Wall Street tycoons interpret: Buy Bitcoin or gold? A complete analysis of the market structure under Trump's new policy

Organize & compile: Shenchao TechFlow

Guest : Jordi Visser, macro investor, former president & chief investment officer of Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisers (more than 30 years of Wall Street investment experience)

Host : Anthony Pompliano, Founder & CEO of Professional Capital Management

Podcast source : Anthony Pompliano

Original title : Trump Throws Bitcoin & Stocks Into CHAOS

Broadcast date : March 15, 2025

Summary of key points

Jordi Visser is a macro investor with more than 30 years of experience on Wall Street. Not only does he run a Substack investment column called "VisserLabs", he also regularly publishes investment-related YouTube videos. In this interview, we had in-depth discussions on Trump’s economic policies, including tariffs, tax proposals, Trump’s differences with Fed Chairman Powell, inflation issues, gold and Bitcoin’s comparison, stock market outlook, and interpersonal relationships and policy uncertainties within the Trump administration .

Wonderful view summary

• Bitcoin is "winged gold" because it is more volatile and has higher growth.

• Once the Nasdaq rebounds, Bitcoin will outperform gold.

• Stock markets and cryptocurrencies are not just investment tools for many, but their hopes.

• The attractiveness of gold is more concentrated on the older generation of investors, while the younger generation is more inclined to choose Bitcoin.

• Tariffs are actually a disguised tax that aims to transfer funds from the private sector to the public sector to relieve debt pressure.

• Tariff policies are both practical tax means and a tool for negotiation.

• I think this income tax proposal is to solve the domestic wealth distribution problem.

• From a neutral perspective, I don't think Trump's tax policies are simply to help the rich. In fact, his policies focus more on domestic wealth distribution issues.

• Generally speaking, 20% to 30% of market corrections are often associated with recessions, and there is no sign that we are heading for recessions.

• Now may be a good time to find future investment opportunities.

• An economic recession usually needs to be accompanied by a credit crisis, and the current size of the private sector's credit market is not much compared to the stock market.

• The recession is defined as losing about 1.5% of jobs, which means that about 2.5 million people are out of work and cannot find jobs in one or two years.

• First, when the debt scale is too large, the market collapse may be very rapid; second, the root of many problems lies in the rapid release of leverage in the process of deleveraging, which will aggravate market turmoil.

• Whether it is the consumer confidence index or the University of Michigan survey data, the current sentiment indicators are far below expectations, and an important reason behind this phenomenon is the uneven distribution of wealth.

• The market is more concerned about inflation in the short term. Judging from the survey data, this expectation differentiation also reflects political differences: Democrats generally believe inflation will rise further, while Republicans believe inflation will fall.

What is the Trump administration's economic plan

Anthony Pompliano: The Trump administration is rapidly advancing a series of policies, but for many, it all looks both confusing and uncertain. Stock markets are falling and people are eager to know what their plans are? What exactly are they doing? We may start by understanding what they are trying to achieve and the reasons behind it.

Jordi Visser:

I think the biggest confusion in the market right now is: Does the Trump administration really have a clear plan? If so, what exactly is this plan? How did they execute it? This uncertainty makes many people feel confused and has also led to fluctuations in market sentiment. Some recent surveys show that the uncertainty index is rising sharply. Last week, FactSet released its first-quarter corporate earnings change report, in which earnings expectations were significantly lowered, mainly due to market uncertainty about tariff policies.

When you ask "what is their plan", I feel that those who have not yet realized the severity of the situation need to be mentally prepared because this economic policy adjustment needs to be carried out quickly. If you follow traditional media, you will find two completely different voices: on the one hand, some people think it is a disaster, which scares many people; on the other hand, some people think it is the right direction, and even firmly believe that "we don't care about stock market fluctuations, because we are fighting an economic war and we have to fight for what we want."

Tariff Overview and Negotiation

Jordi Visser: First of all, we need to realize that the current level of debt in the United States is very high. There are $9 trillion in debt maturing this year, which needs to be refinancing. Meanwhile, the federal budget deficit is expected to increase by $1.8 to $2 trillion, which means we also need to fill the funding gap by issuing more bonds. Ray Dalio once pointed out that this ever-expanding debt burden will form a "death spiral" that if measures are not taken quickly, it will lead to a serious economic crisis. His suggestion is that the government needs to use a variety of means to deal with it.

