The USD Is Worthless – Gold Is At $100k!

by

If the U.S. dollar were to become worthless, what difference would it make if the gold price hits $100,000?

The ten ounces of gold you bought for $30,000 ($3000 x 10) would be worth $1,000,000. Should you sell?

A worthless U.S. dollar means that it has no purchasing power and is unacceptable for trading purposes. What would you do with a million dollars that nobody wants?

Likely, though, there would not be a gold price quoted in U.S. dollars. In fact, by that time, anything that would have been quoted in U.S. dollars would need to be repriced in something else, i.e., another fiat currency, crytocurrency, gold itself, etc.

Only then will you have a reasonable idea of how much your gold is worth. In all cases, though, it is about the purchasing power of the gold, not its price – in any currency.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE – CHAOS 

Total collapse of the U.S. dollar would break the entire financial system and wreak economic devastation on the world. A global depression would result. There would be disruptions in communication and public services.

Financial markets would be closed indefinitely (I hope you own physical gold) and social chaos would be rampant. That’s okay. You’re a millionaire, right?

WEALTH PRESERVATION 

Owning gold during a currency collapse does not make you rich. It preserves your purchasing power. (see Gold’s Singular Role)

Since 1980, the U.S. dollar has lost 75% of its purchasing power. It costs four times as much today for comparable goods and services as it did in 1980.

A salary of $50,000 in 1980 would need to be $200,000 today just to maintain the same standard of living.

The gold price peaked at $843 in January 1980. At more than $3400 oz. recently, gold has quadrupled in price since 1980, which compensates for the loss of purchasing power in the U.S. dollar.

CONCLUSION 

Fantastic price predictions for gold are meaningless when couched in terms related to destruction of the U.S. dollar. The financial, economic, and social conditions attendant to a complete collapse of the dollar are so horrific as to nullify any potential positives associated with a “phenomenally higher gold price”.

The value of gold is in its use as money. As a long-term store of value, gold protects and preserves purchasing power.  (also see “Will Gold Hit $3460?” – Followup)

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED

“Will Gold Hit $3460?” – Followup

by

In mid-March, I wrote the following:

“The U.S. dollar has lost approximately 75% of its purchasing power since 1980. What this means is that it costs about four times as much today for comparable goods and services as it did in 1980. 

In order for the gold price to fully reflect the loss in USD purchasing power, it would need to be $3460 oz. today. As it is, gold is priced at $3045 oz.,  more than $400 oz. cheaper than its inflation-adjusted high in 1980.” 

The intraday high for gold in January 1980 was $843 oz. The current inflation-adjusted equivalent of $843 oz. is $3463 oz. In my original article, I rounded the number to $3460 for simplification.

In conclusion, I asked:

“Will gold reach $3460? It’s possible. A 14% surge from here would do it.”

The answer came quickly as gold surged in price by more than $400 oz. in April. The price action is shown on the chart (source) below…

Live gold chart

The gold price did not reach $3460, but has peaked now, on three occasions, just above the $3430 mark.

Practically speaking, though, it is reasonable to say that gold has now matched its intraday price peak of $843 oz. in 1980.

Where Do We Go From Here? 

After its recent peak at $3435 in April, the gold price declined to $3171, a drop of more than 7%. After last week’s action, gold appears to be headed back to the same level.

Beyond that, the gold price could easily fall back to $3000 oz. or lower.

The upside barrier for the gold price could be more important that any downside price targets. In other words, the gold price is not likely to push through $3500 very soon, regardless of how well it is supported at current prices or lower.

Gold’s higher price over time is a reflection of the U.S. dollar’s loss of purchasing power. It is not a question of “how high can gold go?” but rather “how much purchasing power has the dollar lost?”

Once the gold price reaches a point that reflects the dollar’s loss of purchasing power up to that point, it has gone about as far as it can go, for the time being.

Afterwards, the price can decline or go nowhere for years. This can be seen on the chart (source) below…

 

The increase in the gold price from $35 oz. in 1970 to $843 oz. in January 1980 reflected the effects of inflation on the dollar’s purchasing power over the previous four decades. After finding its inflation-adjusted price, gold declined.

