Gold & Silver Blast Higher as Fed Gets Trapped -

Welcome to this week’s Market Wrap Podcast, I’m Mike Gleason.
Coming up in a moment, we have an exclusive interview with Nomi Prins, renowned market commentator, author and founder and CEO of <a href="https://prinsightsglobal.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Prinsight Global</a>. Nomi explains how she has seen a massive disconnect between what the Fed is saying and what they’re actually doing, and she argues that a shift away from foreign demand for U.S. bonds, and efforts by the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve to prop up the bond markets is very bullish for gold and silver.
Nomi also reveals and elaborates on this growing divorce we’re seeing between the financial economy and the real economy.
So, stick around for that and a whole lot more during a fascinating conversation between Mike Maharrey and Nomi Prins of Prinsight Global, coming up after this week’s market update. And as a reminder please download, like, rate and subscribe to this podcast wherever you consume this content.
Silver is shooting higher again today – adding another dollar to its impressive gains over the past week. The white metal is now within short-range shooting distance of its all-time nominal high, as if there’s some kind of a magnet force drawing it towards that $50 mark.
For the week silver is up a robust 7.3% now to come in at $46.46 an ounce as of this Friday morning recording. This will be the 6th straight week of gains for the white metal, with silver adding a little more than $8 during that stretch since mid to late August. For the year now silver is up right at about 60%.
Momentum remains strong across the entire precious metals complex.
Like silver, gold is also advancing for the 6th consecutive week, although its gains are more muted. The yellow metal is up about $90 or 2.4% on the week, to check in at $3,789 an ounce. Gold’s dollar gain over these past 6 weeks now sits at a cool $440. And for the year gold is up 44%.
As for the gold:silver ratio, it has come down from 87.7 in mid-August to 81.5 as of today, indicating silver’s outperformance during the impressive rise we’ve seen over the last month and a half in the precious metals.
Earlier this week, platinum broke above the key $1,480 level and remains 2025's best performer among the precious metals. Which is saying something. With a few hours left in the trading week platinum now checks in at $1,580, good for an impressive 11.5% gain – more than $160 an ounce – since last Friday’s close. For the year platinum is now up 70, that’s right, 70%.
And finally, after slumping and failing to keep up with its cousins last week, palladium has joined the party. The industrial metal is up more than $120 this week and checks in at $1,293, good for a 10.3% advance. On the year palladium has gained 37%.
Getting back to this year’s top metals performer, that being platinum, the best way to diversify your overall holdings with physical platinum is by purchasing <a href="https://www.moneymetals.com/buy/platinum/coins">coins</a> or <a href="https://www.moneymetals.com/buy/platinum/bars">bars</a>. Check out <a href="https://www.moneymetals.com/buy/platinum">MoneyMetals.com/platinum</a> for more information and for up-to-date pricing information to buy, or sell, platinum products.
Overall, we've seen less selling of physical metal than we expected… and a bit more buying. It seems more Americans may be catching on to what's happening.
Dealers are still fairly flush with inventory, but premiums remain at multi-year lows, especially given that premium prices are falling in terms of the percentage of melt value as metals prices have soared.
In related news – and a key reason the precious metals are on fire – is the reality that Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and his fellow central bankers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. And they know it.
Powell admitted as much during a speech earlier this week when he confessed he sees “no risk-free path” ahead.
At MoneyMetals.com, we've been talking about the <a href="https://www.moneymetals.com/news/2025/01/12/trump-vs-powell-and-a-catch-22-003748">Fed’s Catch-22 for months</a>, but it is unusual for a central banker to acknowledge risk. They want to maintain the illusion that they have everything under control – even though they don't.
Although Powell didn’t use the word, he described a stagflationary setup, with deteriorating economic conditions reflected in the labor market, coupled with elevated inflation.
Powell & Company is walking a tightrope, and it would only take a little nudge for them to fall to one side or another.
