Terrence Howard just dropped a 15-minute monologue covering US dollar decline, silver suppression, Bitcoin’s death, and China’s geopolitical strategy.
Some of his analysis is sharp. Some of it is fundamentally wrong.
He’s right that the US dollar is losing reserve status. BRICS expansion is real. Saudi Arabia diversifying away from the dollar is real. Only 51% of global transactions using USD is a legitimate concern.
He’s right that Trump’s tariff approach would have worked 40 years ago when the world needed dollars, but doesn’t work now when alternatives exist.
But he’s dead wrong about Bitcoin.
Howard claims Bitcoin is “going to die” because it’s “based on fiat” and can be “wiped out with a push of a button.”
That’s not how Bitcoin works. At all.
We recently covered how Bitcoin’s network can survive 72% of submarine cables failing. The idea that Bitcoin can be erased with “a push of a button” reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of decentralized infrastructure.
Howard mixes legitimate geopolitical observations with wild speculation and technical errors. Some points land. Others miss completely.
Let me break down what he gets right, what he gets wrong, and why it matters.
Dollar Decline Is Real (Howard Gets This Right)
Howard’s core claim: The US dollar is “done.”
His evidence:
- Saudi Arabia no longer exclusively using USD for oil sales
- 25 countries joined BRICS
- Only 51% of world transactions use USD
- Dollar lost 9% purchasing power in 12 months
- China sold $864 billion in US debt
Is he right about dollar collapse?
He’s right.
The dollar isn’t collapsing overnight. But its dominance is eroding—slowly, then suddenly.
What’s actually happening:
BRICS expansion is real. Saudi Arabia is accepting yuan for oil sales alongside dollars. That breaks the petrodollar monopoly that’s existed since the 1970s.
When countries can trade oil without converting to USD first, dollar demand drops. When dollar demand drops, US ability to print money without inflation consequences decreases.
The 51% figure:
Howard claims only 51% of global transactions use USD. That’s roughly accurate for international trade settlement. The dollar’s share of global reserves sits around 58-59%—down from 71% in 2000.
That’s a massive shift over two decades.
The purchasing power decline:
Howard says the dollar lost 9% purchasing power in 12 months. That’s inflation. Real. Measurable. Painful.
If you had $100,000 last year, you effectively have $91,000 in purchasing power now.
China and Japan selling US debt:
Howard mentions China sold $864 billion in US debt. Accurate. Japan is selling too.
When major creditors dump Treasuries, yields rise. When yields rise, US borrowing costs increase. When borrowing costs increase with $36 trillion in debt, the math gets ugly fast.
So yes, Howard is right about dollar decline.
The timeline might be slower than he suggests. But the direction is clear.
Silver Suppression Is Real, But Gold Is Timeless
Howard claims silver has been “artificially suppressed for 50 years” by paper contracts and could surge to “thousands of dollars” because it’s essential for electronics.
Is this realistic or hopium?
Realistic prediction. But gold is timeless.
Howard’s silver case:
- JP Morgan paid $920 million in fines for silver market manipulation (true)
- Different pricing between paper contracts (COMEX) and physical silver in Shanghai (true)
- Industrial demand: 1.2 million ounces used in electronics annually (roughly accurate)
- Only 851 million ounces produced yearly, mostly as mining byproduct (close to accurate)
- China hoarding silver, JP Morgan accumulated 750 million ounces (plausible)
The suppression argument makes sense:
Paper silver contracts (futures) allow more “silver” to trade than physically exists. That dilutes price discovery. When physical demand exceeds paper supply, prices decouple—exactly what Howard describes with Shanghai vs COMEX pricing.
Could silver hit “thousands of dollars”?
Technically possible if industrial demand spikes (EVs, solar panels, electronics) while supply remains constrained.
But here’s the nuance:
Silver is good for a shorter period. Gold is timeless, and its value is already accepted by the market.
Why gold wins long-term:
Gold doesn’t corrode. Doesn’t get consumed in industrial processes. Every ounce ever mined still exists. That’s monetary permanence.
Silver gets used up. In electronics, solar panels, medical applications. Industrial consumption removes it from monetary circulation.
So yes, silver could rally dramatically on supply constraints. But gold remains the superior long-term store of value.
Howard’s silver thesis is sound. His implicit preference for silver over gold misses gold’s timeless monetary properties.