The gold price peak of $1895 oz. in 2011 accounted for the effects of inflation after 1980 and up until 2011. Thereafter, the price declined for nearly five years.

The recent gold price peak at $3435 oz. reflects the dollar’s loss of purchasing power since its 2011 peak at $1895.

All three periods of increasing gold prices were approximately ten years in length (1970-80; 2001-2011, 2015-25). The first two periods (1970-80; 2001-2011) were followed by multi-year declines.

Time will tell us if something similar happens this time.

CONCLUSION 

Gold’s recent price peak at $3435 oz. likely represents the culmination of its latest inflation-adjusted advance. With the dollar’s loss of purchasing power fully accounted for, history suggests that gold could enter a prolonged period of stagnation or decline, much like what happened after the 1980 and 2011 peaks.

A drop below $3000 oz. wouldn’t be surprising. For now, gold appears to have exhausted its momentum. (also see Gold, Silver, & Gold Stocks Since 2011 – Gold Kills It!)

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED

No-Reserve Banking And Less Capital, Too!

by

BANK CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS

The Federal Reserve Board voted last week to move ahead with a proposal to scale back the amount of capital that banks must hold as part of their assets. A Reuters report indicated that the amount of capital that banks must set aside will depend on the size of the role they play in the global financial system.

Is reducing capital requirements for banks a good idea?  The Federal Reserve and the banks think so. The banks want to use the restricted capital to buy more Treasury bonds. Fed Chair Powell said it was “prudent” to reconsider the current requirements.

Here is a short summary of the situation from an article at https://www.pyments.com …

“Currently, banks are required to hold a flat percentage of capital in reserve against all assets, per the report. The CNBC report said that for this purpose, lower-risk assets are treated essentially the same as high-yield ones, and banks are practically penalized for holding Treasuries.

The current requirement was put in place after the 2008 financial crisis, increased over the years, and has for years been the target of banks that argue that it unnecessarily restricts their ability to facilitate trading in lower-risk assets, such as Treasury bonds, the Reuters report said.” (source)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wants to see the requirements relaxed, too. Bessent said “we are very close to moving” on this issue and he thinks it would allow greater flexibility for banks to increase holdings in government bonds. That may be so, but…

ARE TREASURIES LOWER-RISK ASSETS?

For the past three years, Treasury bonds have proven to be anything other than a “lower-risk asset”. Below is a chart that shows how badly U.S. Treasuries have performed…

TLT (Long-Term Treasury Bond ETF) 2020-25

Who needs more restricted capital? Let’s buy more Treasury bonds, instead. They are safe and liquid. Oh-oh…

SILICON VALLEY BANK 

Existing higher capital requirements put in place in 2008 did not help Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). Liquidity problems forced SVB to sell Treasury bonds that had declined by 30% or more.

The argument for higher capital requirements is that it can reinforce and support overall capital structure (strong capital base) and maintain solvency. The additonal capital can be a source of temporary liquidity, when necessary.

Unfortunately, it did not work that way for SVB. Their flawed lending strategies (borrow short and lend long) put them at a huge disadvantage. Being forced to liquidate long-term bonds at huge losses in order to meet customer withdrawl demand erased any illiusion of solvency and catapulted them straight into bankruptcy.

Regardless, there is another issue that looms large in the SVB debacle and portends ill for all banks.

SVB’s bankruptcy, and some other bank failures in 2023, occurred three years after the Federal Reserve suspended the 10% reserve requirement for banks. What was “fractional-reserve banking” became “no-reserve banking”.

NO-RESERVE BANKING 

Under the fractional-reserve system, banks were required to keep a portion of customer deposits on hand. The amount could vary, but was formerly 10% of the deposits on hand. The reserves were required in order to meet ongoing withdrawl demand. The other 90% could be lent out to individuals and businesses.

If too many people wanted too much of their money in a short period of time, the bank might not be able to satisfy the demand for withdrawls of money. (see Fractional-reserve Banking – Elephant In The Room).

However bad the problem was before, it is worse now. Previously, the 10% threshold gave us an indication of just how seriously worse was the situation of any particular bank if they dropped below the threshold. Now, we know nothing.

