Bond Market Sell-Off Will Continue If U.S. Dollar And Oil Stay High | Luke Gromen - YouTube
发布时间 2023-09-27 16:00:00 来源
中英文字稿 
Very happy to welcome to forward guidance Luke Gromen founder of forest for the trees Luke great to have you on forward guidance we are recording in the middle of a pretty severe cell up in the bond market. TLT is down close to what one and a half 2% and the 10 years now above 4.5% is it fair to say the bond market is is melting down is that too dramatic a phrase and do you know how bad will you think it will get. I think it's too dramatic to say the bond market is melting down right now I don't think it's too dramatic to say that unless the dollar is weakened meaningfully or unless oil is lowered meaningfully the bond market will melt down. What does meltdown look like. Down to me looks like a version to the TLT doing a version of what repo did in September 2019 which is 2% 2.2 2.58 10. Oh crap fed comes in 48 hours later with not QE QE puts it back to when away we go.
非常高兴欢迎《为树林》（Forest for the Trees）创始人卢克·格罗曼加入《前瞻指导》（Forward Guidance）。我们现在正处在债券市场遭受较严重冲击的中期。TLT下跌了接近1.5%至2%，而10年期国债利率已经超过4.5%。可以说债券市场正在融化？这个说法是不是太夸张了？您认为事态会变得多糟糕呢？我认为现在说债券市场正在融化是太夸张了，但我认为除非美元大幅贬值，或者油价大幅下跌，否则债券市场将会融化。那融化的情景会是什么样子呢？对我而言，融化意味着TLT会经历类似于2019年9月回购市场所经历的情况，即2%、2.2%、2.58%再到10%的波动。哦，该死的，美联储在48小时后进行了“非QE QE”，将其拉回。然后我们重新开始。
And how much of the sell off in bonds is due to economic condition so your growth being more resilient than expected how much of it do you think you have to do with supply. I think I think it's mostly. I don't think it matters. And that's I think the part that people don't get. It's probably because it's like, which snowflake touched off the avalanche and killed you and your entire family while you're skiing like who gives a. You're all dead. I think initially it's better growth and the reason why I say it doesn't matter is because there's first and second derivatives to this that I don't that the people still don't understand they obviously don't understand. Based on things they're saying writing etc.
这种债券抛售中有多少是因经济状况，因为您的增长比预期更为有弹性，又有多少与供应有关？我认为，我认为大部分是供应问题。我认为这并不重要。这就是我认为人们无法理解的部分。可能是因为它就像是哪个雪花引发了雪崩，导致您和你的整个家庭在滑雪时死去，谁会在乎呢。你们都已经死了。我认为最初是更好的增长，我之所以说它不重要，是因为这其中还涉及一阶和二阶导数，我不认为人们仍然没有理解，他们显然还不了解。根据他们所说的和写的东西可以看出来。
Okay, what do I mean by that. Yes growth is better. Okay. Why is growth better. Well, not because housing is better not because I SMs better not because services is better. What's better US federal spending, which is 25 on its way to 30% of GDP is up 15%. US federal outlays are up 15% on a year over your basis, usually only happens a recession. US deficits are at almost eight and a half percent of GDP on a trailing 12 month basis only ever happens after recessions are in the middle of recessions. It hasn't happened with three and a half percent unemployment like ever.
好的，我是什么意思呢。是的，增长是更好的。好吧，为什么增长更好呢。并不是因为住房更好，也不是因为提供服务更好。更好的是美国联邦支出，占GDP的25%，正在增长至30%。美国联邦支出按年度平均增长了15%，这通常只在经济衰退时发生。美国的赤字在过去12个月接近GDP的8.5%，这种情况通常只出现在经济衰退或经济衰退中。这在3.5%的失业率下几乎从未发生过。
And that's why I say I don't think people understand the second derivative one of that question which is, is it because growth is better. Yeah, why is growth better because deficits are damn so so darn high. And why are deficits so high because rates are rising. People don't understand we're in this feedback loop. Well growth is better. Well, yeah, growth is better because friggin deficits are at eight and a half percent with three and a half percent unemployment and federal spending is it is growing at 15%. When when almost 30% of your economy is going 15%. Hey, guess what that's four and a half points of GDP right there right 15% times 30% is 40 points. So that's great. What's so higher for longer. Okay, let's do higher for longer let's go to six. Now you're, you're right now. The four and a half or excuse me the rates where the arrow is five on 33 trillion in debt pro forma that 33 trillion times 5% 1.65 trillion. Of treasury payment interest, steamies being handed out globally and abroad into an economy where the private sector is some services housing is shrinking. We know this playbook we saw this playbook in 20 and 21 and 2022. What happens when you hand out trillions of dollars when the private sector supply chains are shrinking on a leg big time inflation. Growth and inflation.
这就是为什么我说人们不理解这个问题的第二个导数，那就是，增长更好是因为赤字太高了。是的，为什么增长更好，因为赤字太高了。为什么赤字那么高，因为利率在上升。人们不明白我们正处于这个回馈循环中。好吧，增长更好。是的，增长更好是因为该死的赤字达到了8.5%，失业率只有3.5%，而联邦支出增长了15%。当你的经济将近30%的部分以15%的速度增长时。嘿，猜猜看，这就是GDP多增加了四个半点，对，15%乘以30%是40个点。所以这很好。所以利率更高更长时间。好的，让我们将利率提高到6%。现在你，你现在，这个箭头所指的是4.5，或者说在33万亿的债务基础上，按照5%来计算，就是1.65万亿的国债付款利息，而全球和国外不断派发的刺激资金流入一个私营部门服务和房屋在萎缩的经济中。我们知道这个剧本，我们在2020、2021和2022年看到了这个剧本。当你派发数万亿美元时，私营部门的供应链正在大幅萎缩，通胀必然上升。增长和通胀。
Okay, guess what we're doing we're just doing like a slightly modified version of what we did in 2021 except we're calling it interest expense we're calling it higher for longer. So, like the question of is it higher growth, or is it higher inflation expectations. Yes. But this, it's that second derivative that people don't understand yet which is. And there's no breaks on this thing. And when people realize that. Oh my god, like that and that's why I say I think it's going to get very disorderly in a very short period of time because like everybody there.
好的，猜猜我们在做什么，我们只是在做2021年的一个稍微修改过的版本，只是我们称之为利息费用，我们称之为更长时间的高利息。所以，像是增长更高还是通胀预期更高这个问题。是的，但是人们还不明白的是它的二阶导数是什么。这一点是无法控制的。当人们意识到了这一点。哦天哪，就像我说的，我认为这将会在很短的时间内变得非常混乱，因为每个人都在那里。
The TLT the long US treasury long term is a dogmatic position. People love that trade and they are sure they're right and the wrong. And they have a, you know, a back test chart of every time that ISM has declined TLT does well the long bond rallies and you'll go down and it's not working I'm right I'm right there with you. It's not working. And they're like they're like doubling down they're digging in they're not saying, you know, under normal circumstances they say all right I'm wrong and move on and they're not from what I can tell.
TLT（长期美国国债）持有者坚守着教条主义立场。人们热衷于该交易，确信自己是对的，其他人是错的。他们拥有一份回测图表，每当ISM下降时，TLT表现良好，长期债券会上涨，而现实并不如此，我也同样认为。事实证明这并行不通。他们继续加码，固执己见，没有表达出“在正常情况下，我错了，我们继续前行”的态度。
And like I said, it's, you always want to know where, you know, who's on the other side of your tray and I saw someone comment something on the other day on Twitter where they're like hedge funds are short like, you know, the most short and then like ever. And I, I'm like, oh my god, like really big big that's oh my god because literally there's been our we've we've highlighted article after article for our clients it's been written about last month.
就像我说的，你总是想知道在你的托盘另一边是谁，我最近在推特上看到有人评论说对冲基金做空是有史以来最多的。我当时就惊呆了，因为我们为客户准备了很多文章，上个月就有人写了这个问题。
And remember it from 2019. That's one half of a trade funds are short those futures as part of the relative value trade and it's going against them. And at some point, like this group of investors who, you know, Joseph Wong has had a he's a Brit right he had a tweet and he goes remember the pain trade is higher back in late May, he said they're starting to put the relative value trade on the biggest market one of the biggest marginal investors buyers of of treasury of cash treasury it's not the future cash are hedge funds. And it's going against these guys and these guys are very they have monthly mandates. Right. So the trade goes against them they are not dogmatic they it's like it's against us. We're out.
记住这一点是从2019年开始的。这是一个交易资金的一半，这些期货是作为相对价值交易的一部分进行投机的，并且市场正在对他们不利。在某个时刻，就像这些投资者，你知道，约瑟夫·王（Joseph Wong）有一条推文，他说，记住痛苦交易是更高的，就在五月底，他们开始在最大的市场——国债的现金市场上进行相对价值交易，这并不是期货市场，而是对冲基金。而事态发展对他们不利，这些人非常谨慎。所以，当交易对他们不利时，他们不是教条主义者，他们是这样说的：这对我们不利，我们退出。
Mm hmm. So folks are saying, look how short treasuries the hedge fund community is their short treasury futures against being long cash. So they're harvesting that little minuscule spread explain to me how this is a bad thing because I talked to people all the time who say higher for longer isn't realistic but they say it for a different reason than you they say because the economy can't handle 4% 5% 6% rates and that it's going to throw the economy into a slowdown. What you're saying is actually that higher interest rates are stimulative and perhaps actually they stimulate growth. That sounds to me like a good thing you said there are no breaks on that thing. Don't we walk the economy to be room room you know at a 120 miles an hour what what what can you go wrong. It sounds like a good thing.
嗯嗯。所以人们说，看看对冲基金界多么短的国债期货，对冲了现金的多头。所以他们正在收取这个微小的利差。请告诉我这为什么是一件坏事，因为我经常与人们交谈，他们说长期维持较高利率是不现实的，但他们给出的原因与你不同，他们说这是因为经济无法承受4%、5%、6%的利率，并且会使经济陷入滞缓。而你所说的是更高的利率实际上是有刺激作用的，或许实际上它们促进了增长。在我看来，这听起来像是一件好事，你说那里没有障碍。我们不是要让经济以每小时120英里的速度行进吗？那有什么可能出错呢？听起来像是一件好事。
It's a good thing if you're long if you're not long bonds and it's a good thing if there is if the US federal debt is not what it is and they can finance any rate and they can't. There's a rate at which it becomes so mathematically obvious that even the staunchest. I have to be kind here. Analysts support that there's not a fiscal problem will start to go. Guys there's a fiscal problem and I would argue we passed that point about three weeks ago when when you had like the Washington consensus in the Washington Post going hey how come the deficits are so big with unemployment so low that's really weird we've never seen this before. So if you have rates go up. It's on a lag it's basically an interest payment stimmy. So the government's going to spend.
这是一个好事情，如果你持有债券，而如果不持有债券，并且美国联邦债务不像现在这样高，这也是一件好事情，他们可以负担得起任何利率，但事实并非如此。当利率达到一个数学上明显的水平时，即使是最坚定的分析师也会认识到我们面临财政问题。朋友们，现在我们有一个财政问题，我认为大约三周前我们就已经过了那个点，当时《华盛顿共识》在《华盛顿邮报》上问道，失业率如此之低，赤字为何如此之高，这真的很奇怪，我们以前从未见过这种情况。因此，如果利率上升，那将是有滞后效应的，基本上是利息支付的刺激。所以政府将会大笔开支。
Okay fine that's going to drive growth that's going to drive employment. Yes. The challenge is is that the private sector that you need in theory to finance those deficits will be shrinking. It's a classic crowding out problem. I'll use an extreme because it's just easy math. Let's take, let's say the Fed goes higher for longer takes rates to. I don't know 10% you know I don't think they're going to do that. It's just easier math than seven. So let's just do 10. Okay so you're going to 3.3 trillion in pro form interest expense 10% time 33 trillion. That is about 12% of GDP right so 26 20 GDP 3.3 trillion on top of that.
好的，没问题。这将推动经济增长，促进就业。然而，挑战在于，你需要在理论上通过私营部门来融资这些赤字，但私营部门将会缩小，这是一个典型的排挤效应问题。我用一个极端的例子来说明，因为这样更容易计算。假设美联储将利率提高到10%长时间保持，我不认为他们会这样做，只是为了计算更简单。那么你的预计利息支出将达到3.3万亿美元，即33万亿美元的10%。这大约占国内生产总值的12%，也就是2.62万亿美元的12%外加3.3万亿美元。
Okay so roughly 12% of GDP stimulus. In the meantime, all of the banks holdings of treasury is going to be wildly upside down the housing market is going to be really tanking. Anything interest rates going to be tanking interest rate sensitive. So your government revenues are going to be falling dramatically and as a reminder we're at, you know, we've seen revenues down 20%. It's down more like seven on a trillion 12 month basis now and they should get a little bit better actually in coming months but your revenues are going to collapse at 10% because we're a highly interest rate sensitive economy financialized over the last four years.
好的，大约12%的国内生产总值（GDP）将会用于刺激经济。与此同时，所有银行持有的国债将会大幅度下跌，房地产市场也将大幅下滑。任何利率都将下跌，尤其是对利率敏感的领域。因此，你们政府的财政收入将会急剧下降，需要提醒的是，我们已经看到收入下降了20%。目前，每年的收入下降幅度已经减少到了约7%，未来几个月可能会有所改善，但你们的收入将会下降10%，因为在过去四年中，我们是一个高度依赖利率的经济体。
So now you're going to have the government running. You know 3.3 trillion interest to trillion in defense 3.1 trillion in entitlements. So that's 6.4 plus a trillion is 7.4 trillion and outlays just in the big three receipts fell from 48 or 28 trying to 4.2 trillion. So what the Fed just did we haven't even really caught up on interest yet so say that number goes down another 20% to call it 3.3 trillion, which is probably conservative. What's the point three trillion the receipts receipts receipts. So you're going to be looking at what I say 74 over 33 you're going to have a 4.1 trillion deficit.
