Peter Schiff: Trump’s Election is Assured

In this extra long episode, Peter covers a lot of ground. Starting with the assassination attempt on Donald Trump’s life and the country’s reaction to it, Peter also discusses his hopes for Trump’s increasingly likely second term. He then pivots to Jerome Powell’s remarks from this past week, offers criticism of a recent Supreme Court decision, and wraps with quick coverage of new inflation figures and last week’s price action for mining stocks and Bitcoin.

Peter expresses what seems to be a common sentiment about the failed assassination attempt. Between it and President Biden’s awful debate performance, Trump’s victory in November seems quite likely:

“The one good thing that might have come out of this attempt on Donald Trump’s life is, I think, this assures that he’s going to win. If he wasn’t going to win before, he’s certainly going to win now. Just that photograph— that iconic photograph of President Trump with a bloody ear, with his fist raised high in the air, with the American flag waving in the background— could be one of the most famous photographs, and I think that image alone is enough to get a lot of people to vote for Donald Trump.”

The fact that an assassin targeted Trump is not surprising, given the left’s rhetoric since his victory in 2016:

“One thing that we shouldn’t be surprised at is that somebody did try to kill Donald Trump. After all, the way the media has been vilifying him— “He’s not only a threat to democracy: he’s going to end democracy, but he’s another Adolf Hitler.” This is how the left describes Donald Trump. If Donald Trump really is an Adolf Hitler well, sure, someone’s going to want to assassinate him. Wouldn’t you assassinate Adolf Hitler?” 

Given that Trump’s victory is closer than ever, Peter has high hopes for a responsible federal fiscal policy in 2025:

“I may not agree with everything Trump does, and sure, I would have preferred it had he dramatically cut government spending or even cut government spending at all, because he didn’t do that. He increased government spending, but of course government spending would have increased even more had Clinton been elected. … I was disappointed that the president didn’t do anything to reduce government spending, and I hope that in his second term he actually does reduce government spending. I hope he does that. I know that if Biden were reelected, there’d be no hope at all that that would happen!” 

Turning to Jerome Powell’s remarks to Congress last week, Peter laments the fact that Powell consistently turns down the opportunity to advise Congress on inflation-reducing fiscal policy. Anytime Powell is asked a question regarding federal fiscal policy, 

“He says, ‘Well, I can’t answer that. I’m not allowed to talk about that. I can’t talk about fiscal policy because it’s not my job. I wasn’t elected. I want to stay in my lane.’ What do you mean it’s not his job? Of course it’s his job! His job is to educate congress so that they understand the consequences of the stuff that they’re doing. … If Powell thinks that a particular piece of legislation is bad—it’s gonna harm the economy— he’s supposed to speak up. He’s not supposed to say, ‘I wasn’t elected, so I can’t talk.’ That’s precisely why he can talk—because he wasn’t elected!”

Peter addresses one specific exchange Powell had with Senator Elizabeth Warren, in which she called for action to address risky banking practices. Warren is right to worry about excessive banking risk, but fails to realize it originates with banking regulation:

“She’s really upset that the banks are taking a lot of risk, that executives are taking a lot of risk and getting big bonuses, and she thinks the government—the Fed—should do something about that. Look, the reason the banks take so much risk is because the government guarantees the deposits. That is the problem! It’s not capitalism. … I agree with [Warren] there, but the reason there’s so much risk-taking is the moral hazard created by the government that she created by backstopping all these banks by telling all the bank customers, ‘You don’t have to worry about your bank failing because we’re gonna bail you out.’”

Peter also takes time to address Moore v. United States, a SCOTUS decision from a few weeks ago, which holds important implications for the possibility of a future wealth tax. Peter harshly criticizes the majority in the decision, pointing out that the decision is not consistent with the American Founders’ vision for federal taxation;

“Why does the federal government not have a property tax? Because they can’t do it. Because it has to apportion it. Well now they may be able to do it, now that the Supreme Court has opened up the door and allowed this obviously unconstitutional tax to stand by broadening the definition of income. … This is a horrible decision— probably one of the worst decisions that the high court has ever handed down.”