From the current perspective, tariff policies are one of the means. Tariffs are actually a disguised tax that aims to transfer funds from the private sector to the public sector to relieve debt pressure. In addition, the government is also trying to improve debt through fiscal austerity, while also balancing the economy through stimulus policies such as tax cuts. So, I think the Trump administration does have a holistic plan. Although we can discuss whether the plan is executed properly, it does exist.

Anthony Pompliano:

I think the thing that people don't quite understand is that our deficits are increasing every year. In the past, the deficit was one trillion US dollars a year, and then it became 1.5 trillion, but now it is about 2 trillion. The latest data shows that it may be as high as 2.75 trillion, and this deficit is expanding. As you said, we already have a huge debt number that needs to be refinancing continuously. In layman's terms, it's like paying back the debts of the first credit card with a higher amount. Every time you do this, you need to find a "creditor" who is willing to provide a higher amount.

As governments, they realize that this is a big problem that needs to be addressed. Just like taking over a troubled company, the government needs to overhaul the status quo: retaining excellent policies, eliminating inefficient projects, cutting unnecessary expenses, and levying more taxes on public “customers”.

Tariff policies are part of this reform. Many people see tariffs as a way for the government to increase taxes, but others think it is more like a game with other countries ' leaders. For example, Ontario, Canada imposes a 25% tariff on electricity, while the United States imposes a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum; Europe imposes a 50% tariff on US whiskey, while the United States imposes a 200% tariff on wine and spirits. Are these tariffs meant to increase revenue or a negotiation strategy?

Jordi Visser:

There is no doubt that tariff policies are both practical tax means and a tool for negotiation. Trump clearly implemented tariff policies during his first term and called himself a "tariff president." Tariffs are real and unavoidable.

When you say the stock market is falling due to tariffs, I think people have to realize that many tariff measures are actually for the pursuit of trade reciprocity. You want to impose tariffs on our cars, why can't we impose tariffs on your cars? In this way, the government attempts to rebalance the trade relations while bringing some of the funds back to the country to improve the fiscal situation.

Trump's style of negotiation can be traced back to his book The Art of Transaction. He is good at achieving goals by applying pressure and leverage. For example, when the United States announced a 200% tariff on wine, the news itself triggered a market reaction. This is a negotiation strategy designed to force the other party to make concessions.

I think there is a bigger plan here, which may be related to tax cuts, avoiding a government shutdown, and he is trying to put pressure on everyone. As Ray Dalio said, governments must act quickly, especially as the current debt and deficits continue to expand. Tariffs do increase consumer spending, but some of their funds will flow into the government to ease debt pressure.

But frankly speaking, tariffs are a disguised way to increase taxes, but it can also be seen as a wealth redistribution tool, in which more funds are brought back to the country. This is one of the core goals of tariff policies, without a doubt.

Tax Proposal

Anthony Pompliano:

Regarding tax policy, outside criticism of Trump is often focused on his political argument that "just cut taxes for the rich and help his friends." Surprisingly, however, people like Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump and Scott Bessent have proposed a goal of exempting households with annual income below $150,000 from federal income tax .

The data I'm seeing now is that there are currently about 130 million households in the United States, with 85% to 90% of households earning less than $150,000 per year. This means that about 110 million households may be exempt from federal income tax completely. If implemented, this policy will become one of the most transformative measures for ordinary families and the U.S. economy. However, this also means that the federal government's revenue stream will be significantly affected. We can talk about these tax proposals, which are obviously not just for the rich, but also focus on low-and middle-income families.

Jordi Visser:

This is exactly why I think you need to be vigilant when reading news every day, because media reports from both the left and the right will have some bias. From a neutral perspective, I don 't think Trump's tax policies are simply to help the rich. In fact, his policies focus more on domestic wealth distribution issues. He tried to solve this problem, but it did not achieve it by directly increasing taxes for the rich, as it could have a negative impact on economic development.

From a consumption perspective, a large part of U.S. GDP is driven by the top 20% of people in the revenue. The consumption of these high-income earners has already accounted for the main proportion of GDP, which itself is a manifestation of the imbalance in wealth distribution. Therefore, raising commodity prices through tariffs is actually a way to increase taxes for the rich in disguise.