Bitcoin Critique Reveals Fundamental Misunderstanding
Howard says: “Bitcoin is going to die. I don’t mess with it.”
His reasoning:
- “Bitcoin is still based on fiat”
- “Nobody wants their money in something that can be wiped out with a push of a button”
- “It’s been dropping a great deal. I think it’s at $61,000 now”
Is his critique valid, or does he fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin?
He fundamentally misunderstands Bitcoin.
Claim 1: “Bitcoin is based on fiat”
Wrong. Bitcoin is based on proof-of-work and a capped supply of 21 million coins.
Fiat means “by decree”—governments create dollars, euros, yen by decree with unlimited supply.
Bitcoin has no central authority. No one can decree more Bitcoin into existence. The supply schedule is mathematically fixed.
That’s the opposite of fiat.
Maybe Howard means Bitcoin is priced in dollars, so its value fluctuates with dollar strength. That’s true of gold too. Doesn’t make either “based on fiat.”
Claim 2: “Can be wiped out with a push of a button”
Wrong. Completely wrong.
We recently covered Cambridge research showing Bitcoin can survive 72% of the world’s submarine cables failing before suffering significant disruption.
Bitcoin runs on a decentralized network of thousands of nodes across every continent. There is no central server. No kill switch. No button to push.
To actually “wipe out” Bitcoin you’d need to:
- Simultaneously destroy nodes in every country
- Prevent anyone from running Bitcoin software ever again
- Erase all copies of the blockchain globally
That’s not a “push of a button.” That’s coordinated global infrastructure destruction.
Claim 3: “It’s at $61,000 now”
Wrong on the number. Bitcoin is around $70,000, not $61,000.
Minor error, but reveals he’s not closely tracking the asset he’s confidently predicting will die.
What Howard misses:
Bitcoin’s value proposition isn’t stability. It’s decentralization and scarcity in a world of infinite fiat printing.
He correctly identifies dollar weakness. He correctly sees countries diversifying away from USD. But then dismisses the only truly decentralized alternative to fiat.
That’s the contradiction.
If you believe the dollar is dying and governments can’t be trusted with money printing—which Howard clearly does based on his dollar analysis—Bitcoin is the logical hedge.
Howard gets halfway there, then bails based on a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin actually works.
Trump’s Approach Would Have Worked 40 Years Ago (Howard Gets This Right)
Howard argues Trump’s tariff strategy “would have worked 40 years ago when you had dollar dependency” but doesn’t work now because “we don’t have the staying power we had before.”
Does that analysis make sense?
It makes sense.
Howard’s reasoning:
40-50 years ago, if you wanted to trade anything internationally, you needed US dollars. That kept US economy stable. We could print money freely because everyone needed to borrow dollars at low rates to do business.
Now the dollar is “turning into the sterling pound”—a reference to Britain’s currency losing reserve status over the 20th century.
The tariff problem:
Trump can threaten tariffs, but when countries have alternatives (yuan, rupee, BRICS settlement systems), they can call the bluff.
Canada threatens to cut electricity to 12 US states and withhold minerals. China continues Belt and Road. US pressure doesn’t have the same leverage it had when dollar dependency was absolute.
Howard’s conclusion:
“We have to take a more diplomatic approach to doing things… it’s a global economy now. So when a major portion of that global economy is being blocked up with trade embargos and tariffs… China is like, ‘Great. Keep playing your game. I’m going to keep the belt and initiative going.’”
That’s accurate analysis.
Tariffs as negotiating leverage work when the other party needs access to your market more than you need theirs. When alternatives exist, tariffs just accelerate the shift away from dollar-based trade.
Trump’s instinct—renegotiate deals that favor other countries—makes sense. The execution—tariffs and threats—assumes leverage that no longer exists to the same degree.
Howard gets this right.
China’s Belt and Road: Unique Strategy
Howard praises China’s approach: “I’m going to keep giving to these countries you’re turning your back on… not ask them to change their constitution… not force them into anything.”
Is China actually playing it smarter than the US?
China has a very unique way of doing this.
Howard’s observation:
US pushes democracy, regime change, constitutional reforms as conditions for aid. China offers infrastructure investment with no political strings attached.
From recipient countries’ perspective, which deal looks better?
China’s Belt and Road model:
- Build ports, railways, power plants in developing countries
- Finance with low-interest loans
- Don’t demand political reforms
- Gain long-term economic influence
Does it work?
