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

Summary of key points: Jordi Visser is a macro investor with more than 30 years of experience on Wall Street. He not only runs a Substack investment column called VisserLabs, but also regularly publishes investment-related YouTube videos. In this interview, we have an in-depth discussion around Trump's economic policies, including tariffs, tax proposals, Trump's differences with Federal Reserve Chairman Powell, inflation issues, the comparison between gold and Bitcoin, the outlook for the stock market, and the interpersonal relationships and policy uncertainty within the Trump administration.

Summary of wonderful views: Bitcoin is gold with wings because it is more volatile and has a higher rise.

Once the Nasdaq index rebounds, Bitcoin will outperform gold.

The stock market and cryptocurrencies are not just investment tools for many people, but also their hope.

The appeal 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 aimed at transferring funds from the private sector to the public sector to ease debt pressure.

Tariff policy is both an actual tax means and a negotiating tool.

I think this income tax proposal is intended to solve the problem of wealth distribution in the country.

From a neutral point of view, I don't think Trump's tax policy is simply to help the rich. In fact, his policy focuses more on the problem of wealth distribution in the country.

Generally speaking, a 20% to 30% market correction is often associated with a recession, and there is no sign that we are heading for a recession.

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

A recession usually requires a credit crisis, and the current private sector credit market is not large compared to the stock market.

A recession is defined as a loss of about 1.5% of jobs, which means that about 2.5 million people are unemployed and cannot find a job within a year or two.

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

Whether it is the consumer confidence index or the survey data of the University of Michigan, the current sentiment indicators are far below expectations. 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 divergence in expectations also reflects political differences: Democrats generally believe that inflation will rise further, while Republicans believe that 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 people, it all looks chaotic and uncertain. The stock market is falling, and people are eager to know what their plan is? What are they doing? We might start by understanding what they are trying to achieve and why.

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 is this plan? How do they implement it? This uncertainty confuses many people and leads to fluctuations in market sentiment. Some recent surveys show that the uncertainty index is rising sharply. Last week, FactSet released a report on corporate earnings changes in the first quarter, in which earnings expectations were significantly lowered, mainly due to market uncertainty about tariff policies.

When you ask what their plan is, I think 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 pay attention to traditional media, you will find two very different voices: on the one hand, some people think it is a disaster and scare many people; on the other hand, there are also people who think this 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 must fight for what we want.

Tariff Overview and Negotiations

Jordi Visser:

First of all, we need to realize that the current debt level in the United States is very high. There are $9 trillion of debt due this year, and these debts need to be refinanced. At the same time, the federal budget deficit is expected to increase by another $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 growing debt burden will form a death spiral, and if we don't take action quickly, it will lead to a serious economic crisis. His suggestion is that the government needs to use a combination of means to deal with it.

From the current point of view, tariff policy is one of the means. Tariffs are actually a disguised tax, the purpose is to transfer funds from the private sector to the public sector to ease debt pressure. In addition, the government is trying to improve the debt situation through fiscal austerity, and it is also balancing the economy through stimulus policies such as tax cuts. So I think the Trump administration does have an overall plan. Although we can discuss whether this plan is well implemented, it does exist.

Anthony Pompliano:

I think one thing that people don't understand is that our deficit is getting bigger every year. It used to be a trillion-dollar deficit, then it became $1.5 trillion, and now it's about $2 trillion. The latest data shows that it may be as high as $2.75 trillion, and this deficit is getting bigger and bigger. As you said, we already have a huge debt figure, and this debt needs to be constantly refinanced. In layman's terms, it's like paying off the first credit card with a second credit card with a higher limit. Every time you do this, you need to find a creditor willing to offer a higher limit.

As a government, they realize that this is a big problem and need to solve it. Just like taking over a troubled company, the government needs to overhaul the status quo: keep good policies, eliminate inefficient projects, cut unnecessary expenses, and collect more taxes from public customers.

Tariff policy is part of this reform. Many people see tariffs as a way for the government to increase tax revenue, but others think that it is more like a game with other 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% tax on American whiskey, while the United States imposes a 200% tax on wine and spirits. Are these tariffs to increase revenue or a negotiating tactic?

Jordi Visser:

There is no doubt that tariff policy is both an actual tax means and a negotiating tool. Trump explicitly pursued tariffs during his first term and called himself the tariff president. Tariffs are real and unavoidable.