So I think this income tax proposal is to solve the domestic wealth distribution problem , but whether it can be realized ultimately depends on how many factors develop.

In addition, the short-term negotiation pressure cannot be ignored. Tariff policies are currently more used as a negotiation tool to strive for more benefits in international trade. Meanwhile, the government is also trying to stimulate the economy through tax cuts and avoid government shutdowns. On the one hand, while promoting economic growth, and on the other hand, making up for fiscal revenue through tariffs and other means, this balance is the core goal of the current policy. Especially with constant negative news, I think these measures are both to stabilize the stock market and to alleviate public uneasiness about the economy.

Anthony Pompliano:

Whether it is tariff policies, tax reforms, economic policies, geopolitical negotiations, and even attempts to promote a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine, these actions have had a direct impact on the stock market. Stocks have fallen by about 10% over the past three weeks. According to statistics, this may be the fifth fastest decline since 1950. However, I saw Peter Malluke’s data released in Creative Planning that the average year-over-year retracement of the stock market has been between about 14% and 15% over the past 75 years. So the question is, do we need to worry about this 10% decline? Or is this actually the norm in the stock market?

Jordi Visser:

I think this is a key point, and in the past two weeks, market sentiment surveys have shown a significant decline in investor confidence. The initial sentiment fluctuations were mainly reflected in short-term trading, but have now expanded to a longer-term investor confidence index. Judging from the data, the current market sentiment is close to the bear market area.

Still, a 10% market pullback is not uncommon. In fact, this pullback speed is indeed the fastest since the COVID-19 pandemic, but it has not had a serious impact on the overall breadth of the market. As of last Tuesday, about 40% of the S&P 500 stocks remained rising for the year. In other words, the fundamentals of the market are still stable.

I think the more noteworthy question is whether the current economic situation will trigger a recession. Generally speaking, 20% to 30% of market corrections are often associated with recessions, and there is no sign that we are heading for recessions. If the government can quickly ease the rhetoric of the trade war, the market may rebound soon and investors will re-tune their plans. But before that, many people chose to wait and see for the time being, which is one of the reasons for the sluggish market sentiment.

Fear and recession

Anthony Pompliano:

I always feel that the more people talk about recession, recession is not likely to happen. Do you think that when sentiment surveys show increased fear, the market may actually be close to bottoming out? After all, if everyone is worried about future risks, has the market reflected these expectations in advance? What do you think of this problem?

Jordi Visser:

First, we can discuss this from a technical and cryptocurrency perspective. In fact, if we look back on history, real recessions are often triggered by credit crises and debt problems. Take the 2008 financial crisis as an example, a systemic collapse caused by excessive credit expansion, and eventually the government had to take over a large amount of private sector debt and absorb it onto the balance sheet.

If we look back at 1980, the recession was even more significant, manufacturing employment accounted for one-third of the overall economy, and today this proportion has dropped to less than 10%. This means that the employment structure has changed dramatically. Employment is mentioned because recessions usually need to be accompanied by credit crisis, and the current size of the private sector 's credit market is not large compared to the stock market. Therefore, the stock market must experience a sharp decline in order to have a broader impact on the overall economy. However, most of the new jobs are concentrated in the healthcare sector, mostly supported by the government, and therefore have less sensitivity to the economic cycle. As you mentioned in this week’s video, a lot of the work is actually related to the government, including contractors, etc.

Anthony Pompliano:

Government jobs accounted for 25% of the past two years.

Jordi Visser:

Yes, that's a large proportion. Work in the healthcare industry is not cyclical. As the population ages, our demand for nurses and other medical practitioners will only continue to grow. In the short term, unless artificial intelligence robots appear that can replace humans, the demand for these positions will not decrease. Three of my own four children work in the healthcare industry, which gives me a more intuitive understanding of the reality in this area.

Our current recession is different from the past, both because of credit issues and the change in the nature of work. But when I talk about the private sector, I want to make sure viewers understand that now may be a good time to look for future investment opportunities. It may be accustomed to those who are already involved in the investment field, especially those who are concerned about cryptocurrencies. But this is not the case in the stock market, so people are starting to worry about the whole recession.

For me, the recession is defined as losing about 1.5% of jobs, which means about 2.5 million people are out of work and can’t find jobs in one or two years .

