Wall Street Tycoons Interpret: Buy Bitcoin or Gold? A Comprehensive Analysis of Market Dynamics Under Trump's New Policies

整理 & 编译：深潮TechFlow

Guest: Jordi Visser, macro investor, former President & Chief Investment Officer of Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisers (over 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

Release Date: March 15, 2025

Key Points Summary

Jordi Visser is a macro investor with over 30 years of experience on Wall Street. He not only runs an investment column on Substack called "VisserLabs," but also regularly publishes investment-related YouTube videos. In this interview, we had an in-depth discussion about Trump's economic policies, including tariffs, tax proposals, Trump's disagreements with Federal Reserve Chairman Powell, inflation issues, comparisons between gold and bitcoin, stock market outlook, and the interpersonal relationships and policy uncertainties within the Trump administration.

Highlights of Insights

• Bitcoin is "gold with wings" because it is more volatile and has higher upside potential.

• Once the Nasdaq index rebounds, Bitcoin's performance will surpass that of gold.

• For many, the stock market and cryptocurrencies are not just investment tools, but sources of hope.

• The appeal of gold is more concentrated among older investors, while the younger generation tends to prefer Bitcoin.

• Tariffs are essentially a form of disguised taxation aimed at transferring funds from the private sector to the public sector to alleviate debt pressure.

• Tariff policies serve both as actual tax measures and as negotiation tools.

• I believe this income tax proposal aims to address domestic wealth distribution issues.

• From a neutral standpoint, I do not think Trump's tax policies are solely designed to help the rich. In fact, his policies focus more on domestic wealth distribution issues.

• Generally, a market correction of 20% to 30% is often associated with economic recessions, and currently, there are no signs indicating we are heading toward a recession.

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

• Economic recessions typically require accompanying credit crises, and currently, the size of the private sector credit market is relatively small compared to the stock market.

• The definition of a recession is the loss of about 1.5% of jobs, which means approximately 2.5 million people unemployed and unable to find work within a year or two.

• First, when the debt level is too high, market collapses can happen very quickly; second, many issues stem from the deleveraging process, where the rapid release of leverage can exacerbate market volatility.

• Both consumer confidence indices and surveys from the University of Michigan show that current sentiment indicators are far below expectations, with one significant reason being the uneven distribution of wealth.

• The market is more concerned about short-term inflation. Survey data shows that this expectation divergence also reflects political divides: Democrats generally believe inflation will rise further, while Republicans think inflation will decrease.

What is Trump's Economic Plan?

Anthony Pompliano: The Trump administration is rapidly advancing a series of policies, but for many, everything seems chaotic and uncertain. The stock market is declining, and people are eager to know what their plans are? What exactly are they doing? Perhaps we can start by understanding the goals they are trying to achieve and the reasons behind them.

Jordi Visser:

I believe the biggest confusion in the market right now is: Does the Trump administration really have a clear plan? If so, what is that plan? How are they executing it? This uncertainty leaves many people feeling lost and has led to fluctuations in market sentiment. Recent surveys show that the uncertainty index is rising sharply. Last week, FactSet released its report on corporate earnings changes for the first quarter, where earnings expectations were significantly lowered, primarily due to market uncertainty regarding tariff policies.

When you ask "What is their plan?" I think those who have not yet realized the severity of the situation need to prepare themselves mentally because this economic policy adjustment needs to be expedited. If you pay attention to traditional media, you will find two completely different voices: On one hand, some believe this is a disaster, scaring many; on the other hand, some believe this is the right direction, even insisting that "we don't care about stock market fluctuations because we are fighting an economic war, and we must fight for what we want."

Overview of Tariffs and Negotiations

Jordi Visser: First, we need to recognize that the current debt level in the United States is very high. This year, $9 trillion in debt is maturing, and this debt needs to be refinanced. Meanwhile, the federal budget deficit is expected to increase by $1.8 to $2 trillion, which means we need to issue more bonds to fill the funding gap. Ray Dalio has pointed out that this ever-expanding debt burden can create a "death spiral," leading to a severe economic crisis if not addressed quickly. His advice is that the government needs to use a combination of measures to respond.

