GOLD is Blowing SKY HIGH as the Market is CRASHING (Uncut) 03-19-2025

GOLD is Blowing SKY HIGH as the Market is CRASHING! (here’s why) | Rick Rule

You know, I believe that this transition has to happen sooner or later. It doesn’t have to happen because of Mr. Trump. It has to happen because we owe $100 trillion in net present value of unfunded obligations.

On top of that, we owe $36 trillion to bondholders. The net debt, net obligations to the United States are $130 trillion against the private net worth of Americans estimated by the IRS at $141 trillion. The transition may be accelerated because of Trump, but it’s going to occur because of math, simple math.

You’re watching Capital Cosm. My name is Danny, and today’s guest is the legendary Rick Roll. Rick, thank you so much for coming on, my friend.

Pleasure to be back with you. Thank you for having me. For sure.

Lots of things going on, Rick. But I think gold is the top issue right now. At the time of this recording, at $3,000, the magic number has been hit, the $3,000 handle is finally upon us.

What was once the common fixture amongst clickbait titles about gold for all these years here on YouTube has now become a reality. So I’ll let you take it away. What is most topical? What should be most topical on everyone’s radar screen right now, especially as it pertains to gold investors? That’s all interesting.

They say that gold is breaking out to new highs. I’m not sure that in real dollars, gold is breaking out to new highs, certainly nominalized. What gold is meant to do is maintain your purchasing power over time.

And gold has done a wonderful job. You know, Danny, not too long ago, when you interviewed me, I made a wisecrack about when is gold going to move? And my answer was it was going to move in the year 2000, 2000, it was 250 bucks an ounce. Now it’s $3,000 an ounce.

It’s up almost 9% compounded over 25 years. That’s what I’m looking for. The fact that gold is above 3,000 doesn’t matter to me.

I’m not a trader. I own gold, not because I thought it might go through 3,000, but because I was afraid it was going to go through 9 or 10,000. What we’re seeing is gold defending you against the deterioration of the purchasing power of your savings and investment assets in U.S. dollars.

People need to get that. It’s okay if you want to trade this stuff. It’s okay if you want to speculate in junior mining stocks.

But the idea that gold went from $2,700 to $3,000 is of no consequence whatsoever. It’s the fact that gold went from $250 to $3,000 over 25 years that matters. And that matters a lot.

Why hasn’t oil been rising on the same occasion too? Usually the two are kind of inseparable, especially in times of economic crisis. Why has there been a deviation? I’m not so sure that that connection is real. It is, to be sure, real that when inflation is ripping, the cost to produce both gold and oil go up.

So there are supply challenges in both circumstances. Oil is an industrial material. It gets used.

From my point of view, gold is money. It’s very different. It is a medium of exchange and a store of value.

Gold stores well. Oil is too big and too bulky and too cheap. Oil’s utility is making cars go around or making chemicals.

I think it’s a very, very, very different commodity. I’m an oil and gas investor, although I don’t own oil physically. I own oil stocks.

And I think it’s a superb investment for the next 20, 25 years. But it occupies a very different place in my portfolio than gold does. Gold in my portfolio is part insurance, part money.

Awesome. Well, let’s just go ahead and dive into some of these news items here for gold. There’s so many hearsay rumors about what’s going on with the LBMA.

The LBMA is being emptied out as we speak. Four to eight week delivery times are now commonplace, which used to be four to eight day delivery times. You’re also seeing gold being emptied out out of Switzerland.

What is going on around the world? And why is the gold leaving Europe and coming into the United States, in your view? Three plausible explanations. One, the first explanation, which I think is partly true, is that people who want to get Europe out of gold and into the United States or Americans that want to take delivery of gold are afraid that a tariff will be applied to gold by Trump. And they’re trying to beat the tariffs.

A second problem and a second possible explanation is that the paper gold market, which is to say the futures market, commonly trades in one day a hundred times the amount of gold available for good delivery. For 40 years, that hasn’t particularly been a problem because gold has been a best direction list. But now that gold is directional, the idea that somebody’s paper position in gold could be an unsecured obligation and that as a gold option holder, you actually don’t hold title to the gold, I think has bothered some people.