现在你们将要让政府运行起来了。你知道国防开支是3.3万亿美元，福利开支是1万亿美元。所以总共是6.4万亿美元再加上1万亿美元，就是7.4万亿美元，而这只是大型三项支出中的一部分。而收入则从4.8万亿美元下降到了4.2万亿美元。所以联邦储备系统刚刚采取的措施，我们甚至还没有真正应对利息的问题，所以假设这个数字再减少20%，约为3.3万亿美元，这可能是保守的估计。剩下的0.3万亿美元是财政收入。所以我说过的，如果你将74除以33，你将得到4.1万亿美元的赤字。
4.1 trillion deficit is just short of 350 billion a month net you have to place plus role which Jamie Diamond said next year over the next 12 months is 5 trillion you can roll that you need. Okay, now the dollar is going to be rising like crazy in that because you're going to be squeezing out the global dollar markets will foreigners have 7.5 trillion in treasuries they can sell, including 3.8 trillion at the central bank level. So you're going to add on a net supply basis to that 4.1 trillion dollar deficit plus 5 trillion dollar role plus up to 3.8 trillion as these nations sell to defend their their currencies and people said, well, that's a position of weakness. They're selling to defend their currency.
4.1万亿美元的赤字几乎相当于每月净额为3500亿美元，这是您必须加以考虑的正面角色，正如杰米·戴蒙德(Jamie Diamond)所说，在未来12个月内将增加5万亿美元的负债，您需要通过延长负债期来解决这个问题。好了，现在美元将会大幅升值，因为您将削减全球美元市场，外国人拥有7.5万亿美元的国债可以出售，包括央行水平的3.8万亿美元。因此，您将在净供应基础上增加4.1万亿美元的赤字，再加上5万亿美元的延期付款，以及多达3.8万亿美元的这些国家为维护他们的货币而出售国债，人们说，这是一种弱势立场。他们出售国债是为了保护他们的货币。
Again, who cares. They're selling. All I care about is what's it do for rates in the bond. They're selling and they will sell aggressively. And so that's also going to take receipts down as it puts more upward. So what you can see is, and oh, by the way, the feds supposedly can be selling a trillion tooth still and QT. Of course they won't be in that case, but this is why I say I don't get the sense people understand. There's no breaks on this thing right now. Like as soon as the hedge funds go the other way and they will eventually. There's no breaks. There's no breaks, the fed or the breaks. And people say, well, they can buy it all. Yeah, they can. And that'll have applications for gold, Bitcoin, oil, dollar, and they're going to have to buy it all with oil at 9500. So you said the hedge funds go the other way that now they're long the futures and short the cash, were they taking a directional position in.
再说了，谁会关心呢。他们在卖东西。我只关心它对债券利率有什么影响。他们正在积极销售。这也会降低收入，同时推高利率。所以你可以看到，顺便说一句，联储局据说还可以继续卖掉一万亿的QT。当然，在这种情况下他们不会这么做，但这就是为什么我说人们不明白的原因。现在这件事情没有任何限制。一旦对冲基金改变方向，他们最终会改变方向，就没有限制了。没有限制，联储局也没有限制。人们说，他们可以买下一切。是的，他们可以。但这对黄金、比特币、石油、美元都会产生影响，并且他们将不得不用9500美元的石油来购买一切。所以你说对冲基金在另一个方向上，他们现在持有期货并卖空现金的情况，他们是在采取一个定向的头寸。
And I'm just saying they have to, if they're the biggest marginal buyer, one of the biggest marginal buyers of treasuries to take that position off, they have to unwind it at some point, whether because they've made money or because they're getting stopped out. Right. They are not. Yeah, they're not buying for any. They're not like central banks who can like buy for political reasons. They don't have to mark the market. They don't have to explain to their investors why they just got carried out on a trade. It doesn't matter, right? the feds lost. What have they lost? A trillion on their bond portfolio and they're burning 300, 400 billion a year cash losses like they don't have to explain it to anybody. They don't have to explain it to anybody. Investors hedge funds, they have to explain it like monthly. And if they lose start losing to much money, they skip taking out of their seat replaced. So like that, they're not going to stay for a trade that goes against them.
我只是说，如果他们是国债的最大边际买家之一，他们必须要撤销这个头寸，无论是因为他们赚钱了还是因为他们被强制止损了。对的，他们并不是购买出于任何原因。他们不像中央银行那样可以出于政治原因购买。他们不必追随市场。他们不必向投资者解释为什么他们刚刚被市场清仓拿走了交易。这都没关系，对吧？美联储已经亏了多少？ 他们的债券投资组合亏了一万亿，每年现金损失三四千亿，他们不必向任何人解释。他们不必向任何人解释。而投资者和对冲基金则需要每月解释。如果他们损失太多，他们就会被替换下台。所以，对于逆势交易，他们不会坚持下去。
What, so you said, you know, to make it simple math, 10% rates all across the curve and then you, I think you multiplied that just by the amount of debt, roughly 30 trillion, you can give us the good numbers. But what about that, you know, all of the US debt is financed over a term of, you know, one day to 30 years and so much of that is fixed rates. So the 10 year, you know, if they borrowed at 1% and then interest rates go to 10%. That interest expense stays flat. It's only that it's only when it has to be refinanced when interest rates go up. So how have you seen real financing costs go up relative to that assumption that of just, you know, multiplying the debt by the interest rates. And then also, is there a perhaps a benefit of if everyone in the world, banks, the Federal Reserve, other central banks bought a voluminous amount of treasuries when, you know, yields were at 1% or 1.5% in 2020. And they bought that at the par $100. And now that's at $70. Is that not in some way, some sort of gain to the government that, you know, some way they convinced the everyone in the world to buy by their debt at too high a price to low yield.
你说的是什么呢？简单来说，据你所说，整个收益率曲线上的利率都是10%，然后你用债务总额（大约30万亿）乘以这个利率以得出好的数字。但是，关于这点，你知道，美国所有债务都是在一天到30年的期限内获得融资的，其中很大一部分是固定利率。因此，如果10年期的债务利率是1%，而利率上升到10%，那么利息支出将保持不变。只有当需要再融资时，利率上升才会产生影响。那么，相对于仅仅用利率乘以债务的假设，你如何看待实际融资成本的上升？此外，如果在2020年，当收益率为1%或1.5%时，全世界的银行、美联储和其他中央银行购买了大量的国债，购买价为100美元，而现在该产品价格为70美元，这不是某种程度上对政府来说是一种盈利吗？毕竟，政府成功说服了全世界的人们以过高的价格和低收益率购买他们的债务。
You know, when Jamie Diamond says they need to roll 5 trillion in the next 12 months. That's what is that's 20% of the debt in roll right off right. I want to say over the next two years they've got a role, a little over half of it. Right. So, and that leads to a question of hey, with rates at basically zero, why didn't they term it all out. And there's two possible answers to that. A, they're go actically stupid. Or B, they can't. In other words, and that's the dirty little secret that I think nobody wants to talk about, but I'm from Cleveland. So, you know, I don't, I'm not tooth enough to not say it. And the answer is, is the deepest, most liquid market in the world ain't very deep in liquid and certainly not deep and liquid enough at the long end to place the deficits in the size that were throw that the federal government's thrown off. And that's, you know, if I had said that five years ago, that would have been highly inflammatory controversial. And now it's not at all. Like if you talk to someone, like you talked to people in senior seats, it's very obvious. That's the reason why they didn't term it out. He's just not talked about polite company, but like I said, I'm from Cleveland. So, as far as the second answer, is it a game for the government? Yeah, it is.
你知道，当杰米·戴蒙德说他们需要在接下来的12个月内卷入5万亿美元的资金时，这实际上是国债卷入总额的20%。我想说的是，在接下来的两年里，他们需要卷入超过一半的债务。是的，这就引出一个问题，既然利率基本上为零，为什么他们不把它全部用于借款？对此有两个可能的答案。首先，他们可能愚笨。其次，他们可能无法这样做。换句话说，这是一个众所周知的秘密，但是我来自克利夫兰，所以我无法不说出来。答案是，世界上最深、最流动的市场也不够深、不够流通，尤其是在长期资金端无法容纳美国联邦政府产生的巨额赤字。如果这个问题是我在五年前提出的话，那将是非常具有争议性的。但现在不是了。如果你和一些高级职位的人交谈，这是很明显的原因。这就是为什么他们没有将它用于长期借款。虽然这个问题在彬彬有礼的场合中没有人谈论，但就像我之前说的，我来自克利夫兰。至于第二个答案，对政府来说，这是一场游戏。是的，确实如此。
There's a great quote from William M. Chesney Martin, the Fed governor that everybody loves because he was the guy before Burns. The quote is when machezney Martin was the assistant secretary of the treasury, I believe he said it in 1951 right after World War II when our debt to GDP looked a lot like it looks now. Or it did certainly five years prior to 1951. It is the lead quote on a white paper from Carmen Reinhart and balance a bronze year from 2016 I think called the liquidation of government debt, which ought to give you a pretty good idea of, of, you know, liquidation we're watching the government get liquidated as we speak. The quote is regarding the two and three quarter non non convertible issue of 30 year treasuries. We want to meet these concerns head on about whether it is a trick issue. And the trick issue because guess what they did they turned it out. And they you were not allowed to convert it I guess and basically the real value of those 30 year bonds in 1951 went to zero by 1980 in terms of what they bought, you know, oil was two bucks 1951 because inflation went up and because interest went up so it was worth less. It does yeah the real and the mammal value collapse to for sure but the real, but my point is like you can do that once. You can you can snuck the world once. And then you get what we're starting to see which is I tweeted about it yesterday I wrote about it last week to take a cost as a great chart showing that downside volatility and gold for the first time in 45 years is less and long term treasuries. Gold is less risky than treasuries now they pulled it off once they snuck her them once oh my god. But you didn't fix anything if you're going to do that you need to get GDP down like that's you know fit 45 to 51 us that the GDP went from 110 to 50%. You snuck her people real rates went to negative 13. It was what it was there was a different time and and an understanding of why they had to happen whatever.
有一句很棒的引语来自威廉·M·切斯尼·马丁（William M. Chesney Martin），他是联邦储备系统的一位大家都喜欢的主席，因为他是伯恩斯主席之前的人。这句引语是关于马切兹尼·马丁担任财政部助理秘书时说的，我相信他是在1951年在二战后，当时我们的债务占国内生产总值的比例看起来与现在很像。或者至少在1951年之前的五年里是这样的。这句引语是卡门·莱因哈特（Carmen Reinhart）和巴兰斯·布拉姆（Belen Sbrancia）在2016年的一篇白皮书上的主要引语，我想它叫做《政府债务的清算》，这可能会给你一个很好的想法——你知道，我们正在目睹政府被清算的过程。这句引语是关于两个和三个四分之二不可兑换的30年期国债的问题。我们要直面这些关切，关于它是否是一个花招。花招就是因为你猜对了，他们把它推出了。而且你不能兑换，我想基本上那些30年期债券在1951年以来的1980年的实际价值为零，就是它们所能购买的东西，你知道的，1951年的油价是2美元，因为通胀上涨了，利率上涨了，所以它的价值变小了。是的，它的实际价值肯定崩溃了，但我要说的是你只能做这一次。你只能欺骗世界一次。然后我们就会看到我们正在开始看到的情况，我昨天在推特上发表了关于它的推文，上周我写了关于它的文章，有一张表显示了金价的下行波动性和长期国债45年来首次小于金价。黄金现在比国债风险小，他们一次欺骗了国债，天哪。但你没有解决任何问题，如果你要这样做，你就需要将国内生产总值降低，就像1945年到1951年的美国一样，国内生产总值从110下降到50%。你欺骗了人民，实际利率降至负13%。那是那个时候的情况和原因的不同理解。
So, and that the GDP is exactly where it was when they started snookering people. And so now you have to you still have to place all this site. Two trillion assuming no recession we have to place two trillion next year. This is Jamie diamond telling the world this two weeks ago. And also we need to roll five trillion next year. Now what are you going to do.
所以，他们欺骗人们之初，国内生产总值（GDP）恰好还停留在起始点。现在你还需要将这全部制衡。假设没有经济衰退，我们明年需要置入2万亿。这是杰米·戴蒙德（Jamie Diamond）两周前向全世界表明的。而且明年我们还需要滚动5万亿。现在你打算怎么做呢？
The last time debt to GDP was this high was you know 1945 it was over 150%. What was that snookering what happened. Why can't the US government snooker. Bon holders around the world again. But first tell us what you mean by snooker. It's just negative real rates and it's been my playbook the whole time.
债务占GDP比例上一次如此之高的时候，你懂的，是在1945年，超过了150%。那是怎么回事呢？为什么美国政府不能再次欺骗全球的债券持有人呢？但首先告诉我们你说的"snooker"是什么意思。它只是负实际利率，这一直是我的策略。
We wrote so so so what happened then was, you know, 10 year treasuries were long term treasuries is how they have it historically we're at 2% in 19 November 1941. And Japan Barbara Pearl Harbor and overnight the 10 year treasury long term treasury went from two to two and a half. And the Fed came in and kept it at two and a half. They kept a 10 year two and a half. They kept the short end. I want to say it three a's or three quarters. I don't remember. So there's a slightly positive yield curve and they kept it flat from 42 to 1951 for 10 years. And as a bond holder you got paid every dime you were owed and you got killed on a real basis. It at worst in the United States. Real rates were negative 13% post war at worst real rates in Japan were negative 6060% in parts of Europe in Australia 30 to negative 40% at worst. You lost a ton of money on a real basis. Thank you for your donation to the war effort.
我们写道，然后发生了这样的事情，就是在1941年11月19日，你知道，10年期国债被视为长期国债，利率为2%。然后日本袭击了珍珠港，随即10年期国债的利率从2%上升到2.5%。美联储出面干预，将10年期国债的利率保持在2.5%。他们也保持了短期利率，我想是3%还是3.75%，我不记得了。因此，稍微有一个正的收益曲线，他们在1942年到1951年的10年间保持了平坦的曲线。作为债券持有人，你会按照应得的利息得到支付，但你在实际收益方面会受到巨大的损失。在美国最差的时候，实际利率为负13%。在日本，实际利率最差的时候为负60%。在欧洲和澳大利亚的某些地区，最差的时候为负30%至40%。在实际收益方面，你损失了大笔的钱。感谢您对战争努力的捐助。
And by 1951 that the GDP was down to 50%. And then they were able to separate fed treasury, go back to independent fed policy, and you can start to manage monetary policy separate from fiscal policy again because you can do that without blowing up the system. And then we passed forward to 2020 and early 2021 wrote an early 21 I wrote a report for clients that said, they need to run the same playbook. Go back to late 2020 Jason Fermi lurk Ben Bernanke Larry Summers. And then we answered Ken Rogoff, all were part of a discussion of a white paper by by Fermi and summers, saying we need to run the same playbook. We need to basically inflate this away. And then what I wrote and analyze and a simple analysis was that the last time the Fed was able to manage policy raise rates without blowing something up was when rate was when that the GDP was 70 to 80%. I said, so we need to go from 120 to 70 to 80%. And then the simple math in terms of negative rates needed to drive that were somewhere between negative 10 and negative 20% real rates in the United States for three to five years. That's it.