Currently, tariff policies are one of those measures. Tariffs are essentially a form of disguised taxation aimed at transferring funds from the private sector to the public sector to alleviate debt pressure. Additionally, the government is trying to improve the debt situation through fiscal tightening while also balancing the economy through stimulus policies like tax cuts. Therefore, I believe the Trump administration does have an overall plan. While we can discuss whether this plan is being executed properly, it certainly exists.

Anthony Pompliano:

I think one point that people do not understand well is that our deficit is increasing every year. In the past, it was a $1 trillion deficit each year, then it became $1.5 trillion, and now it is about $2 trillion. The latest data shows it could be as high as $2.75 trillion, and this deficit is continuously expanding. As you mentioned, we already have a huge debt number, and this debt needs to be refinanced continuously. In simple terms, it's like using a higher-limit second credit card to pay off the debt on the first credit card. Each time you do this, you need to find a "creditor" willing to provide a higher limit.

As a government, they realize this is a big problem that needs to be solved. It's like taking over a struggling company; the government needs to comprehensively reform the status quo: retain good policies, eliminate inefficient projects, cut unnecessary spending, and at the same time, collect more taxes from the public "customers."

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

Jordi Visser:

There is no doubt that tariff policies serve as both actual tax measures and negotiation tools. Trump clearly implemented tariff policies during his first term and referred to himself as the "Tariff President." Tariffs are real and unavoidable.

When you say the stock market is down due to tariffs, I think people must realize that many tariff measures are actually aimed at pursuing trade reciprocity. If you impose tariffs on our cars, why can't we impose tariffs on your cars? Through this approach, the government is trying to rebalance trade relations while bringing some funds back home to improve the fiscal situation.

Trump's negotiation style can be traced back to his book "The Art of the Deal." He excels at achieving goals through pressure and leverage. For example, when the U.S. announced a 200% tariff on wine, the news itself would trigger market reactions. This is a negotiation strategy aimed at forcing the other side to concede.

I believe there is a larger plan here, possibly related to tax cuts and avoiding a government shutdown, as he is trying to apply pressure on everyone. As Ray Dalio said, the government must act quickly, especially in the current context of expanding debt and deficits. Tariffs will indeed increase consumer spending, but part of that money will flow into the government to alleviate debt pressure.

But frankly, tariffs are a form of disguised tax increase, but they can also be seen as a tool for wealth redistribution, bringing more funds back to the country. This is one of the core goals of tariff policies, without a doubt.

Tax Proposals

Anthony Pompliano:

Regarding tax policies, criticism of Trump often centers on the political rhetoric that he "only cuts taxes for the rich, helping his friends." However, surprisingly, individuals like Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump, and Scott Bessent have proposed a goal: to exempt families earning less than $150,000 a year from federal income tax.

Currently, the data I see indicates that there are about 130 million families in the U.S., with 85% to 90% of families earning less than $150,000 a year. This means that about 110 million families could potentially be completely exempt from federal income tax. If implemented, this policy would 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 sources would be significantly impacted. We can discuss these tax proposals, which clearly are not just serving the rich but also addressing middle and low-income families.

Jordi Visser:

This is exactly why I think it's important to stay alert when reading the news every day, as media reports from both the left and right carry certain biases. From a neutral standpoint, I do not think Trump's tax policies are solely designed to help the rich. In fact, his policies focus more on domestic wealth distribution issues. He is trying to address this issue, but not by directly raising taxes on the rich, as this could negatively impact economic development.

From a consumption perspective, a large portion of U.S. GDP is driven by the top 20% of income earners. The consumption of these high-income individuals accounts for a significant proportion of GDP, which itself reflects the imbalance in wealth distribution. Therefore, raising prices through tariffs is also a way to indirectly increase taxes on the wealthy.

So I believe this income tax proposal aims to address domestic wealth distribution issues, but whether it can ultimately be realized depends on how various factors develop.

