Joseph Wang Monetary Matters Jan 31, 2025

The market is really misunderstanding Trump. This trajectory is very clear. There's going to be higher tariffs. The goal is to try to reshape the global trade system so that the US is producing more manufactured goods themselves. You're going to have higher tariffs on a broader range of goods. That's not good for the stock market, right? Financial markets just don't like tariffs because a lot of people who benefit from this globalization are the mega caps. Those companies are going to suffer. Those stocks are going to suffer and those stocks are in the big equity indexes. If we would have huge tariffs tomorrow, the markets would take that with tight and financial conditions and that would, at the end of the day, in my view, lead to rapid rate cuts. That's my base case for this year. Are you bullish on bonds and bearish on stocks right now? Absolutely.

市场真的误解了特朗普的策略。这个趋势非常明显：关税将会上升。其目标是试图重塑全球贸易体系，使美国自己生产更多的制造品。更多种类的商品将面临更高的关税。对股市来说，这可不是什么好消息，金融市场普遍不喜欢关税，因为在全球化中获益最多的是大型公司。这些公司将遭受打击，他们的股票会下跌，而这些股票是大盘指数的重要组成部分。如果明天真的加征大幅关税，市场将面临紧张的金融状况并最终导致快速降息。这是我对今年的基本预判。你现在对债券持乐观态度而对股票持悲观看法吗？当然是的。

This episode of Monetary Matters is brought to you by the Vanneck Uranium and Nuclear ETF. Explore how nuclear energy can play a role in your portfolio at Vanneck.com slash NLR Jack. I'm joined by my friend Joseph Wang, author of Central Banking 101, former senior trader for the New York Federal Reserve and publisher at FedGuide.com. Joseph, it is great to see you. Welcome back to Monetary Matters. Hey, Jack. Great to see you. Thanks so much for inviting me. It's a pleasure to be here. As always, Joseph, the pleasure is mine. How are you thinking about Trump's endgame with tariffs? Particularly, you have a piece out called The Plan about Trump and Trump, the Trump Administration's plan to reshape the global economic order. Lay out this plan for us and share your thoughts on it, please. Wow. I think the market is really misunderstanding Trump because his plan, and I've been following Trump for a long time and I've been reading up on many of his advisor and pointees. One of them is our friend Stephen Moron, who has a great piece, basically detailing how they're thinking about this.

这期《货币问题》由Vanneck铀和核能ETF赞助。了解核能如何在您的投资组合中发挥作用，请访问Vanneck.com/NLR Jack。我和我的朋友Joseph Wang一起主持，他是《中央银行学101》的作者，曾是纽约联邦储备银行的高级交易员，也是FedGuide.com的发布者。Joseph，很高兴见到你。欢迎回到《货币问题》节目。嘿，Jack，很高兴见到你，非常感谢你的邀请。我很荣幸来到这里。一直以来都是我的荣幸。你怎么看待特朗普的关税最后阶段？特别是你有一篇关于特朗普及特朗普政府重塑全球经济秩序计划的文章，叫做《计划》。请为我们介绍一下这个计划，并分享你的想法。哇。我觉得市场真是误解了特朗普，因为他的计划——我已经关注特朗普很长时间了，并且阅读了他许多顾问和被委任者的观点。其中之一是我们的朋友Stephen Moron，他有一篇很棒的文章，基本上详细介绍了他们是如何思考这个问题的。

Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to exactly do, as what they've said, but I think the trajectory is very clear. There's going to be higher tariffs and the goal is to try to reshape the global trade system so that the US is producing more manufactured goods themselves. Now this is just for employment, but also for national security reasons because the US doesn't want to be dependent on a lot of goods abroad. Now a lot of people are looking at this and I think the market is thinking that this is all bluster, this is just negotiation. Trump won't really do that because he loves the stock market and this is not good for the stock market. And that's all true. He does love the stock market and crypto coins apparently. But if you look at President Trump, he's been saying the same thing about trade for decades. You can find videos of him in the 1980s, just telling everyone that this trade thing is not working out, we're not doing a good job.