When you say the stock market is down because of tariffs, I think people have to realize that many tariffs are actually about seeking trade reciprocity. You're going to impose tariffs on our cars, why can't we impose tariffs on your cars? In this way, the government is trying to rebalance the trade relationship while bringing some money back home to improve the fiscal situation.

Trump's negotiating style can be traced back to his book, The Art of the Deal. He is good at getting his way by applying pressure and using leverage. For example, when the United States announced a 200% tariff on wine, the news itself triggered a market reaction. It was a negotiating tactic designed to force concessions.

I think there is a bigger plan here, probably related to tax cuts and avoiding a government shutdown, and he is trying to put pressure on everyone. As Ray Dalio said, the government has to act quickly, especially in the current situation of growing debt and deficits. Tariffs do increase consumer spending, but some of the money goes to the government to help ease debt pressure.

But frankly, tariffs are a disguised form of tax increase, but they can also be seen as a wealth redistribution tool, by which more money is brought back into the country. This is one of the core goals of tariff policy, no doubt about it.

Tax Proposals

Anthony Pompliano:

Criticisms of Trump on tax policy often focus on his political rhetoric of only cutting taxes for the rich and helping his friends. However, what is surprising is that people like Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump, and Scott Bessent have proposed a goal of eliminating federal income taxes for households with an annual income of less than $150,000. The data I have seen so far is that there are about 130 million households in the United States, and 85% to 90% of them have an annual income of less than $150,000. This means that about 110 million households may be completely exempt from federal income taxes. If this policy is implemented, it will be one of the most transformative measures for ordinary families and the US economy.

However, it also means that the source of revenue for the federal government will be significantly affected. We can talk about these tax proposals, which are obviously not just for the rich, but also for middle- and low-income families.

Jordi Visser:

This is why I think you need to be vigilant when reading the news every day, because whether it is the left or the right, the media coverage will be biased. From a neutral point of view, I do not think that Trump's tax policy is simply to help the rich. In fact, his policy focuses more on the domestic wealth distribution problem. He tried to solve this problem, but did not do so by directly raising taxes on the rich, because this might have a negative impact on economic development.

From the perspective of consumption, a large part of the US GDP is driven by the top 20% of the income group. The consumption of these high-income earners has accounted for a major proportion of GDP, which in itself is a manifestation of the imbalance in wealth distribution. Therefore, raising commodity prices through tariffs is actually a disguised way to increase taxes on the rich.

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

In addition, the negotiation pressure in the short term cannot be ignored. The tariff policy is currently more of a negotiating tool to gain more benefits in international trade. At the same time, the government is also trying to stimulate the economy and avoid a government shutdown through tax cuts. While promoting economic growth on the one hand, on the other hand, supplementing fiscal revenue through tariffs and other means, this balance is the core goal of the current policy. Especially with all the negative news, I think these measures are both intended to stabilize the stock market and to ease public anxiety about the economy.

Anthony Pompliano:

Whether it's tariff policy, tax reform, economic policy, geopolitical negotiations, or even trying to broker a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, these actions have had a direct impact on the stock market. In the past three weeks, the stock market has fallen by about 10%. According to statistics, this may be the fifth fastest decline since 1950. However, I saw data published by Peter Maluk at Creative Planning that the average annual decline in the stock market over the past 75 years has been between 14% and 15%.

The question is, do we need to be concerned about this 10% decline? 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 sentiment fluctuations were mainly reflected in short-term trading, but now they have expanded to longer-term investor confidence indicators. Based on the data, the current market sentiment is close to bear market territory.

Still, a 10% market correction is not uncommon. In fact, this one was the fastest since the pandemic, but it didn't have a serious impact on the overall breadth of the market. As of last Tuesday, about 40% of the S&P 500 were still up for the year. In other words, the fundamentals of the market remain solid.

I think the more concerning question is whether the current economic conditions will trigger a recession. Generally speaking, a 20% to 30% market correction is often associated with a recession, and there are no signs that we are heading for one. 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 for the time being, which is one of the reasons for the low market sentiment.

Fear and Recessions

Anthony Pompliano:

I have 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? After all, if everyone is worried about future risks, has the market already reflected these expectations in advance? What do you think about this issue?

Jordi Visser:

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

If we look back to 1980, when the recession was more significant, manufacturing employment accounted for one-third of the overall economy, and now that proportion has dropped to less than 10%. This means that the employment structure has changed dramatically. The reason for mentioning employment is that recessions usually require a credit crisis, and the current private sector credit market is not large compared to the stock market. Therefore, the stock market must experience a significant decline in order to have a broader impact on the overall economy.

