In this episode, we sit down with macro strategist Mario Innecco to break down the state of the global economy, the Federal Reserve’s policies, and the bull market in gold. Mario dives deep into the Federal Reserve’s growing influence over markets and how political pressures are shaping monetary decisions in ways we haven’t seen before. We explore the mounting inflation problem, the fragility of debt markets, and why the U.S. dollar’s dominance may be facing unprecedented challenges.
Mario also shares his insights on the gold market and why gold prices continue to break record highs. From interest rate policy and government spending to global de-dollarization trends and policy missteps, this discussion connects the dots between today’s headlines and the underlying forces driving volatility. If you want a deeper understanding of where the economy might be headed — and how investors can prepare — this is an episode you can’t afford to miss.
Follow Monetary Metals on X: @Monetary_Metals
Follow Mario on X: @maneco1964
Additional Resources
Earn a yield on gold, paid in gold
Transcript
Ben Nadelstein:
Welcome back to the Gold Exchange podcast. My name is Ben Nadelstein of Monetary Metals. I am joined by our brand new guest, Mario Innecco. Mario is the host of the Maneco64 YouTube channel. One of the best on YouTube for sure, for all things gold, silver, and Macro. Mario, welcome to the show.
Mario Innecco:
Thank you, Ben. Nice to be on your show.
Ben Nadelstein:
Absolutely. We’ve been dying to have you. Mario, tell our audience who maybe doesn’t know who you are, who you are, where you come from, and how you got interested in gold and silver.
Mario Innecco:
Yeah. Well, I’m in London, but I’m originally from Brazil, where I grew up in the ’70s and ’80s and experienced a lot of inflation. In terms of professional background, I worked in the financial sector in London for over 20 years as a Futures and Options Broker in the government bond market. But in 2002, I bought some Krugerands, mainly to diversify after the dot-com bubble burst. That really got me hooked into gold and then eventually silver. When you buy gold, at least for me, I wanted to know about gold, and I realized that I hadn’t been taught anything about gold at university. I studied economics and international relations, but they never really talk about it. That’s how I got interested, and I went down the rabbit hole. I looked at the Austrian School of Economics, mainly because they’re big proponents of sound money, small government, and free markets, and gold and silver fit right in with those topics. Back in 2015, I decided to start talking about these topics and the markets on YouTube. And yeah, I’ve been posting videos ever since, and it’s grown and grown. And yeah, here I am.
Ben Nadelstein:
So before 2002, obviously, you maybe are not the gold bug that you are today. But what would you have said to that previous Mario to let him know, Hey, there’s maybe something you’re missing. It’s not all about the dot com stocks. It’s not all about government bonds. What was that earlier Mario missing that today’s Mario now understands?
Mario Innecco:
Well, I had no clue really about the nature of money, what it was. I didn’t realize that it was a debt-based system. I mean, even though I was working in the government bond market, I didn’t realize how important government bonds were to backing the currencies. So the other Mario was completely clueless about gold and silver. What I would have told the previous Mario is to… I would tell him about the regression, regression, regression, regression, theory, analysis of the Austrian school, go back in time and into primitive society and see how people used to barter, and then they went a step further and did indirect exchange with a commodity that most people wanted. It could have been conscious, it could have been beads. Eventually, people realized that it was gold and silver. I think that would have been a good way to wake the old Mario up and then maybe explain how the whole free market money of gold and silver and indirect exchange with money that people voluntarily wanted to use, not forced upon by government, how that became corrupted over the centuries. And that’s what I would have tried to explain to the old me.
Ben Nadelstein:
Would he have listened, was old Mario, someone who got a solid education Obviously, you were interested in economics at the time. Were you someone who would have really taken that advice in random with it?
Mario Innecco:
Yeah, I’ve always been contrarian. I’ve always asked a lot of questions, and that’s why I looked into gold and silver after 2002. I just needed a spark, and the spark was holding my first Krugerends and realizing that how special holding a gold coin is because I had never held a gold coin before that. I had my white gold wedding ring from 1993, but that doesn’t really feel as heavy as a gold coin, as special.
Ben Nadelstein:
And now let’s talk about someone who maybe they know a bit about gold. They They see the debt clock, they see the spending, they go, Wow, this seems pretty bad. But then, on the other hand, they say, Oh, there’s always these crisis mongers who say, The debt’s going to explode, and it’s going to hurt our children. And yet, we’re $30 trillion in debt. Maybe we’re $35 trillion in debt, but they still go to the grocery store, and things seem all right. They still run their business. So what would you say to those people who see gold and silver? Yeah, maybe it’s a hedge against the debt, but personally, they think, The debt doesn’t really affect me. Why should these people care?