The problem is that the current scenario requires the Fed to pursue two opposite paths. It needs to hold rates higher for longer to keep inflation under control. (And by “under control,” we mean not <a href="https://www.moneymetals.com/podcasts/2024/08/21/inflation-is-on-purpose-003398">so high that you notice it</a>.)
The Fed feels it must cut rates to keep the air in our debt-riddled bubble economy.
It can’t do both.
So, Powell & Company are walking the tightrope with their fingers crossed, hoping they don’t go splat.
It’s worth noting that Powell continues to insist that monetary policy is “modestly restrictive.”
It’s not. At least not from a historical perspective.
The money supply only contracted modestly at the height of the hiking cycle, and <a href="https://www.moneymetals.com/news/2025/06/30/money-supply-expansion-this-is-inflation-004158">it has been increasing for well over a year</a>. That is, <a href="https://www.moneymetals.com/news/2024/01/12/common-definition-of-inflation-you-hear-today-is-wrong-government-propaganda-002925">by definition</a>, inflation.
The bottom line is that Powell and his minions had to make a choice.
They chose inflation. And the entire precious metals complex is loving it.
Well now, without further delay, and for more on the markets, the economy and the precious metals, let’s get right to our exclusive interview with well-known market commentator and author Nomi Prins.
<div class="pl-3">
Mike Maharrey: Greetings. I'm Mike Maharrey, a reporter and analyst here at Money Metals, and I'm excited to be joined today by Nomi. Prince Nomi has a PhD in international strategic studies with a specialization in international political economy, which is very impressive, and she's worked as a managing director at Goldman Sachs. She's ran international analytic groups as a senior managing director at Bear Stearns in London. She was a strategist at Lehman Brothers, an analyst with Chase Manhattan. You have done a lot in your career and I'm excited to have you on the show, Nomi, how are you?
Nomi Prins: I am doing really well right now.
Mike Maharrey: Well, it is great to have you on the show and before we delve into the current events of the day, I'm kind of curious because you've got this vast past in the international banking world, and I'm curious as to how that prior life in banking has informed your worldview today. What'd you learn from that experience?
Nomi Prins: It's interesting because what you learn, I guess from any experience changes as the world around you changes. And so when I was on Wall Street and in the city of London and going all about the world in terms of talking about strategic bond portfolios and securitized assets and all sorts of analytically wonky endeavors really in terms of how that institutional investment community was growing at the time, I became very focused on credit, on risk, on debt, even while looking at more speculative investments and strategic allocations across all of these areas. And it's interesting now when we look at how much debt and the overhang of debt has just massively increased for every country as a percentage of their economy, as a percentage of their interest payment allocations and so forth. It really changes how I even thought about debt then, which was that countries that have too much debt are really basically creating a liability for themselves with respect to world trade, where they're at on the world stage and how they evolve. And today we have a situation where the biggest powers in the world have higher debt to GDP ratios and they've had since World War II. I'm speaking specifically about the United States, but others as well. And so what I discussed and determined back then with respect to the analysis of all of that risk, I think holds even more true in terms of the lens that I bring today in the current unfolding of where the world is going with respect to that debt and those types of risks and pitfalls.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah. When you were younger getting into your career, did you ever imagine a world where we would have nearly two decades of 0% interest rates and all of the debt that has incentivized moving forward? I mean, isn't it kind of mind boggling as you look back at the trajectory of things?
Nomi Prins: It's actually crazy because one of the things that I was aware of and that I actually did when I was in between leaving my position as a senior managing director at Bear Stearns in London where I started and grew this whole analytical team across Europe that funneled throughout the world and then moving to Goldman Sachs in New York in the early two thousands. And that of course pre manifested the Enron, the WorldCom, all the sort of debt boggles on the corporate side. My whole purview was looking at how emerging market debt was going to be a problem and how all those crises were going to hurt both those countries as well as the countries and banks with whom they did business. And back then the debt was much, much less obviously in the world to those countries and so forth. So I could not have imagined that we'd be sitting at 37 trillion of debt in the United States.
