Wall Street Insider Analysis: Should You Buy Bitcoin or Gold? Complete Market Analysis Under the New Trump Administration

Original Article Title: "Trump Throws Bitcoin & Stocks Into CHAOS"

Original Article Author: Anthony Pompliano, YouTube

Original Article Translation: Deep Tide 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

Air 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 a Substack investment newsletter called "VisserLabs" but also regularly releases investment-related YouTube videos. In this interview, we delved into Trump's economic policies, including tariffs, tax proposals, Trump's disagreements with Fed Chair Powell, inflation issues, the comparison between gold and Bitcoin, the outlook for the stock market, and the interpersonal relationships within the Trump administration and the policy uncertainties.

Highlights Summary

Bitcoin is "gold with wings" because of its higher volatility and greater price increases.

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

For many, the stock market and cryptocurrency are not just investment tools but also where their hopes lie.

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

Tariffs are actually a disguised form of taxation aimed at moving funds from the private sector to the public sector to ease debt pressures.

Tariff policies serve as both an actual taxation means and a negotiation tool.

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

From a neutral standpoint, I do not believe that Trump's tax policy is solely aimed at helping the wealthy. In fact, his policy is more focused on domestic wealth distribution.

Generally, a 20% to 30% market correction is often associated with an economic recession, and currently there are no signs indicating that we are heading towards a recession.

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

An economic recession usually requires a credit crisis, and currently the private sector's credit market is not as large compared to the stock market.

The definition of a recession is losing about 1.5% of jobs, which means approximately 2.5 million people will be unemployed and unable to find jobs within a year or two.

First, when the debt level is too high, the market collapse can be very rapid; second, many issues stem from the deleveraging process, where the rapid release of leverage can exacerbate market turmoil.

Both the Consumer Confidence Index and the University of Michigan's survey data show that the current sentiment indicators are far below expectations, with a key reason behind this phenomenon being wealth inequality.

The market is more concerned about short-term inflation. From survey data, this divergent expectation also reflects political divisions: Democrats generally believe that inflation will further rise, while Republicans believe that inflation will decrease.

What Is the Economic Plan of the Trump Administration

Anthony Pompliano: The Trump administration is rapidly advancing a series of policies, but for many, it all seems chaotic and full of uncertainty. The stock market is falling, and people are eager to know what their plan is. What are they really doing? Perhaps we can start by understanding the goals they are trying to achieve and the reasons behind them.

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? And how are they executing it? This uncertainty has left many people bewildered and has caused fluctuations in market sentiment. Recent surveys show that the uncertainty index is rising sharply. Last week, FactSet released a report on first-quarter earnings changes, with profit expectations being significantly lowered, mainly due to market uncertainty about tariff policies.

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

Tariffs Overview and Negotiation

Jordi Visser:

First, we need to recognize that the current level of U.S. debt is very high. This year, there is $9 trillion of debt coming due that needs to be refinanced. At the same time, the federal budget deficit is expected to increase by $1.8 to $2 trillion, meaning that we need to issue more bonds to fill the funding gap. Ray Dalio has pointed out that this ever-expanding debt burden will lead to a "death spiral" and could result in a severe economic crisis if action is not taken promptly. His suggestion is that the government needs to employ a comprehensive set of tools to address this.

Currently, the tariff policy is one of those tools. Tariffs are essentially a disguised form of taxation aimed at transferring funds from the private sector to the public sector to ease the debt pressure. Furthermore, the government is also attempting to improve the debt situation through fiscal austerity while balancing the economy through stimulus policies such as tax cuts. Therefore, I believe the Trump administration does have an overarching plan. While we can discuss whether this plan is being executed properly, it does exist.

Anthony Pompliano:

I think one point that people don't quite understand is that our deficit is increasing every year. It used to be a trillion-dollar deficit each year, then it became $1.5 trillion, and now it's around $2 trillion. The latest data suggests it could go as high as $2.75 trillion, and this deficit is continuously expanding. As you mentioned, we already have a massive debt figure that needs constant refinancing. In layman's terms, it's like using a higher-limit second credit card to pay off the debt on the first credit card. Every time you do this, you need to find a new "creditor" willing to provide a higher limit.