However, most of the new jobs today are in healthcare, which is mostly government-backed and therefore less sensitive to the economic cycle. As you mentioned in this week's video, many of the jobs are actually government-related, including contractors and the like.

Anthony Pompliano: Over the past two years, government has accounted for 25% of jobs.

Jordi Visser:

Yeah, that's a big percentage. Healthcare jobs are not cyclical. As the population ages, our need for nurses and other healthcare workers will only continue to grow. In the short term, unless there are artificial intelligence robots that can replace humans, the need for these jobs will not decrease. I have three of my own four children working in healthcare, which gives me a more direct understanding of the reality of this field.

The recession we are having now is different from the past, both because of credit issues and because of the changing nature of work. But when I talk about the private sector, I want to make sure that the audience watching understands that now may be a good time to look for future investment opportunities. For those who have been involved in the investment field, especially those who pay attention to cryptocurrencies, this may be commonplace. But the stock market is not like this, so people are starting to worry about the whole recession issue.

For me, the definition of a recession is a loss of about 1.5% of jobs, which means about 2.5 million people are unemployed and can't find a job for a year or two.

Looking back at the global financial crisis in 2008, the unemployment rate soared to 10% at one point, and it took a long time to get down to 4%.

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

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

Anthony Pompliano: You mentioned the phenomenon of hedge fund deleveraging, which seems to be an important market dynamic. Can you explain in detail how and why it happened?

Jordi Visser:

This phenomenon is indeed attracting more and more attention. If the situation is not improved, it may evolve into a bigger problem. I can share two relevant experiences.

I started my career in emerging markets. I was working at Morgan Stanley in the 90s, and my first assignment was to take over the Mexican trading portfolio, just two months before the Mexican financial crisis broke out. It was a derivatives portfolio. Fortunately, my predecessor had hedged the risk well.

Through this experience, I learned two important things: first, when the debt scale is too large, the market collapse can be very rapid; second, the root of many problems lies in the process of deleveraging, and the rapid release of leverage will exacerbate market turmoil. The collapse of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) is a typical example, and I also witnessed similar situations when I experienced the emerging market crisis in Brazil.

I mentioned last week that I am concerned about the risk management model optimized by artificial intelligence. In fact, the application of machine learning and artificial intelligence is much earlier than most people think. Although ChatGPT made the public aware of 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 dynamics have begun to emerge. For example, momentum strategies have performed very well in recent years. This is partly because the popularity of technical tools allows individual investors to easily backtest strategies and build portfolios. This trend makes the market more dynamic, but it also brings new risks.

Many funds running pairs trading or risk optimization strategies have underperformed in the current loose market environment. This is an anomaly compared to the performance of the past six or seven years, or even 13 years. I think this 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 19th century levels are all new variables that cannot be predicted by historical data. Risk optimization models rely on historical correlations and volatility, so it is difficult to operate effectively in this environment. Many funds have therefore chosen to reduce their risk exposure, which in turn has exacerbated market losses and formed a self-fulfilling cycle.

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

If this trend continues, it may further affect the credit market. I would also like to specifically mention the private debt market, which is another area worth paying attention to. Over the past five weeks, private equity funds have seen a significant decline in performance and a significant drop in their stock prices. Historically, private equity stock prices have been highly correlated with the private debt market, and we are starting to see some signs of weakness. This could be another potential risk point that we need to keep an eye on.

Anthony Pompliano: What happens when everyone in the market is reducing risk at the same time? While individuals appear to be safer, does this collective behavior create potential systemic risks?

Jordi Visser:

This is the core of the problem. If the government is working to reduce the 10-year Treasury rate, everyone is cheering that it is a good thing to go from 4.80% to 4.25%. But at the same time, the stock market is back to where it was in September. In fact, the stock market has barely moved in the past six months. Six months ago, when the stock market was falling, the 10-year Treasury rate was 3.67%, and now it is 4.25%. The rise in interest rates reflects the complexity of the market.

The government seems to be sending the signal that we don't care about the stock market. I don't think this attitude is wise. Rather than exerting pressure through a trade war, it is better to resolve the tariff issue through negotiations. However, this negotiation approach may lead to further accumulation of market pressure. Based on current signs, I think this pressure has begun to show, not only reflected in the approval rating, but also in discussions on social media and policy debates. This collective risk reduction behavior 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. Now, many investors are waiting and no one is willing to take more risks before April 2. Because we don’t know what will happen in the future, especially economic data and corporate earnings may expose more vulnerabilities. As the earnings season arrives, we will gradually see the actual impact of consumers suspending spending.

