Bitcoin and gold skyrocket after Trump victory — financial expert explains why



After former President Donald Trump declared victory last week, the value of Bitcoin, gold, and various stocks skyrocketed. Financial expert and author of “MoneyGPT” James Rickards knows why.

“The immediate reaction to the Trump election was stocks took off, and with good reason. His economic policies, less regulation, drill baby drill, basically getting rid of wasteful investment in what I call the ‘Green New Scam,’” Rickards tells Jill Savage and Stu Burguiere on “Blaze News Tonight.”

“So he has a lot of things that are going to be very good for stocks. However, there’s something bigger than Trump. There’s something bigger than the electoral process, which is the economy itself,” he continues, noting that in the next six to nine months, we may be going through a recession.


“There are a lot of signs of recession out there, so we may get off to a rough start, but the same thing happened to Ronald Reagan in 1982. He had one of the worst recessions in U.S. history but finished with very strong growth toward the end of his first term and into a second term,” he explains.

While Rickards believes that Trump’s presidency will overall be a good thing for the economy, he isn’t so sure about Bitcoin as a form of currency in general.

“I’ve studied Bitcoin for a long time,” Rickards says. “If you want to buy Bitcoin, knock yourself out. But I don’t really think of it as a form of money.”

“It’s really just a form of gambling. I don’t really think of it as an investment. There’s no use case for Bitcoin. Now, can you make money? Absolutely, a lot of people have. So my attitude is I’m not a Bitcoin-basher,” he adds.

As for gold, Rickards explains that the value of it isn’t actually getting higher.

“It’s not that gold’s getting higher, it’s that the dollar is collapsing in front of your eyes,” Rickards says. “What’s really happening is you’re watching your dollar evaporate. You’re watching the dollar crash.”

“The main reason is people are looking for alternatives to the dollar. I’m not saying the dollar is going away. You can’t totally get out of the dollar. It’s too big for that,” he adds.

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Fed Cuts Interest Rates by 0.25 Percentage Point Following Trump Victory

The Federal Reserve unanimously voted to cut interest rates by 0.25 percentage point on the heels of Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election. 

The post Fed Cuts Interest Rates by 0.25 Percentage Point Following Trump Victory appeared first on .

Washington Reined In 2024 Spending By ‘Only’ Burning Through $1.9 Trillion More Than It Brought In

Lawmakers’ unabated desire to spend money we don’t have jeopardizes our national security — and our future.

Bloomberg interviewer's attempts to needle Trump backfire — and the crowd loves it



Leftist publications and the Harris campaign have tried desperately to spin President Donald Trump's Tuesday interview with the editor in chief of Bloomberg News as a botch job on the part of the Republican — calling it "disastrously bad," "rambling," "angry and unfocused," and "a total mess."

The audience members present for the exchange at the Economic Club of Chicago were evidently of a different mind, both cheering on Trump's ripostes to Bloomberg's John Micklethwait, booing the interviewer's loaded questions, and giving the president a standing ovation.

Micklethwait, who reportedly ordered his staff not to investigate Michael Bloomberg or his Democratic rivals prior to the 2020 election, attempted on several occasions to kneecap the Republican candidate but proved unsuited to the task.

In one instance, the British Bloomberg EIC tried characterizing Trump's plan to impose significant tariffs on imports and on American companies that outsource manufacturing as potentially ruinous, suggesting that it might adversely impact the economy as well as foreign powers.

Trump indicated that his tariff strategy during his first term was ramping up to major success prior to the pandemic, not only incentivizing companies to build factories in the homeland but bringing in "hundreds of billions of dollars just from China alone, and I hadn't even started yet."

'They've been wrong about everything.'

Shortly after the Republican president reiterated that tariffs serve to protect American companies and those companies that will ultimately flood into the country, Micklethwait said:

A lot of places like this, they rely — there are a lot of jobs that rely on foreigners coming here. You're going to basically stop trade with China. You're talking about 60% tariffs on that. You're talking, as you said, 100%, 200% on things you don't really like. You're also talking about 10, 20% tariffs on the rest of the world. That is going to have a serious effect on the overall economy. And yes you're going to find some people who would gain from individual tariffs. The overall effect could be massive.

Trump rejected the Bloomberg editor's premise, saying, "I agree. It's going to have a massive effect. Positive effect. It's going to be a positive, not a negative."

"I know how committed you are to this," continued Trump. "It must be hard for you to spend 25 years talking about tariffs as being negative and then have somebody explain to you that you're totally wrong."

As the audience broke into laughter, Micklethwait tried in vain to reassert himself, insinuating that 40 million jobs dependent on trade might be lost on account of the tariffs.

"You ready? John Deere. Great company. They announced about a year ago they're going to build big plants outside of the United States," said Trump. "They're going to build them in Mexico."

"That's right. I said, 'If John Deere builds those plants, they're not selling anything into the United States,'" added Trump.

Following the Bloomberg interview, the Wall Street Journal indicated John Deere has not yet axed its Mexican ambitions; however, Trump's potential re-election might prompt a rethinking of the company's extra-national focus.

Micklethwait suggested further that Trump's proposed tariffs could undermine American foreign policy, in part by upsetting allies and "dividing" the West.

"How does it help you take on China turning all of your allies against you?" asked the editor.

"Tremendously because China thinks we're a stupid country, a very stupid country. They can't believe that somebody finally got wise to them," said Trump. "Not one president charged China anything. They said, 'Oh, they are a third-world nation. They are developing.' Well, we're a developing nation, too. Take a look at Detroit. Take a look at our cities. ... We have to develop more than they do."

"Our allies have taken advantage of us more so than our enemies," continued the president, citing the European Union nations, Japan, and South Korea as countries that have benefited from other presidents' reluctance to impose tariffs.