As a government, they are aware this is a big issue that needs to be addressed. Like taking over a troubled company, the government needs to reform the status quo entirely: keep the good policies, get rid of inefficient projects, cut unnecessary spending, and collect more taxes from the public "customers."

Tariff policy is part of this reform. Many people see tariffs as a way for the government to increase tax revenue, but some also view it as a strategic game with other world leaders. For example, Ontario, Canada imposes a 25% tariff on electricity, the U.S. imposes a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum; Europe taxes American whiskey at 50%, and the U.S. taxes wine and spirits at 200%. Are these tariffs really meant to increase revenue, or are they a negotiation strategy?

Jordi Visser:

Undoubtedly, tariff policy is both a practical tax measure and a negotiating tool. Trump explicitly pursued a tariff policy during his first term and dubbed himself the "Tariff President." Tariffs are a real and unavoidable aspect.

When you mention the stock market falling due to tariffs, I believe people must realize that many tariff measures are actually aimed at pursuing trade reciprocity. If you want to impose tariffs on our cars, why can't we impose tariffs on your cars? In this way, the government seeks to rebalance trade relations while bringing back some funds domestically to improve the fiscal situation.

Trump's negotiating style can be traced back to his book "The Art of the Deal." He excels at achieving goals by applying pressure and leveraging. For example, when the U.S. announced a 200% tariff on wine, this news alone would trigger market reactions. This is a negotiation strategy aimed at forcing concessions from the other party.

I believe there is a larger plan at work here, possibly related to tax cuts and avoiding government shutdowns; he is trying to pressure everyone. As Ray Dalio has said, the government must act quickly, especially in the current situation of expanding debt and deficits. Tariffs indeed increase consumer spending, but some of the funds flow into the government to alleviate debt pressure.

But candidly, tariffs are a disguised form of tax increase, but they can also be seen as a wealth redistribution tool, bringing more funds back to the country through this means. This is undoubtedly one of the core goals of tariff policy.

Tax Proposals

Anthony Pompliano:

Regarding tax policy, external criticism of Trump often focuses on the political rhetoric of "cutting taxes only for the rich, helping his friends." However, surprisingly, individuals like Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump, and Scott Bessent have proposed a goal: exempting households with annual incomes below $150,000 from federal income tax. The data I currently see indicates that the U.S. has about 130 million households, with 85% to 90% of households having annual incomes below $150,000. This means that approximately 110 million households could be completely exempt from federal income tax. If implemented, this policy would be one of the most transformative measures for ordinary families and the U.S. economy.

However, this also means that the federal government's sources of revenue will be significantly affected. We can discuss these tax proposals, which clearly are not just serving the rich but also focus on low- and middle-income families.

Jordi Visser:

This is why I believe it is important to stay vigilant when reading the news every day, as media reports from both the left and the right will inevitably have some bias. Looking at it from a neutral perspective, I do not think that Trump's tax policy is solely aimed at helping the rich. In fact, his policy is more focused on addressing domestic wealth distribution issues. He is trying to tackle this problem, but not by directly increasing taxes on the wealthy, as that might have a negative impact on economic growth.

From a consumer perspective, a significant portion of the U.S. GDP is driven by the top 20% income earners. The consumption of these high-income individuals already accounts for a major proportion of the GDP, which in itself reflects wealth distribution imbalance. Therefore, by imposing tariffs to raise prices of goods, it is actually a kind of indirect increase in taxing the rich.

So I believe this income tax proposal aims to address the domestic wealth distribution issue, but whether it can be achieved in the end depends on how various factors develop.

Furthermore, the pressure of short-term negotiations should not be overlooked. The tariff policy is currently more of a negotiating tool to seek greater benefits in international trade. At the same time, the government is trying to stimulate the economy through tax cuts and avoid a government shutdown. While driving economic growth on the one hand, on the other hand, the government is trying to balance fiscal revenue through means like tariffs. This balance is the core goal of the current policy. Especially in the face of ongoing negative news, I believe these measures are both to stabilize the stock market and to alleviate public anxiety about the economy.

Anthony Pompliano:

Whether it's tariff policies, tax reforms, economic policies, or geopolitical negotiations, even including efforts 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 have seen data released by Peter Mallouk at Creative Planning indicating that over the past 75 years, the average intra-year market drawdown has been around 14% to 15%.

So the question is, do we need to be concerned about this 10% drop? Or is this actually normal in the stock market?