The 10% reserve requirement was reduced to 0% on March 15, 2020, just as the economy entered its forced shutdown. The entire banking systm now functions on a 0% reserve requirement.

CONCLUSION 

Banks are horribly illiquid. Solvency is an illusion – not a reality. Relaxing bank capital requirements at this time probably doesn’t add much to the exagerated risk that already exits in the banking system.

The additional capital won’t prevent financial institutions from going bankrupt; they already are. (see Bank Stress Test Results Are Just Window Dressing)

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED

Trump vs. Powell vs. Yellen – Same Game

by
Generated image

We have been here before. President Trump’s latest bashing of Fed Chair Powell isn’t without precedent. Chair Powell was the object of President Trump’s scorn during his first term, too.

It doesn’t stop there, though. Trump vs. Powell was preceded by Trump vs. Yellen.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump accused Yellen of keeping interest rates artificially low to benefit the Obama administration and predicted a market collapse once she raised rates. He claimed she was “keeping them artificially low to get Obama retired” and “she should be ashamed of herself.” (NBC News Nov 2016) 

One year later, towards the end of his first year in office, President Trump nominated Jerome Powell as the new Fed Chairman. Here is what I said then…

“President Trump nominated Jerome H. Powell as the new Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. Don’t look for much to change. And Janet Yellen’s announcement that she will resign from the board upon Mr. Powell’s induction as board chair is pretty much a non-event.” (New Fed Chairman, Same Old Story Nov 2017)

That was almost eight years ago. Has anything changed? Ironically, in 2016, Trump was displeased with Fed Chair Yellen for “keeping rates artificially low”. Now, he is attacking Fed Chair Powell for not lowering rates more aggressively.

THEN AND NOW

Both Ms. Yellen and Chair Powell face(d) similar situations. Their terms as Fed Chair expire(d) before their terms as board members conclude. That would mean sticking around for a couple of years as a board member after their term as board Chair ends.

I believe Ms. Yellen, as Fed Chair, was very concerned about the prospect of presiding over a financial crisis that would tarnish her reputation as Fed Chair. Here is what I said seven months prior to Jerome Powell’s assumption as Fed Chair…

“…if Ms. Yellen makes it through the current year unscathed, she won’t be hanging around afterwards. She won’t want to extend her risk of being at the helm when the ship sinks.

And don’t trouble yourself worrying about who the next Fed chief will be.  It doesn’t matter. It is too late in the game for a quarterback change to have any meaningful impact.” (The Fed’s Dilemma July 2017)

CONCLUSION 

The situation today isn’t much different from eight years ago. Jerome Powell’s term as Federal Reserve Board Chair ends May 2026. I expect him to finish his term (ends May 2026) as Chairman and voluntarily resign from the board at that time without serving the remainder of his term (ends January 31, 2028) as a member of the board, just as Chair Yellen did, for similar reasons.

Can you imagine either Janet Yellen or Jerome Powell serving as a member of the board after their term as Fed Chair ended? (also see Cruisin’ Wtih The Fed and Federal Reserve –  Conspiracy Or Not?)

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED

The Rush To Regulate Crypto

by

pastedGraphic.png

Here are some of the latest news items concerning government and central bank stances on cryptocurrencies. Each item is followed by my comments…

 

…..June 18, 2025 (Reuters) – South Korea’s central bank governor said on Wednesday he was not against issuing won-denominated stablecoins but had concerns about managing capital flows. At a press conference in Seoul, Rhee Chang-yong said “Issuing won-based stablecoin could make it easier to exchange them with dollar stablecoin rather than working to reduce use of dollar stablecoin. That in turn could increase demand for dollar stablecoin and make it difficult for us to manage forex,”

Chang-yong is quite clear that potential “demand for dollar stablecoin and (would) make it difficult for us to manage forex,”

My comments… Who cares? Should adoption and use of cryptocurrencies be dependent on any government or central bank’s ability “to manage foreign exchange“? If cryptocurrencies provide a possible altrernative to fiat currencies, then, complicating things by adding another layer of regulation and increased market intervention doesn’t benefit anyone.