这并不一定意味着他们会完全按照所说的去做，但我认为趋势非常明显：关税会提高，目标是重塑全球贸易体系，让美国自产更多的制造品。这不仅仅是为了就业，还出于国家安全的考虑，因为美国不希望在许多商品上依赖外国。许多人关注这一点，我想市场觉得这全是虚张声势，只是谈判策略。特朗普不会真的这么做，因为他重视股市，而这对股市不利。这说得没错，他确实重视股市，还有加密货币。但如果你回顾特朗普总统的言行，他几十年来一直在谈论贸易问题。你可以找到他在20世纪80年代的视频，那时他就告诉大家贸易现状不太理想，我们做得不好。

And during his first term as president, we also know that he did put on tariffs on China and that was surprising to many people in the markets. Now it's the same person, he hasn't changed and he is in office again and he's hired a team of people who share his beliefs. Now in addition, if you listen to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, now he'll say that tariffs are indeed one of the reasons is for negotiation. You saw that just that last week when in order to get Colombia to set their repatriation of their own citizens, Trump, and terrorists and that was effective. But Secretary Bessent also noted that tariffs are also one as a source to reshape the global trade order, but also to collect revenue as well. And this is the last two points I think the market is not appreciating.

在他的第一任总统任期内，我们知道他对中国征收了关税，这让市场上的很多人感到意外。现在，他再次上任，他本人没有改变，并任命了一批与他信念相同的人加入团队。此外，如果你听财政部长斯科特·贝森的讲话，他会说关税确实是为了谈判而设置的原因之一。上周你可以看到，为了让哥伦比亚同意遣返其公民，特朗普使用了关税手段，并且取得了效果。但贝森部长还指出，关税不仅是为了重新塑造全球贸易秩序，也是一种收入来源。而我认为市场并没有充分认识到这两点。

And it's also because of those two points that we necessarily have to have wide and higher tariffs rates than before. And so it's not just going to be something that people can promise. And I think this trade problem they're trying to address is completely legitimate as well. If you look at China, for example, most recently they had a trade surplus of about a trillion US dollars. Now that's just mind-boggling, right? They're selling so much more stuff to the rest of the world than they're importing and at the end of the day they're left with a trillion dollars. That's not really how trade should work. Because in theory, if you're making so much money from abroad, you would take some of that money and buy some goods from abroad, right? And so that would have some mitigating impact on your trade surplus. Or if you're making so much money, that would cause your currency to strengthen, make your exports less competitive.

由于这两个原因，我们不得不采取比以往更广泛和更高的关税。因此，这并不是人们随便就能承诺的事情。我认为，他们试图解决的这个贸易问题也是完全合理的。以中国为例，最近他们的贸易顺差达到了大约一万亿美元。这是一个令人震惊的数据，对吧？他们卖给世界其他国家的东西远远多于进口的，结果最终剩下了一万亿美元。这不是贸易应有的运作方式。理论上来说，如果你从国外赚了这么多钱，你应该用其中一部分去购买国外的商品，这样就能在一定程度上减少贸易顺差。或者如果你赚了这么多钱，这会导致你的货币升值，使得你的出口竞争力下降。

And that would also mitigate some of that trade surplus. But none of these mechanisms are balancing that trade channel. And we see the Chinese trade surplus go higher and higher and higher. And that's because they have a state sponsored policy to basically create jobs at home, make goods, and export them abroad. And it's been very effective, right? So a lot of ways you can see this is that they manage their currency to make sure that their goods are competitive. And of course, if you are a, some sectors in China get very cheap loans, depending on what their industrial policy is.

这也可以缓解一些贸易顺差。但是这些机制并没有真正平衡贸易渠道。所以我们看到中国的贸易顺差越来越大。这是因为中国有一个国家支持的政策，以创造国内就业、生产商品并出口到国外。这一政策非常有效。你可以从很多方面看到，他们通过管理货币汇率来保证商品的竞争力。当然，中国的一些行业根据其产业政策可以获得非常优惠的贷款。

Recently, we see that their electric vehicle manufacturing sector has basically surged the produce excellent products. But they're able to develop in large extent because of all the state sponsorship, protectionism, and a cheap currency. And now China is the largest exporter of cars in the world surpassing even Japan. So in a sense, in the West, people are talking about free trade, having a larger degree of free trade than China. But other people are not playing by these rules. And we end up in a situation where all the manufacturing jobs go to abroad and in domestically, we become more vulnerable both from supply chain standpoint.

最近，我们看到他们的电动车制造业基本上飞速发展，生产出优质的产品。但他们能够大规模发展，很大程度上是由于国家的补贴、保护主义和低廉的货币。目前，中国已经成为全球最大的汽车出口国，甚至超越了日本。从某种意义上讲，在西方，人们谈论的是自由贸易，认为应有比中国更高程度的自由贸易。但并不是所有国家都遵循这些规则。结果是，所有的制造业工作都转移到了国外，从供应链的角度来看，国内变得更加脆弱。

And a lot of people just don't have a future anymore. So that's a big problem that President Trump has been trying to address. I think it's something that is legitimate as well. We all see how manufacturing has left our country. We all see the rise in a drop in labor force participation for certain demographics. So I think that's a big solution they're trying to solve. That's one point in trying to rebalance the global trade order. The other has to do with revenues. So historically speaking, in the United States, the federal government was very small and it collected most of its revenue from tariffs.

