Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: I'm Ash Shinra Clanti and you're watching New Order broadcasting worldwide on RT International, including to an audience of nearly one and a half billion on RT India. We examine how global power is being rewritten and how India and its partners are shaping what comes next as Trump Netanyahu wars impact Billions.
While millions have been displaced from ongoing UK US EU armed genocide in Ghana, Gaza this week, the lives of billions hang on Trump's reaction to losing his war in Iran. Food, energy, medical equipment, tech hang in the balance after Trump restarted massive bombing here in West Asia, including Indian invested Chabahar port in Iran. This while Trump threatened water supplies and claimed the Strait of Hormuz is American. Though he had to abort plans for a 20% cargo tax, few believed the tax would work. More might believe Trump posts as NETanyahu arrives in D.C. with more orders. Meanwhile, India, whose nationals were killed in Iranian attacks on UAE vessels, has been looking to the old order. This week saw an India UK trade agreement come into force, which a politically chaotic Britain claims is part of a strategy to prevent good relations between India and Russia. As for any India USA trade deal, India is resisting US Pressure to accept GMO food to get a deal as Delhi negotiates under threat of U.S. economic sanctions. But another chapter in the story of a changing global order has just played out in Hyderabad. Meanwhile, the southern Indian city this week hosted BRICS labor ministers. Its purpose was to forge a revolution in development models for the working classes of BRICs.
It's one of the final ministerial meetings before September's BRICS leaders summit under India's presidency. As New Delhi continues de facto shaping the bloc's agenda on everything from trade to technology and development, attention now turns to how that vision translates into concrete outcomes in the months ahead.
At the end of the show, we'll be joined by New Orders Zahra Khan, to answer questions from you, the viewers. But now I'm joined by my next guest, who has spent decades arguing that America's greatest economic threat isn't coming from Beijing or Moscow, but from Washington itself. Whether it's inflation, debt, central banking, or the future of the dollar, he's really shied away from challenging conventional economic thinking. Joining me from Connecticut now is the host of the Peter Schiff show podcast, Peter Schiff. Peter Schiff, thanks so much for coming on New Order. Before I get onto the big MA macroeconomic development of our age, I gotta ask you about one tweet you made of a seemed like an email that suggested that people can get you off the top cable station in the United States, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News. I mean, what does it mean for the First Amendment? Just describe what it's about.
[00:02:55] Speaker B: Well, you know, I was on Fox and Friends on fox news on December 6th last year.
And, you know, I criticized the president's inflation policies.
I pointed out that prices were still rising.
And he took exception to that criticism. And he immediately took to truth social, saying, I was a jerk, I was a loser, I was just a Trump banker.
[00:03:22] Speaker A: That's all freedom.
[00:03:24] Speaker B: Well, but he then said that I was wrong because according to Trump, prices were falling substantially, which obviously they were not doing.
But then he publicly chastised the booker, said, how could this guy have booked a jerk like Schiff again? Who is this guy?
And so ever since then, I haven't been invited back on Fox Fox News.
[00:03:53] Speaker A: So that's executive power directly to a producer on the coal face of broadcasting.
[00:03:59] Speaker B: Well, yeah, Well, I think. And I submitted a Freedom of Information act request to an agency that I believed was looking into my appearance, which was the case because the communications director from the Federal Housing Finance association emailed a private company to get a clip of the interview that the president posted about.
And so I wanted to see all the other communications that took place.
And after about eight months, the government said that they can't find anything.
[00:04:38] Speaker A: I mean, the relevance to what we're talking about is incredibly serious, obviously, because without your First Amendment, without freedom of speech, we can't really debate issues of the economy and different approaches to the economy.
[00:04:50] Speaker B: And you know, Trump, Trump ran on freedom of speech. That was an issue.
The, the freedom of speech is most important with respect to your freedom to criticize the government. That's where it's most important.
And I think the Trump administration acted to limit my ability to speak freely on Fox News by either intimidating them or just asking for a favor. But I believe, and the, I believe the evidence is either being covered up or was Destro destroyed by the Trump administration that they actively got me banned because they didn't want the Fox News audience to hear my criticism. Yeah.