 

…..Febuary 11, 2025 (The Times) The governor of the Bank of England has downplayed the idea of launching a central bank digital currency, warning that there is still no “must-have” reason for developing the technology.

Speaking to an audience at Chicago Booth Business School in London, Andrew Bailey said there needed to be a case for providing benefits that existing commercial alternatives could not.

My comments… Bailey is correct. There is no “must-have” reason for developing the technology FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND.  Anyone who wants privacy in financial transactions and an alternative to ongoing monetary debasement and regulation would disagree.

 

…..June 17, 2025 (NBC News) The United States Senate passed a landmark cryptocurrency bill that would establish the first regulatory framework for issuers of stablecoins. Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., author of the GENIUS Act, said in a floor speech “With this bill, the United States is one step closer to becoming the global leader in crypto. This bill will cement U.S. dollar dominance, it will protect customers, it will drive demand for U.S. treasuries.” 

The article pointed out that Washington continues to wrestle with how best to regulate the fast-growing cryptocurrency industry. Just two Republicans — Rand Paul of Kentucky and Josh Hawley of Missouri — voted against it.

My comments… How does “becoming a global leader in crypto” reestablish U.S. dollar dominance? If stablecoins are tied to the dollar, then what is the point? If approved by the House, the bill is exactly as stated above: “the first regulatory framework for issuers of stablecoins”. Thumbs up to Senators Paul and Hawley!

 

CONCLUSION 

The global trend in cryptocurrency regulation should be seen for what it is – a continuation of governmental efforts to control and regulate every aspect of money and finance.

Any positive benefits derived from the growth and use of cryptocurrencies are minimized and negated when government gets involved. The risk to high-flying Bitcoin in terms of its price and popularity is greater than other cryptocurrencies because it is a big ($2T) target.

Two trillion dollars is a lot of money currenly flying under the radar. Probably not for long, though. (also see Will Cryptocurrencies Become Fiat Currencies?)

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED

 

Weaker USD – Or Stronger?

by

The U.S. dollar receives its fair share of attention in the financial press.  The “impending collapse” of the dollar and similar inflamed phrases dominate the headlines. Other recent mentions include “plunging U.S. dollar” and “U.S. dollar breakdown.” The concern – and alarm – seem well-deserved.

Since January the U.S. dollar has declined by 12%. At least, that is how the dollar’s decline is described by financial writers and others. There is a context for that statement, though, which needs to be clarified and understood.

Statements that reference percentage declines of the U.S. dollar usually refer to relative weakness (or strength) of the U.S. dollar compared to other currencies. The U.S. dollar index, DXY, measures the “value” of the U.S. dollar versus a basket of other currencies on foreign exchange markets. The fluctuating price for DXY is a “live” measure of the U.S. dollar’s exchange rates with various other currencies (Euro, Japanese yen, Swiss franc, British pound, Swedish krona, & Canadian dollar).

CHARTS

Below is a chart (source)of DXY for the past year…

Looking at the chart, the 12% decline in DXY since January is alarmingly steep. Additionally significant is the breakdown below its previous lows from last September.

Now, let’s look at another chart of DXY. This one covers the past forty years…

The severity of the current decline seems lessened and is contained within the scope of a broader, long-term increase in DXY dating back to 2008.

OBSERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS

The overwheming negativity surrounding the U.S. dollar needs to be considered in broader context if the U.S. dollar index is the primary point of reference for such statements. It ususally is, hence…

The past three years (2022-25) show relative dollar strength/weakness at a higher level (100-110) than at any other time in the past forty years. The price action between 90 and 100 lasted for seven years and provides possible substantial support. If downside action for the U.S. dollar versus other currencies continues, the DXY index could drop to 90 and still find strong technical support.

Will the current weakness in U.S. dollar exchange rates, which is reflected in a declining DXY, continue unabated? Or, is the current weakness part of a consolidation phase for a U.S. dollar which has been strengthening versus its peers (other currencies) for almost two decades?

CAVEATS AND CONCLUSION 

The U.S. dollar index (DXY) tells us only how the U.S. dollar is currently faring when compared to the basket of other currencies in the index.