到了1951年，GDP降至50%。然后他们得以将联邦经济部门分离出来，重新采用独立的联邦政策，这样可以在不破坏整个系统的情况下再次独立管理货币政策，与财政政策分开。然后我们跳到2020年和2021年初，我为客户撰写了一份报告，表示他们需要执行同样的策略。回到2020年底，杰森·费米勒克、本·伯南克和拉里·萨默斯都参与了一项关于费米和萨默斯的白皮书的讨论，他们认为我们需要采用同样的策略，基本上是通过通胀来解决问题。而我所写的分析很简单，就是上一次联邦储备系统能够在不破坏系统的情况下管理政策并提高利率的时候，GDP处于70%到80%之间。所以我说，我们需要将GDP从120%降至70%到80%。而实现这一点所需的负利率在美国需要持续三到五年，大约在负10%到负20%之间。就是这样。
And at first and 21 it looked like they were doing that it's like okay and then politics got involved in early 22 the Russian war got involved the election got involved. And then all of a sudden the feds said, oh, we need to we need to fight inflation. Okay. And at first I believe they're going to do it because like well they have this playbook they lay the playbook out pre 20 right the black the black rock white paper in August of 2019 is like we're just going to flake this away. We're going to go direct we're going to fiscal and the feds going to buy it and then it happened and then they went direct and they did fiscal and the feds started buying it and 21 they did it and summers and all these guys blessed it. And so at first and 22 is like, they're not going to reverse if they were their versus this is going to be a disaster. And then it was like, oh my god, they're reversing it so it's like, you know, yeah, I, in a early in mid April 2022 was like what they're doing the only thing is it's good for us a dollar like everything else is going to go down try to raise stocks, everything's going to go down. Then they bought themselves time last October when when they weaken the dollar by about 15% how did they do that. Primarily to yell and running down the TGA massively more than offset QT.
起初，到了2021年和2022年的时候，它看起来像是他们正在这样做，就像是没问题一样，但是政治介入了，俄罗斯战争介入了，选举介入了。然后突然之间，联邦政府说，哦，我们需要对抗通胀。好吧。起初，我相信他们会这么做的，因为他们有这个策略，他们在2019年8月公布了一份黑石和白皮书，上面说我们要这样处理，我们要直接进行财政控制，联邦政府会购买债券，然后这真的发生了，他们直接操作，他们进行了财政控制，联邦政府开始购买债券，2021年他们做到了，夏天和其他一些人都赞成这种做法。因此，22年初的时候，我认为他们不会改变立场，如果他们改变立场会是一场灾难。然后事情就变成了，哦天哪，他们开始改变立场了，所以你知道的，对于我来说，在2022年4月初，他们在做的事情是唯一对美元有利的，其他的一切，股票什么的都要下跌。然后去年10月份他们通过削弱美元自给自足了些时间，大约下跌了15%，他们是怎么做到的呢？主要是通过耶伦抛售国债，从而大大超过了量化收缩。
The point here is is is what's the playbook they need to do is they're fed needed to let inflation continue to run hot 22 and 23. And so, we had they done so we probably be getting to a point where debt to GDP was 70 to 80% by now, and they would be able to start hiking. And, you know, in other words, that said that that the markdown of bonds from 100 to 70. At the long end, they needed to be a hundred to 20. They need to be a hundred to 10. Like they didn't do enough, because debt to GDP didn't come down. So they weren't they weren't aggressive enough and so now.
这里的重点是他们需要做的策略是让通胀继续高涨到2022年和2023年。如果他们这样做了，现在我们可能会达到债务占国内生产总值的70%到80%的水平，他们将能够开始加息。换句话说，即使债券从100降至70，在长期来看，它们需要降至120，在短期来看，它们需要降至110。他们没有做足够的努力，因为债务占国内生产总值的比例没有下降。所以他们的行动不够积极，现在面临困境。
And they haven't made me progress and they've already kind of run the playbook of like, okay, mark the debt down. Like, okay, you want to mark it down again. You can't because you didn't get that to GDP down enough. If that's a GDP had gone down to 70, then you still have the option of letting rates go from five to seven to eight. It doesn't bankrupt you. With that to GDP still 120 and deficit to eight and a half, you let rates go from five to seven to 10. You're done. It's over. You go into a feedback loop. And that's I think we're starting to see symptoms of that.
他们并没有让我有所进展，他们已经基本上按照一种方法运行了，就是降低债务。如果GDP下降到70，你还可以选择将利率从5%增加到7%或8%，这不会让你破产。但如果GDP仍然为120，赤字为8.5%，你将把利率从5%增加到7%或10%，那么就完蛋了。你进入一个恶性循环。我认为我们开始看到这种症状了。
I think the fact that goal has less downside volatility than treasuries for the first time in 45 years is a symptom that markets are starting to understand the US is about to go to a feedback loop. Feedback loop. I think the fact that real rates have risen the most in 40 years and goal hasn't gone down is another symptom of markets beginning to understand the US is that close to going to a feedback loop. You say, okay, well, what happens then they told you they told you Jackson hole and no one wanted to talk about it. Duffy, Darrell Duffy wrote a white paper and Jeremy Stein commented on it. And they said we're gonna we may need to. The Fed may need to tell markets and differentiate between market functioning purchases of treasuries and monetary policy purchases of treasuries. Wait, what? And like to me that was the biggest takeaway from from Jackson hole. There was a whole bunch of things filled. Only a couple people picked it up. But like they know they have a problem and they're hoping this doesn't go against them. They're hoping but it's got like the math is the math hopes not a strategy. They're going to have to do it. I think they know it, which is why they're talking about it. It's such an important meeting Jackson hole and we're rapidly heading toward that moment.
我认为黄金首次在45年内的下行波动小于国债，这是市场开始了解美国正准备进入一个反馈循环的症状。反馈循环。我认为实际利率创下40年最高水平而黄金并未下跌，这是市场开始了解美国即将进入反馈循环的另一个症状。你可能会问，那么会发生什么，他们告诉你，他们告诉你杰克逊霍尔会，但没有人愿意讨论这个。达德利·达菲撰写了一篇白皮书，杰里米·斯坦对此发表了评论。他们说我们可能需要。美联储可能需要告诉市场区分国债市场运作购买和货币政策购买。等等，什么？对我来说，这是杰克逊霍尔的最重要的收获。有很多东西填满了会议，但只有一小部分人注意到了。但他们知道他们有问题，他们希望这不会对他们产生负面影响，他们希望，但是数学就是数学，希望不是一种策略。他们将不得不这样做。我认为他们知道，这就是为什么他们在谈论这个问题。杰克逊霍尔是如此重要的会议，我们正迅速前往那个时刻。
I'm watching the gears spinning and unless again, unless the dollar gets lowered meaningfully or unless oil gets lowered meaningfully. This is likely going to happen. So interest rates. So, it's a great raise the fiscal expense and they can create more debt to fund that expense so that increases debt to GDP, but wouldn't higher interest rates also cause GDP to go down and a nominal GDP particularly inflation dominated GDP. And it's because if you know I think the way Jay Powell thinks about this is interest rates go back to zero. That is not going to help the US debt problem because inflation is going to run super hot and the government's probably going to borrow even more. And, you know, not not saying that you know, how is Volcker but Volcker was very anti debt and unlike today's Federal Reserve he was quite open about his desire to shrink the US deficit.
我正在观察齿轮的转动，除非再次出现以下情况：美元大幅贬值，或者油价大幅下跌。这很可能会发生。所以，利率问题。所以，增加财政支出是一件好事，他们可以创造更多债务来资助这些支出，这将增加债务与国内生产总值的比率，但更高的利率是否也会导致国内生产总值下降，特别是以通胀为主的名义国内生产总值。因为，我认为杰伊·鲍威尔对此的看法是，利率回到零并不会解决美国的债务问题，因为通胀将会升高，政府可能还会借更多债。你知道，我不是说沃尔克怎么样，但沃尔克非常反对债务，与今天的美联储不同，他对缩小美国赤字有相当明确的意愿。
You'll high interest rates discourage government borrowing because if you want to borrow at 20% to fund a government project, it's not going to work out very long. Paul's no Volcker. He can't be Volcker deficit when Volcker will try to do what he did was 2% of GDP it's eight on a trailer to my basis debt debt to GDP was 25 to 30%. And there's literally Volcker couldn't hike rates enough to bankrupt the government. How can't I ain't that far from here. And when I say bankrupt it's either the Fed comes in and caps that or it goes into a debt spiral.
高利率会阻止政府借贷，因为如果你想以20%的利率借来资助政府项目，那这个计划不会持续太久。保罗不是沃尔克（意指前美联储主席沃尔克）。他无法像沃尔克那样运用赤字政策，沃尔克当年尝试做的事情是国内生产总值（GDP）的2%，而现在是基于我自己的债务和GDP的25-30%，他简直无法提高利率到足够的程度来使政府破产。我真的觉得我们离这不远。当我说破产，要么联邦储备系统（美联储）会出面干预，并设定上限；要么我们会陷入债务恶性循环。
So, I'll make seems to want to mandate government policy in other words, he wants to make government borrowing more expensive. And I think that's what he's saying is that he needs to pick up a history book because I would challenge him to find a country with a purely fiat currency that it could print where the government shut down where the government shrank itself voluntarily. So what's he actually doing he's actually increasing the deficit. And so that's 3.1 trillion on 4.2 trillion in receipts that's almost 70% receipts just on entitlements. And that's just it. To be clear that's just an interest expense that's just the interest expense on the off balance sheet liabilities let's click 100 trillion or whatever the hell they are.
所以，我觉得他似乎想要强制政府政策，换句话说，他想让政府借债更贵。我认为他的意思是他需要读读历史书，因为我挑战他找到一个纯粹的法定货币国家，在那个国家，政府曾自愿关闭或自我缩减。所以他实际上增加了赤字。所以，这是3.1万亿美元在4.2万亿美元的收入上，几乎是收入的70%，仅仅是用于福利的费用。仅此而已。明确一下，这只是一项利息支出，这只是关于资产负债表之外的负债的利息支出，数额可能达到1万亿或其他天文数字。
Let's just be clear and call that what it is. So, so is Powell, you know, people say, well, the bond markets doing doing the Fed's job for you know it's doing Putin's to. So, it's Powell saying we should shut down defense, because he's raising rates. It's what he's doing. Is that the right thing to do for America? I don't know who elected him that I had nobody. Is it going to happen there's not a chance there is zero chance he's going to shrink defense about raising rates.
让我们明确一点，直言不讳地说出它是什么。鲍威尔也是如此，你知道的，人们说，嘿，债券市场正在为美联储工作，就像为普京工作一样。所以，鲍威尔说我们应该削减国防预算，因为他在加息。这就是他在做的事。对于美国来说，这样做是否正确？我不知道谁选了他，恐怕没有人。会发生这种情况吗？不可能，它不可能缩减国防预算而提高利率。
All these going to do is make the deficit bigger. So bigger deficits with 3.5% unemployment. Now, can he shrink the private sector output sure he can. But if he's making deficit bigger while shrinking private sector output. He's going to shrink receipts he's going to make that's even bigger from two angles he can set interest up and he's going to send receipts down. Which is going to send issuance up and the dollar up which is going to send. More net supply up as foreigners sell to defend their currencies, which you send rates up which is going to send receipts on the private side down which is concerned with people say he hasn't broken anything he has broken it and it's about to be marked the market and he's not really passionate real time he's broken too thanks he's broken he's he's on the process of breaking the treasury market.
所有这些做的只是让赤字变得更大。所以，在3.5%的失业率下出现更大的赤字。现在，他能缩小私营部门的产出，当然可以。但如果他在缩小私营部门产出的同时使赤字更大。他会让收入缩小，从两个方面来看，他可以调高利率并使收入下降。这将导致发行量增加，美元升值。更多外国人抛售以维护他们的货币，这将使利率上升，这将导致私营部门收入下降，这是人们担心的问题，他们说他没有破坏任何东西，他确实破坏了，市场即将标记他，并且他并没有真正地热情关注当前的情况，他已经破坏了太多了，他正在破坏国库市场。
And he's and he's already broken the US energy market because that's the other thing. How's he broken the US energy market. Oh, because shale is is interest rate sensitive. He and Biden have combined the SPR releases and federate hikes. Last week it just came out the Permian is rolling over Permian productions negative. In October like so so let's let's get to we want to fight Putin we're in a war. Okay. If we're really in a war why isn't he buying all the debt why is he raising rates. And why is he hurting oil. Those are literally the opposite of the two things that you do in war. So either we're not a war or he's not acting interest in the night in the interest of the United States. I don't know what it is.
他已经在美国能源市场上造成了破坏，因为这是另一件事。他是如何破坏了美国能源市场呢？哦，因为页岩油对利率敏感。他和拜登一起释放了战略石油储备并提高了联邦利率。上周刚传出佩尔米安盆地的产量已经出现了负增长。十月份的情况非常不好，所以我们要对抗普京，我们正在进行一场战争。好的，如果我们真的处在一场战争中，为什么他不购买债务，为什么他提高利率，为什么他伤害石油？这些完全是战争中不应该做的事情。所以要么我们不是在进行战争，要么他不是在为美国的利益而行动。我不知道是什么情况。
In World War two in Vietnam. They have the Fed hold rates below and we maximize oil production. I'm not sure if he if he's if he's doing this on purpose or if he's just acting dogmatically to raise rates. But in the end again it doesn't matter like this is what's happening. So let's say in a year September 2024. The Federal Reserve has maintained industries at 5.5% and is still doing quantitative tightening. What does that world look like the unemployment rate stock market the long term bond the dollar gold. Tell me what that world looks like. I don't think we make it September 2024. Before something really breaks in that world. He would need for him to stop inflation. If he wants to continue if he wants to run this thing out he really wants to be bulkier.