Mario Innecco:
Well, I think you need to look gold more as an insurance policy and also more long term. Yes, right now, the system doesn’t really… It’s still functioning. You can go to the grocery store, as you said, and buy things. But if you look back 20 years, you need a lot more dollars. I guess if you’re fortunate enough to have a good job and a good profession, you’re still coping. But I think a lot of people in the bottom half of the economic ladder, they’re suffering. That’s mainly because of the debacement of the currency. The Fed, they say they have a 2% target. It’s not set by law or anything, but they try to follow it. But if you use the rule of 72, I think that That’s the rule. It takes 72 divided by 2. It takes 36 years to have the value of the dollar at 2%. So people who save all their lives, especially people at the bottom half, they’re going to be suffering. That’s why you see a lot of people, not just here in the UK, probably in the US, elderly people who should be retired. They’re still working because they can’t afford the cost of living anymore.
But I know it’s difficult for people at the bottom to have gold and silver. But if you start young and you buy as much as you can every so often, it doesn’t have to be all at once, and you keep doing it, and you keep doing it, I think it’s a great thing to have. And hopefully, if you also frugal and try to live within your means. I think the best thing is to have had time to accumulate gold and silver and not have to use it to be able to cope without using it so that maybe you can pass it on to your children and grandchildren. Of course, it can be used as well in an emergency, but it’s always there. Since time immemorial, whenever you have crises, be political or monetary crisis, gold and silver never fail. They’re timeless. So that’s what I would tell people.
Ben Nadelstein:
And what do you think about the fact, obviously, I’m maybe a bit on the younger side. You’re slightly older than me. Maybe a year or two. And what do you think about that? Do you think that people who are around my age, do you think they’re understanding the value of gold and silver? They see inflation. They understand, Hey, it feels like every couple of years we have a crisis. I can’t buy a home. Do you think they’re Do you think that maybe this allure of cryptocurrencies and get rich quick? Do you think that’s maybe overtaken a lot of the younger generation? What do you think about this timeless allure? Do you think that maybe it’s people my age are not going to be interested in gold and silver, or do you think they truly understand Hey, I got to own an asset if there’s going to be inflation like I’m seeing?
Mario Innecco:
Well, I think, yeah, there are young people, I think, who understand it. And nowadays, compared to when I was younger, maybe in the mid ’80s to the mid ’90s. We didn’t have access to all this information. We didn’t really have the Internet yet. I think it’s really encouraging that there are a lot of young people out there who are awake to it. But of course, there’s also a lot of young people who have been ensnared into the crypto bubble, which I think is very similar to bubbles like the South Sea bubble in England in 1720, and also the Mississippi bubble in France around the same time. Why do I say that? Well, because both countries at the time were heavily in debt, and the government was trying to conjure up some scheme to keep that debt going. Does that sound familiar to you?
Ben Nadelstein:
When people hear about crypto, for them, they have this promise of, Oh, whether it’s get-rich-quick, or it’s decentralization, or it’s peer-to-peer network, it’s going to be the new money. People are looking for this promise. And obviously, maybe you’re linking the fact that, Hey, when the country is super in debt, people look for a quick fix and easy money or cheap money. So let me push a hard question at you now. When interest rates are raised, a lot of people complain because they say, Oh, my mortgage rate’s so high, and now my business has this higher hurdle rate, and it’s impossible to get a loan, and the credit card bills. All these bills just get pushed up because the interest rate is a large part of people’s expenses. But on the other hand, when interest rates are low and near zero, people like you and I complain, and we say, Oh, this is cheap money, and they’re trying to inflate away the debt. So is there a perfect interest rate? Is there a certain understanding that people should have that, Hey, we need high interest rates at this point and low interest rates at that point?
What do you say to people who feel like, Well, no matter what the interest rate is, no matter what the debt is, I always get trapped. It’s either bubbles and Bitcoin or it’s I can’t afford a mortgage. What should people think about these different economic times that they have to face?
Mario Innecco:
Yeah, in terms of interest rates, if you look back, and there’s some books that talk about it, historically, the average interest rate has been around 5%. So I would say that’s a pretty reasonable rate. That’s like a government bond rate or like sovereign rate. A mortgage should be around 6, 7, maybe 8. I think the rates that we had from ’08 until like 2020, ’21, which were near zero in the short end of the curve and around 1, 2, 3% in the long end, those are not normal rates. I would say people need to start getting used to higher rates. I still remember the ’70s a bit and the early ’80s, even though I wasn’t an adult, it felt like people didn’t have the ease that people have now of borrowing for everything. And credit cards. The reason that’s happened is because credit was abundant. Rates were really low. Yeah, that’s what I think. I think 5% is pretty normal, and it could go higher and lower, but on average, it’s five. But I have a feeling that we’re going to go a lot higher than five only because the Fed and the other central banks, They kept interest rates artificially low for over 10 years after the ’08 crisis through QE, through increasing their balance sheets to buy all these government bonds.