[00:05:33] Speaker A: And it's generally water.
I don't know how they're covering what's the economic impact of his catastrophic war here in West Asia? Because certainly Fox News covers it in a very different way. But before we get to oil prices, let's just kick off with gold because clearly our viewers in India, the largest owner of gold in the world, not sovereign government gold, but individual gold.
Your response to how it's. I know you're going to say it's way Higher than it was five years ago. But why it's going down during a war?
[00:06:10] Speaker B: Well, it's higher than it was one year ago. It's over $4,000 an ounce.
[00:06:14] Speaker A: But since February 28th.
[00:06:17] Speaker B: Yeah, well, but between maybe January, December and January, gold went from 3,000 to 5,600. I mean, gold had an incredible run. Part of that was anticipating this war. So the war got priced in before the bonds were dropped. And then we had a correction.
And then we had the Walsh confirmation and press conference where the markets got spooked into believing that Walsh is going to come out hot on inflation like he is Paul Volcker reincarnate.
And that's kind of scared the metals markets. But I think all that's a bunch of talk. I don't think there's been any regime change at the Fed.
It's as real as the regime change in Iran.
And it's business as usual. And they're going to be creating inflation, keeping interest rates artificially low, cranking up the printing press, running up the balance sheet.
So gold's going a lot higher.
And the people in India who have been buying gold are very happy that they bought it, even if they bought a little bit above 5,000.
The average price is a lot lower than that.
So people are doing very well with their gold, much better than in most other investments.
[00:07:34] Speaker A: Many people may understand your remark about interest rates being kept artificially low, but the fact is that Fox News, Trump, the rest of them will be pointing to the CPI figure falling, which means, of course, that there's less pressure to raise interest rates, which means gold goes down further.
What is your explanation for that? I mean, gold fell, I have to say, just to put it in perspective, gold has fallen 25%, roughly $600 for every Indian hello to $900 billion in notional wealth for households and temples, just to show the scale of it in India.
[00:08:17] Speaker B: But you can't talk about the decline without acknowledging the rise that preceded was a big drop. A big rise and then followed by a big drop. But the rise is still bigger than the drop because we're above 4,000.
So gold prices have been performing very well.
Now as far as the recent improvement in the cpi. And now today the ppi, you know, one month is not a trend make. The main reason that you saw a reduction was a 30% drop in oil prices in May.
I mean, in June, well, oil price is already up 20% and it's in July and the month is only half over.
So what we're celebrating has already largely been reversed. But meanwhile, the inflation is not coming from oil prices.
It's coming from the US government and the Fed. It's coming from the big beautiful bill and the massive deficit spending that it created and that the Fed is now monetizing. Money supply is growing, the balance sheet is expanding and the Fed still has interest rates artificially low.
So inflation is being created by design. That is the policy that the government has chosen. That's how we finance our deficit spending with the inflation tax.
[00:09:38] Speaker A: Yeah, but the disturbing implications for any Global south finance ministers that may be following you on X and be subscribing to your perspective, is that not the dollar? I mean, as de dollarization continues afoot in pace in the Global south, one thing one doesn't want to swap the dollar for presumably then is gold. Given the volatility dependent on foreign policy adventures and mass killing by US Empire, doesn't that follow that whatever is going to replace the dollar in BRICS countries, it can't be based on gold? If gold is going to be owned by oligarchs and controlled by oligarchs, no,
[00:10:25] Speaker B: it absolutely can be replaced by gold because it was the dollar that replaced gold. Before we had the dollar as the reserve, everybody, including the United States held gold.
And then when the US Dollar initially became this reserve currency through Bretton Wood, we were on a gold standard. So by holding dollars you held gold.
[00:10:50] Speaker A: But hasn't the nature of gold ownership changed in terms of who controls?
To de dollarize is obviously to get away from being controlled by Kevin Wilson.
[00:11:00] Speaker B: I don't think anybody controls gold.
