There has been ongoing speculation about America’s holdings of foreign gold reserves. Elon Musk’s request to audit Fort Knox pushed the issue into the headlines once more. Now, the new incoming German government is discussing pulling their gold reserves from the New York Fed due to a lack of transparency and the public is asking—where is the gold?

I personally toured the New York Fed many years ago, and while there is gold there, I cannot verify the quantity or quality; no one has ever accomplished such a feat. The last full audit of US gold reserves occurred in 1953 under President Eisenhower. Auditors from the US Treasury and Mint verified domestic and limited foreign-held gold at the New York Fed and Fort Knox. Third-party auditors were not permitted, but there were US Congressional observers. Treasury Secretary George M. Humphrey and Mint Director William H. Brett were in charge of overseeing this audit.

Now, the government declared the audit to be a “full” inspection. However, only 3 of the 22 compartments at Fort Knox were examined, accounting for only 13.6% of gold holdings. Around 88,000 bars (34.4M oz) were meticulously counted, and auditors weighed around 9,000 bars (130 tons). Only 26 gold bars, selected at random, were drilled to confirm purity. Auditors confirmed that US gold certificates matched physical holdings at the New York Fed, but due to limited sampling and a lack of transparency, suspicions rose. “We have no reason to believe other melts would differ [from assay results],” the joint commission stated.

The gold examined was mainly domestic. Germany’s holdings, for example, were not part of the audit. Public confidence in the US government was on the decline at this period amid Cold War secrecy. Around the same time of the audit, the CIA admitted it to Operation Ajax—a covert operation to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and install Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. This was the first time that the US government openly admitted to orchestrating a coup and installing a leader in a foreign nation. How could the public and/or foreign nations trust the US under these conditions?

(Sources: Treasury 1953 Report, Sound Money Defense League, FRASER).

The GAO/Treasury conducted the next audit in 1974, reviewing 21% of gold holdings at Fort Knox. This occurred in the post-Bretton Woods period after Nixon abandoned the gold standard. Again, third-party auditors were not permitted to attend, and this time, auditors did not weigh bars. Some called the September 1974 examination a “show audit” and a publicity stunt as only 1 of the 13 vaults was examined. The “real” audit occurred the following month by a joint GAO-Treasury committee, but as mentioned, only 91,404 bars of 367,500 were examined. Random samples were tested for purity, but there was no assaying or weighing.

Continuing audits were ongoing, and the US government pledged to inspect 10% of its gold holdings annually from 1975 to 1983. As of 1985, the government stated it had audited 89% of its gold holdings, but only through seal verifications and limited sampling. Again, only the US government had access to these vaults.

The matter was ultimately laid to rest until 2012, when US politicians like Ron Paul and foreign governments demanded another audit. Germany was threatening to relocate their US holdings at the time due to a lack of transparency, and had been increasingly calling for an audit in the decades leading up to 2012. To appease doubters, the Treasury OIG conducted another limited audit.

The 2012-2013 NY Fed Audit scope included 34,201 US-owned gold bars (418 tons). Less than 1% (367 bars) were tested for purity. Auditors did not weigh the gold, nor did they conduct a full inventory. All compartments were to remain sealed unless they had reason to suspect tampering. Again, no independent assayers were admitted. Worse, foreign holdings were not inspected. Germany’s gold, for example, was not reviewed but they maintained trust in the US government despite some backlash.

Fast-forward to 2025: DOGE is uncovering government waste and mismanagement and has set its sights on Fort Knox. The US Treasury declared any audit a breach of national security. A true audit of Fort Knox, not including the NY Fed, would take 18-24 months and require 44,000 hours. Foreign governments now have a seemingly plausible reason to point their finger at the US and call “FOUL PLAY!”

Here’s the thing–no nation completely audits its gold holdings. The UAE, for example, implemented mandatory annual audits but only examined 10-20% of its holdings. There is limited transparency as their audits are classified, but they do permit third-party audits and follow London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) standards. Switzerland also follows LBMA standards and conducts regular audits, but auditors only check seals as there is no physical count. Switzerland is far more transparent about its auditing process, but again, they are only looking at a small percentage of overall holdings and not weighing or physically assessing the gold. Any nation could point the finger at another and question the validity of its stockpile.