Additionally, the short-term negotiation pressures cannot be ignored. Currently, tariff policies are more of a negotiation tool to gain more benefits in international trade. At the same time, the government is also trying to stimulate the economy through tax cuts and avoid a government shutdown. Balancing economic growth on one hand while using tariffs and other means to supplement fiscal revenue is the core goal of current policies. Especially in the face of constant negative news, I believe these measures are aimed at stabilizing the stock market and alleviating public anxiety about the economy.

Anthony Pompliano:

Whether it's tariff policies, tax reforms, economic policies, or geopolitical negotiations, including attempts to facilitate a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, these actions have a direct impact on the stock market. The stock market has dropped about 10% in the past three weeks. Statistically, this could be the fifth-fastest decline since 1950. However, I see that Peter Mallouk at Creative Planning has published data indicating that over the past 75 years, the average intra-year pullback in the stock market has been about 14% to 15%. So the question is, should we be worried about this 10% drop? Or is this actually the norm in the stock market?

Jordi Visser:

I think this is a key point. In the past two weeks, market sentiment surveys have shown a significant decline in investor confidence. The initial fluctuations in sentiment were mainly reflected in short-term trading, but now they have extended to longer-term investor confidence indices. From the data, current market sentiment is nearing bear market territory.

Nevertheless, a 10% market pullback is not uncommon. In fact, this pullback is indeed the fastest since the COVID-19 pandemic, but it has not severely impacted the overall breadth of the market. As of last Tuesday, about 40% of stocks in the S&P 500 were still up for the year. In other words, the fundamentals of the market remain solid.

I think a more pressing question is whether the current economic situation will trigger a recession. Generally, a market correction of 20% to 30% is often associated with economic recessions, and currently, there are no signs indicating we are heading toward a recession. If the government can quickly ease the rhetoric of the trade war, the market may rebound quickly, and investors will readjust their plans. But until then, many people are choosing to wait and see, which is also one reason for the low market sentiment.

Fear and Economic Recession

Anthony Pompliano:

I've always felt that the more people talk about a recession, the less likely it is 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 already priced in those expectations? What do you think about this issue?

Jordi Visser:

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

If we look back to 1980, the economic recession was more pronounced, with manufacturing jobs accounting for one-third of the overall economy, while that proportion has now dropped to less than 10%. This indicates a significant change in the employment structure. The reason I mention employment is that economic recessions typically require accompanying credit crises, and currently, the size of the private sector credit market is relatively small compared to the stock market. Therefore, the stock market must experience a significant decline to have a broader impact on the overall economy. However, most of the new jobs today are concentrated in the healthcare sector, which is largely supported by the government, making it less sensitive to economic cycles. As you mentioned in your video this week, many jobs are indeed related to the government, including contractors.

Anthony Pompliano:

In the past two years, government jobs accounted for 25%.

Jordi Visser:

Yes, that's a significant proportion. Jobs in the healthcare sector are not cyclical. As the population ages, our demand for nurses and other healthcare professionals will only continue to grow. In the short term, unless there are AI robots that can replace humans, the demand for these jobs will not decrease. Three of my four children work in healthcare, which gives me a more intuitive understanding of the realities in this field.

The recession we face now is different from the past, both due to credit issues and changes in the nature of work. But when I talk about the private sector, I want to ensure that the audience watching understands that now may be a good time to look for future investment opportunities. For those already involved in investing, especially in cryptocurrencies, this may already be a familiar sentiment. But the stock market is not like that, so people are starting to worry about the overall recession.

For me, the definition of a recession is the loss of about 1.5% of jobs, which means approximately 2.5 million people unemployed and unable to find work within a year or two.

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

Today, the main issue we face is a labor shortage. Slowing population growth and tightening immigration policies have made labor supply tighter. Therefore, I believe the current economic conditions do not support a large-scale economic recession. Additionally, the rapid development of AI technology is significantly enhancing productivity, which will help businesses maintain high profit margins.