Where you have control is over fiat currencies that the US Government, the Federal Reserve can create as many dollars as it wants out of thin air. Gold can't be created out of thin air. There is a limit to how much gold exists and can be mined. And so gold is the most honest form of money that we have. And it takes the power away from any one government.
And that's what really de dollarization is about. It's about a remonetization of gold. Because people are not moving from dollars to euros or pounds or yen or R and B.
It's going to gold. And it's really the central banks that are doing this. But I think it will be the general public as well. Investors, private investors are going to be moving out of fiat currency denominated instruments as a means of savings, including sovereign debt. And they're going to be increasingly looking to gold as a better storehouse of value than sovereign debt.
[00:12:08] Speaker A: You don't think the new development bank, the bank of brics, will be looking at this and thinking, was there anyone in the Trump coterie that was shorting gold ahead of this recent echolan?
[00:12:18] Speaker B: Big like, I don't know, there's a lot of things they might have shorted or bought. They have a lot of insider information, but they're not able to manipulate the price of gold. The market is too big for that to happen.
You know, there are other markets that you might be worried about, but the gold market is not one of them.
[00:12:39] Speaker A: And I mean, given the chaos, arguably, I got to ask before the break, just quickly, what was your reaction when you first saw Trump Talking about a 20% cargo tax on the straight of hormone? Was your, your initial reaction? Obviously afterwards we knew it was fake.
[00:12:56] Speaker B: Well, I mean. Well, I don't think it was fake. And that the Trump, Trump did post that, right? It wasn't.
[00:13:01] Speaker A: No. Yeah, he believed it. Yeah.
[00:13:04] Speaker B: Yeah. But I mean that would, you know, that would basically be protection money. But the 20% charge based on the value of the cargo was a much bigger number than just paying the Iranians. I mean, the Iranians just had a flat fee. I forget what, 1 million, $2 million
[00:13:22] Speaker A: to the percentage point.
[00:13:24] Speaker B: Much cheap. Yeah, that's much cheaper than what Trump wanted to charge them. So why would you pay like the US 10 million or 20 million to protect you from the Iranians when the Iranians will protect you for themselves for 1 million or 2 million? So he wasn't going to raise any money with that deal.
But I think it was ridiculous to even propose it because we're the ones that started the war and now we're going to charge people to undo the damage that we did.
[00:13:56] Speaker A: Peter Schiff will continue after the break. Keep watching New Order.
You're watching New Order. Peter Schiff, we were talking about the 20% tax and that was aborted cargo tax in the Strait of Hormuz. I have to ask you that, given that so many models are being discussed now in the global south of economic development, whether you now think that your lifelong antagonism with state planning, strategic objectives plus entrepreneurial energy plus is on show with China's economic success, because obviously the world is looking to. China is the richest country in the world. Now by ppp, does that not change your views about state involvement in running a country as a route to success?
I mean, not in the way that states intervene in so called capitalist countries recently in NATO.
[00:15:04] Speaker B: No, not at all. In fact, China would be wealthier if they had less government.
So the Chinese Government interference in their economy is not the reason that China is doing well.
It's the fact that they've allowed capitalism into the system.
It was when they started moving away from complete central government planning, they allowed elements of a market based economy to enter the Chinese economic system. That's when the growth really started. It's the capitalism that's still operating or that is now operating in China.
And the problem in America is that we've lost too much of our capitalism. So we started with a lot more capitalism and now we have a lot less.
And China started with no capitalism and now they have a lot more.
And so the pendulum has been swinging the right way in China and the wrong way here. And so that is why the Chinese are gaining or have gained and continue to gain on the United States. Now if we abandon a lot of our socialist programs, our regulations and our taxes and government spending, then we could shoot past China. But the problem is we're going all in on these socialist programs and China's not. So in many respects there's more capitalism in China than there is in the United States. That is the reason for the Chinese success.
[00:16:40] Speaker A: Well, that's the big debate, of course, and it'll be the debate at the BRICS summit about whether that's the route. And obviously China themselves would acknowledge that freeing up the markets has also helped get 800 million people out of poverty since 1986. But then so is Russia a kind of template de dollarized lowest debt to GDP ratio in the G20 and it has two and a half times India's sovereign gold holdings.
