Before we get started, my Insider’s Advantage subscription is available at 35% off for a limited time. If you want to understand where the money is going before Washington and Wall Street tell you where it went, join us here.
There is an old saying that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Apparently, nobody ever explained that to the people running our monetary system. They’ve spent decades convincing Americans that wealth can be created with a few keystrokes, that debt doesn’t matter as long as you can roll it over, and that the United States can dictate the flow of virtually every commodity on earth simply by threatening to cut somebody off from the dollar.
Then Donald Trump picked up the phone and called Vladimir Putin.
And suddenly, one of the most powerful financial weapons ever devised ran headfirst into something it couldn’t control. Diesel fuel.
On October 9, Trump announced an agreement under which Russia would release up to 4.8 million metric tons of diesel into American and global markets. The Treasury Department promptly issued a six-month sanctions waiver permitting Russian diesel transactions that had previously been restricted. The political establishment went into its usual convulsions. Democrats accused Trump of helping Putin finance his war in Ukraine. A number of Republicans joined the chorus. European governments, which have spent years paying the price for cutting themselves off from Russian energy, were understandably less than enthusiastic.
And practically everyone missed the most important part of the story.
The world’s most powerful country, armed with the world’s reserve currency and the most sophisticated financial system ever created, just acknowledged that financial power has limits. Physical reality doesn’t.
For anyone who owns gold or silver, or is thinking about buying either one, that is a much bigger story than whether Trump gets a temporary reduction in diesel prices before the midterm elections.
You Can’t Run an Economy on Sanctions and Press Releases
For decades, Washington has operated under the assumption that controlling the international financial system meant controlling the world. And to a considerable extent, it worked. If you wanted to participate in global commerce, you needed access to dollars, correspondent banks, international payment networks, and the enormous American consumer market. Washington could threaten to shut off that access, and most countries would fall into line.
The strategy became especially aggressive after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Russian assets were frozen, Russian banks were excluded from portions of the international financial system, and Western governments imposed an expanding collection of restrictions on Russian energy exports. The objective was straightforward: make it economically impossible for Putin to continue financing his war.
There was just one problem. Russia had something the world needed, and Washington couldn’t manufacture it with a Federal Reserve balance sheet.
Oil, natural gas, diesel, fertilizer, uranium, nickel, and a long list of other commodities don’t disappear because some bureaucrat in Washington issues a directive. They find new buyers, new transportation routes, new intermediaries, and new ways around restrictions. Sometimes the transactions become more expensive and less efficient, but the underlying demand doesn’t disappear.
Which brings us to Trump’s diesel deal.
After years of treating Russian energy as something the civilized world was supposed to avoid, Washington suddenly decided that Russian diesel wasn’t quite so objectionable after all. Apparently, when American truckers, farmers, and consumers are paying the price, geopolitical principles become considerably more flexible.
I don’t say that to criticize Trump for attempting to lower fuel prices. A president is supposed to look after his country’s economic interests. In fact, I suspect Trump understands something that many of his critics don’t: an economy cannot function indefinitely on political slogans.
But the larger implication is impossible to ignore.
You can sanction a country. You can freeze its bank accounts. You can threaten anyone who does business with it. But you cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand.
And that’s where gold enters the picture.
The Dollar’s Greatest Weapon Is Becoming Its Greatest Liability
Imagine you’re running the central bank of India, China, Saudi Arabia, or any other country that doesn’t particularly enjoy taking orders from Washington. For decades, you’ve accumulated American Treasury securities because they’re liquid, widely accepted, and backed by the world’s largest economy. You’ve been told that these securities are among the safest assets in existence.
Then you watch Washington freeze hundreds of billions of dollars in Russian central bank reserves.
Suddenly, you discover that your supposedly risk-free assets carry a risk nobody adequately explained. They can become inaccessible if the government issuing the currency decides it doesn’t like your foreign policy.
Now you watch the same government temporarily relax its own sanctions because it needs diesel.
What conclusion would you draw?