Jordi Visser:

I believe this is a key point. Over the past two weeks, market sentiment surveys have shown a significant decline in investor confidence. The initial sentiment swings were primarily seen in short-term trading but have now extended to longer-term investor confidence indices. From the data, the current market sentiment is approaching bear market territory.

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

I think a more pressing issue is whether the current economic conditions will trigger a recession. Generally, a 20% to 30% market correction often correlates with an economic recession, yet there are currently no signs indicating we are heading towards a recession. If the government can swiftly ease the rhetoric of the trade war, the market may bounce back quickly, and investors will readjust their plans. However, until then, many are choosing to wait on the sidelines temporarily, which is also one of the reasons for the subdued market sentiment.

Fear and Economic Recession

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 an increased sense of fear, the market may actually be nearing a bottom? After all, if everyone is worrying about future risks, has the market already priced in those expectations? How do you view 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, for example. It was a systemic collapse caused by excessive credit expansion, leading the government to ultimately take over a substantial amount of private sector debt and absorb it onto its balance sheet.

If we go back to 1980, the economic recession at that time was more pronounced, with manufacturing employment accounting for one-third of the overall economy, whereas today this proportion has fallen to less than 10%. This signifies a significant change in employment structure. The reason employment is mentioned is that economic recessions usually require a credit crisis, and currently, the scale of credit in the private sector is not as large compared to the stock market. Therefore, the stock market must experience a significant decline to have a more widespread impact on the overall economy.

However, today most of the new job growth is concentrated in the healthcare sector, with many of these jobs being government-supported and thus less sensitive to economic cycles. As you mentioned in this week's video, many jobs are actually government-related, including contractors.

Anthony Pompliano: In the past two years, government employment has accounted for 25%.

Jordi Visser:

Yes, this is a significant proportion. Jobs in the healthcare industry are not cyclical. With the aging population, our demand for nurses and other healthcare professionals will only continue to grow. In the short term, unless there is AI robotics that can replace humans, the demand for these positions will not decrease. Three out of my four children work in the healthcare industry, giving me a more firsthand understanding of the reality of this field.

Our current recession is different from the past, both due to credit issues and the nature of work. But when I refer to the private sector, I want to ensure that the viewers understand that now may be a good time to look for future investment opportunities. For those already involved in the investment field, especially those focused on cryptocurrency, this may seem familiar. However, the stock market is not the same, so people are starting to worry about the entire recession issue.

For me, the definition of a recession is losing about 1.5% of jobs, which means approximately 2.5 million people are unemployed and cannot find work within a year or two.

Looking back at the 2008 global financial crisis, the unemployment rate soared to 10% at one point and 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 the labor supply tighter. Therefore, I believe the current economic conditions do not support a large-scale economic recession. In addition, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence technology is significantly boosting productivity, helping businesses maintain higher profit margins.

Therefore, we are actually in a very good position, and in the next few quarters, economic growth may be maintained at around 1%, although there may be negative growth in the short term, I do not think we will experience a systemic collapse like we did in 2008.

Anthony Pompliano: You mentioned the deleveraging of hedge funds, which seems to be a significant market dynamic. Could you please explain in detail how this has occurred and why this situation has arisen?

Jordi Visser:

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

My career began in emerging markets. In the '90s, while working at Morgan Stanley, my first assignment was to take over the trading portfolio in Mexico, just two months before the Mexican financial crisis erupted. It was a derivative portfolio. Fortunately, my predecessor had already hedged the risks effectively.

Through this experience, I learned two important things: first, when the debt reaches a significant scale, a market collapse can happen very quickly; second, many issues stem from the deleveraging process, where a rapid release of leverage can exacerbate market turmoil. The collapse of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) is a prime example, and I witnessed similar situations during the emerging market crisis in Brazil.

Last week, I mentioned my concerns 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 imagine. While ChatGPT has made the public realize the potential of AI, machine learning technology has long been widely applied. Some large hedge funds invest over a billion dollars each year to develop quantitative models and optimize hedging strategies, giving them a significant advantage in risk management.

With the popularization of artificial intelligence, some new market dynamics have emerged. For instance, 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 construct portfolios. This trend has made the market more dynamic but has also introduced new risks.