And absolutely to your point, how 0%, or low interest rate policies that we've had really since that whole period, since the beginning of the two thousands when I joined, Goldman, have just created this entire new paradigm of money that doesn't cost anything. And even now when we're escalated rates since COVID and then now some of them are backed down and we're looking at potential more rate cuts or more qe, the Treasury Department is basically issuing buybacks of their own and foreign nations don't want US debt. So none of that would've been a thing 20 years ago. And all of that is really connected to monetary policy, the sort of negation of risk in terms of what happens when you build that kind of debt and where countries are turning, I for example, not buying as much US Treasury debt and buying gold instead for their own reserves in the wake of all of these policies.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, absolutely. So, let's fast forward to that into current events. We had a Federal Reserve meeting last week and I ran across a quote, it was from Thomas Sowell, the economist, and he said that basically there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs, and I kind of think that really fits the situation that the Fed finds itself in right now. We just had a rate cut while the Fed acknowledged that inflation is still, let's see how they put it. They said that inflation is still elevated, is the word they're using. That really doesn't make sense if you look at it on the surface. So I'm curious as to how you're kind of looking at where the Federal Reserve is right now and what are they doing? Because I don't think what they're telling us is really what they're doing.
Nomi Prins: It's really interesting because first of all, the whole idea of getting inflation to 2%, and by inflation they don't mean like PPI, they're looking at economic indicators of price appreciation and trying to come up with a way to dampen those as they've tried to do. But late since the wake of COVID when things started up again and inflation shot through the roof, or at least comparatively through the roof, not historically, but in terms of near history, and they perpetuated this narrative since they started raising rates in 2022 of being able to quote control inflation that somehow by raising rates enough, they were going to sort of stave off whatever it was they were hoping to stave off in terms of price appreciation in terms of demand, which causes price depreciation and so forth, and some vacuum of what's actually going on in the world. Now, they did not say that, but if you look at geopolitics, if you look at the hunt for certain commodities, whether they're for monetary reasons like gold or whether they're for security reasons like uranium or copper, there are so many reasons why inflation has remained above this arbitrary 2% level.
So, when the Fed gets together and has over the last couple of years and talks about where rates are going to go and makes their decisions at the FOM committee and talks about this inflation level, an inflation level, it can't actually control. It's sort of incidental, I believe, to what they do. And I've written about this for years. I wrote a book called Permanent Distortion, which came out in 2022 where I said this was incidental and it was kind criticized for that purpose. And what we've seen is really inflation has come down, not because the Fed raised rates and then lower them a little bit since, but because of just equal and world economics, but they're sort of unrelated that said, when the Fed cut rates by 25 basis points at their last meeting, they pointed to the labor market as being stressed. Now, a year ago, they cut rates by 50 basis points.
Same September, same labor market, they said it was cooling at the same time, unemployment, the unemployment rate was actually lower than it is this September. The number of jobs being created was actually higher than it is this year, year to date. And in other words, the labor market is much worse now than it was then. And yet they're cutting rates by 25 basis points instead of 50 at the same time. CPI is only a 10th different, actually, it's lowered by a 10th now than it was last year. So if you just look at their own history of a year, what they do and where they connect to this data they profess to be able to control is somewhat arbitrary. So, it's very interesting when we look at what the Fed is doing versus what they choose to be looking at in any one given moment, and they aren't consistent.
And this is one of the reasons why there is less trust in the Fed, not simply from the White House, that's pretty vocal. But in general, throughout the world. We've had a situation where prior to this period, the Fed has basically led monetary policy and rate movements, and in the past year it's been the opposite. Other nations have led movements that the Fed has followed. So, there's definitely a shift going on in terms of the strength of the Fed, the application of Fed monetary policy and where this debt we were talking about before leaves them because net of a whole lot of QE, we still have increasing rates on the long end of the curve because there's just simply less demand for US debt at this volume.
Mike Maharrey: And that's really kind of the crux of the matter, isn't it? I mean, I think that is really kind of driving the, I won't say desperation, but I mean in some circles, I think the way the markets react, it almost is a desperation for rate cuts is because of all of the debt, don't you think?