在二战期间的越南，他们将联邦基准利率保持在较低水平，同时最大化石油产量。我不确定他是否故意这样做，还是只是固执地提高利率。但最终，这并不重要，因为这就是正在发生的事情。所以假设在2024年9月，联邦储备系统将保持行业利率为5.5%，并继续进行量化紧缩。那样的世界会是什么样子？失业率、股市、长期债券、美元和黄金呢？告诉我那个世界会是什么样子。我不认为我们能够撑到2024年9月，因为在那个世界里，某个东西真的会彻底崩溃。如果他想继续，他需要停止通货膨胀。如果他想坚持下去，他真的需要更加有底气。
What he needs to do is when the 10 year spikes to six. Stand aside. And when the US banking system starts to fail. Stand aside. And when people start saying to him oh I'm an unsecured depositor my money's going to go away. Stand aside. And what a treasury auction has a problem at that rate because of the net supply dynamics because it's 6% implies a much higher dollar. Lots of foreign selling. Stand aside. And when oil is at 110 because it's 6% rates there's not. Stand aside. And the reality is is he's had that chance to stand aside and he did. He did BTFP. He you know they just paused they can't they have. He had the chance of acting March to do all that and he didn't. So to me it's all about when. When does. This supply demand dynamic. Create disorderly upside yields where he comes in and does market function purchases of treasuries or to. For market resilience of the treasury market right we saw a little hint of that last week in my opinion.
他需要做的是当十年期收益率飙升到六个百分点时，静观其变。当美国银行体系开始出现问题时，静观其变。当人们开始对他说：“噢，我是无担保存款人，我的钱要不保了。”时，静观其变。当国债拍卖因净供应动态而出现问题，因为6%的收益率意味着更高的美元，出现大量外资抛售时，静观其变。当油价达到110美元时，因为6%的利率不再稳定时，静观其变。实际上，他有机会静观其变，但他没有这样做。他选择了暂停购买，他们不得不这样。他有机会在三月采取行动并做到所有这些，但他没有。所以对我来说，关键是什么时候。何时会出现供需动态引发不规则上涨的情况，他会介入并进行国债市场功能性购买，或者维护国债市场的韧性。在我看来，上周我们就有一点迹象表明他可能会这样做。
We had that treasury official come out and say no we're going to do remember we're going to do treasury buybacks for the first time in 20 years for market resilience to build and boost the resilience of the US treasury market which is the deepest most liquid market in the world trademark 1985 USN. If it's so deep in liquid why do you need to do buybacks to boost its resilience. You know it's sort of like the. You know a few good men. So if you gave the order the Santiago wasn't to be touched and your orders were always followed why was he in danger why did he be transferred off the base. Same thing here. If the market is so resilient why do they need to do buybacks. Why do they need even discuss market function purchases at at at Jackson. Well, verse and differentiate them from monetary policy purchases. The answer is you know.
我们请财政部官员出来说，我们将会做国库回购，这是20年来首次，旨在为市场弹性建设和提升美国国债市场的弹性，这是世界上最深最流动的市场商标1985 USN。如果它是如此深入流动，为什么需要做回购来提升其弹性？你知道这有点像《生死狙击》。如果你下令不允许触碰圣地亚哥，而且你的命令总是被遵循的，那为什么他会处于危险之中，为什么他要被转移到其他基地？这里也是同样的问题。如果市场真的很有弹性，为什么他们需要做回购？为什么需要讨论市场功能购买，与货币政策购买有所区别？答案就是你知道的。
Yeah, you ordered the code red. So I don't know what does that world look like if the world's still there. If he stands aside. It's a new great depression he's not going to stand aside and I think it happens way before then that he doesn't stand aside in terms of what rates you.
是的，你下令实施了“红色代号”。所以我不知道世界如果世界仍然存在会变成什么样子。如果他站在一边，那将是一次新的大萧条，他不会袖手旁观，而且我认为在那之前，他在评定你的程度方面就已经不会站在一边了。
But what what's going to break so as you said the Federal Reserve initiated the bank term funding program which is a allows my audience very familiar with this as as you are. So that's a big help to the bank term funding program. What we say things are going to break. What would be please be specific what do you mean.
但是你说什么会出问题呢？正如你所说，美联储启动了银行期限融资计划，我相信你的观众对此应该很熟悉，正如你一样。这对银行期限融资计划来说是个很大的帮助。当我们说事情会出问题时，请具体说明你指的是什么。
The market did the US shale business is breaking like that's and this to me is one of these really interesting things and everyone is fighting the last war. The Fed included. In the last year, the dollar shale supported the bond market shale kept inflation low. 90% of global oil production growth over the last 10 years has come from us shale US shale is now starting to roll over thanks to the SPR releases and the Fed rate hikes. People say who if oil keeps going up that's not to keep raising rates.
市场对美国页岩企业的打击，就像这样，而这对我来说是非常有趣的事情之一，每个人都在打最后一战，美联储也不例外。在过去的一年中，美元页岩支持了债券市场，页岩也使通胀率保持较低水平。过去10年全球90%的石油产量增长来自美国的页岩，现在由于战略石油储备和美联储的加息，美国页岩正在开始下滑。人们说，如果油价继续上涨，美联储就不会继续加息了。
Permian, Permian production is set to decline in October per the last week. So 90% of global production growth. Over the last 10 years is now shrinking. So what how is oil going to go down if supplies marginal supplies are full. Oh, well they can shrink the economy but they're not shrinking the economy US government GDP is doing great. So you're going to the feedback loop between higher oil, which increases inflation expectations, which forces more treasury selling from foreigners because they need energy more than they need dollars they need energy more than they need So email about saving formmm we're just not going to start to really watch it.
上周数据显示，佩里亚纪（Permian）的产量将在十月份下降。因此，全球90%的产量增长已经开始萎缩。在过去的10年里，如果供应仍然充足，那么油价将如何下跌？哦，他们可以缩小经济规模，但美国政府的国内生产总值（GDP）发展良好。因此，高油价引发的通胀预期增加，迫使外国投资者更多地出售国债，因为他们更需要能源而不是美元。所以关于储蓄的电子邮件，我们还不需要太过担心。
So do you think that everything being equal, which it never is, but everything being equal, uh, interest rates, higher interest rates caused the price of oil to go up, not down? Paradoxically up to, and unless you're willing to like really crash the global economy. Yeah. Yeah. Because then this is another factor that like, if I was trading bonds and rates, I would be intimately familiar with U.S. shale. And the reality is, is most people to trade bonds and rates that I've encountered, like they say, well, we're now one of the biggest producers of oil globally, and that's that. And they don't understand exactly that it's been 90% of global production growth over the last 10 years. They don't understand that U.S. shale is the highest marginal cost oil or close to it in the world. They don't understand that once you stop drilling, there's a treadmill effect. So basically you have to keep growing production. At very large rates. Otherwise production falls. They don't understand that the, the, the decline rate on the legacy production last month. From the big four shale basins, Permian, the Bakken, the Eagle Furt and the Niebra were 6.6% per month. Last month. It's not it's not a linear rate of decline. The rate of decline declines over time. But again, they don't understand that. They don't understand that. If you hurt shale, you see the oil market back to Saudi and Russia.
那么你认为在一切都相等的情况下，尽管这种情况几乎不存在，但是一切都相等的情况下，利率上升导致石油价格上涨，而不是下跌？具有讽刺意味的是，只有在你愿意真的使全球经济崩溃的情况下，石油价格会上涨。是的。是的。因为这是另一个因素，如果我在交易债券和利率方面，我会非常熟悉美国页岩油的情况。现实是，大多数在交易债券和利率的人都会说，我们现在是全球最大的石油生产国之一，就是这样。但他们并不完全明白，在过去10年中，美国页岩油占据了全球90%的增长。他们不明白美国页岩油是全球成本最高或接近最高的油种。他们不明白一旦停止钻探，就会出现踏步效应。基本上，你必须持续增长产量。以非常大的速度。否则产量就会下降。他们不了解上个月四个主要的页岩盆地（佩尔米安盆地、巴肯盆地、鹰福特盆地和尼伯拉盆地）的传统产量下降率为每月6.6%。上个月。这不是一个线性的下降率。下降率会随着时间的推移而减缓。但同样，他们不明白这一点。他们不明白如果对美国页岩油造成损害，石油市场将重新回到沙特和俄罗斯。
They don't understand what Russia and Saudi. Now, if we have hurt our own ability of Powell with rate hikes and Biden with SPR releases has hurt our ability to keep oil prices down. What do we think Russia's going to do with oil? This winter. Well, we don't have to guess anymore because they just temporarily suspended exports of diesel. You know, there's the rate silo and there's the energy silo and like the energy guys I'm talking to were like, Oh, my God. And like the rates guys are like, Oh, don't worry. Like inflation is going to come down. They don't understand the pro cyclical nature. Of what rates are going to do to us oil production and what that implies for oil inflation for. Geopolitics, etc. And that's, you know, for the last three, four months that's been the oil guys gain and the bond guys lost. And I think it's going to continue to be.
他们不明白俄罗斯和沙特的情况。如今，如果我们通过加息削弱了鲍威尔的能力，拜登通过战略石油储备释放削弱了我们控制油价的能力。我们认为俄罗斯会对石油做什么？这个冬天。好吧，我们不必再猜测了，因为他们刚刚暂时停止了柴油出口。你知道，有汇率储层，也有能源储层，就像我正在交谈的能源专家们说的那样，噢，天哪。而汇率专家们则说，噢，别担心，通胀会下降的。他们不明白利率的增长对我们的石油产量及其对石油通货膨胀和地缘政治等方面所暗示的逆周期性的影响。在过去的三四个月里，石油专家赢了，债券专家输了。我认为这将会持续下去。
And at some point the bond guys are going to go, Oh, my God. And then things are going to get real interesting because once they realize that the US has put a, you know, has put a bullet US shale production growth. So now Russia and Saudi control the oil market again. Why do I own TLT? You know, you're basically limits your case to like they're going to literally fly the plane in the ground. They're going to, they're going to crash the system. They're going to, they're going to shut down like, can you get oil down? Yes. Shut down the economy like code. You get oil down. You get it goes negative.
在某个时候，债券市场的人们会惊呼，哦，天呐。然后事情将变得非常有趣，因为一旦他们意识到美国已经对美国页岩油产量的增长造成了重大打击，俄罗斯和沙特将再次控制石油市场。为什么我要持有TLT（美国国债指数基金）呢？你知道，你的观点基本上只能是他们会直接将飞机撞向地面，他们会崩溃整个系统。他们会关闭经济活动，就像控制石油价格一样。你能做到吗？是的，通过关闭经济活动，石油价格可能变负值。
Failing that, but, but oh, by the way, at the bottom of COVID in March of 2020, treasury started selling off. Remember, treasury market crashed. So, you know, these, you know, owning TLT is like trying to capture increasingly. It's like this shrinking, shrinking trade where it's like, okay, if they crash the economy enough. Like they didn't COVID that oil really goes down. And there's a short term scramble for the quid.
如果不能实现这一点，但是，哦，顺便提一下，在2020年3月底，财政部开始抛售。记住，国库市场崩盘了。所以，要知道，持有TLT就像是试图捕捉日益减少的一个交易，就像这种萎缩的交易情况，就好比，如果他们让经济崩溃到足够严重，就像他们在COVID期间所做的那样，石油价格会大幅下跌，然后会有短期争夺金钱的问题。
Well, yields will fall as markets come as stocks go into bonds. And so I want to capture it for the moment from here to like right before it crashes and yields start going back up again. And then before the Fed put. And if you can trade that. Hey, great. But you, but I don't get the sense people. I know I can't trade that. I don't, I get the sense. A lot of people don't understand the game they're playing as it relates to that long bond trade.
嗯，随着市场从股票转向债券，收益率将会下降。因此，我希望从现在开始捕捉这个时刻，直到股市崩盘之前，当收益率再次开始上升时。在美联储托底之前，然后如果你能进行这样的交易，那太好了。但是，我感觉人们不会理解这种长期债券交易中他们所玩的游戏。
What do you think happens with oil because you know, close to $100 on Brent. Do you, I mean, do you think that there is a recessionary effect when oil gets quite high as it, you know, oil went to $120 in June. That's when you had a, you know, we're not calling it a recession. I don't think it was a recession, but a mid cycle slowdown. And then up oil starts going down. What do you have happened? Suddenly we were starting hearing about a resilient economy.
你认为石油会发生什么情况呢？你知道，布伦特原油价格接近100美元。我是说，你觉得当油价上涨到很高的时候，会有衰退的影响吗？你知道，六月份油价曾经飙升到120美元。就在那时，你可能听说过一个不叫衰退的“中期放缓”。然后油价开始下跌，那会发生什么？突然之间，我们开始听说经济复苏的消息。
So I mean, is there a limiting factor where if oil goes to $120. The world will enter a recession or $150 because of demand destruction. There's initial derivative effects and then there's second derivative effects, right. So if oil goes to 120 or 150. Yes, it's going to slow the private sector dramatically. It's going to increase us show production in theory, right. So I SM is going to go up in the US. And so the fence going to need to raise rates even more right I SM all of a sudden is going to print 52 53 from whatever 48. And it's going to be all oil drilling related and supply chain related and all of a sudden it's going to oh my god they got to raise rates even more. That's number one. So possible but but not good for bonds.
所以我的意思是，如果油价上涨到120美元，或者150美元，会不会有一个限制因素，让世界陷入衰退? 因为需求被破坏了。有初级的导出效应，还有二级的导出效应，对吧。所以如果油价上涨到120或150美元，是的，这将大大拖慢私营部门的发展。这理论上会增加我们在国内的石油生产，对吧。所以美国的ISM指数可能会上升。于是央行就会需要进一步提高利率，对吧。ISM指数突然就会从48上升到52或53，这与石油开采相关，也与供应链有关。于是，他们会不得不进一步提高利率。这是第一点。所以这种情况有可能发生，但对债券市场不利。
Number what number two oil 121 50. I go back to the initial point I made about. Unless you get the dollar down and you get oil down. The pain and bonds going to continue. So the foreigners own 7.5 trillion US treasuries total to their central banks on 3.8 trillion of that. And they need oil. And so if oils at 120. It's not like they buy 30% less oil and let their people starve and ride bikes they buy the oil and they sell the treasuries.