And now it’s going the other way. So what I would say to people is, and I know it’s easier said than done, is to try to live within your means and try not to… I mean, if you want to have a credit card, have one, but try to avoid it. Try to pay for everything cash. I mean, pay off your debts. That’s what I say. So you won’t care about rates. I know when you’re younger, I guess you do need some more I mean, I had a mortgage once, but yeah, try to pay them off as much as possible, I would say, so you don’t have to be dependent on it.
Ben Nadelstein:
For a lot of our guests, they think, Oh, the Fed, they’re going to drop rates back to zero. This is the only way they can pay the interest expense on the debt, which is now more than the military in the United States. And then we have some guests who say, Oh, no, they’re going to have to raise rates because they’re going to need to try to entice people to buy government bonds. And the only way they will do that is with junk bond rates. So where do you sit in between those two camps? Maybe we both think that rates should remain around 5%, but what do you think in reality is actually going to happen? Do you think we’re going to see lower rates back towards zero, or do you think we’re actually going to have to see higher rates to entice people to buy government bonds?
Mario Innecco:
Well, one thing I didn’t say earlier as well about rates is that I think the market should set rates. Unfortunately, we have central banks and the treasury, they work together, and I think they’re going to start working together again. We’ve heard Kevin Walsh, who’s a top contender to be chairman of the Fed, say that the Fed and the treasury should work together like they used to before 1951. I think that would mean that the Fed would help the Treasury keep rates low, like around two and a half. Because I don’t think the Treasury can afford rates much higher than 5%. Even Scott Besson, the Secretary of the Treasury, said that a few months ago, that 5% is his line in descent for the 10-year no yield. I think they’re going to do some yield curve control. I think during World War II, they didn’t allow the 10-year yield to go above 2. 5%. It was only after 1951 that they stopped that cooperation between the Fed and the Treasury. I think we’re going back to that because Trump went to lower rates. I heard or saw a comment by Besson yesterday saying that these high rates, especially mortgage rates, are blocking the mortgage market.
I think he wants more affordable housing. But I think the main beneficiary of such a policy of yield curve control would be hard assets, especially gold and silver, because it’s basically financial repression because prices are going to be rising a lot more than two and a half % or two %. So you’re going to have to park your savings somewhere where you can protect against that, and it won’t be in treasuries.
Ben Nadelstein:
Do you think this idea that the Fed is independent from the government? So the treasury and the Fed, they’re two separate things. First of all, do you think that really matters? Because on one hand, the Fed is supposed to be independent. They’re supposed to make their own decisions. They’re not supposed to be swayed by politics. Yet, on the other hand, there’s clearly a political nature to the Fed. They have a political or quasi-political mandate. So do you think that that is an overrated independence, and that maybe voters would prefer to have the Federal Reserve not be independent? They could vote just like they vote on who should be on the Supreme Court through their elected officials. Do you think we should end Fed independence, or do you think it’s actually important?
Mario Innecco:
No, I don’t think it’s important because the Fed has done a really bad job of maintaining the purchasing power of the dollar since it was created. The other thing, when push comes to shove, when there’s a huge crisis, the Fed steps in and helps the government. So, yeah, you might as well, if you’re going to have a central bank, let the people run it. And, yeah, not that I’m for central banks. I think the best thing would be to abolish the Federal Reserve Act and go back to sound money. The Constitution still says that what money should be, gold and silver, and abolish all legal tender laws. Did you know that prior to the Civil War, you could use any gold coin or silver coin from any country in the US because there were no legal tender laws. I think Spanish silver dollars were still used just before the Civil War. It was only, I think, in 1862, they passed the legal tender law during the Civil War. That’s how I see things. But yeah, I don’t think independence is just… Yeah, it’s not really… It doesn’t make any difference to the Fed. It doesn’t make any difference to how well the Fed does, I think, because why are 12 people, or I don’t know how many people they have on the FOMC, why do they know better than senators or people in the cabinet where the interest rate should be or as people in the treasury, if you’re going to have a centralized system, might as well let it be run by the public.
If you’re in the Republic, the public should have a say.
Ben Nadelstein:
Who do you think is most likely to get the nod for that next position if Jerome Powell is to either get fired or to leave his spot? Obviously, we just had Judy Shelton on our podcast. I think she’s great. She’s interested in sound money, maybe some potential ways to have a gold-backed security, which could potentially lead people more towards some sound financing. Who do you think is likely to get the nod? And who would you like to see get the nod for the Fed chair?