As for US gold holdings, there have not been any official sales. If anything is missing, then that means it was stolen. However, the media is honing in on the US without understanding that no foreign nation conducts a full audit of their gold holdings. It all comes down to trust in the government, not only the current administration but every administration that has come to pass.

Nancy Pelosi strongly supported tariffs before Donald Trump came into the picture. Trump is accomplishing what Pelosi dreamed of achieving nearly three decades ago. In 1996, on the House floor, Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) gave a speech highlighting America’s trade imbalance with China.

“How far does China have to go? How much more repression? How big a trade deficit and loss of jobs to the American worker? And how much more dangerous proliferation has to exist before members of this House of Representatives say ‘I will not endorse the status quo?’” Pelosi touted.

At the time, bipartisan support existed to grant China Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status, but a younger Pelosi firmly disagreed and believed China was taking advantage of the US. “China should not receive most favorite nation status,” she declared. Similar to Trump’s reciprocal tariff charts, Pelosi provided a chart on the status quo of America’s $34 billion trade deficit with China in 1995, which was expected to rise to $40 billion in 1996.

“Since the Tiananmen Square massacre, this figure has increased 1,000% from $3.5 billion to $34 billion now. In terms of tariffs, I think it’s interesting to note that the average US MFN tariff on Chinese goods coming into the United States is 2%, whereas the average Chinese MFN tariff on US goods going into China is 35%. Is that reciprocal? On exports, China only allows certain industries into China, and therefore, only 2% of US exports is allowed into China. On the other hand, the US allows China to flood our markets with a third of their exports.”

Fast-forward to 2025 when her political opponent implemented tariffs on China. Suddenly, Pelosi believes a tariff on China is “reckless” and told her party to repeat the message that Trump’s tariffs will damage the US economy and hurt the American people. “Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs will cause chaos in our economy, raise prices for consumers, and hurt hardworking American families. This is not a strategy — it’s the largest tax hike on the American people in history,” Pelosi wrote on X.

Yet, in 1996, Pelosi believed the opposite to be true and stated that China was stealing millions of US jobs. “In terms of jobs, this is the biggest and cruelest hoax of all, not only do we not have market access, not only do they have prohibitive tariffs, not only our exports not let in very specifically, but China benefits with at least, at least, 10 million jobs from U.S.-China trade. The president in his statement, requesting the special waiver said that China trade supports 170,000 jobs in the United States whereas our imports from China support a 10 million jobs at least … the fact is that U.S.-China trade is a job loser.”

Pelosi visited Tiananmen Square in 1991 to protest China’s suppression of protestors. She was extremely critical of China’s trade practices, ethics, and human rights abuses. At the time, her views expressed a desire to strongly distance the US from China in general.

In 2018, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that the US-China trade deficit send 3.4 million jobs offshore. Manufacturing, a sector that has been on the decline in recent years, accounted for 74% of all job losses to China. As for Pelosi’s home state, 560,000 jobs were lost to China, the largest loss by state in the nation, followed by Texas, which lost 314,000 positions.

The deficit has widened and Chinese goods have continued to flood the US market. The only thing that has changed is the person paving the way for these tariffs. Pelosi’s flip is yet another example of a politician expressing views that express their self-interest rather than the interest of the American public.

COMMENT: I just saw you here on RT (Russia Today) explaining the tariffs. What a marvelous job. Nobody knew that interest and dividends are part of what people call the trade deficit. You appear on TV in Russia explaining the world, but not in America. They are still prejudiced by what the bankers did to you. Thank you for your insight into Trump’s being a businessman, not a politician. The world needs to understand him better.

Yuri

REPLY: I have been criticized by some I know in Washington for appearing on Russian TV. My response is blunt – I don’t give a shit. As President Kennedy said, we all breathe the same air and are all human with our flaws and strengths. I do not subscribe to being prejudiced against a whole people for past events or one person. I have gone to dinner with outright Neocons who, personally, I believe are traitors to humanity. My father taught me long ago to NEVER judge others by your own standards. You must understand their thinking process to grasp why they acted in the past and why they may respond in the future. Everyone and every creature will act in their own self-interest.

