Will Our Economic Bubble Burst Before the Election?

Harry Dent, author of the new book The Sale of a Lifetime and editor of Economy and Markets, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday to discuss the economic crisis facing America and what experts are calling an imminent crash of the stock market.

RELATED: Entrepreneur Patrick Byrne on Post-election Economy: We’re Careening Towards a Cliff

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• What's the artificial bubble that's about to burst?

• Is Glenn going to sell all of his stocks?

• What does Harry Dent recommend for investors?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Harry Dent, author of the new book The Sale of a Lifetime, editor of Economy and Markets at HarryDent.com.

Welcome, harry, how are you?

HARRY: Yeah, nice to be back, Glenn.

GLENN: In the 1980s, you kind of woke up to the stock market cycle. And you began to track this in a different way than everybody else. And you called the bubble of the '90s. You called the bubble of the early 2000s and 2008. And I've been following you for a while. And the one that is coming is gigantic. Would you agree?

HARRY: Yeah, it is. Because, you know, we have two natural bubbles with tech bubble and internet and then with the Baby Boomers peak and spending, which was into 2007, which like you said, we predicted 20 years before that happened, that we we'd have a greater boom than anybody thought. But then it would peak around 2007.

Of course, we've had quantitative easing ever since to try to ease the pain, and that still didn't work. But now we've got a third. And what I hate about it, totally artificial bubble that's all about printing free money. You know, $12 trillion of free money printed around the world.

And since zero interest rates were not low enough, now we've got to go negative in more and more countries. This is insanity to just force people to keep buying back their own stocks with companies or borrowing that little bit more or speculating more. Traders and stuff. And that's all we're growing on. So this is much more dangerous.

And I call this the third and final bubble. And when we peak into the '60s and early '70s, we had three higher highs in the market and three bigger crashes. And, of course, the last one, '73 to '74, was the big one. And that's what I'm seeing here, that 2017 to 2019, approximately, is going to be the time when we see a crash that's bigger and deeper than 2008 and '9. And it actually puts us into more of a depression than just a great recession.

When you grow debt, two and a halftimes GDP for 40 years, you're going to have a debt bubble. And that's going to cause financial asset bubbles and stocks and real estate commodities and everything else. And those bubbles are going to have to unwind. They have to, or you can't go forward in life. The economy can't move forward.

So we've been putting this off now for seven, eight years, which means, it's like a drug addict taking more and more to keep from coming down from the high. When you finally get hit and go to detox, it's not going to be pretty.

GLENN: But you know, a lot of people have taken this hit. Greece is probably the biggest. They've taken their hit.

Germany, they're still out of control. But they're still thinking that they're going to now bail-in. China spends more and more money. I mean, in your book, you talk about these ghost cities that are -- I mean, I was struck by this.

The Changsha City Sky Dream. You write: It was meant to become the world's tallest building at 2,749 feet, 202 stories, built in the shortest time. Imagine building a 202 story building. The Chinese wanted to build it in 90 days.

HARRY: Yeah.

GLENN: We built --

HARRY: It was the first prefab skyscraper. Oh, my gosh.

(chuckling)

GLENN: It's now a fishing hole. The whole thing was stopped and collapsed, and now they just -- the big hole in the ground where the foundation was. They've just filled it with water, and the locals are using it to raise fish.

But, anyway, there's another country completely out of control.

HARRY: You know, it's worse than that, Glenn. I mean, now the latest thing, Shenzhen, which is the most bubbly, large city there, they're now selling apartments, 66 square feet, the size of a decent closet, for $132,000, seven to ten times the income of the people in that city to get a closet to live in. I mean, if that's not a bubble, I don't know what is.

GLENN: So, Harry, the whole thing looks like it's coming down. Is there going to be any system that survives?

HARRY: Well, what happens at a time like this, this is when you can't listen to your stockbroker or even a good financial adviser. Because every -- you're going to have a big reset. We've had bubbles and everything, from this endless low and zero interest rates and endless stimulated economy and printing of money. And this is always going to happen, when this happens throughout history.

So everything has to reset. We even have a bond bubble. Normally, treasury bonds would be a safe place to go longer term. But they're going to have to at least correct it first from their own bubble, from central banks pushing down their yields to zero and negative, before they can grow again. And stocks have to come down. And real estate -- commodities have already crashed. I've been telling people for years, "When bubbles burst, it's not 20, 30, 40 percent. It is 70, 80, 90." And commodities have already collapsed, 70 to 80 percent, proving that when bubbles burst, they crash. They don't just go down slowly, and they don't just correct. And that's going to have to happen to everything else. So there's nowhere to hide. So the thing you do is you just get out.

I'm with HSBC. We said, hey, we're looking like we're going to break a key trend line up, which we did this morning. And the markets could be starting to crash again. And I never know exactly when it's going to happen. And the market never makes it easy. But it is going to be nasty. And one of the other things we've warned people, almost every bubble has had this happen, especially in stocks.