Mario Innecco:
I’ve had Judy Shelton on as well, and I read her book. It’s the right step, maybe issuing some gold-back bond, but I don’t think it goes far enough. But in terms of who I think will get the nod, I it could be Kevin Walsh or even Scott Bessent. There’s been speculation, I think, on Bloomberg. They wrote an article saying that he could become the Fed chairman. So I think those two, maybe Judy Shelton. Yeah, those would be the main candidates. Kevin Warsh, he seems to be on board with Trump because he says that the Fed should cut rates, and he’s talking about more cooperation between the Fed and the Treasury. So I think, yeah, I’ll go with Kevin Warsh.
Ben Nadelstein:
And do you think Is it what you’re looking for for the next four years or so that people should be preparing for more inflation because they think, Hey, if interest rates fall, that could potentially lead to higher inflation or financial repression, as you call it. Is that what people should be preparing for for the next four years between, tariffs and monetary policy, all these different things going on. Is deflation, in your opinion, the biggest risk going forward?
Mario Innecco:
Well, first, I’d like to just give the definition of inflation, and that’s the increase in the supply of currency and credit. Cpi, in my view, is not inflation. That’s just the consequence of inflation, which is rising prices. Prices don’t rise at the same for different goods and services. But I think it’s going to continue the inflation of the currency, and therefore, the CPI is going to remain high. Of course, the government and the statisticians, they will tinker with it to make it look as low as possible to keep people in the dark. But the main reason why I think we’re going to have to have continued inflation is because the debt is ballooning. We’re at over 37 trillion in the US, not just the government debt, but corporate and private debt, state debt, municipal debt. In a debt-based system, if you don’t keep the debt going, everything implodes and you get a great collapse. I think the powers that be are going to everything to keep it going. And that means just more and more debt. It’s just like a snowball. It’s going to snowball and it’s going to eventually, maybe in five years time, you’re going to be paying $20 for a cup of coffee.
Ben Nadelstein:
Do you think that there’s a chance that the United States actually defaults on their debt, or do you think that more likely, they’re going to say, Hey, we’ll continue to nominally pay people, but the dollars are simply less? Do you think that there’s a chance that they literally say, Hey, sorry, if you’re from China or if you’re from Brazil, we’re just not going to pay you the bonds that we owe you, or instead of a five-year bond, We’re just going to extend it. Now, it’s a 10-year bond. Obviously, there’s been some history of this type of financial dealing before. Do you think that they’re going to outright default and nominally say, Hey, we’re just not paying you these bonds? Or do you think that more likely they’ll do a silent default, where they say, Oh, yeah, here’s the money, but it’s just worth so much less in real terms?
Mario Innecco:
Yeah, I think the latter there, what you said, they can just keep printing it, but there will come a point where people won’t accept it anymore. But I think the point where it’s finished is when you can’t really buy gold or silver with the currency. That’s when it’s finished. As for foreigners, they could do whatever they want, like they did in 1971. Nixon, basically, that was a default. They said, We’re not going to let you have the gold anymore, temporarily. It’s still temporary to this day. But yeah, they could change the maturity of the treasuries for foreigners, or even change the coupon, cut the coupon, or freeze the like they’ve done with Russia. But like you said, I think they’re just going to keep printing and printing and paying off with new debt, and eventually it will become like a worthless.
Ben Nadelstein:
What do you think about these outside foreign countries, outside the United States, outside of the Eurozone? There’s this idea of a BRICS, B-R-I-C-S, Brazil being one of those countries. Do you think that there’s actually anything going to happen here between these very disparate countries, getting them to coordinate, whether it’s on a currency that they can use together, or whether it’s on an economic trading block. Do you think that’s a fantasy that we’ll ever see a coordinated trading block or currency between these BRICS countries, or do you think this is something that the US should really take seriously in terms of monetary competition?
Mario Innecco:
I think the US should take it seriously, and I think they are, because why would Trump say, Oh, I’m going to put 100% tariff on the BRICS countries if they don’t use the dollar? It shows me he’s concerned or worried about it. I don’t think there would be a currency in the short, near term or even medium term. I think what the BRICS countries are doing is coordinating the way they trade with each other. By that, I mean they’re, for example, using their currencies to trade with each other. That’s one of the main things they’re working on. I think there’s a lot of other things that they’re working on. I think there are a lot of people that pooh-pooh it, but I think they’re more serious. Also, there’s like 45% of the world’s population now, countries in bricks and associates, 40% of GDP. And I think they’re trying to basically, Ben, they want to close their bank account with the US, so to speak. Because they’re saying to themselves, why if, let’s say, India is going to buy something from China, why does it need dollars? Can’t it use UN or Why can’t China use RuPs?
