Army intelligence officer and discuss the Iranian order of battle, their weapons and defense systems, much of which, frankly, is derived from Chinese military technology.

Over the past several days, that Iranian-based Chinese military tech was obliterated—completely overwhelmed by Israel’s precision strikes.

And where did Israel get its technology from? Some of it is homegrown, of course, but the majority comes from the United States.

So the way I look at this Israel-Iran conflict is almost like a live-fire exercise or war game that models what a real conflict between the United States and China might look like.

And based on the results, it is not looking good for China—or Russia, for that matter.

It leads me to the conclusion that no adversary nation wants to risk an armed conflict with the United States right now, lest they too get obliterated by America’s F-35s.

Towards the end, we talk about whether or not the United States should be involved. I do not have the definitive answer. But I walk through the rational framework that I hope America’s leaders are using to make that kind of decision.

There is not enough reason and rational decision-making in Washington these days. Too many politicians make knee-jerk, emotional reactions for the benefit of Twitter likes, rather than conducting a clear cost-benefit analysis.

There is so much more we unpack in this episode—it is definitely worth a listen, and we hope you tune in to join us.

Once again, you can listen in to the podcast here.

For the audio-only version, check out our online post here.

Finally, you can find the podcast transcript for your convenience, here.

To your freedom,  James Hickman   Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/podcast/some-clear-thinking-on-why-world-war-iii-is-not-happening-anytime-soon-152982/?inf_contact_key=639a5adff5dc02e3df81b6cf217f4f30f2dd6ac02ffa012fb72df8aa66cf6bc6

What “Liberation Day” Could Have Been

What “Liberation Day” Could Have Been

Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black)  June 10, 2025

On July 9, 1807, after Napoleon’s crushing victory over an entire coalition of European nations, the King of Prussia was forced to sign the Treaty of Tilsit, formally putting an end to the conflict.

The peace treaty was devastating for the Prussians; they were forced to pay heavy tribute and war reparations to France, limit the size of the Prussian army, and hand over roughly 50% of their territory to Napoleon.

Just imagine what it must have been like to be living in Westphalia at the time (one of the regions that was ceded to Napoleon). One day you’re Prussian territory. The next day you’re French (and later an independent kingdom).

Everything changed. And that included the legal system.

Before Napoleon arrived, that area (especially Westphalia, part of modern-day Germany) was part of the decaying Holy Roman Empire, and its legal landscape was a tangled knot of conflicting systems.

There was feudal law, where obligations to lords governed land and labor.

There was Roman civil law, which had been in place since the 15th century, though inconsistently applied.

Ecclesiastical courts handled everything from marriage disputes to moral offenses.

Customary law varied by village and town, with local statutes often passed down orally or compiled in obscure legal codices.

Add to that guild regulations, imperial edicts, and the whims of local princes and bishops, and you had a legal system that was both impossible to navigate, and ripe for abuse.

This was all wiped away.

When Prussia handed over the territory of Westphalia, Napoleon immediately imposed the Napoleonic Code as the law of the land.

The Napoleonic Code, originally drafted in 1804, was radical for its clarity and uniformity. It abolished feudal privileges, standardized property rights, and enshrined the idea of equality before the law.

No more special courts for nobles or clergy. No more confusing tangle of contradictory rules. The code was divided into clear sections—persons, property, acquisition of property, and civil procedure—and it applied to everyone.

For the first time, a Jewish merchant in Kassel and a Lutheran farmer from Göttingen were subject to the same laws, interpreted by the same courts. That was unthinkable under the old regime.

The US is in desperate need of a similar Westphalian reset. The Law of the Land in the United States of America these days is an endless collection of conflicting and often obsolete federal, state, and local laws combined with countless court rulings and precedents, plus enough rules and regulations to fill a football stadium.

Plus the code of regulations grows by around 80,000 pages each year, so the monster only becomes larger.

It shouldn’t take being conquered or vanquished by war to have your legal code pruned of dead limbs.

In fact I heard a very smart guy on a podcast some years ago talking about how every law in the US should have a sunset clause so that it’s automatically abolished in, say, 5-10 years.

Bad laws will expire without any further action from Congress. Necessary ones will be updated and refreshed.

That “very smart guy” happened to be Elon Musk. And I imagine that was exactly the type of reform he had in mind when he bank-rolled Donald Trump’s presidential campaign... and it’s exactly what “Liberation Day” should have been.

Not across the board tariffs on staunch allies. Not bazillion-gajillion percent tariffs on China.

They should have liberated Americans from the 200,000+ page Code of Federal Regulations... many of which serve no purpose other than to frustrate commerce and productivity.

Bizarrely, for politicians who claim to care about “small business” and “the working class”, most of these rules hit small businesses and workers the hardest because they don’t have the resources (unlike big companies) to navigate Byzantine regulatory codes.

They’ve made it extremely difficult (to downright impossible, depending on the industry) to start a productive business. Good luck starting a restaurant in the state of California. Or a copper mine in the state of Arizona (where one unlucky business has been in permitting for 20+ years!)

The government doesn’t need to centrally plan anything; they just need to get rid of regulatory obstacles which make it more difficult for Americans to be more productive. And this is essential to saving the country from its $2 trillion annual deficits, and $36 trillion national debt.

You don’t need a PhD in economics to understand this problem; quite simply, the US economy needs to grow faster than the debt. That isn’t happening right now.

These days, the debt is growing by more than 5.5% annually, far outpacing economic growth. So saving the country’s finances mean that GDP needs to grow by at least 5.5%, and ideally much more.

And while that sounds like an unrealistic goal, it’s totally achievable; with all the talent and investment capital in the US, along with AI, robotic automation, and nuclear power on the horizon, the US should be able to grow at 7%+ per year.

That could have happened if Liberation Day had actually liberated Americans from job-killing laws and productivity-constraining regulations.

I have said many times in the past that America’s problems are still technically fixable, but that the narrow window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

It’s beyond frustrating to see these problems continue to grow worse. And it’s becoming harder every day to imagine a scenario where we don’t end up with a currency crisis or major inflation down the road.

I still hold out hope that sanity prevails... that, even if at the last minute, the US government summons the courage and clarity to do the right thing for America once and for all, and avoid the worst outcome.

I hope.

But as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of action. And that’s why it makes so much sense to have a Plan B.

To your freedom,  James Hickman  Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC

https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/what-liberation-day-could-have-been-152940/?inf_contact_key=0f1d9fe0303c853725f454bfcae2c92a5829043fa73cf2bc2dd7addb4cb374c3