Nomi Prins: Well, yes, because if the US Treasury Department are effectively, the government is paying over a trillion dollars in interest rate payments simply to surface the outstanding debt. And much of it has accreted since COVID, but certainly a huge trajectory before that at this higher level, at this sort of higher average level of debt payments. That means before anything happens, before all these squabbles go on in Congress and before we have all these continuing resolutions on the budget, which is high enough as it is, you have to take off the fact that you're paying a trillion dollars just to operate effectively. The White House put electricity through Washington. I mean, because before that you're paying off the servicing of the debt that has been created over the last many years. So, if you look at where the Fed comes into that now, the Fed still has a book of about six point something trillion worth of assets, Treasuries and mortgages, which are sort of linked to those treasuries.
And they haven't been QE recently. They've just reduced their quantitative tightening to basically zero or a decimal point sort of to that, but they have the capacity to continue their QE. But meanwhile, the Treasury Department, again has increased its buybacks and also there's a resolution going on right now on a regulatory basis between the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, which would by January allow banks the major primary banks like JP Morgan Chase, like Goldman Sachs to be able to not count the treasuries that they have on their books as part of their assets. And what that means is even though treasuries are considered tier one and liquid and low risk, they're still considered assets against which they have to reserve capital if they don't get counted as assets and therefore banks don't have to reserve capital against them. That's effectively a backdoor QE because what that allows the banking system to do is buy more treasuries, which is what the Treasury Department wants them to do again, because other countries aren't, but be able to pledge those back to the Fed through their basically repo facilities in return for cash without an asset hit, without a reserve hit to their own balance sheet.
So there's all these sort of these QE mechanisms that have been and are in the process of being fabricated in order to do something with the record Treasury debt and less buyers to be interested in it before the Fed might step in with official QE if there were a banking crisis or something where it could not lose aura by increase in QE again.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, I remember back in 20 18, 20 19 when we had the, they were trying to kind of tighten after the great recession and the stock market crashed in October of 2018, and there was a lot of shakiness in the economy, and you did, you got that kind of stealthy qe and they swore up and down, this is not qe, they don't want to use those words, but you're absolutely right. That's kind of the mechanism that they're using and they almost have to, I don't think people realize the extent of what those interest payments are. If you look at the spending categories, the interest expense is now number two. Social security is the only thing, bigger national defense, smaller Medicare, smaller. So it's really staggering how quickly and how much that interest expense has gone up,
Nomi Prins: And that's why they're trying to find ways around the Fed. And you're right. Before COVID really, there was all sorts of stealth QE going on from the Fed as you pointed out. And I think COVID actually saved the Fed's ability to really double down on QE in the wake of what they're already trying to do. And now of course, we have all these other mechanisms that are coming into play because the debt payments are such a high cost to the government.
Mike Maharrey: I'm glad you said that because I've said that before as well, and people have kind of looked at me cross odd when I say that. I think that the COVID in some ways kind of bailed the Fed out from a developing crisis that allowed them to double down on QE with no questions asked because we had the crisis. As we look at this, how do you think this is going to impact the precious metals markets going forward? I do think that we're on somewhat of an easing trajectory. I know Powell's, he's kind of tried to bookend it and make it like, oh, this is, what do you call it, risk management, but I think we are on kind of a lower interest rate trajectory as far as the Fed concerns. How do you see this impacting the precious metals markets?
Nomi Prins: Yeah, I agree with you. Whatever he calls it, again, his own data would indicate they would do more rate cuts than they have done, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. And so I agree, and plus he's not even going to be in that seat come May of 2026 and whoever is going to be there will be far more lenient with monetary policy. So we are in the onset of a renewed easing cycle as well as a new sort of QE cycle net of the Fed right now. But that could also somehow morph the Fed if you have a different kind of leadership there, which we will have come next year. So how does that impact precious mouth? Well, we've seen how it's impacted. Gold has outperformed, and silver has the SP 500, the s and p 500 has outperformed the medium to long end of the yield curve of bonds.