And it makes sense. And they also have a lot of… They have payment systems that they are working on, and it’s already working. So I think it’s already Yeah, it’s already a thing, Bricks. But yeah, in the US, in the US administration and Trump, they’re going to downplay it. I heard Trump say the other day, Oh, it’s this It’s a little group. It’s unimportant, but I think it’s more important than that. I think definitely the US should be concerned about it. I don’t even discount eventually other countries in the West joining in with the BRICS. I foresee that happening.
Ben Nadelstein:
One thing that has been mentioned is that there’s different currencies, and because the relative strength between the currencies, that the dollar will actually, for all its flaws, be the strongest of the currencies compared to these other currencies, whether it’s the Rupee, whether it’s the Taiwan, the Ruble, the Euro. And so there’s this effect, sometimes dubbed the dollar milkshake effect, where currencies will flow into the United States because capital wants to go to the safest currency, the cleanest dirty shirt, is sometimes the analogy. What do you think about that dollar milkshake theory? Do you think that there is legs to it? Do you think in a new de-globalized world, this matters more? Does it matter less? What do you think of this theory?
Mario Innecco:
Well, we’re seeing that that’s not really working, that theory anymore, because countries are acquiring gold as a foreign exchange reserve, not the dollar. I think that’s going to continue, especially when foreigners see how much debt the US government is creating and how much currency the Fed’s printing, they’re going to move more and more to gold. Yes, the UN, the Brazil and real, and other currencies, they might not be better than the dollar, but if you hold gold as a reserve, that’s a really good sound base to have for settling trade. I’m not a fan of the dollar milkshake theory, and I don’t think… Yeah, I’m more a fan of the gold milkshake theory.
Ben Nadelstein:
No complaints from us here. Okay, I want to do a rapid fire round with you. I’m just going to ask you questions all around from different topics you can answer as short or as long as you want. So let’s start with something called the Cantillon effect. Obviously, my French is maybe not so good. But what do you think? Do you believe in this Cantillon effect, where people who are closer to this currency spiget, they get to spend their money first, and that affects the economy in a different way? Or do you think it’s more complex than No, I think I agree with the Cantillon theory.
Mario Innecco:
The people closest to the banking elites, they got the money first. They’re well connected. They buy the assets, and by the time the general public gets some of that currency, it’s already devalued. The devaluation might defer in different countries and different times. But the gist of it is, yeah, when that happens, the people at the bottom, the people that are not as well connected and are not as wealthy, they suffer. So I do agree with the Cantillon effect.
Ben Nadelstein:
Okay, next one for you. Do you think that the financialization of the US economy has actually been a good thing or a bad thing? So on the positive side, people can say, well, we We used to work in sweatshops, and we were doing industry and labor, and it was really hard on people, and now we’re generally lawyers or waitresses or bond traders. Do you think that’s a good thing where over time, people just do less and less laborious work, less industry? Or do you think that in general, that the US economy has actually lost something because of this financialization?
Mario Innecco:
I think, yes, it has benefited a lot of people. Like you said, you don’t have to do hard labor. You can work in the service sector and be quite well off. But I think the financialization has ballooned the debt situation which is not good. It’s made not just the government, but a lot of people heavily indebted. And when you have a lot of debt, you’re not really free. And it’s left a lot of people behind. Like You talk about, let’s say in the US, the Rust Belt, all the people that worked in manufacturing. In the beginning, I guess 20, 30 years ago, it was great because people still had their jobs and they could get really cheap stuff coming in from abroad and borrow. But there comes a point where you can’t just keep borrowing and buying stuff. I think overall, for the country as a whole, it hasn’t been a good thing. That’s why I think you have someone like Trump trying to change things around because he realizes this has been happening for three decades or so. But it’s going to be hard to switch it around. It’s not going to be overnight.
Of course, there has been a lot of people that the top 10% or even top 1%, they’ve benefited a lot. I think CEOs now, they earn about 200 to 300 times more than the average employee of corporations. I think in the ’60s, it was like 20 times. So yes, it’s definitely helped the the elites, or the people at the top of the economic ladder.
Ben Nadelstein:
Perfect segue to this tariff question. Do you think that these tariffs are a smart move economically, where in general, US consumer is going to say, Wow, I’m so happy we did this tariff thing. It turned out great. Or do you think it’s going to be the exact opposite, where people are like, Oh, my gosh, I can’t believe we did tariffs. This was the dumbest thing we’ve ever done. Where do you see that tariffs coming in, at least for the consumer? How do you think they’re going to feel about this tariff’s if they do go through?