Thus, we are actually in a very good position, and in the coming quarters, economic growth may remain around 1%, although there may be negative growth in the short term, but I do not believe we will experience a systemic collapse like in 2008.

Anthony Pompliano:

You mentioned the deleveraging phenomenon in hedge funds, which seems to be an important market dynamic. Can you elaborate on how it occurs and why it is happening?

Jordi Visser:

This phenomenon is indeed attracting increasing attention. If the situation does not improve, it could evolve into a larger problem. I can share two relevant experiences.

My career began in emerging markets. In the 1990s, I worked at Morgan Stanley, and my first task was to take over a trading portfolio in Mexico, just two months before the Mexican financial crisis broke out. This was a derivatives portfolio. Fortunately, my predecessor had hedged the risks well.

From this experience, I learned two important things: First, when the debt level is too high, market collapses can happen very quickly; second, many issues stem from the deleveraging process, where the rapid release of leverage can exacerbate market volatility. The collapse of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) is a classic example, and I witnessed similar situations during the emerging market crisis in Brazil.

I mentioned last week that I am concerned about the risk management models optimized by AI. In fact, the application of machine learning and AI is much earlier than most people imagine. While ChatGPT has made the public aware of the potential of AI, machine learning technology has long been widely used. Some large hedge funds invest over $100 million annually in developing quantitative models and optimizing hedging strategies, giving them a significant advantage in risk management.

As AI becomes more prevalent, new market dynamics are beginning to emerge. For example, momentum strategies have performed exceptionally well in recent years. Part of the reason is that the proliferation of technical tools allows individual investors to easily backtest strategies and build portfolios. This trend has made the market more dynamic but has also introduced new risks.

In the current relatively loose market environment, many funds operating pair trading or risk optimization strategies are underperforming. Compared to their performance over the past six or seven years, or even 13 years, this situation is unusual. I believe this is related to the complexity of the global environment. For instance, the escalation of trade wars, the potential dissolution of NATO, and the return of tariff policies to 19th-century levels are all new variables that historical data cannot predict. Risk optimization models rely on historical correlations and volatility, making it difficult to operate effectively in such an environment. Many funds have chosen to reduce risk exposure, which in turn exacerbates market losses, creating a self-fulfilling cycle.

The current market differentiation is also very evident. For example, in the S&P 500, only about 200 stocks are rising, while about 300 stocks are falling. The declining stocks are often related to AI, while the rising stocks are concentrated in European or Chinese markets, which are often areas where investors have less exposure. This deleveraging phenomenon occurs cyclically, but the current situation is particularly pronounced.

If this trend continues, it may further impact the credit market. I also want to specifically mention the private debt market, which is another area worth watching. Over the past five weeks, private equity funds have significantly underperformed, and their stock prices have also dropped sharply. Historical data shows that private equity stock prices are highly correlated with the private debt market, and we are already beginning to see signs of weakness. This could be another potential risk point that we need to keep a close eye on.

Anthony Pompliano: When every participant in the market is simultaneously reducing risk, what impact does this have on the market? While it may seem safer for individuals, does this collective behavior pose potential systemic risks?

Jordi Visser:

This is precisely the crux of the issue. If the government is working to lower the yield on ten-year Treasury bonds, everyone cheers, thinking that a drop from 4.80% to 4.25% is a good thing. But at the same time, the stock market has returned to September levels. In fact, the stock market has hardly changed over the past six months. Six months ago, when the stock market was down, the yield on ten-year Treasury bonds was 3.67%, and now it has risen to 4.25%. The rise in yields reflects the complexity of the market.

The government seems to be sending the signal: "We don't care about the stock market." I think this attitude is unwise. Rather than pressuring through trade wars, it would be better to negotiate tariff issues. However, this negotiation approach may lead to further accumulation of market pressure. Based on current signs, I believe this pressure has already begun to manifest, not only reflected in approval ratings but also evident in discussions on social media and policy debates. This collective behavior of reducing risk is having a self-reinforcing negative impact on the market.