Nomi Prins: So what hasn't happened yet and why I think there's so much more upside? Well, there's so many reasons. I think there's more upside to precious metals, but the latest reason I have, and then I'll go back into the other reasons we just put out a piece on this, but is that the fact that there's less interest in Treasury bonds, even if we throw in these extra Q measures we discussed, there's still a push pull. There's still uncertainty around how that's going to ultimately go down with less foreign buying of treasuries in the long end. We still don't really know. We just know there's measures being adopted. We don't know how that's going to work out. But we do know that currently trillions of dollars of portfolios, of retirement funds, of investor portfolios, of institutional portfolios are allocated 30 to 40% minimum to bonds. Some of those are high grade corporate bonds, some of those are Treasury bonds.
Nomi Prins: And so, if we get to the point, we're starting to see this in gold ETFs, where over the last quarter, last half of the year and then the beginning of this quarter, we've had an increase of 44% of the inflows to gold ETFs. Physical gold backed ETFs come from Western buyers. This is very different from coming from Eastern buyers. They have been on the gold program longer because their central banks have been on it in the last few years intensively because they require their state banks and their private banks, and they push that down to the retail sector more quickly than on the western side. What's been happening really interestingly this year is that Western investors are starting to move more into gold. ETFs are the first place to go. If you're in a retirement fund, you're not going to go and try to figure out a vault and try to figure out certificates. You're going to let some sort of manager do that. And that's what we're seeing in more volume. And that's been one of the reasons why, particularly since April, there has been this, after a little bit of a pause and gold depreciation, there's been this sort of acceleration in gold depreciation. And we saw that also with the ray cut and being in this next easing cycle. So, we have this rotation aspect of this lack of trust in treasuries and this lack of certainty around where treasuries are going to go. That's absolutely infiltrating the gold market in a way that other factors have already paid the groundwork. Other factors like four years of buying basically into the fourth year and et cetera, buying gold, and they're not going to give it back in return for treasuries at $37 trillion. That's not going to happen unless there's a thousand percent peace the world.
There's no geopolitical skirmishes, there's no trade wars unless, and if that happens, this is the idea of central banks buying gold and using gold to deleverage from US policy. And the dollar and western policy is going to continue as will the retail investors institutional and so forth, continue to follow it. But now you have the western investors coming in force. You have money managers of high wealth individuals like Morgan Stanley, like Goldman Sachs, even of retail from Bank of America to saying that gold prices are going to appreciate. They don't do that just to give out free information. They do that because they see the trend and they are moving their customers into the trend. That's what's happening. So you get more demand for gold coming in from this entire other sector. So, this is all a reason why I see gold prices continuing to increase.
Now again, not just because of the Fed, but also because of this influx of rotational assets. I mean, if you can just imagine, I'm not saying this will happen, but if you had, for example, half of the Treasury portfolios in the United States that were held at pensions that were held with individuals and so forth, go into some form of gold, which pensions can't because there's issues of quality, et cetera. But even if half a portion of that went into gold, you would see a major influx into an asset that doesn't necessarily have enough supply above the ground to meet that influx of demand. So all of this is why gold continues to appreciate why I think it's going to appreciate. We had a forecast of $4,000 by the turn of the year and ended 25, beginning of 2026. We just raised it in the wake of the Fed cut, not again because of the cut, but because of all these other factors that are accelerating into everything else that's going on to 4,500, whether we get to $4,500 by first quarter of 2026 or not, I'm not entirely sure, but we're moving in that direction, we're trending in that direction.
And then from there, it's $5,000, $5,500 by the end of the year, turn of 2027 and so forth. We've seen silver wake up. Silver's add at sort of interim highs, but silver has a dual use value in terms of monetary and potential monetary value. But for central banks, monetary value in general for wealth and safe havenness and all of that. And we've seen that pop and we still have an incredible industrial need for silver, for changing grids, for increasing infrastructure development and so forth around the world, and that's not going to stop. So if you look at what's actually happening, there is no way not to be bullish and significantly bullish about the precious metal space and in commodities in general, but certainly in precious metals that have so many diverse factors pushing 'em upward.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah. You mentioned silver and a Facebook post, you called it a monetary hedge with a long industrial shadow, which I think is a really good descriptor. Can you kind of elaborate on that? Because a lot of people I've talked to recently, and actually people have flat out told me, silver's no longer a monetary metal, it's just industrial. Can you speak a little bit to that kind of lingering monetary, monetary use that's out there?