Mario Innecco:
Well, I saw, I think it’s Walmart, they already revised their prices because of tariff. So in the end of the day, the importer of the good that comes from abroad pays the tariff, and then the importer passes it on to the distributor and then to the wholesaler, to the retailer, to the consumer. The consumer will end up paying it, paying some part of that. I think the problem with the current account and trade deficit is to do with the monetary system and the fact that for the last 50 years, we’ve had this fiat currency-based system, and we’ve had the central bank and the treasury bail everyone out every 10 years or so with QE. That doesn’t allow for the system to flush itself out and to have deep, sharp recessions that you need to cleanse the system. Americans have been able to keep borrowing heavily despite all the ups and downs, only because the Fed has this power to create this currency out of thin air. I think that’s the reason why the deficit has been such a problem, the trade deficit and the current account deficit. If you look back in the 19th century, from, let’s say, the 1830s till early 20th century, before the Fed was created, you You did have a lot of sharp business cycles, and you did have periods where there was trade, a current account deficit, but also surpluses.
Over the long term, in That century, the current account was pretty flat because the system was allowed to go through these cycles. And nowadays, people don’t… It’s not just the US, but in all Western countries, people don’t want to go through the ups and downs. They always want everything solved by the government. I don’t think these tariffs are going to work.
Ben Nadelstein:
What you just said, do you think that’s an argument for investing in things like the stock market? Obviously, we never give financial or investing advice, but the stock market is at an all-time high, gold is at an all-time high, Bitcoin’s at an all-time high. Is this just really an argument that the government will never allow people in the United States to feel economic pain, therefore just invest in anything because they really will never let a 401k fail or a pension fail, a stock market fail. Is that your opinion that basically the government doesn’t want people to feel economic pain?
Mario Innecco:
Yeah, that’s right. But there will be a point where it’s going to be like a Weimar, Germany, where the stock market will keep going up, but the currency will go down quicker and faster than the certain stocks are going to go up. So, yeah, stay in assets, be it stocks, crypto, gold and silver. But I think gold and silver are the best places to be in this case because, Ben, right now, we are at all-time highs in the stock market, and the economy is not really in the recession. It’s not booming, but it’s ticking along. They’re talking about cutting rates to 1% or one and a half. Can you imagine when the stock market it corrects a bit, and there’s a slight recession, what they’re going to do. I think that’s what modern-day politicians and central bankers every everywhere, are there to do, to keep everything goosed up and making sure that people don’t get angry, even though I think they’re already getting angry as it is.
Ben Nadelstein:
What do you think about this argument meant that, hey, Trump really only has four years to get stuff done, which, hey, for Nixon, he got a lot done. But Trump only has four years to get stuff done. Therefore, lots of businesses, they’re just going to try to wait out the tariffs, or these currencies, well, the bricks, they’re going to wait out these four years. Do you think that there’s enough time for this administration to make radical changes, whether it’s to growth, whether it’s to monetary policy, whether it’s to currencies? Do you think there’s enough time and enough staying power for these policies to last, or do you think that People are going to wait for four years, and we’re going to go back to a different administration and a different policy.
Mario Innecco:
Well, that’s always the risk. But there’s a chance as well that some of the policies will stick, but they won’t be like the effects of them won’t be felt until much later, because four years is not a very long time. So that’s the way I see it.
Ben Nadelstein:
Okay, next one for you. We have to talk about gold and silver. So gold prices, It basically broke right through 3,000. And for a lot of people, there’s this psychological, Oh, $2,000, trying to get to $2,000, try to get to $2,000. And then once it broke through $2,000, it broke through $3,000 pretty easily, which may be surprising. You would think there’s another psychological barrier at 3,000, and yet there wasn’t. So do you think that 3,000 is now the floor? Obviously, prices can fall below 3,000. There’s no hard, fast rule. But do you think that we’re in a psychological point where people now think, Oh, wow, the gold price is high, but that’s really where it should be?
Mario Innecco:
Yeah. I think it could go back down even to like 2700. I had that as a key level because of some long-term charts. But yeah. I sat through when gold went from 1900 to like a thousand. So I’ll sit to look through if it corrects again, because I think it’s going a lot higher. But I tend to agree with you that 3,000 or even like 31, 50, 32 in the last four months has been support. I think it’s holding up really well. There’s a lot of talk about maybe the Treasury and Congress revaluing the statutory price of gold, that it could help the Treasury. If If they were to do that, I think they would have to raise it to near to where the market is, and that would put a massive floor on the market. I think 3,000 is a good floor right now, but I think we could get to 3,700 or before we get to 3,000, the way gold is going right now.
Ben Nadelstein:
What do you think about this argument that there used to be a gold to silver ratio where gold and silver, relative to each other, traded in a certain band or a certain ratio, and now that that ratio is completely over. Silver is trending more towards an industrial metal. Gold is now still a monetary metal. And this idea that there should be some hard and fast rule or some correlation between the price of gold and the price of silver is over. Do you agree with that, that there’s still a meaningful relationship between the gold and silver ratio, or do you think that that relationship is basically over?
