The stock market may look strong, but that does not mean American households are thriving.
In a wide-ranging conversation with Lynette Zang, Dr. Mark Thornton, senior fellow at the Mises Institute, examined the growing divide between booming financial markets and the financial reality facing ordinary workers. Their discussion covered inflation, stock market concentration, artificial intelligence, private equity, retirement accounts, monetary control, financial privacy, and the role of physical gold and silver in preserving purchasing power.
The central issue was simple: if markets are doing so well, why are so many people struggling?
Low Real Interest Rates Are Fueling Asset Markets
Thornton explained that although nominal interest rates have risen, the real interest rate, meaning the market interest rate after subtracting the government's measure of inflation, remains very low.
That environment benefits borrowers and asset markets.
Corporations can borrow money and repay those obligations later with depreciating dollars. Thornton argued that AI companies, data centers, and other major technology firms have been borrowing heavily, helping support higher stock prices.
But the strength is not evenly distributed across the market.
According to Thornton, much of the performance of the S&P 500 has been concentrated in a relatively small group of extremely large technology companies. Because these companies carry such significant weight in major indexes, retirement accounts and investors tracking those indexes may have far more exposure to the technology and AI boom than they realize.
At the same time, stock valuation measures are historically elevated.
Thornton pointed specifically to long-term valuation measures such as the Shiller measure, arguing that current stock prices stand far above historical relationships with underlying earnings.
The Working Class Experiences a Different Economy
While asset owners may benefit from rising stock, land, and bond values, workers face a very different reality.
Food, shelter, gasoline, insurance, mortgages, and housing have all become increasingly expensive.
Thornton described this as a widening break between those who own substantial assets and those who primarily depend on wages. Inflation can boost nominal asset values while simultaneously eroding the purchasing power of earned income.
That distinction led Lynette to what she described as one of the most important functions of money:
Money should preserve the value of your labor through time.
The hours you already worked are gone. You cannot work them again.
When those wages are stored in a currency that continuously loses purchasing power, the value of that past labor is being diminished.
For Lynette, that is why the difference between currency and sound money matters so much.
Money Should Preserve Your Labor
Lynette contrasted debt-based currency with physical gold and silver.
Gold and silver, she argued, are finite tangible assets. Fiat currency, by comparison, is created through debt and can be expanded.
Thornton agreed that the store-of-value function is critical.
Gold and silver have historically served not simply as mediums of exchange, but as ways of carrying purchasing power forward through time. That ability to accumulate value, he argued, supports saving, family stability, long-term planning, home purchases, education, emergencies, and broader economic stability.
Thornton contrasted that model with today's environment, where major expenses such as homes, education, and medical emergencies have increasingly moved beyond what the average household can comfortably afford.
The deterioration of personal savings was another concern.
He noted that Americans once saved a much larger percentage of their income, while today's savings rate is only a small fraction of that level for many households.
To both Lynette and Thornton, the comparison between sound money and fiat currency ultimately comes back to whether money protects what people have already earned.
From Ownership to Permission
Lynette described the monetary transition as a movement through several stages.
First came direct ownership.
When you physically hold gold or silver, you own the asset itself.
Then came claims against those assets through bank notes and other financial instruments.
Eventually, the monetary system became increasingly based on debt.
Now, Lynette sees another transition taking place, from a permission-based system toward a control-based system.
The distinction becomes especially important when considering money held through intermediaries.
Money held in a bank, brokerage, retirement account, or other institution often requires that institution to provide access. In extreme circumstances, permission can potentially be delayed or denied.
Physical gold and silver held directly operate differently.
There is no intermediary standing between the owner and the asset.
That elimination of counterparty dependence is one reason Lynette places physical ownership at the center of sound money strategies.
The AI Boom and Circular Funding
The conversation then returned to artificial intelligence.
Lynette raised concerns about what she described as circular funding among technology companies, where companies lend, invest, or transact with one another in ways that can make revenues and balance sheets appear stronger.
She compared the pattern to previous periods of financial excess, asking whether today's AI boom resembles the late stages of earlier business cycles.
Thornton said similar behavior frequently appears near the end of a cycle.
He referenced both the late 1920s and the technology bubble of the late 1990s. During speculative booms, he said, companies may intertwine financing arrangements, revenues, and investments in ways that look sustainable in the short term but become vulnerable when underlying economic reality catches up.
Thornton recalled companies during the technology bubble booking revenues through arrangements with other businesses that created impressive headline figures without necessarily representing strong independent demand.
He sees similarities in today's AI sector.
The concern is not that artificial intelligence has no value. Thornton specifically said he believes AI will be helpful to businesses.
The issue is whether the enormous amounts of capital being committed to AI infrastructure can produce revenues large enough to justify the projections now embedded in financial markets.
Rising Costs Could Challenge AI Projections
Thornton pointed to the enormous costs associated with building AI infrastructure.
Companies are competing for highly paid engineers. Semiconductor prices have risen. Data centers require massive construction, energy, and infrastructure investment.
Meanwhile, projections for future revenues remain extremely ambitious.
As more data-center capacity comes online, Thornton questioned whether demand will be strong enough to support the prices and revenues companies are currently projecting.
Businesses cannot increase sales by 100%, 200%, or 300% indefinitely.