Anthony Pompliano: I noticed that some companies have begun to use tariffs as a scapegoat for poor performance. Interestingly, these companies even began to blame tariff policies less than 60 days after the new administration took office, and these policies actually had nothing to do with their fourth-quarter performance. How do hedge funds assess the relationship between rhetoric and actual data in this situation?

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 the overall economic sentiment. However, both the consumer confidence index and the University of Michigan survey data show that the current sentiment indicators are far below expectations. 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 upward mobility of the younger generation are decreasing. For example, my daughters have just graduated from college and they are working hard, but they find that even if their income increases after five years, it is not enough to live in a place like New York City. Instead, they choose areas with lower costs of living, such as Little Rock, Arkansas. I mention this to illustrate that the stock market and cryptocurrency are not just investment tools for many people, but also their hope.

When the stock market falls, this hope will be hit. Data shows that vacation plans in the United States have been greatly reduced, PMI (Purchasing Managers Index) new orders have fallen sharply, and consumer spending has also slowed down significantly. The GDP forecast of the Atlanta Fed is currently hovering between 0% and 1%. This economic slowdown is not due to an impending recession, but rather to people's concerns about the uncertainty of the future, which leads to reduced spending.

If the government's goal is to create better economic conditions, they may be working in this direction. However, the current challenge lies in the debt problem. The debt due in 2025 is as high as $9 trillion, most of which is short-term debt. Even if the 10-year Treasury bond rate falls, if the Fed does not cut interest rates, this will not help improve the debt situation. Therefore, the market is currently on the sidelines, waiting for clearer signals.

Trump vs Powell

Anthony Pompliano: Trump often pressures Federal Reserve Chairman Powell on social media to lower interest rates and promote interest rate cuts. And Powell's attitude is very clear, he insisted: No, I will not cut interest rates. This even triggered questions from reporters, such as if Trump asked you to resign, would you resign? Or does he have the right to fire you? Powell's answer is that he will not resign. This attitude can almost be described as a confrontation. The question is, is it really as simple as Trump and some economists say: force the Fed to cut rates by slowing the economy to the extreme? Or is it actually a complex game between the Federal Reserve and the executive branch?

Jordi Visser:

Bill Dudley published an opinion piece in Bloomberg this week discussing the Fed's dilemma. The Fed is indeed watching for signs of slowing economic growth, but their main responsibility revolves around employment, and the current job market is still relatively strong. However, the inflation issue puts them in a dilemma. According to the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) data released this week, which is the inflation indicator that the Fed focuses on, its month-on-month growth exceeded 0.3%. If calculated on an annualized basis, the core PCE inflation rate is still over 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.

Inflation expectations for the next two years (observed through the interest rate swap market) have risen to over 3%. This expectation has continued to climb since Trump took office. Currently, the 10-year Treasury rate is below this level, while the 2-year Treasury rate is about 2.70%. At the same time, the yield on inflation-protected bonds (TIPS) is also close to 3%. This has led to a 30 basis point spread: the two-year inflation expectations are higher than the 10-year. This phenomenon shows that the market is more concerned about inflation in the short term. Judging from the survey data, this divergence in expectations also reflects the political differences: Democrats generally believe that inflation will rise further, while Republicans believe that inflation will fall.

This divergence makes the Fed's decision-making more complicated. Unless there is a significant change in the job market, Powell will face a huge challenge in dealing with the dual pressures of tax cuts and tariffs. Both policies will have an inflation-increasing effect, and the Fed currently has no clear solution. Therefore, I think the Fed is currently waiting and waiting for more data to guide its next move.

What is the actual inflation rate?

Anthony Pompliano:

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

Now, the real inflation has suddenly dropped to 1.35%, which is a significant drop. Do you think that in the next two to four months, the official inflation data will be lower than 2%? Is it possible that there is a lag in the government data and it has not yet fully reflected the latest inflation trend?

Jordi Visser:

I am now also beginning to support the data reflected by the real inflation. At the end of last year and the beginning of this year, I was more inclined to believe that inflationary pressures would continue, which was not entirely related to tariffs, but because of some other factors. But if oil prices fall to the mid-$60s per barrel, which is the bottom of its range, then lower oil prices will directly lead to lower prices at the gas pump, which is a more flexible area. However, expenses like auto insurance, home insurance, etc. have risen significantly. These expenses may not fall, but I think we have entered a period of economic weakness, and I do think the economy will weaken further in the future.