Mario Innecco:
I mean, right now, just below 100, and it was above 100 until recently. And historically, and by that, I mean, over the last few thousand years, 15 to one or thereabouts has been the historical ratio. Up until recently, 80 was a key level. So I think we still need to get below 80. But I don’t think the 15 to one is history. I think we’ll come to that level. I think silver is a lot more important as a monetary metal and will be than people think right now. Yes, of course, it’s a very important industrial metal, but I’m of the opinion that silver will come back in a big way as a monetary metal as well.
Ben Nadelstein:
What do you think the biggest threats to gold prices and silver prices are? Do you think it’s that, Hey, we might have a recession potentially, and people will need to sell their most liquid asset, which in some cases might be gold, and that puts a little pressure on the selling pressure on gold prices. Do you think that maybe central banks decide, Hey, we got to support our currency here, so let’s sell some of our gold reserves. That’s why we have them. Or do you think there’s something completely different that could be a headwind for gold, for example, a strong dollar? What do you see as the biggest risk to gold prices in the near term?
Mario Innecco:
I don’t really see that many risks. That might not be a good thing, but I guess the risk that I see is that, let’s say, peace would break out in the world and the politicians would become honest and tell us the truth. And yeah, central banks wouldn’t inflate the currency anymore. Then there would be risks of gold. So yeah, I mean, central banks could start selling gold, but if anything, they’ve had record net buying the last three and a half years, and I think they’re going to continue to do so. And I think it would be a big mistake for the Western central banks to sell any of their gold. And we don’t even know, Ben, if the gold is still there at Fort Knox to sell.
Ben Nadelstein:
Here’s an interesting one for you. What’s something that you think Brazilian culture culture could teach the rest of the world? So obviously, there’s this whole BRICS summit, and people talk about the BRICS, but obviously, they all have different cultures. Russia is different than China, different than Brazil. What’s something that the world should learn from Brazilian culture?
Mario Innecco:
Not much, really, to be honest. I know I’m originally from Brazil, but I was told when I was young, my dad used to say that his dad and granddad used to say, Well, Brazil is the country of the future, and it never becomes the country of the future. Brazilians like to cut corners. They’re not as serious as maybe Americans or the British. But I guess if I had to choose one thing is, yeah, they’re quite relaxed, and yeah, they’re quite friendly. Those are good qualities.
Ben Nadelstein:
Now, I do want to talk about our friends, the British. Do you think that this EU underperformance relative to the United States, where, yeah, the West is put together as a block oftentimes, but the difference between the EU and the United States or Canada is quite different. Do you think that US relative outperformance Do you think that’s going to end? And we’re going to see Canada or the EU or these other countries like Germany. Do you think they’re going to now have their moment in the sun, or do you think that the US is still going to outperform relative to the EU peers?
Mario Innecco:
Well, if you remember or if you’ve read about it, Japan was in a situation where the US is now, back in the ’80s, and everyone wanted to copy Japan. And then all of a sudden, Japan just collapsed. 1990, 1989, 1990. I think things go in cycle. Last year, late 2024, there was a lot of talk about American exceptionalism and the US stock market capitalization is a huge part of the total world stock market capitalization. I think things go in cycle, but I’m not sure whether Europe is going to be the next big thing. It could be another country somewhere, maybe, I don’t know, India or China, but Or maybe even Europe. Who knows? Things tend to work in interesting ways. Yeah, maybe Germany will come back, but even though it doesn’t seem like it wants to. That’s how I see things. Things never go on forever. There’s always cycles. It’s probably not a bad time to diversify. This is, of course, not financial advice. To diversify from US assets to different countries. Just diversify into different ones. That’s the way I see it.
Ben Nadelstein:
What do you think about the success of our friend, Javier Milei in Argentina. Obviously, something about the Argent Indian culture picked him. So what do you think about his success? Do you think that people are going to try to copy him, and that will work? Do you think that this was just a Milei miracle, and he was just uniquely primed and positioned to be the guy to help turn Argentina around. Do you think that there’s something that the US might try to take from the Argentinian lesson of, wow, when you let things get really bad, you have to have a guy like Milei? What do you think about his story? Do you think that his success is going to bleed into different countries?
Mario Innecco:
Well, I’m not sure how successful his experiment will be. What he talks about is really interesting. He calls himself an Austrian free market, and I think he’s done quite a few good things there. But the problem is politics, Ben. You could see in the next election, he could lose and everything could turn back. But yeah, Argentina, they were one of the richest countries over 100 years ago, and they really went downhill. So it took a long time for them to wake up and elect someone like So I think things have to get a bit worse to get someone like him. I would compare him to Ron Paul, so to speak. But yeah, Right now, I guess in the US, you could maybe say Rand Paul and Thomas Massey, or more like a Millet.