At some point, expectations must meet actual results.
That is when speculative financial structures can become much harder to sustain.
Are We Watching a Stock Market Melt-Up?
Lynette asked Thornton whether today's environment resembles a stock market melt-up.
She pointed to markets continuing higher despite war, volatile oil prices, rising derivatives, and other warning signs.
Thornton said investors should examine the broader market, historical valuation measures, leverage, private equity, and private credit rather than looking only at major indexes.
He characterized private equity as similar in important ways to the junk-bond environment of the 1980s because investors seek higher returns in exchange for higher risk.
When tighter conditions began creating stress, private credit expanded as another way to funnel capital into struggling ventures and meet debt obligations.
Thornton's broader point was that financial structures can remain intact for a long time because new liquidity continues flowing into them.
But eventually, ventures must produce results.
Retirement Accounts and Private Equity Risk
Lynette also raised concerns about expanding access to alternative investments through retirement accounts.
Thornton argued that much of the money historically made in private equity has gone to those who structure and manage the deals rather than investors broadly.
More concerning to him are situations where investors want to withdraw money but cannot access it.
That brings the discussion back to the difference between ownership and permission.
An account statement may show wealth, but access can still depend on another institution.
With directly held physical gold and silver, Lynette emphasized, ownership does not depend on a bank, brokerage, fund manager, or Wall Street intermediary.
For people concerned about wealth preservation and economic collapse preparation, that difference deserves attention.
Gold and Silver Are Not Technologically Obsolete
One common criticism of physical gold and silver is that they are inconvenient compared with modern electronic payments.
Thornton rejected that argument.
Historically, gold and silver monetary systems developed numerous financial innovations long before central banking and modern fiat currency.
Gold and silver could be deposited, represented by bank notes, accounted for in books, and transferred through financial systems.
Thornton argued that technological innovation can also be applied to a sound money system.
The real question is not whether transactions are digital or physical.
The question is what ultimately stands behind the transaction.
For Lynette, that distinction is essential. A digital claim is not the same thing as directly owning a tangible asset.
AI, Digital Money and the New Financial Rails
The discussion then moved beyond AI as an investment theme.
Lynette asked what happens when the same technology companies benefiting from the AI boom are also helping construct the infrastructure underlying future digital financial systems.
Her concern is about control.
Whoever controls the rails of the monetary system can potentially gain enormous influence over how money moves.
Thornton expressed similar concerns about digital currencies and systems capable of tracking transactions.
Consumers already have abundant electronic payment options, he argued, so new government-linked digital monetary systems may offer little additional value to the ordinary worker.
The difference could instead be the amount of visibility and control those systems provide.
Thornton strongly defended financial privacy as a property right.
To him, how someone earns and spends personal money should remain private rather than becoming information automatically available to government.
From Financial Permission to Financial Control
Lynette described cash as one of the remaining blind spots within the existing monetary system.
Physical currency can still move outside fully visible digital financial rails.
In an entirely digital system, those blind spots could disappear.
That is why she sees the current monetary transition as more than a technological upgrade.
It represents a potential transition from permission to control.
The stakes, therefore, extend well beyond convenience.
Money determines who can preserve purchasing power, who can transact privately, who controls access, and ultimately who retains economic independence.
Why Younger Generations Are Losing Faith
The conversation also examined why younger generations are increasingly dissatisfied with the existing economic system.
Lynette pointed to younger adults who followed the traditional path they were told would lead to the American dream but now find homeownership, education, retirement, and family formation far less affordable.
Thornton agreed that younger people have legitimate reasons to be frustrated.
They see enormous national debt, expensive housing, costly higher education, and rising healthcare costs.
Where he disagrees is with the proposed solution.
Thornton argued that many younger people blame free markets for problems he believes were instead created or intensified by government intervention. As a result, they may support even greater government involvement through nationalization, subsidies, guaranteed incomes, or other policies.
Lynette sees the dissatisfaction differently in one important respect.
She believes it creates an opportunity for education.
If younger people are asking why the promised financial system is no longer working, then the conversation can turn toward sound money, ownership, purchasing power, and financial freedom.
Restoring Sound Money
Thornton closed by highlighting Austrian economics and Murray Rothbard's The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar, which explores a monetary system where dollars are represented by gold and demand deposits are fully backed.
For both Thornton and Lynette, the deeper argument is about restoring a system where money once again protects savers rather than continually losing purchasing power.
Lynette's warning is that the infrastructure of the next monetary system is being built now.
That makes financial education increasingly urgent.
The visible market may still be rising. AI companies may still be attracting enormous capital. Retirement accounts may still show gains.
But underneath those headline numbers are debt, declining purchasing power, concentration, counterparty exposure, and rapidly evolving systems of financial control.
Understanding that distinction is the first step toward making educated decisions.
Build a Sound Money Strategy Before the System Changes
Financial freedom begins with understanding what you own, who controls it, and whether it can preserve the value of your labor through time.
At Zang International, our focus is helping individuals understand sound money strategies built around tangible assets and direct ownership. Physical gold and silver can play a foundational role in wealth preservation, hyperinflation preparation, and protecting purchasing power outside a debt-based financial system.
Learn more about Zang International's sound money strategies and how physical gold and silver can help you prepare financially for the monetary changes already underway.