Looking back at the global financial crisis in 2008, when the unemployment rate soared to 10% and took a long time to drop to 4%.

Today, the main problem we face is labor shortage. The slowdown in population growth and tightening immigration policies have made the labor supply even tighter. Therefore, I don 't think the current economic conditions support a large-scale recession. In addition, the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology is significantly improving productivity, which will help companies maintain high profit margins.

So we are actually in a very good position, and economic growth may remain around 1% in the next few quarters, and although there may be negative growth in the near term, I don 't think we will experience a systemic collapse like 2008.

Anthony Pompliano:

You mentioned the deleveraging phenomenon of hedge funds , which seems to be an important market dynamic. Can you explain in detail how it happens and why this happens?

Jordi Visser:

This phenomenon is indeed attracting more and more attention. If the situation does not improve, it could turn into a bigger problem. I can share two related experiences.

My career began in emerging markets. I worked at Morgan Stanley in the 1990s, and my first task was to take over the trading portfolio in Mexico, which coincided with two months before the Mexican financial crisis broke out. This is a derivatives portfolio. Fortunately, my ex has hedged the risk well.

Through this experience, I learned two important things: First, when the debt is too large, the market collapse may be very rapid; second, the root of many problems lies in the rapid release of leverage in the process of deleveraging , which will intensify market turmoil. The collapse of Long-term Capital Management (LTCM) is a classic example, and I have witnessed a similar situation in Brazil when I was experiencing an emerging market crisis.

I mentioned last week that I was concerned about the AI-optimized risk management model. In fact, machine learning and artificial intelligence applications are much earlier than most people think. Although ChatGPT has made the public realize the potential of AI, machine learning technology has long been widely used. Some large hedge funds invest more than $100 million a year to develop quantitative models and optimize hedging strategies, which gives them a huge advantage in risk management.

With the popularity of artificial intelligence, some new market trends have begun to emerge. For example, Momentum Strategies has performed very well in recent years. Part of this is that the popularity of technology tools allows individual investors to easily backtest strategies and build portfolios as well. This trend makes the market more dynamic, but it also brings new risks.

In the current loose market environment, many funds running paired trading or risk optimization strategies perform poorly. This situation seems abnormal compared to the performance in the past six or seven years, or even 13 years. I think it has to do with the complexity of the global environment. For example, the escalation of the trade war, the possible dissolution of NATO, and the return of tariff policies to the level of the 19th century, are all new variables that cannot be predicted by historical data. The risk optimization model relies on historical correlation and volatility, so it is difficult to operate effectively in this environment. Many funds therefore choose to reduce their exposure, which in turn exacerbates market losses and forms a self-fulfilling cycle.

The current market differentiation is also very obvious. For example, in the S&P 500, only about 200 stocks are rising, while about 300 stocks are falling. Declining stocks are mostly related to artificial intelligence, while rising stocks are concentrated in the European or Chinese markets, which are often areas where investors hold less positions. This phenomenon of deleveraging occurs periodically, but the current situation is particularly prominent.

If this trend continues, it may further affect the credit market. I also want to mention the private debt market in particular, which is another area worthy of attention. Private equity funds have seen significant declines in performance over the past five weeks, and their stock prices have also seen a sharp decline. Historical data shows that the stock price of private equity is highly correlated with the private debt market, and we are now beginning to see some signs of weakness. This may be another potential risk point that we need to pay close attention to.

Anthony Pompliano: What impact will it have on the market when every participant in the market reduces risks at the same time? Although individuals seem safer, does this collective behavior pose potential systemic risks?

Jordi Visser:

This is the core of the problem. If the government is working to lower the 10-year treasury bond interest rate, everyone cheered and thought it was a good thing to drop the interest rate from 4.80% to 4.25%. But at the same time, the stock market has returned to its September level. In fact, the stock market has hardly changed in the past six months. Six months ago, when the stock market fell, the 10-year Treasury bond rate was 3.67%, and now it has risen to 4.25%. The rise in interest rates reflects the complexity of the market.