I expect that current policies may reduce nominal GDP growth by about 100 basis points, which is currently about 5%. If nominal GDP falls back to 4%, it 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 the increase in tariffs will have a push-up effect on prices, this effect is a one-time effect. After the price increase caused by tariffs, there will not be a similar increase in the second year, so the effect will gradually fade. I don't think the market will overreact to this.

This is also why I don't think we will enter a recession. I believe that current policies will find a way to balance inflation. As a Bitcoin supporter, I am more concerned about the discussions related to the Mar-a-Lago Accords. If you ask me what the final outcome will be, I think it will be difficult for us to find enough money to solve the fiscal deficit problem, especially based on the current policy path. In addition, the counterattack of tariffs by other countries has also complicated the problem. I think some of the contents of the Mar-a-Lago Accords may be reasonable, which is very beneficial to gold and Bitcoin. This is also one of the reasons why the price of gold has risen, because the market is beginning to realize that countries may solve the problem through some form of agreement rather than unilateral compromise.

Anthony Pompliano:

Yeah, I definitely don't think he's backing down. He gives me the vibe of the scene in Titanic where the captain says he's going down with the ship. I think we have a captain who's either going down with the ship or he's going to win with the ship.

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% and Bitcoin's rise was 100%. I once described Bitcoin as gold with wings because it's more volatile and has a higher rise. But in recent weeks, gold prices have continued to rise while Bitcoin has fallen. What do you think of the recent divergence in the performance of these two assets?

Jordi Visser:

You call Bitcoin a gold-like asset, which is very appropriate. If we think of Bitcoin as digital gold, its value drivers can be understood from two aspects. The price of gold is usually affected by money supply, global liquidity growth, and geopolitical uncertainties such as the risk of war. Gold is a safe-haven asset, and people will choose to deposit their funds in gold to hedge against uncertainty. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has a certain correlation with the technology industry because it is essentially a technology-driven asset. The recent crackdown on technology stocks by the Trump administration may also indirectly affect the performance of Bitcoin.

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

Nevertheless, I think Bitcoin will outperform gold once the Nasdaq rebounds. Bitcoin's price volatility is greater and it has recently experienced a correction of about 30%, while the Nasdaq technology stocks have fallen by about 20%. When market sentiment improves, Bitcoin may rebound quickly and even outperform traditional assets.

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

Anthony Pompliano: Gold prices have reached an all-time high. Do you think the price of $3,000 per ounce will become a psychological barrier? Just like the $100,000 mark that Bitcoin enthusiasts pay attention to, these round numbers tend to become the focus of the market. Does $3,000 have a psychological impact on the trend of gold, or is it just another number, like $2,000?

Jordi Visser:

I think $3,000 is just an ordinary 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 economic uncertainty. By accumulating gold, they can hedge against the risk of currency depreciation in the future.

Gold's appeal is more focused 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 money in the current market is still in the hands of older investors in developed countries, and their demand for gold is still high.

My enthusiasm and belief about gold is that it is still an old man's game. Young people will not participate in it. Young people in Nigeria, Brazil or Argentina will own Bitcoin. The problem is that most of the money is still in the hands of these big countries, and the elderly are currently in control of power, but they are just figuring out what the world will look like.

When we talk about the possible dissolution of NATO, it is a sign that the global system is undergoing profound changes. People buy gold because they are 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 show its unique advantages, and gold's gains may gradually slow down.

Will stocks hit a new record high this year?

Anthony Pompliano: Do you think the stock market will hit a new record high before the end of this year?

Jordi Visser:

I think it will. However, it should be noted that after the market has experienced a 10% correction, it needs to rise more than 10% to return to the previous high. Does this mean that only the tariff issue needs to be resolved, or there are clear policy signals after April 2nd, to drive the market rebound? Or must it rely on real 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 don't think there will be any decisive events on April 2nd to make the market clearer. Based on my understanding of the reciprocal tax policy, it may take several months to negotiate, and there will be a lot of uncertainty during the period.

One of the most serious factors affecting the stock market is the capriciousness of tariff policy. I even think it may be a strategy. For example, when Scott Bessent mentioned that there was no protection from Trump, Trump made it clear that I would not compromise. This sends a signal: they don't care about short-term fluctuations in the stock market. In addition, he also pointed out that China's strategy is to focus on long-term planning for decades or even hundreds of years, while the United States often only focuses on quarterly performance, which is indeed true.

