May 27, 2026
In his latest appearance on VRIC Media, Peter walks through how rising prices, renewed balance-sheet expansion and growing debt shape the case for real money. He connects headline numbers to policy choices, explains who wins and who loses from inflation, and doubles down on gold as a reliable store of value.
He begins by flagging official inflation readings and what they miss, noting month-to-month momentum and the gap between the Fed's 2% goal and current reality:
The markets didn't seem to react really to the number, but I think they should be. Although not necessarily that particular number, but just the idea that inflation is so much higher than the Fed's supposed target, and heading in the wrong direction. You know, I think the year over year increase in the CPI is 3.8%, but a month ago it was 3.3%, so moving higher. And if you annualize the April number, you're looking at about 7.2%.
Peter frames recent Fed behavior as a return to quantitative easing rather than a neutral stance, warning that balance-sheet growth and rising money supply are inconsistent with low inflation targets. He expects the Fed to step up purchases if rates spike, which in his view will fuel more inflation and asset distortions:
Yeah, I think this is a return to quantitative easing. They've stopped shrinking the balance sheet and it's expanded by more than 200 billion so far this year. That's not nothing. And money supply is growing now at least five percent, which would be very inconsistent if your goal for inflation is two percent. But I think that's just the tip of this QE iceberg. I think that as the year goes on, I think the Fed is going to step up its bond buying, especially if interest rates really start to spike here.
He reminds listeners that inflation is a transfer: it raises nominal asset prices but erodes purchasing power for everyday consumers who do not own those assets. The distributional effects matter- rising costs at the supermarket hurt most households even as stocks and real estate look higher in dollar terms:
Inflation obviously benefits asset prices because it pushes those prices higher. Just like it pushes up the price of goods, pushes up asset prices. In real terms, it doesn't make those assets any more valuable. It just makes them more expensive.... It's not just the stock market; it's the supermarket, so a lot of people don't own assets, but they go to the supermarket every week and everything they buy is going to be more expensive. And it doesn't benefit them if their food costs more money.
On fiscal math, Peter highlights how headline debt understates total obligations once contingent liabilities are included. He uses the funded-debt figure to show the scale of borrowing while warning readers that guarantees and off-balance-sheet promises multiply the problem:
We're about one hundred and twenty-two percent [debt to GDP]. And, again, that's just the funded debt. That thirty-nine point two trillion dollars of debt is the money the U.S. government has borrowed and is obligated to repay. But that doesn't include a lot of other liabilities that are just as real, such as contingent liabilities where the government has guaranteed student loans or mortgages or pension funds or insurance products.
Finally, he offers a concise, tangible comparison to make his point about money and preservation of purchasing power: dollars have been debased dramatically since 1971, while gold has held value, making the case for owning real money rather than paper promises:
Think about somebody in 1971. If they, you know, buried a stack of dollars in the ground and dug them up today, if they put $35 in the ground, you know, what could they buy with $35 relative to what $35 used to buy in 1971 ? But if they had put an ounce of gold in the ground and they dug it up today, they got $5,000, you know, they can buy a lot. That is the difference. Think about that. Over a 50 year period, it's a difference between having $35 and having $5,000..
This article was originally published on SchiffGold.com.