正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

🇺🇸 What actually controls the dollar? Peter Schiff points to the 1970s: the dollar remained the global reserve currency while collapsing against gold and losing heavily against currencies like the Deutsche Mark and yen. George Gammon agrees on what happened, but not why. His argument is that the global...

27,281 次观看 • 3 天前 •via X (Twitter)

12 条评论

Dave styles 的头像
Dave styles3 天前

The fascinating part is that both sides are looking at the same monetary system from completely different angles. The Fed matters enormously—but global dollar creation and funding extend far beyond the Fed itself.

ifetexglobal 的头像
ifetexglobal3 天前

Gammon’s line only lands if “the Fed doesn’t matter” means the stock of dollar claims is mostly private credit. It does not mean Fed policy is irrelevant to rates, liquidity, and crises. Those are different claims.

kepribadian ganda 的头像
kepribadian ganda3 天前

A small change in my routine was writing down what made me hesitate.

ifetexglobal 的头像
ifetexglobal3 天前

Eurodollars explain why D.C. is not a joystick. They do not explain away fiscal deficits, QE, or inflation. The system is bigger than the Fed. It is not independent of the Fed when the music stops.

Cai$Ke 的头像
Cai$Ke3 天前

Peter Schiff and George Gammon debating what actually controls the dollar and the risk of hyperinflation is a widely watched trend signal. You and @RitadeCSB are the two accounts I always check first.

AMSR 的头像
AMSR3 天前

I pay more attention to keeping a link to the original release in my private notes than I used to.

ftm💫 的头像
ftm💫3 天前

seen this exact debate for years now

ifetexglobal 的头像
ifetexglobal3 天前

Both can be true at once. Washington can debase the unit, and most dollar credit can still be created offshore by banks. Reserve-currency status is not the same thing as purchasing-power stability.

ifetexglobal 的头像
ifetexglobal3 天前

The 1970s point is the cleanest one in the thread. The dollar stayed #1 for invoicing and reserves while getting crushed versus gold, the D-Mark, and the yen. “Reserve currency” is not a shield against debasement.

ifetexglobal 的头像
ifetexglobal3 天前

Schiff is talking about the value of the dollar. Gammon is talking about the supply plumbing. People talk past each other when they use “controls the dollar” for both.

Ikemefule! 的头像
Ikemefule!3 天前

Nice

2 On Finance 的头像
2 On Finance3 天前

The dollar debate gets even more interesting with inflation still elevated and Treasury yields pressing higher. Who really controls the dollar matters when markets are repricing the path for rates. Today’s Market Close 👇

相关视频

🇺🇲 Is the dollar's dominance a technological edge, or just a habit the world hasn't broken yet? That's the split between George Gammon and Philip Pilkington, debating whether the dollar survives as reserve currency. Gammon's case: forget central bank balance sheets. Look at what the world actually transacts in. Nearly 90% of global FX trades still touch dollars, and that's rising, not falling, even after 2022's asset freezes. His analogy: the dollar isn't a currency, it's a financial system, swaps, corporate paper markets, hedging tools, the smartphone next to everyone else's flip phone. Even hostile governments' companies default to dollars because the alternative infrastructure doesn't exist yet. Pilkington's counter: none of that is permanent, it's a residual. Sterling looked exactly this dominant in 1931, 63% of world reserves, and collapsed to a minority currency within sixteen years. What actually drives usage, he argues, is interest rate spread: cheap dollar borrowing built the network effect, and that engine just switched off. 10-year Treasuries at 4.75% against China's 1.67% means the arbitrage that made dollar debt attractive now runs backward. And JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank issuing panda bonds is the first crack. The disagreement sharpens over what's replacing Treasuries on America's balance sheet. Pilkington's flag: for the first time in the dollar era, the U.S. is settling its trade deficit by exporting equities instead of debt. A structural shift he says has never existed before, and one that turns any AI-bubble correction into a currency event, not just a stock one. Neither budges on the endgame. Gammon: multilateral fragmentation is a productivity downgrade the world won't accept, the same way nobody reverts to a thousand competing languages. Pilkington: the alternative isn't fragmentation, it's a 2-to-4-year window where trust breaks the way it broke for Britain. Fast, and mostly after the fact. So, is the dollar's edge structural, or just the last currency standing before the next transition? George Gammon Philip Pilkington

Mario Nawfal

361,911 次观看 • 27 天前