The government seems to be sending a signal like this: "We don't care about the stock market." I don't think this attitude is wise. Rather than putting pressure on a trade war, it is better to resolve the tariff issue through negotiations. However, this negotiation method may lead to further accumulation of market pressure. Based on the current signs, I think this pressure has begun to appear, not only reflecting on the approval rating, but also from discussions and policy debates on social media. This collective risk reduction behavior is having a negative impact on the market that is self-reinforced.

The market is at a critical juncture. The hedge fund community has generally paid attention to the upcoming April 2, a day that may mark a turning point in market sentiment. Now, many investors are on the go and see, and no one is willing to take more risks by April 2. Because we are not clear yet what will happen in the future, especially economic data and corporate earnings may expose more vulnerability. As the earnings season approaches, we will gradually see the actual impact of consumer spending pauses.

Anthony Pompliano: I noticed that some companies have begun to use tariffs as a "scapegoat" for poor performance. Interestingly, these companies began blaming tariff policies less than 60 days after the new government took office, which actually had nothing to do with their fourth-quarter results. How can hedge funds evaluate the relationship between speech and actual data in this case?

Jordi Visser:

This is a good question. I think it can be viewed from two aspects. First, the market value of the stock market is equivalent to 200% of GDP, which means that the stock market has a huge impact on overall economic sentiment. However, both the consumer confidence index and the University of Michigan survey data show that current sentiment indicators are far below expectations, and an important reason behind this phenomenon is the uneven distribution of wealth.

The development of artificial intelligence is changing social mobility, especially the opportunities for the younger generation to move upward is decreasing. For example, my daughters just graduated from college and they are working hard, but they find that even if their income increases in five years, it is not enough to live in a place like New York City. Instead, they choose areas with lower cost of living, such as Little Rock, Arkansas. I mentioned this to illustrate that the stock market and cryptocurrencies are not just investment tools for many people, but also their hope.

This hope will take a hit when the stock market falls. Data shows that vacation plans in the United States have been significantly reduced, new orders in PMI (Purchasing Managers Index) have dropped sharply, and consumer spending has also slowed significantly. The Atlanta Fed's GDP forecast is currently hovering between 0% and 1%. This slowdown is not due to an upcoming recession, but because people are concerned about uncertainty in the future, thus reducing spending.

If the government’s goal is to create better economic conditions, they may be working in that direction. However, the current challenge lies in debt issues. Debt due in 2025 is as high as $9 trillion, most of which is short-term debt. Even if the 10-year Treasury rate falls, if the Fed does not cut interest rates, this will help only a limited help in the improvement of debt situation. Therefore, the market is currently in a wait-and-see state, waiting for a clearer signal.

Trump vs Powell

Anthony Pompliano: Trump often puts pressure on Federal Reserve Chairman Powell on social media to lower interest rates and push for interest rate cuts. Powell's attitude was very clear. He insisted: "No, I won't cut interest rates." This even triggered reporters' questions, such as "If Trump asks you to resign, will you resign? Or does he have the right to fire you?" Powell's answer was that he would not resign. This attitude can almost be said to be a confrontation. So the question is, is it really as simple as Trump and some economists say: forcing the Fed to cut interest rates by slowing down to the extreme? Or is this actually a complex game between the Federal Reserve and the Executive?

Jordi Visser:

Bill Dudley published a commentary article on Bloomberg this week discussing the Fed's dilemma . The Fed is indeed paying attention to signs of slowing economic growth, but their main responsibility is to revolve around employment, and the job market is still relatively strong at the moment. However, inflation has put them in a dilemma. According to personal consumption expenditure (PCE) data released this week, this is the inflation indicator that the Federal Reserve focuses on, with monthly growth of more than 0.3% month-on-month. If calculated annually, the core PCE inflation rate is still above 3%. This means that the Fed must try to control inflation while trying to lower interest rates, which is a very tricky situation for them.

From the perspective of market expectations, inflation expectations (through interest rate swap market observation) in the next two years have risen to more than 3%. This expectation has continued to rise since Trump took office. Currently, the interest rate on ten-year treasury bonds is below this level, while the interest rate on two-year treasury bonds is about 2.70%. Meanwhile, the yield on inflation protection bonds (TIPS) is also close to 3%. This leads to a 30 basis point spread: the biennium inflation expectations are higher than the ten-year period. This phenomenon shows that markets are more concerned about inflation in the short term. Judging from the survey data, this expectation differentiation also reflects political differences: Democrats generally believe inflation will rise further, while Republicans believe inflation will fall.