In the current relatively lenient market environment, many funds running pairs trading or risk optimization strategies have underperformed. This situation appears unusual when compared to the performance of the last six to seven years, or even 13 years. I believe this is related to the complexity of the global environment. For example, the escalation of trade wars, the possible dissolution of NATO, the return of tariff policies to 19th-century levels, etc., are all new variables that historical data cannot predict. Risk optimization models rely on historical correlations and volatility, making it challenging to operate effectively in such an environment. Many funds have chosen to reduce their risk exposure, which in turn has exacerbated market losses, creating a self-fulfilling cycle.

The current market differentiation is also very apparent. For example, in the S&P 500 index, only about 200 stocks are rising, while about 300 stocks are falling. The falling stocks are mostly AI-related, while the rising stocks are concentrated in the European or Chinese markets, which are often areas where investors hold fewer positions. This deleveraging phenomenon occurs periodically, but the current situation is particularly acute.

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 of concern. Over the past five weeks, private equity funds have seen a significant decline in performance, with their stock prices also experiencing a sharp drop. Historical data shows that private equity stock prices are 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 requires close attention.

Anthony Pompliano: What impact does it have on the market when every participant is simultaneously reducing risk? While individually it may seem safer, does this collective behavior pose a potential systemic risk?

Jordi Visser:

This is the crux of the issue. If the government is trying to lower the ten-year treasury bond rate and everyone cheers, thinking it's a good thing that the rate went from 4.80% to 4.25%, yet at the same time the stock market is back to September levels. In fact, over the past six months, the stock market has hardly changed. Six months ago, when the stock market fell, the ten-year treasury bond rate was 3.67%, and now it has risen to 4.25%. The rise in rates reflects the complexity of the market.

The government seems to be sending a signal: "We don't care about the stock market." I think this attitude is not wise. Rather than exerting pressure through a trade war, it is better to resolve tariff issues through negotiation. However, this negotiation approach may lead to further market pressure. Based on current indications, I believe this pressure has already begun to manifest, not only reflected in approval ratings but also evident from 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 world is paying close attention to the upcoming April 2nd, a day that may mark a turning point in market sentiment. Right now, many investors are on the sidelines, unwilling to take on more risk before April 2nd. Because we are unsure of what the future holds, especially as economic data and corporate earnings may reveal more vulnerabilities. With earnings season approaching, we will gradually see the actual impact of consumer spending pauses.

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

Jordi Visser:

This is a great question. I think it can be viewed from two perspectives. First, the stock market's valuation is equivalent to 200% of GDP, which means the stock market has a significant influence on overall economic sentiment. However, both consumer confidence indices and surveys like the University of Michigan's indicate that current sentiment indicators are well below expectations, with a key driver of this phenomenon being income inequality.

The advancement of artificial intelligence is changing social mobility, especially with reduced upward mobility opportunities for the younger generation. For instance, my daughters, who have just graduated from college, are working hard, but they find that even with income growth after five years, it's insufficient to live in places like New York City. Instead, they opt for lower-cost living areas, such as Little Rock, Arkansas. I mention this to illustrate that the stock market and cryptocurrency are not just investment tools for many but where they place their hopes.

When the stock market declines, this hope is dampened. Data shows a significant decrease in U.S. vacation planning, a sharp drop in PMI (Purchasing Managers' Index) new orders, and a notable slowdown in consumer spending. The Atlanta Fed's GDP forecast currently hovers between 0% and 1%. This economic slowdown isn't due to an impending recession but stems from people's concerns about future uncertainties, leading to reduced expenditures.

If the government's aim is to create better economic conditions, they may be working in that direction. However, the current challenge lies in the debt issue. With $9 trillion in debt maturing by 2025, most of which is short-term debt, even as the ten-year Treasury bond yield falls, the improvement in the debt situation is limited without Fed rate cuts. Hence, the market is currently in a wait-and-see mode, awaiting clearer signals.

Trump vs. Powell

Anthony Pompliano: President Trump often pressures Fed Chair Powell on social media to lower interest rates and advocate for rate cuts. Powell's stance is very clear—he persists in saying, "No, I won't cut rates." This has even led to questions from reporters, such as "If Trump asked you to resign, would you? Does he have the power to fire you?" Powell's response has been that he will not resign. This stance is almost a form of confrontation. So, the question is, is the situation really as simple as Trump and some economists say: forcing the economy to slow down to the extreme to compel the Fed to cut rates? Or is it actually a complex game between the Federal Reserve and the executive branch?