I’d conclude that the rules are written in pencil, not stone, and that they can change whenever Washington finds it convenient. I’d also start asking whether I wanted quite so much of my country’s wealth dependent upon somebody else’s political decisions.
This is one of the most compelling arguments for central banks to accumulate gold. Not because gold pays interest. It doesn’t. Not because its price rises every month. It certainly doesn’t. But because physical gold held under your own control isn’t somebody else’s promise to pay.
A Treasury bond is a claim against the United States government. A bank deposit is a claim against a financial institution. A derivative is a contract whose value depends upon a collection of counterparties, clearinghouses, and market rules.
An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold.
It doesn’t require Jerome Powell’s signature, a Treasury Department waiver, or permission from the European Commission to exist.
And that distinction becomes increasingly valuable when the international monetary system is being used as a political weapon.
The Paper Market Just Got Another Lesson in Physical Reality
One of the things I’ve been discussing for years on the Financial Survival Network is the enormous difference between a paper claim and an actual physical asset.
Financial markets have become extraordinarily good at creating paper representations of practically everything. We have futures contracts, options, swaps, exchange-traded funds, structured products, and derivatives whose complexity would make a Las Vegas casino operator blush. Much of this activity serves legitimate economic purposes. Producers need to hedge. Consumers need price certainty. Investors need liquidity.
But none of those contracts can manufacture the underlying commodity.
You can create a thousand futures contracts representing a million barrels of oil, but when a refinery needs crude, somebody has to deliver the oil. You can trade silver contracts all day long, but when an electronics manufacturer needs physical silver, a paper settlement won’t keep its production line running.
And when physical supply becomes tight enough, the distinction between the two becomes painfully obvious.
Trump’s diesel agreement illustrates the principle beautifully. Washington spent years attempting to restrict Russian energy flows through financial and legal mechanisms. Then diesel prices rose, supply became strained, and the administration found itself making exceptions to its own restrictions.
The financial rules had to accommodate the physical commodity. The commodity didn’t have to accommodate the rules.
Now think about what that means for gold and silver.
The precious metals markets have enormous paper components, particularly in futures and other derivative trading. That doesn’t automatically mean the prices are fraudulent or that a physical delivery crisis is inevitable. But it does mean investors need to understand the difference between owning a claim on a metal and possessing the metal itself.
If enough buyers demand actual delivery, physical availability becomes decisive. No amount of financial engineering can turn a warehouse receipt into metal that isn’t there.
Paper can determine the price for a very long time. Physical supply ultimately determines whether somebody can deliver.
That’s a distinction I wouldn’t want to forget.
Diesel Is the Inflation Nobody Can Escape
Here’s another reason the Russian diesel deal deserves far more attention than it’s receiving.
Diesel isn’t merely another product Americans purchase. It’s embedded in the cost of virtually everything they consume.
The truck delivering groceries to your supermarket runs on diesel. So does the equipment harvesting much of the food, the machinery building roads, the trucks hauling construction materials, and countless other pieces of equipment that keep the economy functioning. Raise diesel prices and you’ve effectively imposed a tax on the entire supply chain.
And unlike the income tax, nobody gets to vote on it.
Trump’s announced 4.8 million metric tons sounds impressive until you put it into perspective. Spread over an entire year, it would represent only a modest fraction of American diesel consumption. And the announced supply is intended for global markets, not exclusively for the United States. More importantly, Russia’s ability to deliver the full amount remains uncertain.
The immediate announcement moved energy markets, but moving the price of a futures contract isn’t the same thing as permanently expanding refining capacity.
That requires capital investment, equipment, labor, permitting, transportation infrastructure, and time. It also requires a regulatory environment in which investors believe they can recover their money before the government decides their business is no longer politically fashionable.
And there’s the problem.
We’ve spent years treating fossil fuel production and refining capacity as industries that should eventually disappear, while continuing to depend upon them for virtually every aspect of modern civilization. It’s a remarkable feat of collective economic schizophrenia.
Now the bill is coming due.
High energy costs work their way into food prices, transportation costs, manufacturing expenses, construction budgets, and ultimately the price of just about everything. Even if the government manages to bring headline inflation down temporarily, elevated energy costs can keep pressure on the underlying economy.