I learn as much by doing an interview in Russia as they get from me. I like to hear the questions, for it shows me what is at the top of their thinking process. It is the Neocons who tell leaders never to talk to the enemy. Why? Because you may come to an agreement and settle on peace.

PRIVATE BLOG – Forecasting Emotionally rather than Professionally

Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.

https://ask-socrates.com/

China is the world’s largest car producer and exporter. A little-known fact is that China first became the world’s largest car exporter back in 2023, with low-cost EV companies BYD and Chery in the spotlight. The nation’s auto sector has been steadily expanding since then, with Chinese brands reaching an all-time high of 69.4% of domestic passenger vehicle market share in Q1 2025.

The growing popularity of higher-tech, EV cars has aided China’s auto sector. BYD overtook Tesla to become the world’s top EV company. BYD actually surpassed Tesla in terms of revenue back in 2018, but the two companies had tight competition. As of 2024, BYD exported 4.27 million vehicles worldwide, compared to Tesla’s 1.79 million vehicle sales. In 2025, BYD delivered 416,388 BEVs, exceeding Tesla’s 336,681 vehicles for two consecutive quarters. BYD surpassed Tesla in annual revenue for the first time in 2024, generating $107 billion (29% YoY increase) after experiencing a 40% increase in battery electric and hybris vehicle sales. Tesla posed a slight 0.95% YoY growth in 2024, generating $97.7 billion in revenue, but auto sales accounted for only $72.5 billion of total revenue.

Overall, China exported 5.86 million vehicles in 2024, a 19.3% annual increase. Mexico, Russia, Brazil, and the UAE were the top buyers. China sold 4.96 million passenger vehicles (19.7% YoY increase), 900,000 commercial vehicles (17.5% YoY increase), and 1.28 million new energy vehicles, as well as 987,000 battery-electric vehicles.

Japan is the world’s second-largest car exporter, exporting 4.22 million vehicles in 2024. This marked a -4.5% decline from 2023. Toyota remains Japan’s leading vehicle, accounting for $312.28 billion in revenue and 830,048 million vehicles.

Germany is holding onto third place in auto exports. In 2024, Germany exported 3.4 million passenger cars, marking a 2.5% annual increase. Around 25.9% of all vehicles exported from Germany last year were electric. Volkswagen Group remains Germany’s star, generating $354.86 billion in revenue for the year.

In February 2025, China’s autos accounted for 27.5% of total auto sales globally. Now, these cars are not only cheaper than what other nations like Germany or the US can produce but also more technically advanced. Governments have been placing levies in China’s auto sector for the past few years, as there is a belief China has an unfair advantage. Chinese companies are not separate from the government.

The CCP has been injecting tons of capital into private companies to expand rapidly and undercut competitors’ prices. These companies also have reduced risk as they have the government’s backing. Labor costs are far cheaper in China, and the nation does not need to export vehicle parts for production. Overall, China has been able to rapidly infiltrate the global auto markets and become the global leader.

President Javier Milei saved Argentina from the despair of socialism. Poverty reached a two-decade high between January and June of 2024 at 52.9% when Milei was working diligently to undo decades of poor fiscal policies. New data suggests the number of citizens under the poverty line has fallen to 38.1%

Before taking office,  around 57% of adults in the Argentina were unemployed. Bloated government programs were costing the nation $6 million daily. Argentina was forced to stop printing money back in 2022 after inflation surpassed 60% in July of that year, and their currency became utterly worthless. here were mass strikes since their money could not fund basic goods. Even if they could find employment, what incentive would the people have when the currency is worthless?

Images of Milei with a chainsaw went viral as he swore to begin rapidly cutting government waste and eliminating the ever-growing public sector. He removed price controls and devalued the currency by 54%. Transport and fuel subsidies were eliminated. It was noted that these measures would at first hurt PPP before the economy could begin to heal. Imagine inflation cooling in February at 276% — the situation was dire. The International Monetary Fund awarded Argentina a $44 billion credit program. The nation is beginning to stabilize very slowly, and it took decades of deteriorating economic conditions for someone to come in and clean house.