Jordi Visser:

Bill Dudley published a commentary in Bloomberg this week discussing the Fed's dilemma. The Fed is indeed paying attention to signs of slowing economic growth, but their primary mandate revolves around employment, which is still relatively strong at the moment. However, the issue of inflation has put them in a bind. According to this week's Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) data, which is the Fed's key inflation gauge, the monthly seasonally adjusted increase exceeded 0.3%. When annualized, the core PCE inflation rate still stands above 3%. This means that as the Fed tries to lower interest rates, they also have to find ways to control inflation, creating a very tricky situation for them.

Looking at market expectations, inflation expectations for the next two years (observed through the interest rate swap market) have risen to over 3%. This expectation has been on the rise since Trump took office. Currently, the 10-year Treasury yield is below this level, while the 2-year Treasury yield is around 2.70%. At the same time, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) yields are also close to 3%. This has led to a 30 basis points spread: the 2-year inflation expectation is higher than the 10-year. This phenomenon indicates that the market is more concerned about short-term inflation. From survey data, this divergence in expectations also reflects a political divide: Democrats generally believe that inflation will further rise, while Republicans think inflation will fall.

This divergence has made the Fed's decisions even more complex. Unless there is a significant shift in the labor market, Powell will face a huge challenge in dealing with the dual pressure of tax cuts and tariffs. Both policies will have inflationary effects, and the Fed currently does not have a clear solution. Therefore, I believe the Fed is still in a wait-and-see mode, waiting for more data to guide their next steps.

What is the Actual Inflation Rate?

Anthony Pompliano:

Speaking of inflation data, I recently wrote some analysis. Currently, official data shows an inflation rate of 3%, while "True Flation" shows 2.8%. It is important to note that True Flation is an alternative inflation measure aimed at reflecting the economic situation more in real-time. While some value it highly, others point out its limitations. Currently, the latest data for this measure is 1.35%. If official data is at 2.8% and True Flation is at 2.6%, they are roughly in line. However, when True Flation is 50% lower than official data, and three months ago it was higher than official data, it indicates that it does not systematically underestimate 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 Flation may show 3.1%.

Now, real inflation has suddenly dropped to 1.35%, which is a significant decrease. Do you think over the next two to four months, official inflation data will be below 2%? Could this be due to a lag in government data, not fully reflecting the latest inflation trend?

Jordi Visser:

I am now starting to support the data reflected by real inflation. Towards the end of last year and the beginning of this year, I was more inclined to believe that inflationary pressures would persist, not entirely due to tariffs but because of some other factors. However, if oil prices drop to around $60 per barrel, which is the bottom of its fluctuation range, then the decrease in oil prices will directly lead to a drop in gas station prices, which is a more flexible adjustment area. However, costs like car insurance, homeowner's insurance, etc., have significantly risen. These costs may not decrease, but I believe we have entered an economic slowdown phase, and I do think the future economy will weaken further.

I expect current policies may lead to a decrease of around 100 basis points in the nominal GDP growth rate, with the current nominal GDP growth rate at about 5%. If nominal GDP falls to 4%, that would be a significant signal. Additionally, China's CPI (Consumer Price Index) has just turned negative again, which could also impact the global economy. While tariff increases will have an upward price effect, this impact is one-off. After the price increase due to tariffs, there won't be a similar growth 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 an economic recession. I believe current policies will find a way to balance inflation. As a Bitcoin supporter, I am more concerned with the discussions related to the Mar-a-Lago Accords. If you ask me what the ultimate outcome will be, I think it will be challenging to find enough funding to address the fiscal deficit issue, especially based on the current policy path. Furthermore, the retaliation of other countries to tariffs has made the issue more complex. I think some aspects of the Mar-a-Lago Accords may be reasonable, which is very beneficial for both gold and Bitcoin. This is also one of the reasons for the rise in gold prices because the market is starting to realize that countries might resolve the issue through some form of agreement instead of one-sided compromises.

Anthony Pompliano:

Yes, I absolutely do not think he will back down. He gives me the feeling like the scene in "Titanic" where the captain says he will go down with the ship. I believe we have a captain who will go down with the ship, either taking the ship towards victory with him.