The first crash, even though the bubble is going to end up going down 80 percent on average, the first crash is going to be 40 to 45 percent in two to three months. And that happened in China last year. That happened in 1929. That happened in the tech bubble. It happened in the Nikkei bubble in Japan. And that's what we do in this book. We look at all major bubbles in history and say, "Look, these are not black swans when they crash. They build predictably over a period of time. They grow exponentially. But when they crash, they crash at least twice as fast. And half of that happens in the first two to three months." So you're an idiot if you don't get out a little early. If you want to wait until it's proven, you're going to be down 40 percent before you can react. That's not good investment strategy.

GLENN: So, Harry, I'm the average person, I don't have -- you know, I have a 401(k) or if I have a stockbroker. I barely even know his name.

HARRY: Right.

GLENN: And I go to the stockbroker, and they're going to say, "Look, keep it in. You know, this is long-term. You're going to lose money now, but you're not planning on pulling it out for another 20 years anyway. You leave it in."

HARRY: Yep. And that is why you cannot listen to these people now. Eighty percent of the time or more of that is right. But I tell people all the time, "When you see a major long-term generational spending wave peak, like in '29 or '68, and especially when you see a bubble like 1929 -- 1929 crash was 89 percent in stocks in less than three years, and it took 24 years to get back to even. If you had been a retiring person with a 401(k) plan back then, you would have been dead before you got back to even.

So that is not -- stocks don't always come back, not when you see a major bubble burst and/or when you see a long-term trend. Even in '68, that was not as much of a bubble boom.

But when the Bob Hope generation stopped spending, and when inflation and OPEC set in, it took 54 years to get back to even on that. Manhattan real estate, it crashed the most in the '30s. The greatest city in the world, supposedly, which people think can't go down.

Took into the mid-50s even longer than stocks to get back to even. So you have to get out of the way. And what we do in the book is we say, "Look, there's going to be different sectors over the, next, two, three, four, five years that are going to crash and bottom."

And, you know, we show models for bubbles to show, okay. You can know about how much downside there is. In real estate, it's more like 50 to 60 percent. In stocks, it's more like 70 to 80. In commodities, 80 to 90.

When you see that bubble get erased, then you can get back in long-term and listen to your financial adviser again.

But right now, they will tell you the wrong thing. I can guarantee you. They will just say, "It's all right. You're diversified."

Diversification didn't help in 2008 and '9. And it will help less now. And this is the final bubble crash. There's no way the fed can pull this stunt again if we go into a worst downturn. They're going to lose all credibility.

So you got to just get out of the way. And I'm just saying, look, we have four major indicators, which you mentioned a lot of them earlier, that all point down the same time into late 2000 (inaudible) -- we just got about a three-year period here of extreme danger, after that, you can feel better about stepping back in.

But, hey, what's it to miss three years of stock games when the stock market has, by the way, gone nowhere in the last couple of years, and commodities have only gone down?

So it's bubbled up so much that we think there's less than this. And Baron Rothschild always said, "The secret to my wealth was I always sold a little early."

GLENN: Harry, the -- you say that have cash on hand.

HARRY: Yes.

GLENN: I read a story yesterday that, you know, cash is crashing everywhere. And it's crashing because the central banks can't control it anymore. Our own central bank -- the Federal Reserve, has a white paper out, an internal white paper that was released that shows if this next recession hits, to make any impact, they believe they have to print $4 trillion in bailout stimulus money. And they said, "We're not even sure that would work." I mean, what happens to cash? Are you concerned about cash?

HARRY: I tell you, one of the things I show in the book is how all -- the total financial assets, loans, you know, mortgages, stocks, bonds, everything -- it's about $300 trillion, far beyond stretched any time in history. Can't even compare it.

That's $300 trillion. And in a time like the 1930s when these bubbles de-leverage. I'm talking about a minimum $120 trillion in financial assets, disappearing and not coming back for a long time.

So I would say, if the central banks want to offset the next downturn, they're going to have to print 100 trillion or more worldwide. I don't think they can get away with that.

So 4 trillion would not be enough. They don't know what they're talking about.

GLENN: I know.

EVAN: But they're just trying to slide by and keep the bubble going until they retire from office, like Bernanke or, you know, Obama now and any other president. Everybody just wants to push this thing down the road until the next administration or fed chairman comes in. Because somebody is going to have to take the consequences. You don't get something for nothing. If there's nothing I've learned in life, that's the number one lesson: You don't get something for nothing. And we've had the biggest for nothing economy for decades, but particularly since the financial crisis in 2008 and '9, when we've been living on printed money. You can't solve a debt crisis by creating more debt and printing more money. Because that's how you got there in the first place, printing money through debt. This is crazy.

