Peter Schiff: Don’t Trust the Rebound Yet

The losers will be the American taxpayer and U.S. dollar, Schiff argues.

In his latest podcast, Peter reviews April’s surprising turnaround in the stock market, explores the myths of tariff-driven economic patriotism, and exposes the contradictions in US currency policies. He also shares his skepticism about the delayed economic impacts of tariffs and comments on the intersection of political influence and wealth in Washington’s culture.

Peter starts by describing last week’s dramatic reversal in the stock market, with particular focus on the technology-heavy Nasdaq index:

Well, you know, when the month of April started out, we were on track for probably one of the worst Aprils in the stock market. Certainly the worst since 2020, the COVID April, but it may have been worse than that. You know, following liberation day on April, April 2nd. But over the past two weeks or so, we’ve had a complete reversal of that decline. And in fact, the Nasdaq, which I think was down the most other than the Russell 2000, since I think post liberation day during the month of April, the Nasdaq was down more during that month, the Nasdaq actually recovered all of its losses and closed positive on the month.

Despite this rebound, Peter urges listeners to remain cautious. He suggests that investors may want to seek opportunities elsewhere—especially given the false optimism driving recent gains:

But maybe there’ll be some selling in May. And if you’re smart, you’ll go away. Or at least go to foreign markets, go to other investments that have a lot more potential than the stock market. But I think what really powered the gains was the appearance of a de-escalation of the trade war, and some optimism that maybe it’s not going to be as bad as we thought. When of course, it’s actually going to be worse than they thought. They didn’t realize how bad it was going to be. But now they think it’s not going to be as bad as they thought because of a lot of the rhetoric coming mostly from the Trump administration.

He then highlights the hypocrisy surrounding the US’s stance on currency values—a policy area where double standards seem almost the norm. Peter finds it illogical that US officials simultaneously complain about foreign currency “manipulation” while touting a strong dollar policy at home:

Bessent keeps talking about foreign exchange, which is also one of the hypocrisies, because I saw him interviewed. He specifically said, ‘One of the ways that the world is cheating us is by undervaluing their currency, that their currencies are too low.’ So in other words, they’re helping to make the dollar stronger, and that’s how they’re cheating. But in the same interview, almost like one sentence away, he was asked about the strong dollar policy, and he said, ‘Oh, absolutely, we have a strong dollar policy.’ Okay, well, if we have a strong dollar policy, and he not only said that we have a strong dollar policy, he said he wants the strong dollar.

According to Peter, the genuine economic effects of tariffs are still waiting in the wings. Businesses stocked up on goods before new tariffs were implemented, muting the pain for now—but the tidal wave is coming:

So all of this is going to have an impact. I mean, right now, I remember a lot of businesses were front running these tariffs, so they still have inventory to sell, because they ordered this stuff before the tariffs hit. Now they’re not ordering it now, so the economic data that we’re getting now hasn’t been impacted. … But so we haven’t really seen the impact. I mean, we initially saw some impact in the stock market and maybe in consumer confidence, but the real economy hasn’t really felt the sting of these tariffs.

To close, Peter turns to the issue of political access and the price tag attached to it in today’s Washington, commenting on the President’s son opening a private club to cater to Washington elites:

The cost to join this club is half a million dollars. That’s the entry ticket. And it’s basically, you know, I don’t know, it’s like a restaurant, you know, you go for lunch, you go have a drink. I’m not sure if they have some tennis courts in the back or a gym or something. I’m not really sure what you get for your 500 grand. … They’re saying the way they’re advertising this is, ‘Hey, this is a way to get access to the Trump cabinet because the cabinet members– they’re going to hang out at this club.’

And if you missed it, be sure to check out Peter’s latest interview on the Young and Profiting channel!

Schiff: Tariffs Won’t Bring Back Manufacturing

Tariffs are being pitched as a magic bullet to revive American manufacturing, pushing out foreign competitors to bring red, white, and blue factories humming back to life. It sounds great: tax imports to bring companies back to the States, and generate a flood of revenue in the process as jobs flood back to the heartland. But in reality, prices will rise, demand will drop, and foreign companies will just sell elsewhere.

Tariffs incentivize other countries to disengage economically, find new trading partners, and de-dollarize. Meanwhile, the higher prices they charge for goods will be passed onto consumers. Higher prices will inevitably decrease demand, and tariff revenues along with it. Despite what they say, Americans who are used to cheap foreign goods won’t want to pay the “Made in America” premium.

As Peter Schiff said on his podcast earlier in May about Trump’s “Liberation day:”:

“…all he’s going to liberate Americans from is their access to low-cost consumer goods.”