Gold vs Bitcoin

Anthony Pompliano: Gold and Bitcoin are often compared, and their price drivers are usually very similar. Last year, we saw the price of gold rise by 50%, while Bitcoin's increase reached 100%. I've described Bitcoin as "gold with wings" because its volatility is greater, and its price increase is higher. However, in recent weeks, the price of gold has continued to rise while Bitcoin has experienced a decline. How do you view the recent divergence in the performance of these two assets?

Jordi Visser:

You referred to Bitcoin as "digital gold," which is very fitting. If we see Bitcoin as "digital gold," then its value drivers can be understood from two perspectives. Gold's price is usually 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 hedge against uncertainty. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has some association with the tech industry because it is fundamentally a technology-driven asset. Recently, the Trump administration's crackdown on tech stocks may have indirectly affected Bitcoin's performance.

I am optimistic about Bitcoin's long-term outlook. Even as the money supply (M2) growth slows down, as long as economic efficiency and productivity remain high, Bitcoin still has room to rise. Currently, the rapid growth of M2 is very beneficial for gold as 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 following the dismantling of the Bretton Woods system. This environment is naturally favorable for gold.

Nevertheless, I believe that once the Nasdaq index rebounds, Bitcoin's performance will surpass that of gold. Bitcoin has higher price volatility, recently experiencing about a 30% pullback, while the Nasdaq tech stocks dropped by about 20%. When market sentiment improves, Bitcoin may quickly rebound, even outperforming traditional assets.

However, to truly see a significant rise in the prices of Bitcoin and gold, we may need to wait for clearer policy signals, such as a resolution on trade issues. Additionally, if governments acknowledge the need to print money to tackle the current economic challenges, this will further drive up the prices of both assets. Ray Dalio has recommended that investors hold gold and Bitcoin, a strategy that seems particularly reasonable in the current environment.

Anthony Pompliano: The price of gold has reached a historic high. Do you think the price of $3,000 per ounce will be a psychological barrier? Similar to the $100,000 milestone that Bitcoin enthusiasts focus on, these round number thresholds often become market focal points. Will $3,000 have a psychological impact on the movement of gold, or is it just another number, similar to $2,000?

Jordi Visser:

I believe $3000 is just a regular number. In fact, central banks have been purchasing gold consistently for some time now. For many central banks, gold is a defensive asset, especially in the current global economic uncertainty. By accumulating gold, they can hedge against potential future currency devaluation risks.

The appeal of gold is more focused on the older generation of investors, while the younger generation tends to choose Bitcoin. For example, in countries like Nigeria, Brazil, and Argentina, young people are more inclined to hold Bitcoin as it aligns better with their digital lifestyle. However, the majority of the current market funds are still held by older investors in developed countries, and their demand for gold remains high.

My enthusiasm and belief in gold are that it is still a game of the older generation. Young people will not engage 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 large countries, and the elderly currently hold power, but they are just figuring out what the world is going to look like.

When we talk about the possible dissolution of NATO, it signals a profound change in the global system. 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 demonstrate its unique advantages, while the price of gold may gradually slow down.

Will Stocks Reach an All-Time High This Year?

Anthony Pompliano: Do you think the stock market will reach an all-time high by the end of this year?

Jordi Visser:

I believe it will. However, it is important to note that after a market experiences a 10% correction, to get back to the previous high, the increase needs to be more than 10%. Does this mean that resolving the tariff issue or having a clear policy signal after April 2nd will drive the market rebound? Or will we need to rely on true quantitative easing (QE), such as rate cuts and money printing, to be the primary driver?

Frankly, I think both will play a role. I don't expect any decisive event to make the market clearer on April 2nd. Based on my understanding of reciprocity in tax policy, this may take months of negotiation with a lot of uncertainty in between.

One of the most significant factors affecting the stock market is the unpredictable nature of tariff policies. I even believe this may be a strategy. For example, when Scott Bessent mentioned "no Trump protection," Trump explicitly stated, "I will not compromise." This conveyed a signal: they do not care about short-term stock market fluctuations. Furthermore, he pointed out that China's strategy focuses on long-term planning spanning decades or even centuries, while the U.S. often only focuses on quarterly performance, which is indeed a fact.