The market is at a critical juncture. The hedge fund community is generally focused on the upcoming April 2, which may mark a turning point in market sentiment. Right now, many investors are on the sidelines, unwilling to take on more risk before April 2. Because we are still unclear about what will happen in the future, especially as economic data and corporate earnings may reveal more vulnerabilities. As earnings season approaches, we will gradually see the actual impact of consumers pausing their spending.

Anthony Pompliano: I noticed that some companies have already begun to use tariffs as a "scapegoat" for poor performance. Interestingly, these companies started blaming tariff policies even before the new administration had been in office for 60 days, while these policies had no actual connection to their fourth-quarter performance. How do hedge funds assess the relationship between rhetoric and actual data in such situations?

Jordi Visser:

That's a great question. I think it can be viewed from two perspectives. First, the market capitalization of the stock market is about 200% of GDP, which means the stock market has a huge impact on overall economic sentiment. However, both the consumer confidence index and surveys from the University of Michigan show that current sentiment indicators are far below expectations, with one significant reason being the uneven distribution of wealth.

The development of AI is changing social mobility, especially the upward mobility opportunities for the younger generation are decreasing. For example, my daughters just graduated from college, and they are working hard, but they find that even if their income increases after five years, it is still not enough to live in places like New York City. Instead, they choose to live in areas with lower living costs, like Little Rock, Arkansas. I mention this to illustrate that for many, the stock market and cryptocurrencies are not just investment tools, but sources of hope.

When the stock market declines, this hope is undermined. Data shows that vacation plans in the U.S. have significantly decreased, the PMI (Purchasing Managers' Index) new orders have sharply declined, and consumer spending has noticeably slowed. The GDP forecast from the Atlanta Fed is currently hovering around 0% to 1%. This economic slowdown is not due to an impending recession, but rather because people are worried about future uncertainties, leading to reduced spending.

If the government's goal is to create better economic conditions, they may be working toward that direction. However, the current challenge lies in the debt issue. The debt maturing in 2025 amounts to $9 trillion, most of which is short-term debt. Even if the yield on ten-year Treasury bonds decreases, if the Federal Reserve does not cut interest rates, it will have limited benefits for improving the debt situation. Therefore, the market is currently in a wait-and-see mode, awaiting clearer signals.

Trump vs. Powell

Anthony Pompliano: Trump often pressures Federal Reserve Chairman Powell on social media to lower interest rates and push for rate cuts. Powell's stance is very clear; he insists, "No, I will not cut rates." This even led to questions from reporters, such as "If Trump asks you to resign, will you resign? Or does he have the authority to fire you?" Powell's answer is that he will not resign. This attitude can almost be seen as confrontational. So the question is, is the situation really as simple as Trump and some economists say: forcing the Fed to cut rates by slowing the economy to the extreme? Or is this actually a complex game between the Federal Reserve and the executive branch?

Jordi Visser:

Bill Dudley published a commentary on Bloomberg this week discussing the Fed's dilemma. The Fed is indeed paying attention to signs of economic growth slowing, but their primary responsibility revolves around employment, and currently, the job market remains relatively strong. However, the inflation issue has put them in a bind. According to this week's Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) data, which is the inflation indicator the Fed focuses on, the month-on-month growth exceeded 0.3%. If annualized, the core PCE inflation rate still exceeds 3%. This means the Fed must find a way to control inflation while trying to lower interest rates, which is a very tricky situation for them.

From market expectations, the inflation expectations for the next two years (observed through the interest rate swap market) have risen to over 3%. Since Trump took office, this expectation has continued to climb. Currently, the yield on ten-year Treasury bonds is below this level, while the yield on two-year Treasury bonds is about 2.70%. Meanwhile, the yield on Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) is also close to 3%. This has led to a 30 basis point spread: two-year inflation expectations are higher than ten-year expectations. This phenomenon indicates that the market is more concerned about short-term inflation. Survey data shows that this expectation divergence also reflects political divides: Democrats generally believe inflation will rise further, while Republicans think inflation will decrease.