Ben Nadelstein:
Okay, now I want to ask you about some personal finance questions, which is, what are some of the things that you think people get most incorrect about their personal finances? Is it that they’re not frugal enough? Is it that they don’t understand inflation well enough? What’s something you think people miss about their personal finances?
Mario Innecco:
Maybe not having a budget sitting down, maybe with your wife or husband and writing everything you spend and how much you bring in and trying to keep within a budget every month. So if you know how much you spend and how much you bring in, you’re able to control control things more. But if you don’t know how much you spend, you’re going to tend to overspend and then get into debt. I would say that’s a really good way to control your finances. My wife and I did that right off the bat. When we got married, we sat down and we said, This is how much we spend, and let’s try to keep it at that level.
Ben Nadelstein:
Okay, here’s a for you. What’s something, as a guy who’s been married for so long, what’s something you can tell the people who are in a relationship or looking for a relationship? What’s something they should focus on when it comes to money and their relationships?
Mario Innecco:
I think is… Well, for me, It’s that when you get married or in a relationship, it depends how serious it is, I guess, is to think of the money as not just mine, but it’s like a company. It’s like our money. I think that’s a good way to run things. I never tell my wife, Oh, you can’t have that because it’s my money. I just say it’s our money. Of course, we both have to be careful how we spend it. So yeah, look at it as a team, not just… We’ve had joint accounts since we’ve been married. So there you go.
Ben Nadelstein:
Okay, here’s a tough one for you. What is the biggest financial mistake they ever made, and what did you learn from it?
Mario Innecco:
Yeah, that was when I left the city, when they closed down the department I worked at. I eventually started my own business. I bought a Pawn Broking franchise back in 2012. Yeah, it wasn’t a bad business, but it just didn’t make enough money. I I think it was the wrong business at the wrong time. Also, I tried to do something I wasn’t familiar with because I worked in the markets in finance. I know porn-broking is finance, but it’s completely different. It’s like working in a shop. That was the biggest mistake. Try to stick to what you know and don’t try That’s the way I see it. Stick to what you know.
Ben Nadelstein:
Okay, last one in the rapid fire section for you. What is a book that you recommend everyone should read? One that you think because it’s great and you think it has a lot of good lessons, and one because you think it’s horrible and people should just avoid the plague.
Mario Innecco:
Well, the one that I think is the best one for learning about money and inflation is Fiat Money Inflation in France. It’s not really a thick book. It’s really easy to read. It’s really, how can I say, opened my eyes to the current fiat currency system, and it’s helped me prepare for what’s going on right now. I read that book over 20 years ago. So if you want to learn more about money and the folly of politicians and people in power with money, read that book by Andrew Dixon-White.
Ben Nadelstein:
And what’s a book you say, Avoid this thing like the plague. It is horrible. It’s overrated. Don’t read this because you’re basically wasting your time.
Mario Innecco:
I don’t really have that many books like that, and I tried not to buy them. But I would say there’s an author, French author, he’s really become popular, Thomas Piketty. I never really felt the urge to buy any of his books because he’s like a total socialist and communist. And I don’t understand why he’s so popular. But then again, I can see why the world is where it’s now, if people think that Thomas Piketty is like a great economist.
Ben Nadelstein:
Mario, I actually have a funny anecdote about that exact book, which is that that is, at one time, one of the most read, not read books. And here’s what I mean by that. You can check on an e-book when someone downloads it. Okay, hey, they’re reading this book. But you can see how far into the book they actually got by the amount of tags or underlines, or notes that they leave. And Piketty’s book is the least notated of all of the books that actually are read by people. So although it was technically popular, most people didn’t actually read it. So take that for a grain of salt. Mario, where can people find more you and more of your work?
Mario Innecco:
Well, YouTube, and my channel is @maneco64, but I also post quite a bit on X. My handle is Maneco64, but it’s @Maneco1964. The… Not sure what you call that. Handle. Yeah, the handle, but you can also put your… Yeah, and be careful there because there’s a lot of people who copy me. I’ve got about, I think, 27,000 followers.
Ben Nadelstein:
Mario, what is a question I should be asking all future guests of the Gold Exchange podcast?
Mario Innecco:
I guess, how did they wake up to gold and silver? How did they learn about it and what made them look into it? I think that’s- Mario, it’s been a pleasure interviewing you, and hopefully we’ll get to see you again soon. Yeah, it was a pleasure speaking with you, Ben.
Ben Nadelstein:
All right. Thanks so much.
Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!