Anthony Pompliano:

This statement is indeed very sharp. Although many people do not like him, it reveals a harsh truth that Americans are unwilling to face: our short-term thinking contrasts sharply with China's long-term strategy. Furthermore, I even feel that during his term, we didn't even properly consider quarters. 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 tweeting important messages as early as 6 a.m., and they need to follow up with reports promptly.

Interpersonal Relationships and Uncertainty in the Trump Administration

Anthony Pompliano: Have you seen some behind-the-scenes footage of Trump announcing a 50% tariff?

I remember a documentary called "The Art of the Search," which documented his election process, showcasing his interaction with the team. There was a very interesting scene where he sat at a table watching a debate speech, and after hearing the TV content, he turned to a woman known as the "human printer" because she carried a portable printer to print documents for him to read. He began dictating tweet content to her, and when the camera cut to her computer screen, you could see the content he was dictating, including some random capital letters and repeated symbols. These tweets appeared to be personally written by him, but they were actually edited and posted by team members in his style.

What surprised me was that tweets like "200% tariff" were actually filtered and strategically considered before posting, rather than being random. This made me think that sometimes when I tweet, I don't think too much, and I later regret not being more careful with my wording. As the President, Trump clearly does not just hold his phone and speak off the cuff; there must be team support and planning behind it.

This also made me think, when we hear government members like Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick speak, their cohesion is impressive. Despite facing pressure from friends and the outside world, they still stick to their positions. If any of them oppose or compromise, would it lead to the entire situation collapsing, and the President losing the support of the Treasury Secretary or Commerce Secretary?

Jordi Visser:

This is a good question. During Trump's first term as president, he indeed went through a learning curve. He initially hired some individuals with strong personal opinions, which led to some chaos within the team. However, now the White House's messaging has become more consistent, which is a sign of progress.

Last night, I saw a report mentioning that some within the White House believe that market volatility is starting to influence policy, with some even discussing if it's becoming too aggressive. However, in less than an hour, another message from outside the White House denied this claim. This contradictory information can be viewed from two angles: on one hand, the White House may not have actually changed its strategy; on the other hand, it also indicates a misinterpretation of policy from external sources.

This is actually a reflection of the democratic system. When the stock market drops, the pressure from voters is passed on to congressmen and senators, ultimately influencing policymakers. I personally am not concerned about a 10% short-term market adjustment. Whether stocks return to their previous highs in November or in May next year is not important. I believe that corporate profits are strong, and the economy will not fall into a recession. However, we must pay attention to the debt issue. The current debt-to-GDP ratio is already high, and if another economic downturn 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 Biden administration's pace of action is slower, making the market appear calmer. In contrast, Trump was entirely the opposite, with his high-frequency tweets and rapid decision-making causing the market to be filled with uncertainty. There was a constant flow of new information every day, and this pace made the market seem more volatile than it actually was. I think this information bombardment itself may be a strategy.

The Trump administration's communication style is very proactive. They swiftly release updates instead of maintaining silence on external issues like some passive management teams. Although this efficient communication may increase short-term uncertainty, it also allows people to stay informed about policy changes in a timely manner.

Jordi Visser:

Officials like Scott Bessent are almost on television every day, a frequency of information dissemination that is unprecedented. In comparison, Janet Yellen has almost never made public appearances on television. While you may disagree with their policy directions, this rapid adjustment and communication ability are indeed commendable.

I believe that although the market may experience a 10%-20% short-term volatility, this will not lead to an economic recession. The real risk is if the market experiences a significant drop and long-term stagnation, such as being unable to recover for two years, which would seriously impact the economy. However, at present, this scenario is unlikely to occur because companies have not engaged in widespread layoffs. We need to stay calm, focus on long-term trends, and not be disturbed by short-term fluctuations.

For this situation to truly occur, the only way would be if companies started laying off employees, which is not expected to happen. Therefore, everyone needs to take a step back. They should watch your daily program because what you just said is a very detailed way of putting it, which should make people realize. You won't read about this in the newspapers. They are working hard to spread the information, which is very important when dealing with such tricky matters.

Furthermore, we must address the debt issue. If the debt problem is not resolved, there may be a risk of sovereign debt auction failure in the future. When the market loses confidence, the only option is to continue printing money, which will only exacerbate the problem. Therefore, an adjustment in current policies is very necessary.

Original Article Link