After several unsuccessful attempts to extract concessions from Trump on the topic of tariffs, Micklethwait suggested the Republicans' promises to drop taxes will cost trillions of dollars.

"You're flooding the thing with giveaways. I was actually quite kind to you. I used $7 trillion. The upper estimate [for the cost of the promises] is $15 trillion. People like the Wall Street Journal, who's hardly a communist organization, they have criticized you on this as well," said the editor.

"What does the Wall Street Journal know?" responded Trump. "They've been wrong about everything. So have you, by the way."

Once again, the audience — apparently out of touch with the thinking of liberal bloggers — broke into laughter.

"You're trying to turn this — you're trying to turn this into debate," said Micklethwait, growing visibly flustered.

"You're wrong," replied Trump. "You've been wrong all your life on this stuff."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Inflation Rate Jumps Higher Than Expected in 'Last Reading Before the Election'

Inflation in September rose 2.4 percent from a year earlier, exceeding economists' expectations, according to a Labor Department report released Thursday.

The post Inflation Rate Jumps Higher Than Expected in 'Last Reading Before the Election' appeared first on .

JD Vance crushes CBS debate moderator with evidence after she tries to fact-check upon Walz's complaint: 'As promised'



Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance (Ohio) posted evidence on Wednesday proving that he was correct when connecting the migrant crisis to rising housing prices during the VP debate.

While discussing inflation and the rising cost of housing, Gov. Tim Walz argued that immigrants shouldn't be blamed for the growing problem of out-of-control housing costs and housing inventory issues.

'The thing that has most turned housing into a commodity is giving it away to millions upon millions of people who have no legal right to be here.'

Vance agreed and said he knows exactly where blame belongs: at the feet of Vice President Kamala Harris.

"We don't want to blame immigrants for higher housing prices. But we do want to blame Kamala Harris for letting in millions of illegal aliens into this country, which does drive up costs, Tim. Twenty-five million illegal aliens competing with Americans for scarce homes is one of the most significant drivers of home prices in the country. It’s why we have massive increases in home prices that have happened right alongside massive increases in illegal alien populations under Kamala Harris’ leadership," Vance said.

"We have a lot of Americans that need homes. We should be kicking out illegal immigrants who are competing for those homes, and we should be building more homes for the American citizens who deserve to be here," he added.

The debate moderators — Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan — then gave Walz an opportunity to respond to Vance's accusation.

To no surprise, Walz claimed it is "not true," before complaining that Vance did not receive a fact-check. So what did the moderators do? They proceeded to fact-check Vance.

"Senator, on that point, I'd like for you to clarify. There are many contributing factors to high housing costs. What evidence do you have that migrants are part of this problem?" Brennan asked Vance.

Vance immediately cited remarks from the Federal Reserve, promising to post the receipts on social media when the debate concluded. The study, he explained, "really drills down on the connection between increased levels of migration, especially illegal immigration, and higher housing prices."

"Now, of course, Margaret, that's not the entire driver of higher housing prices. It's also the regulatory regime of Kamala Harris," Vance continued. "Look, we are a country of builders. We're a country of doers. We're a country of explorers. But we increasingly have a federal administration that makes it harder to develop our resources, makes it harder to build things, and wants to throw people in jail for not doing everything exactly as Kamala Harris says that they have to do."

"And what that means is that you have a lot of people who would love to build homes who aren't able to build homes," he added. "We should get out of this idea of housing as a commodity. But the thing that has most turned housing into a commodity is giving it away to millions upon millions of people who have no legal right to be here."

After the debate, Vance made good on his promise, posting comments on X from Michelle W. Bowman, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

In May, Bowman spoke at the Massachusetts Bankers Association Annual Convention in Key Biscayne, Florida, where she said the "inflow of new immigrants" puts "upward pressure" on the housing market.

Speaking on the state of the economy, Bowman explained:

Finally, there is a risk that strong consumer demand for services, increased immigration, and continued labor market tightness could lead to persistently high core services inflation. Given the current low inventory of affordable housing, the inflow of new immigrants to some geographic areas could result in upward pressure on rents, as additional housing supply may take time to materialize.

The Dallas Fed, moreover, has drawn the same conclusion.

"Higher immigration represents a labor supply shock, which should be disinflationary. But immigrants are also consumers and add to aggregate demand. While certain sectors that extensively depend on immigrants should see costs and prices fall—for example, landscaping and child care—the population influx could put upward pressure on rents and house prices, particularly in the short run before new supply can be built," the Dallas Fed explained in July.

"As promised," Vance said on X.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Fed Cuts Interest Rates by Half a Percentage Point, Signals More Cuts by End of Year

WASHINGTON (Reuters)—The Federal Reserve cut interest rates by half of a percentage point on Wednesday, kicking off what is expected to be a steady easing of monetary policy with a larger-than-usual reduction in borrowing costs that followed growing unease about the health of the job market.

The post Fed Cuts Interest Rates by Half a Percentage Point, Signals More Cuts by End of Year appeared first on .

Too Much Deregulation? We Wish.

In 2022, philanthropic organizations the Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network gave millions of dollars in grants to top universities to "reimagine capitalism." This reimagination is necessary, they said, because "for more than 40 years, neoliberalism has dominated economic and political debates, both in the U.S. and globally, with its free-market fundamentalism and growth-at-all-costs approach to economic and social policy."

The post Too Much Deregulation? We Wish. appeared first on .

The Harris-Walz Wealth Tax Would Harm Everybody — Except The Super Rich

The consequences of the Harris-Walz wealth tax are clear: a massive economic contraction and an awful and unnecessary reduction of the standard of living.