第二个问题是，石油价格到底有多重要。我之前已经提到过，除非你让美元贬值，并且让石油价格下降，否则失业和债券问题将不断存在。外国人总共持有7.5万亿美元的美国国债，其中3.8万亿美元属于他们的央行。他们需要石油。如果石油价格在每桶120美元，他们不会让自己的人民挨饿或骑自行车，而是会继续购买这些石油并卖掉国债。
So if oil was 121 50 that net rate of treasury selling effective selling we talked about before. Accelerates. So you're going to get if oil goes 121 50. Tl T when I jumped on here this morning's at 89. It'd be a frigging 75. And again some point between here and there. I think the fed and by the way, it could do that in like three weeks or weeks. So. Would that hurt oil. Yes, if the fed is willing to stand aside. And let treasury markets dysfunction in my opinion there is zero chance that that is going to stand aside. As Tl T goes from 90 to 75 in a few weeks.
所以，如果油价达到每桶121.50美元，那么之前我们谈论过的国库出售净额、有效出售速度将会加速。所以，如果油价达到121.50美元，TLT就会跳到89美元，然后再跌到75美元。在这之间的某个时间点，我认为美联储可能会采取行动，而且可能只需要三周或几周就能实现。那么，这会对油价造成伤害吗？是的，如果美联储愿意站在一旁，让国债市场无法正常运转，那么我认为几乎没有可能会发生这种情况。因为在几周内，TLT从90美元跌至75美元的可能性为零。
And what does treasury market dysfunction mean to you is it about an absolute level. Tl T at 75. Let's just say the 30 year at the 10 year at at 5.5%. Or is it about a series of asynchronous movements if we gradually move to 10 year at 6%. But it's not at all volatile. Is that a treasury market breaking? What does it mean to you? To me it's about the liquidity and the asynchronous of the movements and to be clear we're talking about, you know, whatever it's 33 trillion out and what I think it's what a 24 trillion size is what they quote 25 whatever it is. The anything that big is going to create a circuit smooth anything that big relative to balance sheet capacity.
对你来说，国库市场功能紊乱意味着什么，是指绝对水平吗？TL T在75。我们就说，30年期国债收益率为5.5%。还是指一系列异步的波动，如果我们逐渐将10年期国债收益率调至6%。但波动并不大。这算是国库市场破裂吗？对你来说意味着什么？对我来说，这与流动性和异步波动有关，明确一下我们谈论的是，你知道的，目前大约有33万亿美元的债券市值，我觉得报价是24万亿美元的大小，无论如何，只要是这么大规模的市场，相对于资产负债表容量来说，都会产生巨大的冲击。
Like who has the balance sheet capacity to deal with those kind of losses. You're talking about a $25 trillion market. If it drops 5%. Someone has lost a true over trillion dollars. Someone's a trillion. Someone's lost a trillion. Depending on who's lost that trillion and how that's accounted for like that. That requires you to sell something else. And that's why and that's something else will force the dollar up, which will force more selling. Like this, the feedback loops are multiple and generally all in one direction because sort of every lever has been pulled to sort of hold this thing up and support it as long as it has been held up.
谁拥有资产负债表能力来应对这些损失呢？你在谈论一个25万亿美元的市场。如果它下跌5%，就有人损失了超过1万亿美元。有人损失了1万亿。这得看谁损失了那1万亿以及它如何进行核算。这将迫使你卖掉其他东西。这就是为什么美元会上涨，从而迫使更多卖单成交。类似这样，反馈循环是多样的，通常都是朝一个方向发展，因为几乎所有的杠杆手段都已被运用，并长时间以来一直支撑着它。
When I proposed September 2024 you said the wheels come off this thing earlier what what do you think in terms of timeline and what are things you will be on the lookout for of Oh, if when the 10 year hits 5% this will happen or when gold hits this level this will happen.
当我提议2024年9月的时候，你说这件事会提前脱轨，那么你对时间安排有什么看法？在什么情况下你会提高警惕？比如当利率上涨到5%时会发生什么，或者当黄金达到某个水平时会发生什么。
It's a little bit like the whole, you may be too younger remember this and I'm not jacking on that but there was a art exhibition in Cincinnati back in like 1990 of Robert maple for part and some federal judge was like I, you know, I don't have the definition for profane but I know And it's a little bit of the same kind of thing which is, you know, let's see what the treasury move index does it's been relatively tame so far let's see what the bags do let's see what. Let's see what treasury markets do let's see what the dollar does let's all these let's see what oil does let's see what geopolitics do right like, you know these things are so interconnected where, you know, two weeks ago we saw, you know, the news in England reporting on missiles that reporting proudly the British missiles were used to hit Russian ships at a naval base and I think it was in set list Apple in Crimea. And you kind of go hey great. What do you think the Russians are going to do. Like you actually think they're just going to sit there and do that or, you know, or might they weaponize oil more and if they weaponize oil more what does that mean for rates what is how they how they fund their war effort.
这有点像整个情况，你可能年轻得记不住了，我不想提起，但在1990年左右，辛辛那提有一个罗伯特·槭枫的艺术展览，有个联邦法官说：“我不知道亵渎的定义是什么，但我知道…”这有点类似的，你知道的，我们来看看财政部的移动指数会怎么样，到目前为止一直相对稳定，我们来看看股票市场会怎么样，我们来看看国债市场会怎么样，我们来看看美元会怎么样，我们来看看所有这些，我们来看看石油会怎么样，我们来看看地缘政治会怎么样，你知道的，这些事情是如此相互关联的，你知道的，两周前，英国新闻报导导弹袭击了俄罗斯在克里米亚的一个海军基地，还自豪地说是英国的导弹做到了这一点，你还想他们会怎么做呢，难道你真的认为他们会坐视不理吗，或者说，他们会更加使用石油作为武器，那么这对利率意味着什么，他们如何资助他们的战争努力呢。
China's by it, but that's the fundamental market if China's buying it then you know oil traders can buy from China or buy from India. Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. And, and exactly right oil it's a flexible market but it's also a inelastic market right so it's a production by 3% and price goes up a hell of a lot more than 3% and you know they can do what they just announced two weeks ago which is, you know, hey starting in January we're going to sell gas to China at half the price of the EU. Okay, how you compete with hat with with guests twice as much as your competitor. The answer is you don't you go out of business slowly. And the point here is it relates to the original question which is, with what am I watching I'm sort of watching like all of this right. You know what what's what are the geopolitics what do is what the oil market do the key to key levers dollar.
中国是一个基本市场，如果中国购买原油，那么你知道原油交易商可以从中国购买或从印度购买。完全正确。是的，完全正确。而且，油市是一个灵活的市场，但也是一个非弹性的市场，生产增长了3％，价格上涨要多得多，你知道他们可以做他们两周前刚刚宣布的事情，也就是说，要从明年1月份开始，我们要以欧盟的一半价格向中国销售天然气。好吧，如果你的竞争对手的价格是你的两倍，你如何与之竞争呢？答案是你不行，你会慢慢倒闭。关键在于与最初的问题相关，这是我所关注的所有事情。你知道，地缘政治、石油市场、关键杠杆点是什么、美元。
Little simplify it. Unless the dollar goes down a lot. Or unless oil goes down a lot. The beatings and treasury markets and guilt markets and boot markets and Italian bond mark, they will continue, and they will continue, and they will continue until we get a repo rate September 2019 spike. Except in Western sovereign bond markets. And then everyone's going to go I don't see how how come nobody saw this and happen how nobody knew the Fed already broken something and I'm telling you they were already broken something so we can, we can reference back there how no one could have seen it I saw it. It is so obvious to it.
请简化一下。除非美元大幅下跌，或者除非油价大幅下跌，否则贴现市场、国债市场、债券市场、股市以及意大利债券市场将继续存在，直到我们看到2019年9月再拍一掌的回购利率。除了西方主权债券市场。然后每个人都会说：我不明白为什么没有人看到这一点，为什么没人知道联储已经断掉了一些东西。我告诉你们他们确实已经断掉了一些东西，所以我们可以回顾那里没有人能够预见到，但我看到了。这一点是如此明显。
When did the Fed break something. When they decided to tighten instead of let inflation rise. But what was the thing that broke. What was the thing that broke the US fiscal position. The US fiscal position and US shale. US tax receipts trailing 12 months as of a month ago down 20%.
美联储什么时候打破了某个东西？当他们决定收紧政策而不是让通胀上升时。但是是什么东西打破了美国的财政地位？美国的财政地位和美国的页岩天然气产业。截至一个月前的美国税收收入过去12个月下降了20%。
You don't get to have receipts fall like that. The GDP of 120%. You already have a supply to man. You don't get to increase supply into what is already a tenuous supply to man problem. Like there's only so many bears you can poke right like you can't reduce issuance or increase issuance because you knock stocks down. Increase issuance because you raised rates increase issuance because the dollars strengthening based on what you've done. Increase issuance because you've hurt your own oil business which is hurting receipts which is increasing in oil inflation was increasing rates. Increase issuance because you're picking a fight with the two biggest with the biggest energy supplier in the world. You're your biggest former biggest creditor and the world's factory you don't get to do that.
你没有资格让收据如此大幅下降。GDP增长率为120%。你已经有了供应人力的资源。你不能增加已经脆弱的人力资源供应。就像你只能戳那么多的熊，你不能减少发行或增加发行，因为这样会使股票下跌。你增加发行是因为你提高了利率，是因为美元正在加强。你增加发行是因为你伤害了自己的石油业务，这损害了收入，也增加了石油通胀和利率。你增加发行是因为你与世界上最大的能源供应国家发生争斗。你是他们最大的债权人，也是世界工厂。你不能这么做。
Yeah. You have to pick and choose. When the Fed did not let inflation run hot for as long as they needed to. That started it. Now we're just watching it play out. So we said something broke I feel like yeah right raising interest rates will mechanically increase interest expense but so nothing outside the physical position has broken you're just referring to the physical position.
是的，你必须选择取舍。当美联储没有允许通胀保持需要的时间时，问题就开始了。现在我们只是在观察事态的发展。所以我们说有些地方出了问题，我觉得是的，加息会机械地增加利息费用，但并没有其他实际位置之外的事情出了问题，你只是在指的是实际位置。
I would argue the banks have broken. I mean the fact that they need to do BTFP. Look that like that wasn't a banking problem there was a treasury market problem. They were upside down again if Powell wanted to be Volcker. The answer was very simple. Stand aside. Banks saying, Oh, we're upside down. Okay, sell your treasuries.
我认为银行已经崩溃了。我的意思是他们需要进行买回-再贷款（BTFP）。看起来这不是银行的问题，而是国库市场的问题。如果鲍威尔想要成为沃尔克（前美联储主席），那么答案非常简单，那就是站在一边。银行们说：“哦，我们买回-再贷款了。”好吧，那就卖掉你们的国债。
You the banks own for US commercial banks holdings of treasuries have gone from. I don't know at the peak I want to say they're four and a half trillion give or take they're down a bit. Let them sell them all sell them all. They had to look. Oh, they would have taken major losses. No, they don't care that they would have taken losses. They didn't want them selling it because it would have created treasury market dysfunction. So the Fed had to get involved they had to do the BTFP that's BTFP's just yield curve control for banks. They're taking underwater bonds and buying them apart if Powell wanted to be Volcker. Stand aside. Why didn't he stand aside. Why did he bail out on secure depositors. I think because the only way to fix the banking system was.
译文：美国商业银行拥有的国债规模已从最高点减少了一些。大约是4.5万亿美元，他们减少了一些。让他们全部卖掉，全部卖掉。他们必须看着。哦，他们本应会遭受重大损失。不，他们不在意可能会损失。他们不希望他们卖掉，因为那会导致国债市场出现问题。因此，联邦储备系统必须介入，他们必须进行BTFP，即对银行进行收益曲线控制。他们购买了不良债券并进行了分离，如果鲍威尔想像沃克那样站在一边。为什么他没有站在一边呢？为什么他要救助安全储户？我认为，修复银行体系的唯一方法是...（后续内容缺失）
Door number one is stop quantitative tightening and lower interest rates and door number two is keep quantitative tightening and keep interest rates high keep raising interest rates and do BFP BTFP. I think door number two was the much was the tighter monetary policy door. It was the one that save the banks, but it was like bank loans are up again. They're rising. So like how, you know, again, if he wanted to be Volcker, he needed to stay on the side. He did. He saved the he picked and choose. You don't get to pick and choose like Volcker just like, you know, kill them all like us or not.
门1是停止量化紧缩并降低利率，而门2是继续量化紧缩并保持利率高，继续提高利率并进行BFP BTFP。我认为门2是更为紧缩的货币政策门。它是拯救银行的途径，但就像银行贷款又再次增加。所以，你知道，如果他想成为沃尔克，他需要保持这一立场。他做到了。他挑选和选择。你不能像沃尔克那样，要么全部铲除，要么不。
Yeah, but I'd say I'd say pal. It was the tightest thing you could do. I don't think he could have not done BTFP and continued to tighten monetary policy. So, so my next question is you're not worried about a recession. You're not at all sounds like you're not at all worried about higher interest rates causing a recession for the normal channel of banks restricting credits and unemployment. You're not worried about that. No, the banks are the ones with the problem.
是的，但我要说，伙计。这是你能做的最牢固的事情。我认为他不可能不采取BTFP措施并继续实施紧缩货币政策。因此，我的下一个问题是您不担心经济衰退。您完全不担心利率上升会引发通过银行限制信贷和增加失业率而导致经济衰退。您对此不担心吗？不，银行才是问题的根源。
Let me back up. The traditional way of doing is banks restrict credit to people. Right. So, right now, the banks, their rates went up. My rate didn't go up. I got a 30 year mortgage at 29. Nice. Right. So, and I'm not the only guy. So, no. If I'm making 200 basis points between where my cash on the bank and my mortgage. There's a bank somewhere bleeding 200 basis points. Yep. And in reality, it's probably the government right they probably own though the mortgage back and the feds bleeding. Is that really not is that really restrictive. If I'm getting a 200 basis point a year debt jubilee. That's not restrictive. It's great. I'm getting a free house. Thank you fed. And so a lot of other people.