Is Russia playing it well?
[00:17:13] Speaker B: Well, you know, I think we basically boxed Russia into a corner too because of the sanctions and kind of forced their hand to de dollarize. But I do think that other nations will look at the Russia example and follow it, especially since they want to be preemptive in curtailing the U.S. ability to sanction them.
Because when we impose the sanctions on Russia because we disagreed with something that Russia did and not that I'm saying that there wasn't a lot of to disagree with. I'm not justifying what Russia did. I'm just saying that we proved that if you have assets in dollars, you're not really safe because the United States has the ability to punish you with sanctions in its sole discretion.
And that's not a position that I think a lot of nations want to be in, especially if we've shown some type of hostility to you and talked about you as if you're some kind of enemy.
So we created that political reason to want to get out of dollars on top of the economic reasons that already existed, which is that the dollars are going to lose value because we've borrowed so many, we're going to have to print so many. And because we're going to have to print so many, then it's not going to buy very much. So there's no reason to hold on to dollars if the purchasing power is going to, you know, be lost over time.
So there's economic and political reasons to de dollarize and you know, Russia's kind of, you know, showing an example of how to do it. And other nations can follow suit and own gold. And the nations that began moving their dollars into gold a couple of years ago are far better off. I mean, look where gold is compared to worldwide.
[00:19:07] Speaker A: Having said that, it didn't work out for Maduro that well, he's in a New York courtroom next week. Mark Carney, when he was running the bank of England. I think Mark Carney runs some other country north of the United States now.
They stole the gold from the Venezuelan people.
[00:19:24] Speaker B: Yeah, well, the British and the Canadians were dumb enough to sell their gold years ago.
You know, I mean it was the brown bottom in 2000 when they sold gold at under $300 an ounce. England got rid of all of its gold. It's more than 10 times higher.
[00:19:40] Speaker A: I remember they warned the market ahead of that. Okay, but so if you were to advise people in Delhi organizing the BRICS leaders summit which is centered. I mean, obviously de dollarization is a major factor in the discussions, what would you be saying is one concrete example that the BRICS countries should be looking to.
Most importantly, rather than the. I mean some have criticized it for being vague with multipolarity and so many different remarks about the need for a new order.
What concrete strategy would you advise?
[00:20:17] Speaker B: Well, look, I think the BRIC nations would be better off minimizing their exposure to the US to the US Market, to the US Consumer because they've been vendor financing the US Economy and ultimately this is going to come back to bite them. So to the extent that they can trade more amongst themselves without having to subsidize US Trade deficits, without having to accumulate US Dollars, they're in a better position and I think they pretty much could figure this out.
[00:20:55] Speaker A: Although a lot of people are educated at American business schools that go into the global south and presumably won't realize what you're saying. Or is there a soft power against that strategy that works against global south countries?
[00:21:09] Speaker B: There's A tendency to support the status quo because of some disruptions that might surround a change. I mean, there are interests that make money off of the relationship with the United States.
And so those interests would be harmed to the extent that there was a big drop in the dollar and trade contracted with the U.S. but of course, others would benefit dramatically from that change, especially the people who live and work in those BRIC nations, because they would see a big increase in their domestic purchasing power, and so more of what they produce they would get to consume, and that would improve their lives.
Allowing Americans to enjoy the fruits of their labor does not improve their lives.
[00:22:06] Speaker A: And how would you expect the reaction to be if they do make that kind of decision? In a final communique, Kevin Walsh, TRUMP I mean, I don't know whether Walsh will still be there.
What do you think the kind of reaction, I mean, apart from violence, which is usually the American threats against Global south nations, how will they react?
[00:22:26] Speaker B: I don't know that we would frame. They would frame it in such a way to actually say, hey, our policy is to screw the United States.
But I think they want to move in that direction. And Trump has really antagonized a lot of our trading partners by accusing them of taking advantage of us and ripping us off.
And so in a way, they can cooperate and stop ripping us off and stop taking advantage of us by stop providing us with all those goods and loaning us so much money.