I think that some people who want large quantities of gold have decided that they’re going to have physical rather than paper delivery for their gold. And the idea that a deposit receipt in Switzerland is collateral for good delivery on the convex is, I think, from a lot of people’s view, problematic. They want, you know, physically to have their gold.

The third thing is that the big institutional players are beginning to understand that the asset class is less liquid. There has been concerted buying of gold for three and a half years by foreign central banks, and it is arguable that the existing hold of stock, whether or not available for good delivery, is insufficient, at least in the near term, to discharge all the charges against it. It’s related to the first.

If you have a million ounces of gold, as an example, in some high quality vault, but that gold has been hypothecated and rehypothecated. If you believe that you own that gold, you don’t want any chain of possession on your title. You want the gold.

And I think all of those reasons combined have led to disintermediation from private storage and from LBMA stocks to physical possession in the United States and other centers. Whatever happened to re-evaluating the price of gold on the U.S. balance sheet? Oftentimes, you and I, we’ve heard this story come up every now and then over the years, but it seems to have gained some serious traction as of late. Is it a serious possibility that we re-evaluate the gold that’s on the Treasury’s balance sheet, currently priced at $42.22 to a fair market value of $3,000 plus? Yeah, I think I think that’ll happen for theatrical purposes, and I think it needs to happen.

It doesn’t matter much. I mean, people need to understand that people say, well, we have $36 trillion in debt. We could handle that by re-evaluating the gold.

Well, that’s not true because we’re not going to use the gold to honor the debts. The debts are unsecured. It doesn’t improve our balance sheet, really.

It just improves the theatrics. A more important question, I think, is, by the way, I do think the gold will be revalued because I think theater matters. If you’re looking for great deals on gold and silver, coins and bars from a company that you can trust, then you’ve got to check out the good folks over at Pimbex.

This year, I’ve really gotten to know these guys, and all I can say is you’re not going to deal with a better group of people. They’re a family owned gold and silver online bullion company offering the essentials and more at industry leading prices while always providing first class, top tier service. That’s P-I-M-B-E-X dot com.

And if you’re looking to convert some or all of your retirement account into real gold and silver, give Pimbex a call. They’ll help explain the process and get you started on the right path. Your support at Pimbex also helps support the channel.

So reach out to Pimbex today. You won’t be disappointed. And make sure to tell them Danny sent you.

To a fair market value or to a much higher value than it is today? Probably probably fair market value. I mean, you know, if you could say that the value of the stuff went from, you know, I don’t know, whatever it is to a couple trillion dollars, it would make people feel better about the fact that we owe thirty six trillion dollars. It wouldn’t matter.

But politics is all about making morons feel good. That’s the point. A more important question, I think, is, is the gold there? And who has title? Right.

I’m inclined occasionally to take the government at its word, but since the gold hasn’t been audited for 40 something years, I think it’s right that the gold be audited. You know, Sprott audits their gold every year. The technology exists for this.

Basically, it’s one bar, two bar, three bar, four bar, you know, count the bars and test a few. And while you’re at it, give us a title opinion. Whose gold is it? Did you borrow it from somebody or is it actually gold? Just seeing it there isn’t enough.

If you’re going to revalue it, how much is it? Who owns it? What is it worth? I’m much more interested in the audit and the title opinion than I am the revaluation. If you tell me, backed up by an audit, that my government has X million ounces of gold, I can revalue it. I’ve got a calculator.

I know how to do that. I would really be curious. And when I say an audit, I don’t mean Donald Trump performing theater, walking through Fort Knox, petting the bars with his camera out taking the video.

You know, I don’t want a trust me thing. I want KPMG or PricewaterhouseCoopers or somebody like that, not the Congressional Budget Office. I want a third party walking through there and conducting a proper audit.

At Sprott, we did it every year. It made our shareholders feel better. It made our trust holders feel better.