This divergence complicates the Fed's decision-making. Unless there is a significant change in the job market, Powell will face enormous challenges in addressing the dual pressures of tax cuts and increased tariffs. Both of these policies will exert upward pressure on inflation, and the Fed currently does not have a clear solution. Therefore, I believe the Fed is still in a wait-and-see mode, awaiting more data to guide their next steps.

What is the Real Inflation Rate?

Anthony Pompliano: Speaking of inflation data, I recently wrote some analyses. Currently, official data shows an inflation rate of 3%, while "True Flation" indicates 2.8%. It should be noted that true inflation is an alternative inflation metric designed to reflect economic conditions more in real-time. While some people place great importance on it, others point out its limitations. Currently, the latest data for this metric is 1.35%. If the official data is 2.8%, and true inflation is 2.6%, they are basically in line. However, when true inflation is 50% lower than the official data, and three months ago it was higher than the official data, it indicates that it is not systematically underestimating inflation in the long term but is more sensitive to real-time changes. For example, when the government's inflation rate is 2.93%, true inflation might show 3.1%.

Now that true inflation has suddenly dropped to 1.35%, this is a significant decline. Do you think that in the next two to four months, the official inflation data will fall below 2%? Is this possibly due to the lag in government data, which has not yet fully reflected the latest inflation trends?

Jordi Visser:

I am now starting to support the data reflected by true inflation. At the end of last year and the beginning of this year, I was more inclined to believe that inflation pressures would persist, which was not entirely related to tariffs but due to other factors. However, if oil prices drop to around $60 per barrel, which is at the bottom of its volatility range, then the decline in oil prices will directly lead to lower prices at gas stations, which is a more flexible adjustment area. However, costs like auto insurance and housing insurance have risen significantly. These costs may not decrease, but I believe we have entered a phase 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, with the current nominal GDP growth rate around 5%. If nominal GDP falls back to 4%, this will be an important signal. Additionally, China's CPI (Consumer Price Index) has just turned negative again, which may also impact the global economy. While tariff increases will exert upward pressure on prices, this effect is one-time. After tariffs raise prices, there will not be similar increases the following year, so this impact will gradually diminish. I believe the market will not overreact to this.

This is also why I believe we will not enter a recession. I believe current policies will find a way to balance inflation. As a supporter of Bitcoin, I am more focused on discussions related to the Mar-a-Lago Accords. If you ask me what the final outcome will be, I think it will be difficult to find enough funds to address the fiscal deficit issue, especially based on the current policy path. Furthermore, the retaliatory measures from other countries against tariffs complicate the issue. I believe some of the contents in the Mar-a-Lago Accords may be reasonable, which would be very beneficial for both gold and Bitcoin. This is also one of the reasons why gold prices are rising, as the market begins to realize that countries may resolve issues through some form of agreement rather than unilateral concessions.

Anthony Pompliano:

Yes, I absolutely do not think he will back down. He gives me the impression of the scene in "Titanic," where the captain says he will go down with the ship. I think we have a captain who will go down with the ship, either leading it to victory or sinking with it.

Gold vs. Bitcoin

Anthony Pompliano: Gold and Bitcoin are often compared, and their price drivers are usually very similar. Last year, we saw gold prices rise by 50%, while Bitcoin's increase was even more significant at 100%. I once described Bitcoin as "gold with wings" because it is more volatile and has higher upside potential. However, in recent weeks, gold prices have continued to rise while Bitcoin has seen a decline. What do you think about the divergence in performance between these two assets recently?

Jordi Visser:

You aptly referred to Bitcoin as "digital gold." If we view Bitcoin as "digital gold," its value drivers can be understood from two perspectives. Gold prices are typically influenced by the money supply, global liquidity growth, and geopolitical uncertainties (such as war risks). Gold is a safe-haven asset, and people choose to store their funds in gold to combat uncertainty. On the other hand, Bitcoin has a certain connection to the tech industry, as it is essentially a technology-driven asset. The recent crackdown by the Trump administration on tech 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, as long as economic efficiency and productivity remain high, Bitcoin will still have room to rise. Currently, the rapid growth of M2 is very favorable for gold, as it reflects the market's concerns about inflation. Gold prices are reflecting a reconstruction of a global financial order, such as the uncertainty following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. This environment is inherently beneficial for gold.