让我先回到头。传统的做法是银行限制信贷给人们。是的。所以，现在，银行利率上涨了，但我的利率没有上涨。我以29的年利率贷款了30年的抵押贷款。挺好的。没错。所以，我不是唯一一个这样的人。如果我在存款和贷款之间赚了200个基点。那就有一家银行亏损了200个基点。对，实际上，可能是政府，他们可能拥有抵押贷款，联邦储备也亏损了。那真的算是限制吗？如果我每年能得到200个基点的债务赦免，那就不算是限制了。这太好了，我白得到了一栋房子。谢谢联邦储备。还有很多其他人也是这样的。
They tie back to that point about there's a lot of things with this cycle that are upside down in terms of is it restrictive. It's not restrictive for the public sector. The deficit. The deficits. You know, there is no world in which running an 8% 8.5% deficit 3.5% unemployment is deflationary. It just isn't like they, it's not. And it's not going to be. And yes, you will have deflationary pockets on the private side. That was just netting against for a bit. Ultimately, as that happens. You're going to end up with less supply and more money. That is, that's super inflationary. Like they're like, they've already, I mean, they've already broken it. They did the wrong thing. They needed to let it play.
它们与关于这个周期的许多事情挂钩，从是否具有限制性的角度来看，有很多事情都是颠倒的。对于公共部门来说并没有限制。赤字。赤字。知道吗，不存在这样一种情况，即在8%至8.5%的赤字情况下，3.5%的失业率会导致通缩。事实并非如此。而且也不会。是的，私人部门可能会出现通缩的情况，但这只是暂时性的。最终，随着这种情况的发生，供应量会减少，货币量会增加。这是非常通胀的。就像他们已经提到的那样，他们……他们已经破坏了这个系统。他们做错了事。他们应该让它继续下去。
Once you get that the GDP to 120%. Like, there's no like, well, maybe we can know. Negative real rates for five years double digits. Come back. That's it. Or you devalue the currency all at once. That's it 30 40 50% overnight. That's it. Those are your choices. Otherwise, like you try to pretend things are still normal. I can be vulgar. No, it's not how it works. And, and you know, they did a good job pretending in 2022. They tried. It failed. The guilt market broke first. The US banks broke. Yes, it's China under strain. Yes, is China broken? No, China did not break before the banks. No, China did not break before the guilt market. The treasury market was very, you know, it was defunct dysfunction right alongside the guilt market. Just a little, a few steps behind when, when Yellen came in and, and, and we can let all our take and take it down TGA so aggressively.
一旦你将GDP增长到120％。比如说，像，没有“好吧，也许我们可以知道”。负实际利率持续五年，具有双位数的增长率。回来。就是这样。或者一次性贬值货币。一夜之间下降30-40-50％。就是这样。这就是你的选择。否则，你会试图假装一切仍然正常。我可以说得粗俗一些。不，事情不是这样运作的。而且，你知道的，他们在2022年假装得很好。他们试过。但失败了。先是债市崩溃，接着是美国银行崩溃。是的，中国承受了压力。是的，中国有问题吗？不，中国的崩溃没有发生在银行之前。不，中国的崩溃没有发生在债市之前。美国国债市场在债市崩溃后，也正在发展不好。当耶伦上任时，我们看到了国债市场和债券市场几乎同时出现了功能失调。
What about inflation going to 15% then interest interest real interest rates are negative. That would be great. Yeah. I mean, that's, that's what has to happen. Like, that's, I mean, will it be great? No, I should rephrase that. Like, if they want to get out of this, like, that's kind of what has to happen. You got inflation 15 fed pens it at three. And you know what? You know, the problem is, is you can't do that without some sort of capital controls, right?
通货膨胀增长到15%，然后实际利率变得负利率。那将是很好的情况。是的，我的意思是，那是必须发生的事情。不，我应该改一下我的说法。如果他们想要摆脱这个困境，那么这就是必须发生的。你有15%的通货膨胀率，美联储将利率设定为3%。而问题是，没有某种资本管制是无法实现的，对吧？
If it's going to have to buy the whole bond market because there are nobody is going to hold a bond at three when, you know, inflation is 15.
如果市场上没有人愿意持有3%回报率的债券，而通胀率却达到15%，那么央行就必须购买整个债券市场。
Well, the clearing price will just be 9%. And that's, that's fine. I mean, interest rates can, you know, the bond bonds can go to 9%. They can go to 10% 11% what is so that's what I'm trying to get teased at this conversation.
好吧，结算价格只会是9%。这个，这没什么问题。我的意思是，利率可以，你知道，债券可以升至9%。它们可以升至10%，11%，这就是我试图在这次对话中弄清楚的问题。
What is so unstable about, you know, a very upward sloping yield curve fed fed is at 5.5% and the long end sends off sells off to 10. And that's the most 7% 8%. It's totally unstable.
关于债券收益率曲线的不稳定性是什么呢？你知道，当美联储的短期利率为5.5%，而长期利率却飙升至10%，甚至达到7%或8%以上时，这种情况是非常不稳定的。
Because, okay, so 5.5 the front end, 9 at the long end. The housing market has taken across the country, in my opinion.
因为，好吧，所以前端有5.5，长端有9。我认为房地产市场已经遍及全国。
Let's set aside all the corporate refinancings are going to have to take place. And that probably hurts things too. The equity market is probably quite a bit lower. So between the housing market and the equity market quite a bit lower.
让我们先不去考虑所有公司的再融资将会发生的事情。而那可能也会对情况造成伤害。股权市场可能会有相当大的下跌。所以无论是房地产市场还是股权市场都会有相当大的下滑。
You are going to have tax receipts quite a bit lower. So your issuance is going to be quite a bit higher. So, okay, so now you're going to need more issuance. 9% long end means the dollar is quite a bit higher.
你的税收收入将会下降相当多。所以你的发行量将会相当大。所以，好吧，现在你需要更多的发行量。长期利率为9%意味着美元会有相当大的升值。
That means that 3.8 trillion that foreign central banks have is quite a bit lower. So, isn't that good for the US? No, well, good for the US hot.
这意味着外国央行持有的3.8万亿资金相对较少。那么，这对美国来说不是好事吗？不，对美国来说不是好事。
In terms of its position. Because it's live. It's a. Well, foreigners holdings have declined in value. That's good. That's terrible.
就其位置而言。因为它是实况直播的。这是一个。嗯，外国人持有的股票价值下降了。这是好事。这是可怕的。
Because they're selling. Well, how is that good for the United States? Whether it's good or bad is irrelevant. But here's what it is like is is what it is. Foreigners will be selling. 3.8 trip. Go back to that math.
因为他们正在出售。那么，这对美国有什么好处？这是好是坏都无关紧要。但是这就是现实。外国人将会出售。3.8千亿美元。回到那个问题上算一下吧。
Okay, let's say 5% front end 9% long end. US tax receipts fall another 20% from 4.2. To whatever 3.3.
好的，假设5%是短期期限利率，9%是长期期限利率。美国税收再次下降20%，从4.2减少到3.3。
You're going to be running. Much bigger deficits. So remember that the numbers I just gave you before in terms of the spending. What did I say? 7.4 trillion between interest entitlements and defense. Against 3.3 trillion in receipts.
你们将要面临更大的财政赤字问题。所以请记住，我刚才给你们的数据是关于支出的。我说了什么？7.4万亿的支出包括利息、福利和国防开支，而税收只有3.3万亿。
So now you're at the 4.1 trillion in deficits. You need to finance. Okay. Plus you need 5 trillion in roll next year per JB down.
现在你们面临着4.1万亿的赤字。你们需要进行融资。好的。此外，明年据JB表示，你们还需要5万亿进行滚动融资。
Plus you need you're going to be the dollars and be much higher. Foreigners are going to be selling. Yes. No. So is it good or is it bad? Is it putting them in pain? Sure. It's putting them in pain.
此外，您需要明白，您拥有的美元将会更多，也会更值钱。外国人将会出售更多。是的。不是。那么这是好事还是坏事呢？这会给他们带来痛苦吗？当然。这会给他们带来痛苦。
But it's again, it's like shooting yourself in the jugular and saying, ha, ha, ha, you know, I'm going to bleed out slower than you are. They have 3.8 trillion at the central bank. 7.5 trillion overall.
但这又像是对自己进行颈动脉自射，并说：“哈哈哈，我会比你流血得慢。”他们在中央银行拥有3.8万亿美元，总共为7.5万亿美元。
Let's say they sell that 3.8 trillion in a year. Let's say they sell it at a trillion nine a year rate. And the reason they'll be selling is to defend their currency. Correct.
假设他们在一年内出售了这3.8万亿。假设他们以每年九万亿的速度出售。他们出售的原因是为了保卫他们的货币。正确的。
So now you've got what did I say? 7.4 minus 3.3 in receipts. So 4.1 net plus 5 trillion in roll plus 1.9. So you're now going to have 6, just 4.1 plus 1.9 is 6 trillion in net effective issuance.
现在你明白我说了什么吗？7.4减去3.3是收益。所以4.1净增加了5万亿的卷款再加上1.9。所以你现在将拥有6万亿的净有效发行量，即仅4.1加上1.9。
And you're going to have the Fed selling other 1.2 allegedly. That's probably not going to be happening. Okay. So now you have to 7.3 trillion net effective issuance. That's just over 600 billion a month in net effective issuance.
而且你们将会有联邦储备银行出售另外1.2万亿美元。这可能不会发生。好吧。所以现在你们将面临7.3万亿美元的净有效发行量。每月净有效发行量将超过6000亿美元。
And now you're also going to have 5 trillion in roll. Where's the balance sheet? What's the rating getting nine rate rates? It's going to be five and a half. Like there's no balance sheet.
现在你还要有5万亿的债务。资产负债表在哪里？评级有多少级？将会是五到五点五个级别。好像根本没有资产负债表。
So is this good for the US? Yeah, again, as long as Powell is willing to stand aside and let the free market work. But that implied that's why I say there's there's no breaks.
这对美国有好处吗？是的，只要鲍威尔愿意放手，让自由市场发挥作用。但这也意味着没有限制，这就是我所说的没有制约。
You're going to get a nonlinear rise in rates because there isn't a balance sheet at these rates. There just isn't. So now the higher you get a nonlinear rise in rates. Guess what? Oops. It's not 7.1. It's it's it's eight one. Ooh, it's nine. So.
你会看到利率的非线性上升，因为在这些利率下并没有一个平衡表。实际上根本就没有。因此，现在利率上升得越高，非线性上升就越剧烈。猜猜看？哎呀。不是7.1了，它是、它是、它是8.1。噢，是9了。这样子。
There's only one outcome. The Fed's going to have to buy it. What about banks buying it and using the repo facility? The thing that was set up for in 2019, which is the limit, I think is 500 billion, but the limit is essentially unlimited.
只有一个结果。美联储将不得不购买它。关于银行购买并使用回购机制呢？我记得在2019年设立的限额可能是5000亿美元，但实质上是没有限制的。
Sure. That's just QE. Okay. But it's the bank's owning it rather than the Fed owning it. Yeah, just like SLR exemptions were the banks rather than the Fed owning it.
当然，这只是量化宽松政策（QE）。好的，但是这是银行拥有它，而不是联邦储备系统拥有它。是的，就像银行持有SLR豁免权一样，而不是联邦储备系统拥有它们。
Like if the banks the Fed give the banks the money to buy it. You know, if your dad gives you the money to buy a Lamborghini is it your Lamborghini your dad's your dad's Lamborghini. Okay, but that's not the that facility already exists.
如果银行给了联邦储备系统（美联储）的钱来购买它，就像如果你爸爸给了你钱来买兰博基尼一样。你知道的，如果你爸爸给你买兰博基尼的钱，它是你的兰博基尼，还是你爸爸的兰博基尼？好吧，但这个设施已经存在了，这不是一个新的问题。
So it's not saying there to be clear. I'm not saying there aren't buyers. Yeah. I'm saying the buyer is the it's the classic the dollar or the or the treasury market and the Fed is going to have to come in and in some way, shape or form.
所以，并非说没有买家。是的，我的意思是买家主要指的是经典的美元或国库市场，而美联储将不得不以某种方式介入。
And, you know, we've been very clear about this in our writing. Like when I say the Fed, it's dollar liquidity, it can be treasury with buybacks. It can be SLR exemptions reinstated at the banking level.
而且，你知道，我们在我们的写作中已经非常清楚地表达了这一点。比如当我说到美联储，它指的是美元流动性，可能是与回购有关的国债，也可能是在银行层面恢复的SLR豁免。
It can be the, the standing repo facility can be all these things. All those things are just QE and you'll have pure say no, no, it's not QE and the market's going to be like, you know, like, like, timey Lee Jones and the fugitive right. Yeah, I don't care. They're going to buy gold. They're going to, and I think that's why gold is not going down. I'm like, the math is so clear. Like, the feds going to have to buy it in some way, shape or form, because when you lay out the numbers. There isn't the balance sheet. Like, like, when I lay out that whatever it was, six trillion conservative plus five trillion roll by way of comparison global GDP is what is it 90 trillion.
这可以是，这个定期回购机制可以是所有这些东西。所有那些东西只是量化宽松（QE），你将完全不同的说法，不，不，这不是QE，市场会像汤米·李·琼斯和逃犯一样的反应。是的，我不在乎。他们将购买黄金。我认为这就是为什么黄金不会下跌的原因。数学是如此清楚。联邦储备系统将不得不以某种方式购买黄金，因为当你列出数字时，资产负债表并不存在。像我列出的那样，保守估计为6万亿美元，再加上通过全球GDP的比较滚动的5万亿美元，全球GDP是多少？大约90万亿美元。
Growing three. Okay, that's 2.7 trillion in global GDP growth. The US will need incremental and that's, that's assuming growth. We were talking about a global recession. So it's actually shrinking. But let's be conservative, three trillion in global growth. And the US government needs to X that just in their current financing net effective, let alone the role. Like, there's not enough balance sheet. Like, people aren't taking a step back and going, Oh, my God, like, and they say, well, it'll get bought. Well, yeah, I don't get bought. I'm not saying it's not going to get bought. It'll get bought by the Fed, or it'll get bought by the private sector at much higher rates. And then we just keep playing this game until the rate gets a point where the Fed says enough. We're buying it and it's not going to go higher.