The situation worsened before healing could begin. Milei called his measures a form of “shock therapy” for Argentina’s economy. Milei agreed to devalue the nation’s peso from around 350 to 800 pesos per USD. He has eliminated quotas on imports and exports and removed the licensing that was difficult to obtain. There is a temporary rise in taxes for non-agricultural trade that brings it on par with industry standards. Transportation and energy subsidies have been eliminated.

Annual inflation hit 289% in April 2024 as the economy was adjusting to new policies. In a dramatic turn of events, inflation cooled to 2.4% in March 2024. Argentina posted its first surplus in over a decade last April at $589 million. Argentina then hit its first budget surplus in December 2024—the first budget surplus in 123 years. The unemployment rate as of Q4 2024 fell to 6.4%, and labor force participation rose to 48.8%.

Milei exclaimed: “The deficit was the root of all our evils — without it, there’s no debt, no emission, no inflation. Today, we have a sustained fiscal surplus, free of default, for the first time in 123 years. This historic achievement came from the greatest adjustment in history and reducing monetary emission to zero. A year ago, a degenerate printed 13% of GDP to win an election, fueling inflation. Today, monetary emission is a thing of the past.”

Argentina is a shining example of how a nation can survive the death grip of socialistic policies when drastic measures are taken. Yet, the West is keen on abandoning capitalism in favor of policies that historically fail and leave citizens in extreme poverty. Milei has continued to preach the success of his policies at every opportunity, warning the world that they are in serious danger if they attempt to adopt the very policies that nearly ruined Argentina.

COMMENT: The media including the financial media really going crazy with this Trump Tariff thing – as if the market wasn’t due for a pull back.

DS

REPLY: We had forecast that we would see a correction by April last year. I answered plenty of questions on various podcasts about whether this would be a big crash and the end of the bull market. I consistently warned that such a scenario was absurd, for that implied the classic flight to quality being government debt. Facing a global sovereign debt crisis, I warned that it was just not realistic. The press has latched onto this normal correction and is deliberately trying to crash the market with constant claims that tariffs will destroy the world economy.

This is the very same political scheme they used in 1932 to blame tariffs on Hoover and the Republicans to win the 1932 election. It was a total lie and a fabrication of history. We are witnessing the attempted coup of Trump by deliberately trying to force the stock market down in a desperate attempt to turn the Republicans against Trump and stop his entire agenda of ending the Democrats’ feeding trough for corruption. I was stunned by the conversation I had yesterday and a deliberate media attempted coup.

Tariffs do not cause a DEPRESSION, no matter how much the media is selling that story now, just as the Democrats did in 1932 to get FDR elected. They also failed to protect any country from the effects of the worldwide depression at the time.

Between 1925 and 1929, there were 33 general revisions or substantial tariff changes, nearly all of which raised tariffs. These included 26 European nations and 17 republics of Latin America. In 1927 and 1928, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand increased and expanded the scope of their tariffs. In Asia, China, Persia, and Siam also raised tariffs during the period.
This was all before the 1929 Crash, which the history books omitted along with the 1931 Sovereign Defaults.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 was in response to the protectionism before 1929. During World War I, obviously, capital moved to the USA, as was the case for production, and also to Latin America. It was World War I that ended the sugar production that used to take place in Europe. It migrated to Java, Cuba, and other South American countries. You can see the huge spike in sugar during 1919/1920. After the war, the Europeans tried to bring back their economic dominance to recover their former glory. To try to achieve that, this was the start of the high tariffs that were really imposed against new competitors. That was the real essence of the trade war. Their high tariffs succeeded and brought sugar production back to Europe. The output during 1927-1928 was actually far greater than before the war in 1914.

The Europeans did the same with Cotton and wheat. This had the effect of creating overproduction, for which Europe lost export markets. This was the protectionist agenda that is rarely, if ever, explained beyond blaming the Smoot-Hawley Act.