Nevertheless, I believe that once the Nasdaq index rebounds, Bitcoin's performance will surpass that of gold. Bitcoin's price volatility is greater, having recently experienced about a 30% pullback, while Nasdaq tech stocks have dropped about 20%. When market sentiment improves, Bitcoin may rebound quickly and even outperform traditional assets.

However, to truly see significant increases in both Bitcoin and gold, we may need to wait for clearer policy signals, such as a resolution to tariff issues. Additionally, if the government acknowledges the need to print money to resolve the current economic predicament, this would further drive up the prices of both. Ray Dalio has suggested that investors hold both gold and Bitcoin, and this strategy seems particularly reasonable in the current environment.

Anthony Pompliano: Gold prices have already reached historical highs. Do you think the price of $3000 per ounce will become a psychological barrier? Just like the $100,000 mark that Bitcoin enthusiasts are focused on, these round numbers often become focal points in the market. Will $3000 have a psychological impact on gold's trajectory, or is it just another number, like $2000?

Jordi Visser:

I think $3000 is just an ordinary number. In fact, central banks have been continuously buying gold for some time. For many central banks, gold is a defensive asset, especially in the current global economy filled with uncertainties. By accumulating gold, they can hedge against potential future currency devaluation risks.

The appeal of gold is more concentrated among older investors, while the younger generation tends to prefer Bitcoin. For example, in countries like Nigeria, Brazil, and Argentina, young people are more willing to hold Bitcoin because it aligns better with their digital lifestyles. However, most of the current market funds are still held by older investors in developed countries, who still have a high demand for gold.

My enthusiasm and belief in gold are that it remains a game for the elderly. Young people will not participate in it. Young people in Nigeria, Brazil, or Argentina will own Bitcoin. The issue is that most of the funds are still in the hands of these major countries, and the elderly currently hold the power, but they are just trying to figure out what this world will look like.

When we talk about the potential dissolution of NATO, it signifies profound changes in the global system. People buy gold because they feel uncertain about the future global order. However, in the near future, Bitcoin may outperform gold. As the market gradually adapts to the new financial system, Bitcoin will showcase its unique advantages, while the growth of gold may gradually slow down.

Will the Stock Market Reach Historical Highs This Year?

Anthony Pompliano: Do you think the stock market will reach historical highs before the end of this year?

Jordi Visser:

I believe it will. However, it is important to note that when the market has experienced a 10% adjustment, to return to previous highs, the increase needs to exceed 10%. Does this mean that resolving tariff issues or having clear policy signals after April 2 will drive the market rebound? Or must it rely on true quantitative easing (QE), such as interest rate cuts and money printing, to become the main driving force?

Honestly, I think both will play a role. I do not think there will be any decisive events on April 2 that will clarify the market. Based on my understanding of reciprocal tax policies, it may take several months of negotiations, during which there will be much uncertainty.

One of the most serious factors affecting the stock market is the unpredictability of tariff policies. I even think this could be a strategy. For example, when Scott Bessent mentioned "no protection from Trump," Trump clearly stated, "I will not compromise." This sends a signal: they do not care about short-term fluctuations in the stock market. Additionally, he pointed out that China's strategy looks at long-term planning over decades or even centuries, while the U.S. often focuses only on quarterly performance, which is indeed a fact.

Anthony Pompliano:

That statement is indeed very sharp. While many people dislike him, it reveals a hard truth that Americans are unwilling to face: our short-term thinking sharply contrasts with China's long-term strategy. Moreover, I even feel that during his term, we haven't properly considered quarterly performance. The media's focus is almost on an hourly basis. I know some media professionals who have to wake up very early every morning because Trump may start posting important messages at six in the morning, and they need to report on them immediately.