The U.S. dollar (as do all fiat currencies) continues to lose purchasing power. The loss of purchasing power results from inflation of the supply of money and credit by the Federal Reserve.

The U.S. dollar is forever growing ‘weaker’ due to its loss of purchasing power. That is true even if traders buy dollars on foreign exchange markets; and even if the dollar index (DXY) rallies strongly.

That being said, there are periods when the dollar regains some of its lost favor. Sometimes dollar ‘favor’ turns to dollar ‘fever’. We could be on the verge of an upside dollar surprise. (also see Interest Rates Could Go Much Higher)

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED

 

Gold, Silver, & Gold Stocks Since 2011 – Gold Kills It!

by

As anticipation builds regarding possible outsized performance for silver and gold stocks, it might be worthwhile to review past performance for the two upstarts versus their mentor and perennial favorite, gold.

The chart below shows monthly closing prices for gold, silver, and gold stocks since their respective price peaks in August 2011. The prices are “normalized” to illustrate percentage changes and direction. All three items are indexed to a starting value of 100.  The respective origin prices are $1825/Gold, $41.76/ Silver, 601/Gold Stocks-HUI; closing prices as of May 30, 2025 are $3288/Gold, $32.95/Silver, 398/Gold Stocks-HUI…

Read more

Interest Rates Could Go Much Higher

by

It is reasonable to suggest that interest rates might not have peaked. That statement applies to both short-term and long-term rates. Currently, the discount rate on short-term Treasury bills is 4.13%. Long-term Treasury bonds are yielding 4.97%.

Only five years ago, short-term rates flirted with zero and the 10-year Treasury rate was less than one percent at .89%. The increase in rates since early 2020 is something to behold. The damage to bond prices is evident on both charts (source) below…

Read more

Cruisin’ With The Fed

by

The Federal Reserve is on autopilot. Minutes from the May 6-7 meeting said FOMC members noted that “economic activity had continued to expand at a solid pace and labor market conditions continued to be solid”.

This might sound surprising given the fact that the notes also revealed concern and discussion about rising Treasury yields, U.S. dollar depreciation against other currencies, heightened volatility in the equity markets, negative effects of tariffs on the supply chain and international trade, potentially worsening inflation, and lots of uncertainty.

In the face of a long list of duly noted concerns, the Fed still found itself trumpeting a familiar refrain regarding economic activity…

“Even as the U.S. dollar declined and the Treasury yield curve steepened, the Federal Reserve remained adamant that economic activity and the labor market remained strong and policy intervention was unnecessary, according to the minutes of the May Federal Open Market Committee meeting. – (Kitco News)

It is somewhat hard to believe that economic activity and the labor markets weren’t affected by all of the negative factors listed above.  They were, of course; but some of those negative effects won’t show up until later.

Also, as is normally the case, a good deal of negativity is ignored or downplayed when the final assessment is made. I mean, can you imagine the havoc that would ensue if we heard something like this:

“Recent indicators suggest that economic activity continues to decline and the pace of that decline is steepening. Rather than growing, it is clear that the economy is shrinking and that the rapid descent into recession may quickly turn into an economic depression that could last for years. Labor markets are in turmoil with company closures, layoffs, and skyrocketing unemployment.”

This leads us back to our opening statement “The Federal Reserve is on autopilot.”. Here are some previous statements regarding economic activity and the labor markets…

March 2025 FOMC summary notes: “The economy was described as ‘healthy’ despite negative sentiment, with the labor market remaining strong.” 4

January 2025 from FOMC notes and Chair Powell’s press conference transcript:

“Recent indicators suggest that economic activity has continued to expand at a solid pace. … Labor market conditions have cooled from their formerly overheated state and remain solid.” 1 2 4

IN A RUT 

Sometimes autopilot can sound like a broken record. Here are some examples of similar statements from previous Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting notes:

  1. January 2020 FOMC Statement: “Economic activity has been rising at a moderate rate… Labor market conditions remain strong.”