There was a Tariff Reduction Bill of 1932, but this did not pass Congress. Here’s the breakdown:

1. Context: After the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930) raised tariffs to record levels, the Democrats said it worsened the Great Depression, but it was the Sovereign Debt Crisis of 1931 that pushed the dollar up and made imports even cheaper. Efforts were made to reverse this protectionist policy. By 1932, Democrats, who generally favored lower tariffs simply by taking the opposite position of Republicans, controlled the House but not the Senate (which remained Republican until March 1933).
2. Legislative Efforts: Democratic lawmakers proposed tariff reduction bills in 1932 to embarrass the Republicans, but faced significant opposition. The Republican-controlled Senate and President Herbert Hoover, a protectionist who wanted to save farmers, opposed lowering tariffs during an economic crisis, fearing a devastating loss of jobs in agriculture.
3. Outcome: No major tariff reduction legislation was passed by both chambers of Congress in 1932. The pivotal shift came later with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (1934) under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which empowered the executive to negotiate tariff reductions as Trump is doing today.

In summary, despite the post-Smoot-Hawley backlash, the political landscape in 1932 prevented tariff reduction bills from passing Congress, as the Democrats were using this as an excuse to vote for FDR. The focus on austerity and revenue-raising measures (e.g., the Revenue Act of 1932) further sidelined such efforts.

The entire Tariff Issue of the 1930s was indeed just political. The Democrats used it to beat the Republicans over the head and pretended that the Tariffs caused the Great Depression. Today, we have the media, which hates Trump as they all tried so hard to defeat him, now they are deliberately blaming tariffs all over again for a normal correction that many kept calling for a major crash before tariffs.

European Union leader Ursula von der Leyen has proposed a zero-for-zero-tariff deal with the United States after the EU was hit with a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum, followed by another 20% levy. The 27-nation bloc will be unable to agree on this proposal, especially since Donald Trump declared that a zero-for-zero deal is not sufficient.

“We stand ready to negotiate with the United States. Indeed, we have offered zero-for-zero tariffs for industrial goods, as we have successfully done with many other trading partners, because Europe is always ready for a good deal,” Von der Leyen said on Monday. Dutch Trade Minister Reinette Klever agreed with Von der Leyen, saying that the best way to respond is to remain calm and de-escalate the situation.

Others, of course, France, disagree and want to begin retaliatory measures. “We cannot exclude any options on goods or services and, however we approach it, open the box to the European tool, which is very comprehensive and which can be extremely aggressive,” French Trade Minister Laurent Saint-Martin said. French President Macron, a longtime personal foe of Donald Trump, insists that the EU should abandon all investment in the US, unaware that such a move would hurt the region. Macron will likely take a trade agreement as a personal defeat.

Trump is willing to negotiate but said a zero-for-zero trade deal is insufficient. “We have a deficit with the European Union of $350 billion and it’s gonna disappear fast,” Trump declared. “One of the ways that that can disappear easily and quickly is they’re gonna have to buy our energy from us … they can buy it, we can knock off $350 billion in one week. They have to buy and commit to buy a like amount of energy.” Von der Leyden was somewhat receptive and said the bloc would consider purchasing American liquefied natural gas.

The European Union desperately needs a new energy exporter after the remaining flow of oil from Russia was cut off by Ukrainian President Zelensky. The bloc will vote on its next move today, but as we recently heard from incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the EU is prepared to abandon any remaining fragments of democracy to ensure Brussels has the final say.

Every issue that the European Union faces is a reminder that a centralized one-European government cannot function. It was doomed from the start, as I have explained in depth on this blog. Each nation has its independent needs, and Brussels utterly disregards those needs if it does not meet its agenda.

Certain Eastern European nations were far more reliant on Russian energy, and yet, Brussels sided with Ukraine to prevent them from accessing that crucial resource. I believe it will become more apparent as time goes on that individual nations have no voice in the European Union, but they will not realize the authority they surrendered until their individual economies turn down and Brussels shows its true disdain for member nations.

PRIVATE BLOG – Is the NASDAQ in a Bear Market with New Lows Ahead & Coup Against Trump?

Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.

https://ask-socrates.com/