And to be honest with you, as a director, it made me feel better, too. Interesting. Interesting that you bring up Sprott.

I don’t believe I’ve shown you these charts here before, but I’m going to pull them up now. This is the PSLV short interest volume at the moment. And I want you to take a look at this movement here.

It’s very interesting. So this is short, short, short volume interest on PSLV. And as you can tell, it’s just been skyrocketing up.

What’s interesting, though, is if you look at SLV short volume, you don’t see the same spike, so to speak. So it kind of makes me wonder that it’s kind of been the fuel for speculation, so to speak, that has been has someone been trying to make sure that PSLV doesn’t go into the spotlight and buy more silver to ask to not agitate the silver price because you brought up the re-hypothecation thing that goes on with SLV that may not that doesn’t go on with PSLV. So what do you make of this? An easier way to manipulate the silver price is to stack short the futures market.

Because it’s so leveraged and then use borrowed capital to manipulate down for a very brief period of time, the physical market, so that the physical market sends a signal to the futures market. You can impact, you know, for a million ounce sale, you can impact a 200 million ounce forward position by doing that. I suspect that because the physical price of the SPROT physical trust can become disconnected to the price of the underlying commodity, unlike an ETF, which unless the ETF blows up, always adds or subtracts silver and or deposit receipts, which is to say derivative silver, that an easier way to express your preference about the silver price is through the SPROT physical trust.

Because the ETFs rebalance every day, unless they had a real crisis, there is no disconnect between their price and the silver price. And the shorts are probably trying to take advantage of the relative liquidity of the SPROT physical trust. But in particular, they’re probably trying to take advantage of the fact that the silver price and the SPROT physical silver price becomes disconnected.

The New York Stock Exchange is certainly a wonderful place to express your preference for or against because of the incredible trading liquidity and because of the leverage, the leverage that’s offered. In other words, you can you can easily get you can easily borrow a position on the New York Stock Exchange to short and you can easily cover if you need to. So it’s a wonderful place to express your preference.

Yeah, I’m glad you brought that up, because if you look at SLV, here’s another chart for you. This looks at institutional ownership of SLV and you’ve got the black line that denotes the share price and then you’ve got these green bars that denote the volume of institutional ownership with respect to SLV. As you can tell, there is somewhat of a gap here between the share price and the the volume here.

But if you look at PSLV, it’s quite a different story. PSLV’s institutional ownership has only been increasing since pretty much the last five years. A stark contrast from what we’ve seen from SLV.

So are institutional owners or it’s quote unquote smart money seeing what you’re seeing here? Are they all piling into PSLV in preference to SLV? I think the institutional owners, at least the newcomers to the space, what I call the tourists, the generalists are less concerned about the asset composition of the ETFs. When Eric Sprott set up PSLV, he wanted to make sure that every share of PSLV represented physical ownership in vaults and he was unwilling to include as a temporary measure delivery receipts. He wanted physical silver.

He didn’t want our trust to be an unsecured creditor of a third party, an HSBC or a Barclays. I think that the institutional investors are less untrusting than Eric Sprott was. They want an instrument which tracks the price of silver, irrespective of the composition of their holdings.

The holders of PSLV are very much more people of Eric Sprott’s mind, people who own physical silver because they disconnect the financial system and they don’t want their shareholdership to be a call on somebody else’s silver, but rather almost a delivery receipt evidencing ownership of silver itself. So it’s a very different kind of investor. I see.

I have a viewer question here from one of our members on Substack. This is from Robert Runk. He wants to know, I would like more input on when to sell precious metals, particularly silver.

Obviously, picking the top with any precision is quite impossible, but there must be a moment before a major backslide in precious metals when it would make more sense to sell. I have heard that the basic idea should be to hold the gold forever, but convert silver to gold when the gold to silver ratio gets below 30 to one or something like that. Well, first of all, I don’t believe in ratios.

The prevalence of gold or silver in the earth’s crust, 16 to one, does not go to value, does not go to utility. While it’s an interesting rule of thumb, I think it’s a rule of thumb that isn’t relevant to very much of anything. And I’m not a trader.