Nomi Prins: Well, things change is the point. Silver has been a historic monetary asset in the past, and if you look at the Great Depression era, India, the Central Bank of India, which wasn't a huge player back then, but certainly in terms of global trade, had a significant silver position at their central bank. The Bank of England had a silver position. What we have right now is that silver isn't included as a tier one asset for reserves in a central bank pledge by the private banks in the financial sector. So today, silver is not necessarily allowable as a tier one asset from a monetary perspective. But when you look at all the other factors driving silver, putting the industrial one aside, because the industrial aspect to silver is I think obvious in terms of any infrastructure development basically requires silver. There's just simply not enough to meet the demand.
Even if we have economic recessions along the way, that will continue to be the case over the long term because a recession would mean you're not digging as much, not digging as much means you don't have as much supply. It means when you start to pick up again, you're still behind. So if you have any sort of a view that's more than 10 minutes, that remains part of the industrial use value. But also things can change. So from a monetary value, for example, if a central bank, and they are still buying gold at these levels, China's not stopped buying gold just because it's a $3,700, they won't stop at $4,000, they won't stop at $4,500, but they can buy silver into those gold positions. And the silver to gold ratio makes that attractive until and if there is a push for silver as a tier one asset, I believe these conversations are happening right now that it can be pushed as a tier one asset.
Again, obviously high quality obviously with all the ramifications that you would have for where you find that silver and how it's pledged and all of that. So that's why I consider it to still be part of the monetary anchor that gold is specifically in the center of. But that can come into play. I mean, let's not forget just less than 10 years ago, about 10 years ago, the Chinese yuan, for example, was not part of the I-M-S-S-D-R basket, and now it is recently gold overstep the Euro as the second most active reserve currency in central bank global reserves. Things change and the accumulation of silver at these levels and at higher levels and its historic value as the monetary asset, I think will push that change.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, I absolutely agree with you on that. I'm going to get you out on one more. In a recent interview earlier this month, you talked about entering into a financial crossroads, and that had to do with kind of the commodity aspect. Can you elaborate on that a little bit for this audience?
Nomi Prins: Yeah, I think that where we're at right now is an absolute divorce. I called it a permanent distortion, the divorce of the real economy from the financial economy, from the markets in my 2022 book. But what we have now is an actual movement towards the acknowledgement that commodities are important for literally everything, not simply as investments, not as the monetary assets we were talking about, not just as geopolitical drivers, but all of these things together. And there simply aren't enough of them above the ground to be able to fuel the growth in strategies of infrastructure, of defense, of energy around the world. And you can't print any of these. You cannot print silver or gold or copper or uranium or lithium or tungsten or any of these things. And this is one of the reasons, and this particular White House has moved this line more forward.
I mean, the last one actually moved it forward and the first Trump one did as well. But we've been in this evolution of moving towards labeling materials as critical. We don't label fiat money as critical. In fact, if we did, we wouldn't have $37 trillion worth of debt. It would actually have some meaning. But because you can't just fabricate any of these other commodities, and they're strategically critical and labeled as such, they have much more upside value in the entire evolution of how the world and how global superpowers are going to act within it, how allies are going to distribute themselves around them, and where trade agreements are going to happen and where countries that have access to their own commodity bases are going to start to step up in the high tariffs. That's going to impact trade, that's going to impact how the financial systems ultimately look because they won't simply be based in dollars.