Interpersonal Relationships and Uncertainty in the Trump Administration

Anthony Pompliano: Have you seen some behind-the-scenes clips about Trump announcing a 50% tariff? I remember a documentary called "The Art of the Search," which documented his campaign process and showcased his interactions with the team. One segment is particularly interesting; he sits at a table watching debate speeches, and upon hearing the content on TV, he turns to a woman known as the "human printer" because she carries a portable printer to print documents for him to read. He starts dictating tweet content to her, and when the camera cuts to her computer screen, you can see what he is saying, including some random capital letters and repeated symbols. These tweets seem to be personally written by him, but they are actually edited and published by team members based on his style.

What surprised me is that tweets like "200% tariffs" are actually filtered and strategically considered, rather than being released casually. This makes me think that sometimes when I tweet without much thought, I later regret not being precise in my wording. And Trump, as president, clearly does not just pick up his phone and speak casually; there must be support and planning from the team behind him.

This also makes me ponder that when we hear government members like Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick speak, their cohesion is impressive. Although they may face pressure from friends and the outside world, they still stand firm in their positions. If any of them oppose or compromise, would it lead to the collapse of the entire situation, causing the president to lose the support of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of Commerce?

Jordi Visser:

That's a good question. Trump did go through a learning process during his first term as president. He initially hired some individuals with strong personal opinions, which led to a period of disarray within the team. But now, the information dissemination within the White House has become more consistent, which is an improvement.

Last night, I saw a report mentioning that some people within the White House believe that market fluctuations are starting to affect policy, and there are even discussions about whether they are being too aggressive. However, less than an hour later, another message from outside the White House denied this claim. This contradiction in information can be viewed from two angles: On one hand, the White House may not have genuinely changed its strategy; on the other hand, it also indicates that there are misinterpretations of the policies from the outside.

This is actually a reflection of the democratic system. When the stock market declines, voter pressure is transmitted to congressional representatives and senators, which in turn affects policymakers. Personally, I am not worried about a 10% adjustment in the stock market in the short term. Whether stocks return to historical highs in November or next May does not matter. I believe corporate earnings are good, and the economy will not fall into recession. But we must pay attention to the debt issue. The current debt-to-GDP ratio is already high, and if another economic recession occurs, we will not have enough policy space to respond, and we may even face the risk of failed Treasury auctions.

Anthony Pompliano: A friend of mine once mentioned that the pace of action during the Biden administration is slower, which has made the market appear calmer. In contrast, Trump is the complete opposite; his high-frequency tweets and rapid decision-making create uncertainty in the market. Every day, a large amount of new information is released, and this pace makes it feel like market changes are faster than they actually are. I believe this information bombardment itself may be a strategy.

The communication style of the Trump administration is very proactive. They quickly release updates rather than remaining silent on external issues like some passive management teams. This efficient communication may increase short-term uncertainty, but it also allows people to stay informed about policy changes in a timely manner.

Jordi Visser:

Officials like Scott Bessent appear on television almost every day, and this frequency of information dissemination is unprecedented. In contrast, Janet Yellen has hardly ever spoken publicly on television. While you may disagree with their policy direction, this rapid adjustment and communication ability is indeed commendable.

I believe that although the market may experience 10%-20% fluctuations in the short term, this will not lead to an economic recession. The real risk is that if the market declines significantly and remains low for an extended period, such as not recovering for two years, this would seriously impact the economy. But currently, this situation is unlikely to occur because companies are not laying off large numbers of employees. We need to calm down and focus on long-term trends rather than being disturbed by short-term fluctuations.

But for this to truly happen, the only way is for companies to start laying off employees, and that is not going to happen. So everyone needs to slow down. They should watch your daily show because what you just said is a very detailed way to make people aware of this. You won't read this in the newspapers. They are working hard to spread information, which is very important when dealing with such tricky matters.

Moreover, we must face the debt issue. If the debt problem is not resolved, we may face the risk of failed Treasury auctions in the future. When the market loses confidence, the only choice is to continue printing money, which will only exacerbate the problem. Therefore, the current adjustment of policies is very necessary.