GLENN: Harry, do you believe that you can trust the banks to keep your money in?

HARRY: No. Because they lend money out. And they've got -- I mean, Deutsche Bank is down 92 percent since its peak in 2007, and continuing to go down because they've got $55 trillion in derivative exposures. You know, four times or whatever -- six times the GDP of Germany or whatever. And bad loans in Italy and bad loans in Germany, bad loans with frackers in the United States.

You know, Italian and German banks and more and more banks have bad loans. And when those loans go bad, they only have 10 percent capital, which Deutsche Bank only has 3 percent because they've been battered. And you start losing money on loans. And all of a sudden, oops, you don't have the money to give depositors back because they lend against your deposits. And they're your deposits, not yours. They don't just raise capital and lend out money.

That's what a normal financial institution should do. They pledge ten percent of our deposits. And then like in the Depression, when those loans go bad, they're like, "Well, you know, we said we had your deposits, but we actually don't. We lost it. We lent it out, 10:1 to your reserves, in deposits, and we never -- and we didn't get it back." So you can't. You have to have your money in a brokerage account. I prefer to be with an independent firm that only does transactions. There's not invest in investment banking or speculate in the markets or lend money from mortgages online or anything. And you just have your money in your own name. They cannot lend against an account in your own name. They can lend against your checking or savings account.

GLENN: Okay. Harry, I've got literally ten seconds. I need a yes or a no on this. Do you think this bubble is going to happen fast enough to affect the election?

HARRY: Possibly, because we just made a big break today. So we could be down 10 percent in a matter of weeks. And, yes, a down market helps the outsider like Trump, and it hurts the insider like Clinton. We've said that for a long time.

GLENN: It could.

Okay. My grandfather -- my grandfather lived through the Depression, and he always said the people who made money during the Depression were the people that had money during the Depression that got their money out.

HARRY: Exactly.

GLENN: That's the premise of Harry's book, The Sale of a Lifetime. Everywhere now. The Sale of a Lifetime. Harry, always good to have you on. Thank you so much for the warning today.

HARRY: Okay. Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Harry Dent from The Glenn Beck Program

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison) 

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

The REAL questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Democrats don't want the American people to know who they are voting for. It has been well over a month since Biden dropped out of the presidential race and Kamala was hastily installed in his place. During that time, Kamala has not given a single interview.

The Democrats' intention is clear: they have spent the last month gaslighting the American left into believing that Kamala is their new "super-candidate." Now that they've taken the bait, they can allow Kamala to take a softball interview to combat accusations from the Right.

Kamala's first interview will be hosted by Dana Bash on CNN and is scheduled for 9:00 p.m. ET tonight. Kamala will be joined by her running mate, Tim Walz, for an unusual interview. Between the tag-team approach and the more-than-sympathetic interviewer, it's almost certain that this will not be a particularly substantial interview full of easy, soft-ball, questions.

The American people deserve to know who is on the ballot, and that means that they should be able to see how their candidates stand up against tough questions. Here are five questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight:

Will she build a border wall?

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

After years of bashing Trump for his proposed border wall, Kamala has suddenly changed her mind. During the DNC, Kamala pledged to support a bill that included money for a border wall and other border security measures. This change seems like a knee-jerk response to recent criticisms made about her abysmal performance as the "border czar." The question is: how genuine is it?

What is her stance on the Israel-Hamas war?

BASHAR TALEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has been mushy on the issue of the Israel-Hamas war so far. She said that she would support Israel while simultaneously expressing sympathy for the Palestinians in Gaza. With mounting pro-Hamas support within the American left, just how far is Kamala willing to go?

How does she explain defending Biden against allegations that he was too old for office now that those allegations have proven true?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

For the last four years, Kamala and the entire mainstream media have vehemently defended President Biden's mental fitness, despite countless incidents that indicated otherwise. After Biden's senile performance at the June presidential debate, the truth couldn't be hidden any longer, and Kamala was quickly swapped into his place. Now that the cat's out of the bag, how does Kamala justify her lies to protect the incompetent president?

How does she plan on fixing the economy, and why hasn't she already done it?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has claimed that she could lower consumer prices starting on the first day of her administration, accompanied by other promises to fix the economy. So why the wait? If she knows how to fix the economy that is causing so many Americans to suffer, can't she do something right now as the Vice President? Why has the economy only gotten worse within her three-year tenure in the White House?

Why does she keep flipping on her policies? Where does it stop?

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

As mentioned above, Kamala has already changed her stance on a border wall, but it doesn't end there. During her 2019 presidential campaign, Kamala vowed to end fracking, a controversial method of drilling for oil, in the name of climate change. But now it seems her position has softened, with no mention of a fracking ban. Why does she keep changing her stance on these major policies? What other policies has she changed without any indication? Why has she so far failed to produce a clear campaign platform?