I own silver for a reason. When somebody asked me when and where I’m going to sell my silver, I’m going to sell my silver when I have a higher and better use of the cash. I believe that every day I don’t sell something that has a bid on it, I bought it again.

I had a choice between having cash or having that asset class. And until I see an investment that suits that part of my portfolio better than silver, I’m going to own my silver. There isn’t any ratio between gold or silver or there isn’t anything with regard to the price of performance negative about gold or silver.

There isn’t anything technical that would cause me to either buy or sell silver. I have experienced in my lifetime three times a change of leadership in a precious metals bull market where leadership went from gold to silver. This occurs when the generalist investor comes down into the precious metals space.

When that happens, silver outperforms gold. When is that going to happen? I have no earthly idea. When am I going to sell? I don’t know that either.

What I do know is there will come a time, I believe, where silver has done well enough in my portfolio, and by the way, I’ll be very proud of my silver position then, where there is another asset class that’s cheap and fulfills the function that silver has fulfilled better than silver itself. At that point in time, I’ll be a seller. Understood.

We just had this press notice from the CME group. This is as of March 14th. It says, the COMEX says that it is delisting, meaning the delisting process of gold kilo futures, London spot gold futures, London silver spot futures and cleared OTC London gold forwards, quote unquote, collateral margin contracts.

Is this a way of the COMEX disassociating itself from the LBMA? What’s going on here, Rick, in your view? I don’t know the answer to that. I have no idea. I have never myself been particularly interested in over-the-counter futures markets.

I suffer from a lack of trust around precious metals. I don’t own them as trading vehicles. Many, many, many people do.

I would prefer, because I consider them to be good cash, I consider I prefer much clearer title. So, you know, I’m not a I’m not an LBMA or CME participant. I can say that when I was at Sprott and when metals markets were less volatile than they are today and when the float available for trading was greater than it was today, that we at Sprott were well served by those markets.

I have been away from that for some period of time. I resigned any active participation in Sprott some years ago, and I’m less aware now of the activities of the Sprott trading desk and the service offered by various institutional intermediaries in precious metals. Yeah, I want to also get your thoughts on, broadly speaking, some of the stuff that Bessant and Trump have said over the course of the last week.

Bessant has said that we are going through a transitionary period as it relates to the economy as well as the markets. Are they kind of telling us to expect some fireworks, maybe a roller coaster ride down the line when it comes to the markets? Are they preparing us for some pain? What’s your view on their comments there? I think we ought to be prepared. Understand that they’re both politicians.

This will get me a lot of hate from your viewer base, but I believe that you can tell when politicians are lying because their lips are moving. And so because either of them said something, I don’t consider it to be more or less true than had it occurred without them saying it. I don’t think that there can be any doubt that we’re in a period of transition, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the transition, whatever transition that is, occurs a bit quicker because Mr. Trump seems to have a volatile personality and he seems to have sharpened the division, the political division in the United States.

So maybe as opposed to a cause, he’s a catalyst. You know, I believe that this transition has to happen sooner or later. It doesn’t have to happen because of Mr. Trump.

It has to happen because we owe a hundred trillion dollars in net present value of unfunded obligations. On top of that, we owe thirty six trillion dollars to bondholders. The net debt, net obligations, the United States for one hundred and thirty trillion dollars against the private net worth of Americans estimated by the IRS at one hundred and forty one trillion dollars.

The transition. Maybe accelerated because of Trump, but it’s going to occur because of math. Simple math.

Yeah, on the on the trading on the trade side of things, you had his economic advisor, Kevin has said this is from CNBC. He said he warns of more uncertainty over the tariffs. National Economic Council Council director Kevin has set warned of more uncertainty in the coming weeks ahead to President Trump’s tariff policies, but has set predicted that things will clear up when the Trump administration implements its plan to impose reciprocal tariffs next month.