  2. December 2019 FOMC Statement: “Economic activity has been rising at a moderate rate… Labor market conditions remain strong.“

  3. September 2019 FOMC Statement: “Economic activity has been rising at a moderate rate… The labor market remains strong.“

  4. June 2019 FOMC Statement: “Economic activity is rising at a moderate rate… Labor market conditions remain strong.”

  5. May 2019 FOMC Minutes: “Economic activity appeared to be expanding at a solid pace… Labor market conditions remained strong.”

SUMMARY 
The FOMC’s consistent use of positive descriptive summaries about the economy and the labor markets is intentional and not likely to change. Actually, in light of the above references, we can call it boilerplate.
Boilerplate text, or simply boilerplate, is any written text (copy) that can be reused in new contexts or applications without significant changes to the original. The term is used about statements, contracts, and source code, and is often used pejoratively to refer to clichéd or unoriginal writing.
That might be okay if the Fed had a better track record when it comes to avoiding economic catastrophe. As it is, investors and others are blindsided from economic reality until the negativity hits them squarely in the face.

Tariffs Are NOT Inflationary

by

There is one assumption about tariffs mentioned by most observers that is incorrect. That particular assumption has to do with the effect of tariffs on inflation.

Tariffs are NOT inflationary. Tariffs are taxes imposed by a government on imported goods. Tariffs are assessed at the port of entry and must be paid before the goods can be unloaded. Whoever (businesses, consumers, etc.) imports the goods pays the tariff(s) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a government agency. Subsequently, remittance is made to the U.S. Treasury.

The tariffs (taxes) assessed and their collection process have nothing to do with inflation.

WHY TARIFFS ARE NOT INFLATIONARY

Most people see the higher prices and assume that inflation is bad and will get worse. If you ask someone/anyone what causes inflation, their response will be something that points to higher prices as the culprit. In other words, “inflation is bad because prices are higher”. Why are prices higher? “Because of inflation.” In other words, “inflation causes inflation”.

Adding further confusion to the circular reasoning above is that there are supposedly an infinite variety of types of inflation; i.e., food inflation, fuel inflation, house inflation, rent inflation, etc. The impression is that each of the so-called types of inflation affect inflation independently and collectively. Now we have “tariff” inflation.

It is all BS, of course. Inflation IS the continuous expansion of the supply of money and credit by government and central banks. Over time, the inflation causes a loss of purchasing power in the currency/U.S. dollar which shows up as higher prices generally. The higher prices are NOT inflation; they are the effects of inflation and are unpredictable in timing and extent. In addition, the effects (more than just higher prices) of inflation are cumulative and volatile.

Not all higher prices are the result of inflation; only those which result from the loss of purchasing power in the dollar. An excellent example of this happened post-Covid with disruptions in the global supply chain(s). (see High Prices Are NOT Inflation)

The higher prices resulting from tariffs have nothing do with inflation. Tariffs are deflationary.

TARIFFS ARE DEFLATIONARY

Tariffs and taxes take money out of circulation and are a depressant to economic activity. Small businesses feel it the worst and the soonest. Eventually all of us feel the brunt of the new “tax” in several ways: supply chain disruption, alternative sourcing, shortages, lack of choice, inferior goods, longer wait times, and higher prices.

Businesses will have less money to operate and consumers will have less money to spend. This is especially true because of the current broad application of tariffs to most goods and services and most countries.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of expressed intent by their proponents, tariffs are destructive in nature. Tariffs are self-inflicted wounds that can fester, grow worse, and spread infection on contact. Tariffs lead to higher prices for consumers, reduced choice, and a less efficient economy. There is nothing good that anyone can say about tariffs.

The financial markets don’t seem to recognize how bad the situation is and how much worse it can get. Uncertainty is mentioned frequently, but there doesn’t seem to be a consensus which can accept the reality of ongoing negative activity and reports.

Hanging around waiting for a change of heart by President Trump is ill-advised. Expecting the Fed to intervene in some way that dampens the negative effects of tariffs is naive.

The economic effects of bad policy can only get worse at this time. Investors, in general, are unprepared and very vulnerable. (also see The Looming Threat of Credit Collapse And Deflation and A Comprehensive Overview Of Tariffs)

Kelsey Williams is the author of two books: INFLATION, WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT ISN’T, AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT and ALL HAIL THE FED