全球的GDP增长将达到2.7万亿美元。美国需要逐步增长，即便是在假设增长的情况下也是如此。我们正在谈论全球经济衰退，所以实际上是在萎缩。但是让我们保守些，全球增长三万亿美元。美国政府需要在当前净有效融资中解决这个问题，更不用说其他角色了。就像没有足够的资产负债表。人们没有退后一步思考，哦，天哪，他们说会有人买单，是啊，我完全不否认会有人买单。但是美联储或私人部门会以更高的利率买入，然后我们就继续玩这个游戏，直到利率达到一定点位，美联储说停止吧，我们买下来后利率就不会再上涨了。
But so, but the repo facilities, so that already exists. Do you think that is sufficient? In other words, the Fed can keep rates at 5.5% and keep reducing its balance sheet. They're just making loans to the private sector to buy this collateral as it occurred in 2019, because there is a difference. I mean, yeah, if your dad lends money to buy a car. Yeah, it's, it's not your car, but you do own the car. It's your dad. I mean, presumably, you know, it's a nice arrangement here. But, but like, if a bank lends you money to buy a house, the bank doesn't own the house and the Fed lends. Oh, sure they do. Oh, absolutely. They do. Absolutely. They do. It's. Don't pay them. See how quickly they see how receive it. Yeah, but JPMorgan can pay the Fed back. If if if if a 10 years yielding 7% and, you know, five repover rates at 5.5% where each short term interest rates are, JPMorgan, they're good for the money, you know, as are most banks. Like, that's a that's a positive. Do we just need positive carry in the yield curve and then banks can basically do a leverage trade with treasury is borrowing from the Fed. That's why I say about getting the dollar down. Yeah. That's unless you get the dollar down or oil down the treasury mark is going to keep dysfunction. That would get the dollar down. If they do it in enough liquidity. Then, yeah, then that will work. You've got to get the dollar down. Like that's what you're that's what you're saying is they're going to devalue the dollar.
但是这样，但是存储库设施已经存在。你认为这足够吗？换句话说，美联储可以将利率保持在5.5％并继续减少资产负债表。他们只是向私营部门提供贷款以购买这些抵押品，就像2019年发生的那样，因为有所不同。我的意思是，是的，如果你的父亲借钱给你买车。是的，这不是你的车，但你确实拥有这辆车。这是你的父亲的。我的意思是，你可以认为这是一个不错的安排。但是，如果一家银行借给你购房款，那么银行并不拥有房子，而美联储则出借了。哦，当然了，他们是的。绝对是的。他们是的。只要不偿付贷款，看他们能多快地要回来。是的，但摩根大通可以偿还美联储借款。如果十年期收益率为7％，而拆借利率为5.5％，短期利率为每个利率水平，那么摩根大通是稳定的，请相信我，大多数银行也是如此。这是一个积极的方面。我们只需要收益曲线的正向差价，然后银行基本上可以通过从美联储借款与国债进行杠杆交易。这就是我关于企业降低美元的意思。是的。除非他们提供足够的流动性降低美元或原油价格，否则国债市场将继续发生故障。这将降低美元。如果他们提供足够的流动性，那么是的，那将奏效。你必须降低美元。这就是你说的他们将贬值美元的意思。
Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Sure. That'll work. But you're not going to get on. That's the other side of this equation 559.
好的。行。嗯。当然。那个可以。但你不会坐上去。那是方程559的另一面。
Well, yeah, it'll work at the dollars at 70. Not at 105.
嗯，对的，在70美元时会奏效，但不会在105美元时。
Mm hmm. Where do you see happening to the dollar now? I mean, it's been strengthening for a little bit now. It's the corollary to the, you know, unless they get the dollar down or they get oil and they get oil down, not even or really.
嗯嗯。你认为美元目前会发生什么？我的意思是，美元一直在加强一段时间了。这是一个相关因素，你知道的，除非他们把美元贬值或他们降低石油价格，甚至更不止这些。
And the dollar's going to keep going up because they're they have, they have broken this already. They are in this feedback loop. They don't understand they're in this feedback loop. Maybe they do. I think they do a little bit. I think they're a little nervous.
美元将继续升值，因为他们已经打破这个局面了。他们陷入了这样的循环中，但他们并没有意识到这一点，或许他们有点意识到。我认为他们有点紧张。
Yeah, I kind of sensed a little bit of nervousness from p al in this temper meeting that I don't normally sense from him. You know, be careful. You've seen the movie margin call. I have yes. Yeah. Yeah. So there's seen when the boss played by Stanley Tucci gives the key, the, what's it called the flash drive to the, you know, the kid and he says, be careful. I was working on something, but they wouldn't let me finish it. So take a look at it. Be careful.
是的，我有点感觉到P在这次紧张的会议中表现出了一些平时没有的紧张感。你知道，要小心点。你看过《风险边缘》这部电影吧。我看过，是的，是的。所以里面有一幕，老板史丹利·图齐饰演的角色把一个叫什么闪存的东西交给了那个年轻人，然后他说，“小心点。我在做一个项目，但是他们不让我完成。你看一下。小心点。”
I kind of felt like that when Powell said, be careful seven times. Not that I'm repositioning some great financial crisis. But yeah, you think they are nervous. If they, if they understand what they're in, I'd be, I'd be crap my pants.
当鲍威尔说了七次“小心”，我有点感觉就像是这样。并不是说我在预测一场重大的金融危机，但是是的，我认为他们感到紧张。如果他们真的明白他们所处的情况，我会吓得不行。
They are very dangerously close to discrediting themselves with rate hikes, which is, which would be just delicious irony. It would be delicious irony.
他们非常危险地接近于通过加息方式破坏自己的信誉，这将是一种非常讽刺的情况，而这种讽刺将是非常可口的。
Yeah, I do. Because again, it's, it's ultimately a fiscal problem. They didn't, the playbook on these things is so clear. They're so clear. They wrote a white paper about it. Seven years ago. There is a very concrete set of steps you have to follow. And they have gone about since 2022. A monetary policy that is based on a set of circumstances that is simply not correct.
是的，我同意。因为它最终是一个财政问题。他们没有，对于这些事情的操作方法非常清楚。他们写了一份白皮书，七年前就有了。有一套非常具体的步骤你必须遵循。而他们从2022年开始采取的货币政策基于一组情况，这组情况其实是不正确的。
I wrote a tweet the other day of, you know, from parks and recreation of whatever his name is throw the computer in the garage. And I said, this is me, you know, the Fed has never raised rates, let alone this fast with debt to GDP at 120% trailing 12 month deficit at 8% rising with the US net international investment position negative 65% of GDP. And with the US being the biggest marginal high cost oil producer in the world responsible for 90% of global production growth. Like, that set of circumstances. Like, you simply couldn't do what they did. It, it, it was, it was like, I can't, how wrong it was. It was 100% the wrong thing now where they forced into a by politics domestically with inflation probably where they forced into a bit, geopolitically with what Russia did probably a little bit. But again, I don't care, it doesn't matter. They did, they did the wrong thing at the wrong time.
我前几天发了一条推特，你知道的，是《公园与游憩》里那个人把电脑扔进车库的场景。我说，这就是我，你知道的，美联储从未如此快速地提高利率，更不用说在债务占GDP的120%、过去12个月的赤字占8%、美国净国际投资头寸占GDP的负65%的情况下。而且，作为全球成本最高的边际高成本石油生产国，美国负责全球90%的产量增长。就是那样的情况。就是说，你根本做不到他们所做的。它，它，它是，它是，我不能，多么错误。他们完全错误地做了100%的错误事情，现在他们因为国内的政治压力和可能的通胀而被迫这样做，可能也因为俄罗斯所做的一些事情，但再说一次，我不在乎，这并不重要。无论如何，他们在错误的时间做出了错误的选择。
And so now we're starting to see, you know, the implications of that shales rolling over the SPR is drawn down tax receipts are down deficits are up debt to GDP hasn't falling.
所以现在我们开始看到，你知道的，这种页岩滚动收入税收减少了，赤字增加了，债务占GDP的比例却没有下降的影响。
I would be, you know, if they haven't figured out yet that like they're in serious, I think they're starting to.
如果他们还没有意识到他们现在处于严重的境地，我会觉得很奇怪，但我想他们正在开始意识到这一点。
And I, we haven't discussed at all the, the chance of the US government spending less money that's, that's not on the table right.
而且，我们根本没有讨论过美国政府减少开支的机会，这个机会是不存在的，对吧？
表达意思：我们从未讨论过美国政府减少开支的可能性，这个可能性不被考虑。
Oh, this is a little bit like the only thing it says I'm a some sort of productivity miracle right so they roll out some sort of nuclear, you know, fission like portable reactors and I hear these things do exist in some form right so if they came out and said, Hey, you know, instead of being in Zalinski and other whatever we're going to spend, you know, $100 billion and we'll put these things in over the next year and, you know, people are going to get really cheap electricity and and Starlink and, and, and, and, okay, maybe you could start, you know, you're going to get a productivity failing that and there's other productivity or energy mirror productivity boot and miracles or energy miracle should have a failing that here too.
哦，这有点像唯一可以说的事情是，它说我是某种生产力奇迹，所以他们推出了一些类似核裂变的便携反应堆，我听说这些东西确实以某种形式存在，所以如果他们宣布说，嘿，我们不再依赖于Zalinski和其他任何东西了，我们要花费1000亿美元，在接下来的一年里把这些东西放进去，人们将获得非常便宜的电力，以及Starlink和，和，和，好吧，也许你可以开始，你将获得一个生产力的失败，还有其他生产力或能源奇迹也可能会有这样的失败。
Like I don't think people understand, you know, when you have a severe disease. You don't get to wait too too long and then say like, Oh, okay now I'm ready to be healed now I'm ready to get serious no once you get to a certain point like they put you in palliative care they make you comfortable and they let you die.
我觉得人们可能不理解，你知道的，当你患有严重疾病时。你没有太长时间可以等待，然后说，哦，好吧，现在我准备好愈合了，现在我准备好认真对待了。一旦你达到某个程度，他们会将你转入姑息治疗，让你感到舒适，然后任你离世。
And the metaphor for that for the fiscal side is us deficit the GDP is eight and a half percent almost on a trailing 12 month basis. So let's just take it let's not take it to flat like we were in Clinton, which was a fluke itself but let's let's take it to where we were at Volcker to two.
这在财政方面的隐喻是我们的赤字占国内生产总值的8.5％，几乎是考虑过去12个月的情况。所以，让我们不要像克林顿时期那样使它保持平稳，那本身是个偶然情况，而是让我们将它控制在沃尔克时期的2％左右。
That means we need to cut six and a half points of GDP now. That means GDP is going to fall six and a half percent. Now, annual GDP in the great financial crisis, 12, three to four, and nearly collapsed the banking system.
这意味着我们现在需要削减国内生产总值的六个半点。这意味着国内生产总值将下降六个半成。在大流行金融危机中，年度国内生产总值在12年时几乎崩溃了银行系统。
So we need to get the GDP in coven we shut the frigging economy down. I felt like sex.
所以我们需要在我们关闭这该死的经济之前，获得国内生产总值。我感觉就像是性爱一样。
You can't do it. The mathematically, the mismatch between when you pick up productivity for getting the government out of the way in three to five years versus the GDP hit now relative to the leverage in the system. And that's how unless they are willing to stand aside and let the banking system collapse at the US government shutdown lay off the Marine Corps.
你做不到。从数学角度来看，你在三到五年内提高生产力，以使政府不再干涉，与目前相对于系统杠杆的GDP损失之间存在不匹配。除非他们愿意站在一边，让银行系统崩溃并关闭美国政府使海军陆战队失业。
No, it is not a possibility and that sets aside all the politics. I mean, I'm just saying it's mathematically impossible. I'm not even talking about whether politically impossible, which by the way it is. Yeah.
不，这不是可能的，这排除了所有的政治因素。我的意思是，我只是在说从数学上来说是不可能的。我甚至没有提到是否在政治上不可能，顺便说一句，它确实是不可能的。
So what do you think about the stock market? What do stocks do here in this it's narrow that you you envision I guess before the pivot and then after the pivot. There's two ways to think about it.
那么，你对股市有什么看法？你在这个狭义的股市中所设想的股票扮演的角色是什么？我猜想在决策转变之前和之后会有两种不同的看法。
The US is in an Argentina situation. That's what I'm describing. It is in an Argentina. Absolutely. As soon as the Fed try to tighten rates before they let that the GDP go down, they were they they had put them up there in fiscal dominance. That's that's what this is all about. The fact that the Fed hiked rates. And we're now have interest in and entitlements above receipts, you know, interest. That's fiscal down. Like the fiscal's driving the boat. The fiscal's driving the boat fiscal dominance. Sure.
美国正处于阿根廷的境地。这就是我所描述的情况。它正处在一个阿根廷的境地。绝对如此。在美联储试图在GDP下降之前紧缩利率时，他们处在财政主导的境地。这就是所有问题所在。美联储加息的事实。我们现在的利率和权益超过了收入，你知道，利息。这是财政走下坡路。就像财政在主导船只。财政主导。当然。
But Argentina, you know, they had a lot of debt denominated in a currency they couldn't print. And no one really wants Argentine pen at pesos that you could, but you can print. You can print. You can print the Fed can print the US dollar. The United States owes its baby boomers $70 trillion in health care goods and services and social security. Social security is inflation adjusting as we're seeing. Number two, they don't the boomers aren't owed. Whatever it is 3540 trillion in Medicare. And dollars, they wrote hips, they wrote knees, they wrote drugs, they wrote. That's a foreign currency. Absolutely. And that's a part people also leave lights. So the more we can't print out of that. That's, that's a fact. So we do. And that's something people still again on this bond trade. I hear that a lot. Well, we can print our currency. You can't print hips and knees. You can't print drugs. You can't print doctors. No, you can't. That's a foreign currency. We owe, we owe baby boomers $3540 trillion in foreign currency. Sure. And that's since everyone's in Argentina, but, but financially, I'm just saying that, you know, the US does not owe pesos than our, Argentina, oh, oh, dollar. So, okay.