Trump and Treasury Scott, Treasury Secretary Scott percent have declined to rule out the possibility that the US could enter a recession. So it seems like they like you said, they are kind of preparing us for some hard times. What do you make of these recessions? I know you kind of float between Canada and America there, Rick.

So you have a very interesting perspective to give us. What do you make of these reciprocal tariffs to Canada and how do you think it’ll pan out? I think they’re idiocy. I think tariffs are taxes.

And I think taxes suck. The idea that Trump is somehow going to make Americans stronger by chart by causing Americans to pay a 25 percent tax on goods that we want to conserve, consume voluntarily from Canada is the height of idiocy. A special kind of idiocy.

I also think that free trade, truly free trade, which occurs seldom, one should say that the North American Free Trade Act, the fact that it had 3600 pages tells you it wasn’t about free trade. It was about negotiated trade. Danny, if you and I wanted to have a free trade act, we could write it on one piece of paper.

There will be no legal or non-legal institutional impediments to the free transfer, buying and selling of goods between producer and consumer. Stop. You sign it.

I sign it. Right. I mean, I just got a free trade agreement in a hundred words.

And these morons needed 3600 words. Impediments to trade, impediments to the efficient production and access of markets between peoples is a good thing. Are there abuses because the trade isn’t truly free, but rather one party gets the better of the other party in negotiation? Absolutely.

But make no mistake. Trade makes us all richer and tariffs makes us all poorer. Politics is transactional.

Mr. Trump would like to be able to reward parties who are useful to him and punish parties that are hostile to him. If you read his book, The Art of the Deal, Mr. Trump doesn’t believe in win-win solutions. He doesn’t believe that both parties to a transaction ought to win.

He believes that there’s 100 points in a transaction and he wants all 100. This isn’t Rick Rule criticizing Trump. This is Rick Rule who read Trump’s book.

The words I’m giving you are not Rick Rule’s interpretation of Trump. They’re Trump’s interpretation of Trump. There is no win-win.

There is no win-win situation. It’s only I win and you lose. Correct.

Correct. And that’s not the way the world should work. I want to get your thoughts on some of the politics going over there in Canada.

In the last interview you and I conducted, you said there was truly a terrifying option on the docket in the form of Mark Carney. Well, now the nightmares come true. He has become prime minister.

Now the election is still, isn’t it a couple of months away? And when is the Canadian election there? They haven’t called the election yet. Oh, OK. So it hasn’t been called yet.

Interesting. It will be up to the new government to call an election. It’s interesting that they have a prime minister who wasn’t elected and didn’t hold office.

This guy was anointed. It’s distressing to me that at least the Laurentian, the Eastern Canadian power elite chose what I believe would be the worst possible candidate. To suggest that this person isn’t an accomplished person is a mistake.

He’s done a lot in his life, mostly from my point of view, pernicious. He’s not a lightweight. He’s not like he’s former Bank of Canada.

He’s a very dangerous guy. Think of him as a competent Trudeau. I prefer government people who I dislike to be incompetent.

You know, people always used to criticize Biden and now Trump for being on vacation. I’d triple their salaries if they promised not to come back to work. The thing that scares me about Carney is that while I believe he’s evil, I also believe he’s extremely competent, extremely shrewd and extremely hardworking.

The worst of all worlds, from my viewpoint. Well, what what what gets you most, I guess, most negative about Mark Carney? I mean, what’s the thing that scares you the most? I think he’s truly a globalist elitist. I think that Trudeau had his strings pulled.

By the World Economic Forum and their types, I think Carney, unlike Trudeau, is not a puppet. I think he’s a puppeteer. He did, I think, a very bad job running the Bank of Canada and was rewarded for that by being able to do an equally bad job running the Bank of England.

His corporate career has been very interesting. He ran Brookfield, whose job is really to run interference between private capital and public capital. In other words, to use a private balance sheet to loot the taxpayer of various countries.

And he’s superb at that. This is a guy who does big politics extremely well. Yeah, and he’s already made some big moves.

