Bitcoin REFUSES To Crash - Even Peter Schiff Admits He’s Surprised

Peter Schiff (0:00)

Suffering from dry, tired, irritated eyes? Don't let dry eyes win.

SPEAKER_2 (0:04)

Use Sustain Pro. It hydrates, restores, and protects dry eyes for up to 12 hours.

Scott Melker (0:09)

Sustain Pro.

SPEAKER_2 (0:10)

Triple action, dry eye relief.

Scott Melker (0:12)

What if America isn't heading toward a debt crisis? What if we're already in one, and most people just haven't realized it yet? Today, I'm talking with Peter Schiff about why he believes the bond market is already broken.

Peter Schiff (0:24)

Bonds sell off no matter what now. Good news, bonds go down. Bad news, bonds go down. That's because bonds are in a bear market. We're six years into this bear market. The bull market lasted 40 years. So this one could last at least half that long.

Scott Melker (0:37)

Interest rates could move dramatically higher.

Peter Schiff (0:38)

We have a 40-plus-trillion-dollar national debt. Right now, they're looking at 5% interest rates. But in a couple years, they can easily be 8% or higher.

Scott Melker (0:48)

And America may be approaching a debt spiral that even an AI-driven economic boom can't solve.

Peter Schiff (0:54)

We're already broke. We blew our money before anybody even knew about AI. We're coming to a situation where AI requires this massive capital investment, and we don't have the money.

Scott Melker (1:05)

We also get into inflation, the Fed, gold, dollar, housing, and of course, Bitcoin, which Peter admits has held up far better than he expected. So what breaks next, and how should investors prepare?

Let's go.

Today's video is sponsored by 21 shares. A few years ago, getting crypto exposure meant exchanges, wallets, and seed phrases. Today, it can be as simple as logging into the brokerage account you already have. That shift didn't happen on its own. 21 shares launched the first crypto ETP in basket form back in 2018, before crypto ETFs were even on the table in the United States. And they've operated through every market cycle since. Now they run over 70 exchange-traded products globally, accessible through many brokerage accounts. Their research is used by asset managers, private banks, and hedge funds, and it's all free on their site, numerous posts a month, including a monthly flows report. Follow at 21 shares and at 21 shares underscore US on X for crypto education and market commentary. Not financial advice, investing carries risk, products might not be available depending on where you are. Talk to a financial advisor. So I don't generally pander in conspiracy theory, but I want to ask you a question about job numbers, inflation, and the Fed, because it seems that the numbers they need conveniently appear anytime they need them.

Last week, we had a soft inflation print right after the Fed hiked, putting less pressure on the Fed arguably to hike again. But if you look under the hood, they actually recalculated how they do PCE, which is something they've done in the past. And of course, we had soft job numbers come in way below expectations. And of course, those expectations are set by somebody. And they revised down the last three months as they tend to do when nobody's looking. So my first question is, how do we trust the data that the Fed is using? And is the Fed actually using that data?

Peter Schiff (3:20)

Well, first of all, you can't trust anything that you get from the government. I mean, that should be obvious. The government is not exactly a neutral party here. You know, it would be like having our children grade our own report card, their own report cards, and then trusting their grades, right? So you always got to take the numbers with a grain of salt. Especially the jobs numbers, because whatever they are, they always revise them down. And that obviously isn't random, because if it was a random era, half the revisions would be up and half the revisions would be down. But I'd say at least 80% of the revisions, if not more, are down. So clearly, there's some flaw in the way the numbers are calculated, so that the initial number, which everybody pays attention to, is always higher than it ultimately ends up being. That's probably baked into whatever methodology they use. And the same cooking of the books happens with inflation. The CPI has been changed so much over the years, over the decades, that it no longer has any relationship to the CPI of the past, and it probably has very little relationship to actual consumer prices. It's some sanitized version of consumer prices where they rise a lot less than they actually are.

Now, whether the Fed understands that these numbers are just publicity stunts and ignores them, I don't know. You know, because I don't trust the Fed either.