阿根廷，你知道的，他们有很多用他们无法印刷的货币计价的债务。而且没有人真的想要阿根廷货币比索，但你可以印刷。你可以印刷。你可以印刷，美联储可以印刷美元。美国欠其婴儿潮一代人70万亿美元的医疗产品、服务和社会保障。社会保障正在通货膨胀调整，正如我们所看到的。第二，他们不欠婴儿潮一代人任何全额为3540万亿美元的医药保险。美元，他们为人们提供了髋关节、膝盖、药物。这是外币。完全是外币，这也是人们经常忽略的一部分。所以我们越是不能靠这个印刷出来。那是，那是事实。所以我们确实要。这是人们在这个债券交易上经常听到的。我听到很多人这么说，嗯，我们可以印刷我们的货币。你不能印刷髋关节和膝盖。你不能印刷药物。你不能印刷医生。不，你不能。那是外币。我们欠婴儿潮一代人3540万亿美元的外币。没错。既然每个人都在谈论阿根廷，但是，在财政上，我只是说，你知道，美国不欠阿根廷比索，而是美元。好的。
So what does the stock market do? So what's the stock market do for the period of time until as long as we stay in this dollar up rates up dynamic, the stock market probably, I mean, it's not good for the NASDAQ. It's not good for the banks. I think it will increasingly be good for you see a vicious sector rotation that we've been seeing towards industrials and commodities, etc. Ultimately, it's super good for the stock market, right? Argentine stock market and pesos went to the moon and the dock and because again, the balance sheet's not there. But you're not Argentina, you know, inflation was like 60%. You're not forecasting that for the US. No, not yet. Not yet. But, you know, again, you get, it'll probably be like everywhere else. The U.S. it'll be, as I said, Argentina with US characteristics, Italy, they have to get the only thing keeping the US out of a fiscal crisis was the inflation, the Fed has been fighting. That's why that was the mistake. That's when that's when they broke something and now we're just seeing it mark the market.
那么股市到底是做什么的呢？那么，在我们保持美元走高和利率上升的情况下，股市会发挥什么作用呢？我觉得这对纳斯达克指数和银行来说并不利。我们可能会越来越多地看到资金从科技和金融行业向工业和商品等领域进行猛烈的轮动。最终，这对股市来说非常有利，对吧？阿根廷股市和比索价值因为资产负债表的原因暴涨了。但你不是阿根廷，你知道吧，阿根廷通货膨胀率高达60%。你并不预测美国会出现这种情况，对吗？不，还没有。但是，你知道，美国可能会变得跟其他地方一样。我之前说过，美国会是具有美国特色的阿根廷或者意大利。让美国免于财政危机的唯一原因就是美联储一直在与通货膨胀作斗争。这就是他们犯的错误。现在我们只是在看到这个错误对股市的影响。
So, so this will be the environment you envision will be good for stocks. Ultimately, yes, in the short run. Got it.
那么，你所设想的环境对股市会有利。从短期来看，是的，明白了。
Okay, so we know your view your bearish on short term, excuse me, your bearish on long term rates that you has aged very well.
好的，所以我们知道你对短期看跌，对长期利率看跌的观点非常准确，这一观点一直表现得非常出色。
What about short term rates if you think the Federal Reserve is going to cut rates, the two year probably looks pretty attractive. What do you think?
如果您认为美联储将降息，那么短期利率如何？两年期可能会显得相当吸引。您认为呢？
Probably, but to me, you know, I mean, we've been recommending this whole time, you know, short term, treasuries, like I've been, you know, recommended this barbell approach since the last, I don't know. I mean, clients, probably no better me probably last, probably much of the last year, where, you know, we're, we're probably more than last year.
可能吧，但对我来说，你知道的，我的意思是，我们一直推荐短期国债，就像我一直以来所推荐的杠铃策略一样，我想说自从去年以来，也就是我不清楚的时候。我的意思是，客户们可能比我更清楚，可能在去年大部分时间内，我们可能比去年更多地推荐短期国债。
At any rate, overweight cash overweight short term treasuries or significantly overweight gold significantly overweight Bitcoin significantly over or excuse me significantly overweight US electrical infrastructure overweight industrials overweight oil. And so, yeah, look at the Fed cuts rates will short term treasuries do well. Yeah, probably. Will they do as well as gold Bitcoin and oil? No.
无论如何，超过现金，超过短期国库券或大幅超过黄金，大幅超过比特币，大幅超过或者抱歉但是超过美国电力基础设施，超过工业公司，超过石油。所以，是的，看看美联储降息，短期国库券会表现得不错。是的，可能。它们能像黄金、比特币和石油一样好吗？不。
No, especially with oil. You know, if they have to cut rates as I think they're going to have to with oil at 90 plus. Or, or, or, or, and maybe they don't cut rates. Maybe they just do, you know, the latest iteration of not QE QE, whether it's treasury by the X or BTFP or not QE or whatever. You know, the market functioning purchases of treasuries that aren't QE, please don't, you know, let please let us keep our credibility.
不，特别是与石油相关的情况。你知道，如果他们不得不降息，我认为他们将要在石油价格超过90美元时这样做。或者，或者，或者，或者，也许他们不会降息。也许他们只是会采取最新的非量化宽松政策，无论是购买国债的方式还是其他的方式。请不要让市场购买国债时出现的问题成为量化宽松政策的征兆，请不要破坏我们的公信力。
Not QE. Yeah, it's going to be great for oil and, and, and gold Bitcoin. I don't think it's going to be great for. I think it'll be fine for short term treasuries of the cut rates. I just don't think it's the optimal way to express it.
这并不是量化宽松政策。是的，它对石油、黄金和比特币等资产将会有积极影响。但我认为对长期债券来说并不太适合，可能对短期国库券有一定好处。只是我认为这不是最佳的表达方式。
Why does gold do well in this environment and Bitcoin? Oh, because they are simply duration longer duration assets with a more fixed supply and a face value that can rise. They, they do well when a nation has a fiscal problem. And when the reserve currency issue of the world and her allies all have fiscal problems and hers is it. You know, but hers is at least as bad and probably worse than the others. Even Europe, then that's really good for gold Bitcoin.
为什么黄金和比特币在这种环境中表现良好呢？噢，因为它们是持久性更长的资产，供应固定且面值可上涨。它们在一个国家面临财政问题时表现良好。而当世界储备货币和其盟友都面临财政问题时，情况就更好了。你知道，她的问题至少和其他国家一样糟糕，甚至可能更糟。甚至欧洲都这样，这对黄金和比特币来说是非常有利的。
What about, do you think the Russia selling gold to fund its war? They're not selling gold. They sold some gold earlier this year. They bought it all back. The latest update last week was their holdings were back to 2023 highs.
你认为俄罗斯卖黄金来资助战争怎么样？他们并没有卖黄金。他们今年早些时候确实卖掉了一些黄金，但又买回了全部。上周最新消息显示，他们的黄金持有量已恢复到2023年的最高水平。
Okay, interesting. How come gold isn't that more? Oh, that's a whole different. It's a complicated story. Gold is a very politically managed metal. But Bitcoin is not. No, Bitcoin is much less managed. And I think Bitcoin responded to last year's liquidity draw. Very, very aggressively.
好的，有趣。为什么黄金价格没有更高呢？哦，那是一段完全不同的故事。这是一个复杂的情况。黄金是一种受政治管理的金属。但是比特币不是。不，比特币的管理要少得多。而且我认为比特币对去年的流动性不足问题作出了非常非常积极的回应。
So, but the monetary future that you envision is this gold and Bitcoin play a role as a medium of exchange. In other words, you know, going back to the gold standard or going forward to a gold standard or going forward to a Bitcoin standard. Or is it more like it's a call option of the dollar fiat currencies are really performing like trash. So let's just get something where the denominator is fiat currency.
所以，你所设想的货币未来是金和比特币在交换媒介方面发挥作用。换句话说，是否意味着回归金本位，或者向前迈进到金本位，或者向前迈进到比特币本位。或者更像是将其视为一种方便以法定货币作为分母的看涨期权，因为法定货币的表现糟糕透顶。所以，让我们找点什么，使分母变成法定货币。
In other words, but what if what I'm saying my question is, what is the. How do you exercise that call option? Like are people going to be going to the store to buy coffee with gold or Bitcoin? The answer to last question is no, the answer to the first question is earlier you said the bank, the Fed will lend the money to the banks to buy the treasuries or it'll get bought somehow that way. Yeah.
换句话说，但是我的问题是，如果我所说的是什么意思，那是什么呢？你如何行使这个认购期权呢？比如，人们会用黄金或比特币去商店买咖啡吗？对于最后一个问题的答案是否定的，对于第一个问题的答案是，如你之前所说，银行和联邦储备系统会借钱给银行来购买国债，或以某种方式购买。是的。
That is not the primary reserve asset of the world anymore. Would you sell finite oil production and stored in treasuries that are being bought by the banks who are getting the money from the Fed who is creating that money out of thin air. No, you can't.
那已不再是世界主要的储备资产了。你能把有限的石油生产出售，并储存在由从联邦储备系统获取资金的银行所购买的国债中吗？不，你不能这样做。
Yeah, you, you away from any political and economic mathematically you can't run a system that way the system will collapse. And so what is needed to address the supply demand issue in treasuries will force a systemic change. And the real is forcing a systemic change by which gold has become the primary marginal reserve asset and has been for 10 years already.
是的，你，你远离任何政治和经济数学，你不能以这种方式运行一个系统，否则系统将崩溃。为了解决国债供求问题，需要进行系统性改变。而实际上，黄金已经成为主要的边际储备资产，并且已经持续了10年。
Since that since 2014 global central banks have not added treasuries I think they've sold $600 billion with the treasuries on net at the central bank level since 3 Q 14 and they bought about $300 to $400 billion worth of gold.
自2014年以来，全球各央行已经停止增加国债，我认为他们在央行层面净卖出了大约6000亿美元的国债，并购买了价值约3000到4000亿美元的黄金。
So this isn't speculative that gold will be moving back into the system as a reserve asset gold has been is and has been and will continue to driven and enforced by peak cheap oil. You can't sell more and more expensive oil or oil that's more expensive. Take your dollars or whatever currency you sell it in and store them in sovereign debt, whose value declines against oil. And so you have to have a reserve asset that can rise in price or either rise in face value rise in price, or have the rates rise enough to compensate you for the inflation in energy.
所以这并不是一种推测，即黄金会作为储备资产重新进入金融体系。黄金一直以来以及将继续受到由廉价石油引发的推动和强制作用。你无法卖出更加昂贵的石油或价格更高的石油。将你所卖的石油换成美元或其他货币，并将其储存在主权债务中，其价值相对于石油会下降。因此，你必须拥有一种储备资产，可以升值或者面值升值，或者利率上升足以弥补能源通胀。
And the reality is, is sovereign debt can't rise over $1,000 face value. And the reality mathematically is that the US Treasury cannot afford interest rates over I don't know what it is. I would argue with already there, but maybe it's six maybe it's seven I don't know it's not too much far but further beyond that. I would argue with with with tax receipts already down 20 would tell you they can't afford five. Yeah, you're you're you're already transitioning to this system. I think it will continue.
事实是，主权债务不能超过1000美元的票面价值。数学上讲，美国财政部无法承受超过某个我不知道的利率。我认为可能是6，也可能是7，我不确定，但不会太高超过这个范围。我认为，考虑到税收已经下降了20%，他们无法负担5%。是的，你已经在转向这个体系了。我认为这种情况将会持续下去。
And you know, how do you get out of that trade. I plan on selling my goal to JP Morgan. And they'll credit my bank account and I suspect it'll probably be a lot higher price because it's going back into the system. And how do you do you think that the reserve currency will still be the dollar or will it be another fiat currency. I think it'll still be the dollar but it's it'll be, you know, a much more. It'll be the fixed what what Russia and China are doing or just moving the system to what it should have been after World War II. And they said that the PBOC said that 15 years ago. They said the system in the end of World War II there were two choices that Keynes is bank core system, where there was a neutral reserve asset made up of commodities. And then there was the dollar and we went with the dollar and the fact that the dollar we've got all these crises etc shows that we should have gone with the other one. And we're going to move back to this other system. Like they told you that 15 years ago and their actions have shown that they're moving back towards that. So I think we're moving back to dollars global reserve currency.
你知道，怎么退出这笔交易。我打算将我的黄金卖给摩根大通银行。他们会把钱存入我的银行账户，我猜可能会得到更高的价格，因为黄金会重新回到系统中。你认为储备货币仍然会是美元还是其他法定货币呢？我觉得还是美元，但它会更加……它将是俄罗斯和中国正在做的事情，或者将系统转移到它在二战后本应该成为的状态。中国人民银行在15年前就说过这一点。他们说在二战结束时有两种选择：凯恩斯的银行核心系统，其中有一个由大宗商品组成的中立储备资产；还有美元，我们选择了美元，但美元危机等事实表明，我们应该选另一种。我们将回归到这种其他系统。他们15年前告诉你了这一点，并且他们的行动已经显示出他们正在朝这个方向推进。所以我认为我们正回归美元作为全球储备货币。
But reserve primary reserve assets going to be gold and a floating price in all currencies. That's very interesting Luke. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Before you go, tell us about forest for the trees. What are your different offerings and do you just you just have one offering or the difference where tears and where could people find your work. There's different tiers we've got a mass market business we have a institutional business and you can find out more about us FFTT dash LLC.com and can also find me on Twitter at Luke Groman l UK GRO Emian. Yep. People know you on Twitter and we got your handle on there Luke. Thank you so much for joining and thank you for watching.
储备主要储备资产将是黄金和各种货币的浮动价格。这非常有趣，卢克。感谢您分享您的观点。在您离开之前，告诉我们一下关于“看到树木而忽略了森林”（forest for the trees）的情况。您有不同的服务提供吗？您只提供一种服务吗？人们在哪里可以找到您的作品？我们有不同的服务层次，我们有普通市场业务和机构业务，您可以通过 FFTT-dash-LLC.com 了解更多信息，也可以在Twitter上找到我，我的用户名是Luke Groman，拼写为L-U-K-E-G-R-O-E-M-I-A-N。是的，人们在Twitter上认识您，我们在那里可以找到您的用户名，卢克。非常感谢您的加入，也感谢您的观看。