He’s he’s flown all the way over to Europe to kind of gin up the Europeans on a possible membership status for the Canadians to join the EU. I don’t know if that will actually manifest itself or not, but very, very interesting. I think that’s very smart.

Kemal Atatürk, who was a wonderful politician, most people have never heard of, the founder of modern Turkey, said many friends, few enemies. I think that’s a good thing. I think the current malaise that Canada feels is partly a function of their own politics, which is to say the politics of spending as opposed to the politics of investing.

But also a federal government that said, quote, the budget will balance itself. Not didn’t happen. And a leadership that couldn’t find a business case for Canadian oil and gas, despite the fact that there were lots of global counterparties who wanted to buy Canadian oil and gas.

The consequence of that is that Canada comes into a trading dispute with its biggest trading partner, the United States. With its economy soft. With its most competitive sector, oil and gas solely dependent on the US and with the budget badly, badly, badly out of balance.

Philosophically, I think that Carney is attracted to the European Union. It’s worthwhile to note that 15 years ago, in addition to being more populated, the United States, Europe had a larger domestic economy. They have managed to fallen behind the United States.

And I don’t think the United States has done a good job in the last 10 or 15 years. There are vestiges of freedom in the United States. There are vestiges of a private economy in the United States.

And even the vestiges of freedom in a private economy have outperformed the World Economic Forum and the European community. The attraction of Carney to that has to do more with his worldview. Then the efficacy of that worldview for average, ordinary Canadians.

He’s had to roll back the carbon tax thing. Have you have you seen this? This is a developing story as a highly intelligent politician. And the even Canadians who agree with his point of view on carbon energy don’t agree that they should have to pay for it.

In other words, the love of the anti-carbon position doesn’t extend to higher energy prices. And I think that Mr. Carney, in terms of preparation for being elected as opposed to anointed, has to pay some attention to the will of the electorate. What Mr. Carney will try to do now is say that there is a way to control carbon without you having to pay for it.

Right. We’ll punish our trading partners. We’ll punish the billionaires.

We’ll punish Alberta. We’ll do the right thing. And by the way, you won’t have to pay for it.

Did you hear about this delegation from Alberta coming to D.C.? I don’t know if they already have or not, but they were talking about it coming to D.C. about bringing statehood, U.S. statehood into Alberta. All this theater is ridiculous. You know, the only political future I would really desire for myself would be individual sovereignty, which is to say divorce from all states.

But in some portions of Canada, I think I think that the populist conservative rhetoric of Trump is important. And it’s popular as compared to the Laurentian centrist socialist rhetoric that they hear from eastern Canada. So perhaps as a protest against liberal or NDP dominance in the West, there is a popularity around Trump, a populist popularity.

It’s worth noting, though, since we’re on the topic of Canada, I don’t know how many of your listeners are Canadian, that what I call the politically consolidated left, the Liberals, the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc Québécois, reasonably continually command between 60 and 62 percent of the Canadian popular vote. If Mr. Carney can establish himself a consolidated leftist position, he likely will be elected. What needs to happen is what happened after Chrétien, after the original Trudeau, which is to say that Canada needs to wreck itself so completely that like in 1982, they’re they’re excluded from global bond markets and they have to move to the center out of some sense of self-defense.

Very fascinating stuff. I have one more question for you, and this is, again, from our Substack audience. This is from David Cooper.

He wants to know, Rick Roll had a very unique way of calculating GDP back in the day. How did it go exactly? Something about including money supply or money velocity? He wants to kind of expand on the way you calculate GDP. I don’t remember that, to be honest with you.

I’m delighted that the gentleman does remember it and found it useful. But I perhaps because of my age at 72, I have no earthly idea how I calculated it, although it amuses me that I did. Yeah, it sounded very interesting because he alluded that you would use money supply and money velocity in tandem in some sort of formula.

But you’ve been around for a while, Rick, in all due respect, so you can’t keep up with everything that’s been said over the years. Right. And I know you have this big gold boot camp coming up.

You had a part one back in early January. Yeah. For your listeners that aren’t familiar with our boot camps, every 90 days we do an eight hour long online symposium about one particular topic or another.