Because that's exactly what Trump claims that he wants. He wants smaller trade deficits. Okay, well, the way to get smaller trade deficits is not to export to the United States. And the way you reduce exports to the United States is have a weaker dollar so that products are more expensive for Americans and they can't afford to buy them. And at the same time, those products become cheaper for your own citizens who now can afford to buy them.
So, you know, doing what's right for the BRIC nations would actually give Trump what he claims he wants. Now, there's an old expression, be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
Because Trump is not going to be happy if he gets what he wishes for.
And foreigners stop taking advantage of us, because the reality is we're taking advantage of them. And they've been allowing that.
And when they stop allowing that and we can no longer rip them off by giving them our paper for their stuff, they're the primary beneficiaries. They win, and our ride on the global gravy train is over.
[00:24:04] Speaker A: Peter Schiff, thank you.
[00:24:06] Speaker B: Thanks for having me. On Anytime.
[00:24:13] Speaker A: And now, questions from you, the viewers. Zahra Khan to deliver the questions themselves. Great interview with Peter Schiff.
[00:24:19] Speaker C: But more importantly, a big win for me because you gave a shout out to my hometown Hyderabad at the beginning of the show.
[00:24:25] Speaker A: That's why we put the Labour ministers BRICS meeting.
[00:24:27] Speaker C: It had to be mentioned. But here are some questions from our audience.
First of all, Yoongi Kumar, who seems to have taken umbrage with what you said about the quad because they've asked, does the fact that Modi went to Australia mean that your theory about the quad isn't proving true?
[00:24:41] Speaker A: It's a bit sarcastic, isn't it? My theory about the quad? No. We like criticism all the time. I think I am wrong. I mean, why did Modi go directly to Australia after I said the quad was dead? The real test of the quad is arguably, are there going to be US bases in India?
[00:24:57] Speaker C: No.
[00:24:58] Speaker A: Are there gonna be India treaty obligations?
No. With Australia.
And are there gonna be sanctions on Russia as part of the quad system? I don't think so, let alone joining NATO's war on China. So I think there are dangers, but I think India gets the most because it gets Australia's uranium. That was what Modi was signing important deals with with Australia on this latest trip.
[00:25:22] Speaker C: Okay. And Mats, Eva has asked, is Russia becoming China's junior partner?
[00:25:28] Speaker A: This is a favorite trope of the NATO nation media that is starting to get repeated in the global south.
How can Russia be the junior partner if Russia is the nuclear superpower of the world? More nuclear weapons than the United States. It's now the most powerful economy in the whole of Europe because of the sanctions. I mean, albeit Western European countries have enabled Russia to become this superpower economically. So it's ahead of Germany. And come to think of it, the IMF had to reclassify, classify Russia as high income just in the past few years. So given Russia has gas, oil, coal, uranium enrichment, Arctic routes, Russia and China, perfect synergy there. And perfect synergy hopefully with all the other brics plus countries to create a true multipolar world.
[00:26:20] Speaker C: And speaking of multipolarity, Shad Williams has asked, when will Russia and China confront the US at sea?
[00:26:27] Speaker A: I don't think we want any confrontation on the sea, do we? We got quite enough thanks to the Epstein War. But it has to be said, Russia and China actually are already conducting joint warship exercises, live fire drills, Pacific patrols, confrontation, one expects between Russia and Chinese vessels on the sea with the United States, should there be any intervention in Taiwan and of India works with Russia through the Indra, which actually is just Indra, meaning Russia.
Russia and India very close militarily in any case. But I hope we don't want any confrontation. I hope we just want a peaceful, multipolar world, don't we?
If Mr. Trump allows it.
[00:27:11] Speaker C: Indra also, famously, is an Indian God. I think it's a reference to that as well. But I'm stealing a dialogue of yours. This is a wrap. We'll see you again next week.
[00:27:19] Speaker A: Sure. Khan, thank you. And ask your questions to have them answered by following us on on Exit New Order underscore. We'll be back next Sunday, tracking how global power is being reshaped in real time and what it means for India's position in this new order.