This disagreement makes the Fed's decisions even more complicated. Unless the job market changes significantly, Powell will face huge challenges in dealing with the double pressure of tax cuts and tariff hikes. Both policies will have a boost to inflation, and the Fed does not currently have a clear solution. So, I think the Fed is still waiting and waiting for more data to guide the next move.

What is the actual inflation rate?

Anthony Pompliano: Speaking of inflation data, I recently wrote some analysis. Currently, official data shows that inflation is 3%, while True Flation is 2.8%. It should be noted that real inflation is an alternative inflation indicator that aims to reflect the economic situation more in real time. Although some people value it very much, others point out its limitations. Currently, the latest data for this indicator is 1.35%. If the official data is 2.8%, while the real inflation is 2.6%, the two are basically the same. But when real inflation is 50% lower than the official figure, and it was higher than the official figure three months ago, it shows that it does not systematically underestimate inflation for a long time, but is more sensitive to real-time changes. For example, when the government's inflation rate is 2.93%, real inflation may show as 3.1%.

Now, real inflation suddenly dropped to 1.35%, which is a significant drop. Do you think the official inflation figure will be below 2% over the next two to four months? Is this possible because of the lag in government data that has not yet fully reflected the latest inflation trend?

Jordi Visser:

I am now also starting to support the data reflected by real inflation. At the end of last year and early this year, I was more inclined to think that inflationary pressures would last, not entirely related to tariffs, but because of some other factors. But if oil prices drop to the median of around $60 per barrel, which is the bottom of its volatility range, then the decline in oil prices will directly lead to a drop in gas station prices, which is a more flexible area of ​​adjustment. However, costs such as car insurance and housing insurance have increased significantly. These fees may not fall, but I think we have entered a stage of economic weakness and I do think the economy will weaken further in the future.

I expect current policies may reduce the nominal GDP growth rate by about 100 basis points, and the current nominal GDP growth rate is about 5%. If nominal GDP falls back to 4%, this will be an important signal. In addition, China's CPI (Consumer Price Index) has just turned negative again, which may also have an impact on the global economy. Although tariff hikes will boost prices, this impact is one-time. After tariffs lead to higher prices, there will be no similar growth in the second year, so this impact will gradually weaken. I don't think the market will overreact.

That's why I don't think we're going to go into a recession. I believe that current policies will find a way to balance inflation. As a supporter of Bitcoin, I pay more attention to the discussions related to the Mar-a-Lago Accords. If you ask me what the end result will be, I think it's hard for us to find enough funds to address the fiscal deficit, especially based on the current policy path. In addition, the counterattacks from other countries on tariffs have also complicated the problem. I think some of the contents in the Marago protocol may be reasonable, which is very good for both gold and Bitcoin. This is also one of the reasons why gold prices are rising, as markets are beginning to realize that countries may resolve the problem through some form of agreement rather than unilateral compromise.

Anthony Pompliano:

Yes, I definitely don't think he will back down. He gave me the feeling like the scene in Titanic, where the captain said he would sink with the ship. I think we have a captain who will sink with the ship or walk to victory with the ship.

Gold vs Bitcoin

Anthony Pompliano: Gold and Bitcoin are often compared, and their price drivers are often very similar. Last year, we saw gold prices rise by 50%, while Bitcoin's rise reached 100%. I once described Bitcoin as "winged gold" because it is more volatile and has higher gains. But in recent weeks, gold prices have continued to rise, while Bitcoin has fallen. What do you think of the recent differences in the performance of these two assets?

Jordi Visser:

It's very appropriate for you to call Bitcoin "gold-like". If we think of Bitcoin as “digital gold,” then its value drivers can be understood from two aspects. The price of gold is often affected by money supply, global liquidity growth, and geopolitical uncertainty such as war risks. Gold is a safe haven asset, and people choose to deposit funds into gold to fight uncertainty. Bitcoin has a certain correlation with the technology industry because it is essentially a technology-driven asset. Recently, the Trump administration 's suppression of technology stocks may also indirectly affect Bitcoin 's performance.