Anthony Pompliano:

This sentence is indeed very sharp. Although many people don't like him, this reveals a hard truth that Americans don't want to face: our short-term thinking is in stark contrast to China's long-term strategy. Moreover, I even feel that during his tenure, we didn't even think about quarters. The media's focus is almost in hours. I know some media practitioners who have to get up very early every morning because Trump may have started to release important news at 6 am and they need to follow up on the report as soon as possible.

Interpersonal Relationships and Uncertainty in the Trump Administration

Anthony Pompliano: Have you seen some behind-the-scenes footage of Trump's announcement of 50% tariffs?

I remember there was a documentary called "The Art of the Search" that recorded his campaign process and showed how he interacted with his team. There was a very interesting clip in which he sat at a table watching the debate speech and after hearing what was on TV, he turned to a woman who was called a human printer because she carried a portable printer with her and printed documents for him to read. He began to dictate the content of the tweet to her, and when the camera cut to her computer screen, you could see what he said, including some random capital letters and repeated symbols. These tweets appear to be written by him personally, but in fact they are edited and posted by members of his team according to his style.

What surprised me was that tweets like the 200% tariff were actually selected and strategically considered, rather than posted casually. It reminded me that sometimes I don't think much before tweeting, and then regret it later. As president, Trump obviously doesn't just speak casually with his mobile phone. There must be support and planning behind this.

It also made me think that when we hear members of the government like Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick speak, their cohesion is impressive. Although they may face pressure from friends and outsiders, they still stick to their positions. If one of them opposes or compromises, will the whole situation fall apart and the president lose the support of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of Commerce?

Jordi Visser:

This is a good question. Trump did go through a learning process when he first became president. He initially hired some people with strong personal opinions, which caused the team to function uncontrollably. But now, the messaging of the White House has become more consistent, which is an improvement.

Last night I saw a report that some people in the White House believe that market volatility is beginning to have an impact on policy, and some even discussed whether it is too radical. However, less than an hour later, another message from outside the White House denied this statement. This contradiction of information can be viewed from two perspectives: on the one hand, the White House may not have really changed its strategy; on the other hand, it also shows that there is an error in the outside interpretation of policy.

This is actually a manifestation of the democratic system. When the stock market falls, the pressure from voters will be transmitted to congressmen and senators, which will in turn affect policymakers. I personally am not worried about a 10% correction in the stock market in the short term. It doesn't matter whether stocks return to historical highs in November or May next year. I think corporate earnings are in good shape and the economy will not fall into a recession. But we must pay attention to the debt problem. The current debt-to-GDP ratio is already high. If there is another recession, we will not have enough policy space to deal with it, and we may even face the risk of failed Treasury auctions.

Anthony Pompliano:

A friend of mine once mentioned that the Biden administration has a slower pace of action, which makes the market calmer. Trump is the exact opposite. His high-frequency tweets and quick decisions have filled the market with uncertainty. There is a lot of new information released every day, and this pace makes it feel like the market is changing faster than it actually is. I think this information bombardment itself may be a strategy.

The Trump administration is very proactive in its communication style. They will quickly release updates instead of keeping silent on external issues like some passive management. Although this efficient communication may increase short-term uncertainty, it also allows people to be informed of policy changes in a timely manner.

Jordi Visser:

Officials like Scott Bessent appear on TV almost every day, and the frequency of this information transmission is unprecedented. In contrast, Janet Yellen almost never speaks publicly on TV. Although you may not agree with their policy direction, this ability to adjust and communicate quickly is indeed worthy of recognition.

I think that although the market may fluctuate by 10%-20% in the short term, it will not cause a recession. The real risk is that if the market falls sharply and remains depressed for a long time, such as two years, it will cause a serious blow to the economy. But at present, this is unlikely to happen because companies have not laid off a large number of employees. We need to calm down and focus on long-term trends instead of being distracted by short-term fluctuations.

But the only way for that to really happen is if companies start laying off employees, and that's 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 can't read this in the newspaper. They are trying to spread the message, which is very important when you are doing something so tricky.

In addition, we have to face the debt problem. If the debt problem is not solved, there may be a risk of failed Treasury auctions in the future. When the market loses confidence, the only option is to continue printing money, which will only make the problem worse. Therefore, the current policy adjustment is very necessary.