They're already being moved away from dollars and trade agreements are being penned in other currencies. And as we move more and more digitally, then the platforms that are being developed to enable digital settlements outside of the Swift settlement payment system and so forth, are going to enable all this to happen more quickly and more flexibly across other countries. And then what will they have to substantiate themselves? They're going to have real assets or real assets being structured into real infrastructure, real defense, real energy sources, and that's how the world is going to look. You throw AI into that and all of the needs for all of those materials just as amplifies by our general civilization use of AI and the data behind it. So everything moves from finance to physical right now.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, yeah. It's almost like it's come full circle because I feel like we kind of went through this financialization of the economy, and obviously that's broken no matter how you look at it. I think no matter what your political persuasion is, you can kind of look at the financial system and go, eh, this isn't good, but maybe this will be a positive change in the long run. But it could also, I think, be a painful transition as well.
Nomi Prins: So, that's right. We could see the aggregation of supply of commodities across the world create some more geopolitical tension. We're actually seeing that with uranium and with the agreement that the US and UK effectively just signed for enriched uranium and to fast track processing and capabilities and plants along the nuclear supply chain really in retaliation to what's happened with respect to Russia and to Kazakhstan, which is effectively part of Russia in terms of where uranium comes from. So we're already seeing a kind of retracement of where countries need to be from an agreement standpoint and around what assets they need to agree upon in order to keep and retain power, energy, and defense in the future. We're going to see that on a scale across I think, nations of other sizes as well, and that could create more geopolitical turmoil. On the other hand, it also moves us away from this idea that simply creating money is a way to retain power, because at the end of the day, for example, the US could create an unlimited really amount of debt if it can figure out ways to either pay it off or have it proportioned out internally or buy some other method, but it can't create the commodities that it needs to protect itself.
And there's many, many examples of that, and that could be longer conversation, but that's the reality. And so we're going to see a lot of changes as we become more commodity centric from fiat currency centric.
Mike Maharrey: Yeah, you made a great point. I think you put it perfectly when you said you can't print a commodity, right? You can't print gold, you can't print silver, you can't print uranium or copper or any of those types of things. We're talking about a real economy. So maybe, like I said, maybe that'll be good that people will become aware that the economy's not just these pieces of paper floating around out there. My stepdaughter is very fond of saying, ‘What a time to be alive.’ And that is certainly true now, and there's so many things that are changing so quickly you can help folks keep up with that. So, before I let you go, I do want you to let folks know where they can find you and all of the resources that you have to offer.
Nomi Prins: Yeah, I mean, best place to find us up to the date, me up to the date, and my team is at our Substack, which is https://prinsights.substack.com/. We talk a lot about gold, a lot about silver. I'm very excited about a piece I just finished on nuclear energy and uranium, and we also have products that provide investors with recommendations in the mid cap area, as well as a small and emerging cap market area in commodities and in related companies at that Substack as well.
Mike Maharrey: Yep. Check that out folks. Nomi is a fantastic resource, and as you've just heard, she has a, I love the way you put things into kind of a broader geopolitical context. I think a lot of people, especially here in the United States, were so myopic sometimes that we miss some of this bigger picture stuff that's really, really important. As you mentioned, the foreign kind of spurning of treasuries. I mean, that's huge. And I don't think a lot of people pay as much attention to that kind of stuff as they should, and you provide that context. So I highly encourage folks to follow your work, and I thank you for taking time out of your day to be on the show with me.
Nomi Prins: Thank you so much.
</div>
Nomi really is great guest and it was terrific to have her back on and I hope you enjoyed that interview as I did.
Well, that will do it for this week. Be sure to check back next Friday for our next Weekly Market Wrap Podcast. And don’t miss our second weekly podcast, the Money Metals Midweek Memo, which airs each Wednesday.
To check out any of our audio programs just visit <a href="https://www.moneymetals.com/podcasts">MoneyMetals.com/podcasts</a> or find them on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts or on other popular podcast platforms. And as a big help to us we would ask you to please like, subscribe, download and rate our podcasts. Doing so helps us extend the reach of this material.
Until next time, this has been Mike Gleason with <a href="https://www.moneymetals.com/">Money Metals Exchange</a>, thanks for listening and have a wonderful weekend everybody.

Read The Original Article