I am optimistic about the long-term prospects of Bitcoin. Even if the growth of the money supply (M2) slows down, Bitcoin will still have room for growth as long as economic efficiency and productivity remain high. Currently, the rapid growth of M2 is very beneficial to gold as it reflects market concerns about inflation. The price of gold is reflecting a reconstruction of a global financial order, such as the uncertainty after the disintegration of the Bretton Woods system. This environment is a natural benefit to gold.

Nevertheless, I think Bitcoin will outperform gold once the Nasdaq index rebounds. Bitcoin’s price volatility is more volatile, and has recently experienced a pullback of about 30%, while Nasdaq tech stocks have fallen by about 20%. When market sentiment improves, Bitcoin may rebound quickly, even surpassing the performance of traditional assets.

However, to truly see the sharp rise in Bitcoin and gold, we may need to wait for clearer policy signals, such as the solution to the tariff issue. In addition, if the government admits that it is necessary to print money to resolve the current economic difficulties, this will further drive the price increase of both. Ray Dalio has advised investors to hold gold and Bitcoin, a strategy that seems particularly reasonable in the current environment.

Anthony Pompliano: Gold prices have reached record highs. Do you think the price of $3,000 per ounce will be a psychological barrier? Just like the $100,000 mark that Bitcoin enthusiasts are paying attention to, these integer marks tend to become the focus of the market. Will $3000 have a psychological impact on the trend of gold, or is it just another number, just like $2000?

Jordi Visser:

I think $3000 is just a normal number. In fact, central banks have been buying gold for some time. For many central banks, gold is a defensive asset, especially in the current global economy full of uncertainty. By accumulating gold, they can hedge against possible future risks of currency depreciation.

The attractiveness of gold is more concentrated on the older generation of investors, while the younger generation is more inclined to choose Bitcoin. For example, in countries such as Nigeria, Brazil and Argentina, young people are more willing to hold Bitcoin because it is more in line with their digital lifestyle. However, most of the funds in the current market are still in the hands of older investors in developed countries, and their demand for gold remains high.

My passion and belief in gold is that it is still a game for older people. Young people won't be involved. Young people in Nigeria, Brazil or Argentina will own Bitcoin.问题是大多数资金仍在这些大国手中，而老年人目前控制着权力，但他们只是在弄清楚这个世界将会是什么样子。

当我们谈论北约可能解散时，这标志着全球体系正在发生深刻的变化。人们购买黄金，是因为他们对未来的全球秩序感到不确定。然而， 在不久的将来，比特币可能会超过黄金的表现。随着市场逐渐适应新的金融体系，比特币将展现其独特的优势，而黄金的涨幅可能会逐渐放缓。

股票今年会创下历史新高吗？

Anthony Pompliano：你认为股市会在今年年底之前创下历史新高吗？

Jordi Visser：

我认为会。不过需要注意的是，当市场经历了10%的调整后，想要回到之前的高点，涨幅需要超过10%。这是否意味着只需要解决关税问题，或者在4月2日之后有明确的政策信号，就能推动市场反弹？还是必须依赖真正的量化宽松（QE），比如降息和印钞，才会成为主要的驱动力？

老实说，我认为这两者都会起到一定作用。我并不觉得4月2日会有什么决定性的事件让市场变得更清晰。根据我对互惠税政策的理解，这可能需要几个月的时间来谈判，期间还会有许多不确定性。

影响股市最严重的因素之一是关税政策的反复无常。 我甚至认为这可能是一种策略。例如，Scott Bessent 提到“没有特朗普的保护”时，特朗普却明确表示“我不会妥协”。这传递了一个信号：他们并不在意股市的短期波动。此外，他还指出，中国的战略是着眼于几十年甚至上百年的长远规划，而美国却往往只关注季度表现，这确实是事实。

Anthony Pompliano：

这句话确实非常犀利。虽然很多人不喜欢他，但这揭示了一个美国人不愿面对的硬道理： 我们的短期思维与中国的长期战略形成了鲜明对比。 而且，我甚至觉得在他的任期内，我们连季度都没有好好考虑。媒体的关注点几乎是以小时为单位的。我认识一些媒体从业者，他们每天早上都必须很早起床，因为特朗普可能在早上六点就已经开始发布重要消息了，他们需要第一时间跟进报道。