For the Federal Reserve, that creates an unpleasant choice. Keep monetary policy tight enough to fight inflation and risk crushing an already debt-burdened economy, or ease financial conditions and risk another round of currency depreciation.
Neither alternative is particularly attractive.
And neither changes the fact that Washington has accumulated a mountain of debt that becomes increasingly difficult to service when interest rates remain elevated.
I’ve written before about the government’s increasingly desperate choice between inflating or dying, and inflating and dying. The diesel situation doesn’t create that dilemma. It simply makes it harder to ignore.
Gold has historically been one way investors have attempted to protect purchasing power against long-term monetary deterioration. Silver offers similar monetary characteristics, although its substantial industrial demand makes it considerably more volatile.
Neither metal rises in a straight line, and higher real interest rates can create serious headwinds. But if governments ultimately choose monetary accommodation over fiscal discipline, the longer-term case for owning tangible assets becomes difficult to dismiss.
Europe Paid the Price. Washington Changed the Rules.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the entire episode is what it says about Western economic unity.
European countries spent years reorganizing their energy systems to reduce dependence upon Russia. Some of that adjustment was necessary for national security. But it came at a considerable economic cost, particularly for energy-intensive industries that had relied upon relatively inexpensive Russian supplies.
German manufacturers didn’t suddenly become less dependent upon affordable energy because politicians in Brussels told them to. Chemical plants, steel mills, fertilizer producers, and industrial facilities need enormous amounts of energy regardless of which party wins an election.
Now Washington is relaxing restrictions on Russian diesel to address its own energy problems.
Imagine how that looks from Berlin.
The United States expects its allies to absorb the costs of a common geopolitical strategy, but when American fuel prices become politically inconvenient, Washington reserves the right to make exceptions.
There may be perfectly reasonable arguments for those exceptions. That’s not the point.
The point is that countries are learning an expensive lesson about depending upon political alliances to guarantee their economic security.
And once governments begin questioning the reliability of those arrangements, they start looking for alternatives.
Not necessarily alternatives to the dollar tomorrow morning. The dollar remains deeply entrenched in international trade and finance, and there is no obvious replacement capable of performing all its functions.
But diversification doesn’t require a revolution. It can happen gradually, one central bank purchase, one bilateral trade arrangement, and one reserve allocation at a time.
Gold is particularly well suited to that process because it doesn’t require another government to honor a promise.
That doesn’t mean the dollar is about to disappear. It means the monopoly on unquestioned trust is slowly eroding.
And once trust starts disappearing, restoring it can be extraordinarily expensive.
Why Silver Could Be the Bigger Surprise
Gold gets most of the attention whenever geopolitical uncertainty increases. Central banks buy it, sovereign wealth managers understand it, and investors have regarded it as monetary insurance for thousands of years.
Silver is a different animal.
It has a monetary history stretching back centuries, but it also plays an important role in modern industry. Electronics, electrical equipment, solar technology, and numerous other applications depend upon silver’s exceptional conductivity and other physical properties.
That creates an interesting combination.
If investors become increasingly concerned about the purchasing power of fiat currencies, silver can benefit from monetary demand. If industrial activity and electrification continue expanding, silver can also benefit from physical consumption.
Of course, the industrial side cuts both ways. A severe recession can weaken silver demand even while monetary uncertainty is increasing. That’s one reason silver’s price movements can make gold look downright sedate.
But the underlying attraction remains.
Gold is primarily a monetary asset with industrial uses. Silver is both a monetary metal and a widely consumed industrial commodity.
And unlike government bonds, neither one can be created by congressional appropriation.
You can print another trillion dollars. You can authorize another trillion in Treasury borrowing. You can create another mountain of derivatives.
But you can’t print another ounce of silver.
Somebody has to find it, finance the mine, obtain the permits, extract the ore, process it, refine it, and deliver the finished metal. That takes years, not a few clicks on a computer terminal.
Which brings us right back to diesel.
The world has become so accustomed to…