For China’s goals, yes. They’re not trying to spread ideology. They’re securing trade routes, raw material access, and diplomatic support.
Is it “smart”?
It’s effective for China’s strategic interests. Whether it’s “good” for recipient countries depends on debt sustainability and actual economic development vs dependency.
The US approach failed because it combined economic aid with political demands. Countries resent being told how to govern while accepting assistance.
China learned from that. No lectures. Just infrastructure.
Howard correctly identifies why countries are turning to China. Not because China is morally superior. Because China doesn’t attach political conditions to economic engagement.
That’s strategic clarity, not naivety.
COVID Coordination: Even If True, What Can You Do?
Howard suggests COVID was a “coordinated effort” by multiple countries—not just China acting alone.
Conspiracy theory, or something real?
Even if there was something, that’s one of those things we have no control over unless we could accumulate a huge population to boycott and fight back. It’s next to impossible to do against countries or entities that came up with the effort.
The lockdown coordination:
Howard points out that multiple countries simultaneously implemented lockdowns, vaccine mandates, similar policies. “That didn’t happen because someone said ‘I think you should do this to your citizens.’”
Is coordination evidence of conspiracy?
Could be coordination. Could be herd behavior among panicked governments copying what seemed to work elsewhere.
But here’s the reality:
Even if COVID response was coordinated by globalist entities—what changes?
You can’t organize a global boycott. You can’t overthrow coordinated nation-state action. Individual resistance gets crushed.
So the honest answer is:
Maybe it was coordinated. Maybe it was synchronized incompetence. Either way, there’s no mechanism for regular people to effectively respond.
That’s not defeatism. That’s realism about power structures.
Howard brings it up, then essentially shrugs. Because what else can you do?
What This Really Means
Terrence Howard makes legitimate geopolitical observations mixed with fundamental technical misunderstandings. He’s right about dollar decline, right about Trump’s outdated leverage, right about China’s strategic approach. But he’s dead wrong about Bitcoin.
Here’s what we know:
Dollar decline is real. BRICS expansion, Saudi diversification, falling USD transaction share (51%), purchasing power loss (9% in 12 months), China/Japan selling US debt. Direction is clear even if timeline slower than Howard suggests.
Silver suppression realistic, but gold timeless. JP Morgan manipulation fines, paper vs physical price decoupling (COMEX vs Shanghai), industrial demand (electronics/EVs/solar), supply constraints. Silver could rally dramatically. But gold is timeless—accepted store of value, doesn’t get consumed. Silver good for shorter period, gold for long-term.
Bitcoin critique fundamentally wrong. Howard claims “based on fiat” (wrong—Bitcoin fixed supply, no central authority), “wiped with button push” (wrong—survives 72% submarine cable failures, decentralized infrastructure), price at $61K (wrong—around $70K). He identifies dollar weakness correctly then dismisses the decentralized alternative due to misunderstanding how it works.
Trump’s approach outdated. Would have worked 40 years ago with dollar dependency. Doesn’t work now when countries have alternatives (yuan, BRICS settlement). Tariffs as leverage assume power that no longer exists to same degree. Instinct to renegotiate bad deals makes sense, execution assumes outdated leverage.
China’s Belt & Road is unique strategy. Offers infrastructure investment without political conditions. US combined economic aid with democracy demands, regime change pressure. Countries prefer Chinese model—no governance lectures, just development financing. Not morally superior, strategically clearer.
COVID coordination claim: even if true, no effective response mechanism. Simultaneous lockdowns/mandates across countries could be coordination or herd behavior. Either way, no mechanism for regular people to organize global boycott or resistance against coordinated nation-state action. Realistic about power structures, not defeatism.
Overall assessment: mixed analysis. Legitimate observations (dollar decline, Trump leverage problem, China strategy) combined with wild speculation and technical errors (Bitcoin misunderstanding, imprecise numbers). Gets halfway to connecting dollar weakness with Bitcoin as alternative, then bails on faulty premises.
The contradiction: If dollar is dying and governments can’t be trusted with money printing (which Howard believes), Bitcoin is the logical hedge. But he dismisses it based on fundamental misunderstanding of decentralized infrastructure.
Some points land. Others miss completely. That’s the package when analyzing Terrence Howard’s geopolitical takes.
Referenced from: Terrence Howard interview discussing dollar decline, silver markets, Bitcoin, China strategy, and COVID coordination, March 2026
More Blogs:
Leave a Reply