And the audience chooses the topic. There’s about 12,000 people who are members of the Rural Classroom who select the boot camp topics. When they selected gold, there was so much to talk about that I couldn’t do it in eight hours.

So we broke it up into three eight hour segments. The first one, which is, by the way, still timely, talks about gold as insurance. The role of gold in your portfolio, the historic the historic roles of gold, how you buy physical gold, how you store physical gold, how you sell physical gold.

The second installment will be gold as an investment, where we talk about the very high quality senior gold stocks, the guys that make a lot of money mining and selling gold. And by the way, normally pay dividends. I know my friend Doug Casey once said dividends are, quote, outward manifestations of inward grace, a quote I love.

So the first one was about gold as insurance, gold as cash. The second was about gold as investment. Ultimately, we’ll do a third boot camp.

Gold is a speculation where we’ll talk about the junior miners, the single mine companies, the explorers, because we wanted to explore all the facets of gold. I should tell your audience that these aren’t entertainment sessions. We work our audience very, very, very hard for eight hours, so hard that we give them access to the recordings of the boot camp for a year and you’ll need it.

Attend the boot camp, get the material, then replay the boot camp so that you can answer the questions that the boot camp asked. And then three or four months later, play the boot camp again to refresh your memory. In other words, I’m not going to take eight hours of your life.

I’m going to take 24 or 25 hours of your life. But at the end of it, you will know enough to know what you don’t know in the gold space, which is important. Like every investment education product I’ve offered for the last 30 years, the gold boot camp comes with an absolute gold-plated money-back guarantee.

If you don’t think I’ve earned the tuition I’ve charged you, simply email me and I’ll give you your money back. No questions asked. Well, hey, it’s been a pleasure having you on.

Anything else you want to talk about that we didn’t get to before we wrap up? Two things. If you like what I have to say about natural resources. I’m sure you didn’t like what I had to say about politics, but that’s OK.

If you like what I have to say about natural resources, I can personalize it. Go to my website, RuralInvestmentMedia.com, list your natural resource stocks, and I will personally rank them one to ten. One being best, ten being worst.

I’ll comment on individual issues if I think my comments might have some value. I charge nothing for this service. There’s no obligation.

So, of course, it comes with a full money-back guarantee. More to the point, however, if you really want some of the Rural Media education, go to our boot camps. We charge you $99 and eight hours of your life, but more probably 25 hours of your life because you’ll have to play the recordings a couple of times.

Or our granddaddy product, the Rural Natural Resources Investment Symposium, July 7-11 in Boca Raton, Florida, or from the comfort and convenience of your own home via livestream. Again, whether you attend live or via livestream, this comes with a gold-plated money-back guarantee. If you think for any reason that I didn’t deliver enough value that it justifies what I charged you for, simply email me and I’ll give you a 100% refund.

The financial risk is all mine. Again, the Natural Resources Investment Symposium is a four-day-long symposium, over 50 hours. We will give you more information in 50 hours than you could absorb in 50 hours.

So plan on spending the first 50 hours live or livestream and then playing the recordings at least twice more. You’ll have access to the recordings for a year. RuralSymposium.com. Okay, yeah, we’ll have the links to all those down below.

So be sure to check them out, guys, at the very bottom here on the link in the description, as well as the pinned comment. Rick, thank you so much for coming on. Guys, if you enjoyed this program, be sure to give us a like and comment.

Go, Rick, go in the comment section. If you agreed with everything Rick had to say, if you disagreed with anything, let us know as well. I do read the comments, so very interested in getting your take.

Also, check us out on Substack at CapitalCosm.Substack.com. You can get early access and ad-free versions to all of my videos, as well as uncensored versions. And finally, check out our good partners over at PIMBEX, P-I-M-B-E-X.com for all of your gold and silver buying needs. All right, guys, if you enjoyed that, if you enjoyed everything, be sure to hit the like button, subscribe to the channel, comment down below, and I will see you in the next episode.

Bye, y’all.