特朗普政府中的人际关系与不确定性

Anthony Pompliano： 你是否看过关于特朗普宣布50%关税后的一些幕后片段？我记得有一部纪录片叫《搜索的艺术》（The Art of the Search），记录了他的竞选过程，展示了他与团队的互动方式。其中有一个片段非常有趣，他坐在桌前观看辩论演讲，听到电视上的内容后，他转向一位女性，这位女性被称为“人肉打印机”，因为她随身携带一台便携打印机，为他打印文件供阅读。他开始向她口述推文内容，而镜头切到她的电脑屏幕时，可以看到他所说的内容，包括一些随机的大写字母和重复的符号。这些推文看似是他亲自撰写的，但实际上是团队成员根据他的风格进行编辑和发布的。

让我感到意外的是，像“200%关税”这样的推文，其实是经过筛选和战略考量的，而不是随意发布的。这让我想到，有时我发推文时没有多加思考，之后会后悔措辞不够严谨。而特朗普作为总统，显然不会只是拿着手机随意发言，这背后一定有团队的支持和规划。

这也让我思考，当我们听到像Scott Bessent 和Howard Lutnick 这样的政府成员发言时，他们的凝聚力令人印象深刻。尽管他们可能面临朋友和外界的压力，但他们仍然坚持自己的立场。 如果他们中有人反对或妥协，是否会导致整个局势崩溃，总统因此失去财政部长或商务部长的支持？

Jordi Visser：

这是个好问题。特朗普在第一次担任总统时，确实经历了一个学习过程。他最初雇佣了一些有强烈个人意见的人，导致团队运作一度失控。但现在，白宫的信息传递变得更加一致，这是一种进步。

昨晚我看到一篇报道，提到白宫内部有人认为市场波动开始对政策产生影响，甚至有人讨论是否过于激进。然而，随后不到一小时，另一条来自白宫外部的消息却否认了这种说法。这种信息的矛盾可以从两个角度看待： 一方面，白宫内部可能并未真正改变策略；另一方面，这也说明外界对政策的解读存在误差。

这其实是民主制度的一种体现。当股市下跌时，选民的压力会传递给国会议员和参议员，进而影响政策制定者。我个人并不担心股市短期内的10%调整。无论股票是在11月还是明年5月回到历史高点，这并不重要。我认为企业盈利状况良好，经济不会陷入衰退。但我们必须关注债务问题。当前债务与GDP 的比例已经很高，如果再发生经济衰退，我们将没有足够的政策空间来应对，甚至可能面临国债拍卖失败的风险。

Anthony Pompliano： 我的一位朋友曾提到，拜登政府时期的行动节奏较慢，市场也因此显得更为平静。而特朗普则完全相反，他的高频推文和快速决策让市场充满了不确定性。每天都有大量新信息发布，这种节奏让人感觉市场变化比实际更快。我认为，这种信息轰炸本身可能就是一种策略。

特朗普政府的沟通方式非常积极主动。他们会迅速发布更新，而不是像一些被动管理层那样对外界的问题保持沉默。这种高效的沟通虽然可能增加短期的不确定性，但也让人们能够及时了解政策变化。

Jordi Visser：

像Scott Bessent 这样的官员几乎每天都在电视上露面，这种信息传递的频率是前所未有的。相比之下，Janet Yellen 几乎从未在电视上公开发言。虽然你可能不同意他们的政策方向，但这种快速调整和沟通能力确实值得肯定。

我认为，尽管市场可能在短期内出现10%-20%的波动，但这不会导致经济衰退。 真正的风险在于，如果市场大幅下跌并长期低迷，比如两年内都无法恢复，这才会对经济造成严重打击 。但目前来看，这种情况不太可能发生，因为企业并未大规模裁员。我们需要冷静下来，关注长期趋势，而不是被短期波动所干扰。

但要真正发生这种情况，唯一的方法就是公司开始裁员，而这不会发生。因此，每个人都需要放慢脚步。他们应该观看你的每日节目，因为你刚才说的内容是一种非常细致的方式，应该让人们意识到这一点。你在报纸上是读不到这些的。他们正在努力传播信息，这在进行如此棘手的事情时非常重要。

此外，我们必须正视债务问题。如果债务问题得不到解决，未来可能会面临国债拍卖失败的风险。当市场失去信心时，唯一的选择就是继续印钞，这只会让问题更加严重。因此，当前政策的调整是非常必要的。