And besides, who is going to produce them? A major skills gap has developed that means even with a million new manufacturing or trade jobs, there wouldn’t be a million people to fill them. The skills don’t exist and the jobs can’t possibly pay enough to their employees and offer low-enough prices that their products will sell. Young Americans have neither the technical ability nor the interest to fill demand for manufacturing careers.

Community colleges and trade schools are underfunded, and cultural emphasis on four-year degrees has left vocational skills in the dust. With the plummeting real-world value and skyrocketing price of college degrees, the cultural tide is turning back to the trades. But they won’t become attractive again overnight, especially with low pay and automation threatening to take more of those jobs than foreign workers ever could.

Manufacturing Year-Over-Year, 2015 to Present

Manufacturing’s decline isn’t just about cheap foreign labor—it’s about technology. Robots don’t care about tariffs. The U.S. manufacturing output isn’t relevant for creating manufacturing jobs if robots are doing all the work. A large and ever-growing number of manufacturing job losses since 1990 have been due to automation and robotics, not trade. Tariffs can’t reverse that trend.

Millions of manufacturing jobs will go unfilled in the next decade due to this gap. Tariffs might nudge companies to consider U.S. factories, but who’s going to work in them? Without a skilled labor pool, those factories stay empty or go elsewhere. Companies (like IBM) that have announced US investment will struggle to find enough workers for the jobs that it can’t automate.

Tariffs aren’t paid by foreign producers—they’re paid by American consumers. When a tariff hikes the cost of imported goods, companies pass that increase onto buyers. Everything from electronics and cars (and car insurance) to clothing gets pricier, and domestic manufacturers, shielded from competition, often raise their prices too.

This creates a double whammy: consumers pay more, and demand for those goods drops as wallets tighten. Lower demand means fewer sales, which undercuts the very manufacturing jobs and revenue that tariffs aim to create. It’s a vicious cycle—higher costs, less consumption, stalled growth. Meanwhile, retailers will have to raise prices on their pre-tariff stock even as demand goes down.

U.S. retailers will soon jack up prices on the inventory they stocked up on pre-tariffs. They will need to make higher margins on their existing inventory to make up for the plunge in sales that will result once they must price in the full impact of tariffs on future imports.

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) April 30, 2025

Americans can’t stomach higher prices for long. Tariffs sound great until your grocery bill or new TV costs 20% more. Consumer behavior shifts fast—people buy less, switch to cheaper alternatives, wait it out, or turn to black markets. This reduces the revenue tariffs are supposed to generate. This is why tariffs will always fall short of projections—they conveniently omit from their calculations that demand will go down and imports will drop as prices rise.

Once tariffs are fully priced into U.S. merchandise, many consumers who can afford to pay the higher prices won’t. They may decide to wait out the tariffs, especially on big ticket items. Who wants to make a major purchase, then watch the price of what they just bought collapse.

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) April 30, 2025

Plus, higher prices hit lower-income households hardest, who spend a larger share of their income on essential goods, stirring resentment and political backlash.

Tariffs also disrupt global supply chains, which are tightly optimized. When the U.S. slapped tariffs on steel in 2018, domestic manufacturers faced shortages and delays because foreign suppliers rerouted elsewhere. This raised costs for U.S. companies that rely on imported materials, like automakers or appliance makers, who then passed those costs to consumers or cut production. Jobs didn’t flood back and demand predictably went down. Retaliation is another kicker—in a previous tariff conflict, China hit back with tariffs on U.S. agriculture. Tit-for-tat trade wars hurt more than they help.

Peter Schiff said in April:

“What really hurt…was China’s retaliation…But the foreign markets didn’t go down when Trump announced tariffs. They really went down because China retaliated with tariffs of its own, which is a mistake for China to have made…tariffs always do the most harm to the nation that imposes them.”

Tariffs are a blunt tool—costly, disruptive, and counterproductive. They’re blind to the real barriers holding back sustainable economic strength; a nation declaring economic war on itself. They may have had a shot at working in previous centuries, when the US economy wasn’t nearly so vast…but even then, tariffs produced predictable problems.

Today, they will make life more expensive and push jobs to other countries. Tariffs can never produce enough income to eliminate the income tax, as Trump has alluded to, without far more spending cuts than DOGE could ever hope to accomplish.

Tariffs have induced waves of uncertainty and talk of global economic restructuring. Stagflation is here, and QE is coming. The losers of all this in the end, as usual, will be the American taxpayer and the US dollar.

Interested in learning how to buy gold and buy silver? Call 1-888-GOLD-160 and speak with a Precious Metals Specialist today!

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.