“Gold For Me Is A Savings Product”: Rick Rule On Debt, Oil Cycles, & Uranium’s Political Reversal

Last night’s discussion featuring Rick Rule, Bill Fleckenstein, and Erik Townsend covered the macro landscape from hard assets to energy markets and nuclear policy.

Below are highlights from Rule’s remarks. (We recommend readers listen to Fleckenstein and Townsend’s full comments in the complete debate, linked at the bottom.)

Gold: “I Have No Interest In Selling”

Rule made clear he views gold not as a trade, but as monetary insurance.

Nominal yields on Treasuries offer little protection if purchasing power continues to erode.

“Owning the U.S. 10-year Treasury getting paid 4.1%, 4.2% in a currency where I think the real deterioration of the purchasing power is limping along to some number more like eight doesn’t make me feel comfortable.”

Rule pointed to structural fiscal imbalances, debt, deficits, and what he estimates at roughly $120 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities as the core risk. Policymakers can either default in real terms or inflate away the burden.

“I think they take door two.”

Until he sees a credible political resolution to debt and entitlement obligations and what he considers genuinely positive real yields on fiat savings products, Rule said he has “no interest in selling” his gold.

“Gold for me is a savings product.”

Rick Rule: “Let me tell you what would cause me to sell my gold…” pic.twitter.com/pdNgNQ62uk

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) February 26, 2026

Oil: Short-Term Oversupply, Long-Term Capital Shortage

On oil, Rule was nuanced.

“I believe in the very, very near term that oil is ahead of itself,” he said, citing geopolitical headlines and “news traders in the market.” For the next year to 18 months, he sees a “plurality of supply over demand,” reflecting a softer global economy.

But beneath that near-term slack, he sees a longer-term issue: underinvestment.

Rule estimates global underfunding of sustaining capital in the oil industry exceeds “a billion dollars a day.” In U.S. shale, where “75, 80% of the net present value of the well is 18 months,” reduced reinvestment eventually constrains output.

Ccapital responses are delayed but cyclical. The post-COVID rebound saw oil shoot from $20 oil to $90 after investment froze. Rule suggested that if today’s capital discipline persists, the industry could face a production problem by 2028–2029.

While “nowhere near as bullish” as he was previously, he added: “I still feel quite good about the sector for the five-year time frame.”

pic.twitter.com/qkksySf31R

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) February 26, 2026

Uranium: From “Wanted Poster” To Subsidies

“Five years ago in the uranium industry, I expected to see a picture of myself in a post office wall with a caption wanted. Now the same morons want to subsidize me.”

Tthe key development is not futuristic reactor technology but politics. Even conventional reactor builds, if pursued at scale, can lower costs through repetition, as demonstrated by China’s serial construction model.

While Rule cautioned that demand growth 10–15 years out does little for present net asset value calculations, he emphasized that the policy turn itself is meaningful. It is the primary catalyst and one that will likely lead to a faster pace of reactor construction… which should reward uranium mining investors or anyone that uses electricity.

“Reliable, abundant, baseload power that doesn’t generate carbon… talk about the well-being of humankind.”

pic.twitter.com/dV4e2WGNfm

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) February 26, 2026

For the full exchange, including commentary from Bill Fleckenstein and Erik Townsend, listen to the complete debate below.

https://t.co/vkouSL7UhD

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 25, 2026