很多人现在觉得自己没有未来了，这是一个很大的问题，而特朗普总统一直在努力解决这个问题。我觉得这也是一个正当的问题。我们都看到制造业正在离开我们的国家，也看到某些人群的劳动参与率正在下降。所以我认为这是他们试图解决的一个重要问题。这是试图重新平衡全球贸易秩序的一个方面。另一个方面与收入有关。从历史上看，美国联邦政府规模很小，大部分收入是通过关税获得的。

Actually having a federal income tax, which is how the federal government collects most of its revenues today was illegal. It was only after a constitutional amendment that we could actually change the system such that we could actually have federal income tax. So right now what Trump seems to be wanting to do, and he's been saying this over and over again, again, these are things that are consistent. So it's not just things that he would easily forget. He says that tariffs are making us wealthy. And then he's like, you know, we're going to collect a lot of tariffs, make sure that if you don't make an America, you are going to have to pay tariffs.

实际上，联邦所得税——也就是联邦政府目前收取大部分收入的方式——曾经是非法的。只有在通过一项宪法修正案后，我们才能真正改变制度，使我们能够征收联邦所得税。目前，特朗普似乎想要做的是，他一直反复强调的事情，这些都是他一贯的观点，不容易被遗忘。他说，关税让我们变得富有。他还说，我们会征收很多关税，并确保如果你的产品不是在美国制造的，你就得支付关税。

Now this is particularly acute because a lot of the people around him, like Elon, care a lot about the federal deficit. And Trump of course also wants to extend his tax cuts. Now in order to do that, you have to collect more revenue and that can be done through higher tariffs. And so that is very much part of the plan as well. And so if you look, if you're looking at a world that no matter what the negotiating outcome is, you're going to have higher tariffs on a broader range of goods. That's not good for the stock market, right? Because a lot of people who benefit from this globalization are the mega caps and the mega caps live in the big indexes.

如今，这个问题尤为严重，因为他周围的很多人，比如埃隆·马斯克，对联邦赤字非常关注。而特朗普当然也希望延长他的减税政策。要做到这一点，就必须收取更多的收入，这可以通过提高关税来实现。这也正是计划的一部分。因此，无论谈判结果如何，如果你观察当前的形势，就会发现会对更广泛的商品征收更高的关税。这对股市来说可不是什么好消息，因为很多从全球化中受益的人都是大型公司的巨头，而这些巨头正活跃在主要的股市指数中。

One thing I'll add is that annually the US imports about $3 trillion worth of goods. The volume weighted, a tariff rate for that is about 2.2%. So tariffs are very low and they definitely have room to go up. So you think Trump is going to raise tariffs regardless of negotiations. What level, what percentages are they going to go up to, do you think? And are they going to be inflationary? Are they going to reduce growth? Are they going to do both? Are they going to do neither? What do you think? So tariff is kind of a blunt weapon, but from what I've seen, he uses it for a few purposes. One of them is for negotiation, like the Columbia example. Now right now, what's on mind is that Trump has been 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada to take place this Saturday unless he gets his some border security, all stuff.

我想补充的一点是，美国每年进口大约价值3万亿美元的商品。其中的关税加权平均税率大约为2.2%。所以关税很低，确实还有上涨的空间。你认为特朗普无论谈判结果如何都会提高关税。他会提高到什么水平，什么百分比，你怎么看？这些关税会导致通货膨胀吗？会抑制经济增长吗？还是两者都会发生？又或是什么都不会发生？你怎么看？实际上，关税是一种比较生硬的工具，但据我观察，他会出于几个目的来使用它。其中之一是用于谈判，比如哥伦比亚的例子。现在，他正在考虑从本周六开始对墨西哥和加拿大征收25%的关税，除非他在边境安全问题上达成某种协议。

Now that part, that part I think is definitely negotiation. So I was listening to Secretary of Commerce nominee Howard Ludnick yesterday and he breaks it down. So these tariffs that we're talking about with Canada and with Mexico, these are negotiating tariffs to try to get them to have more border enforcement and also to stop the flow of fentanyl. But the economic tariffs, the ones that we're going to have just for, you know, to reshape the trade order, to collect revenue, those things are going to come later. The reason is that these come through a different legal process. It's called Section 301 in order to put those tariffs on.

这部分，我认为肯定是在谈判。我昨天听了商务部长提名人霍华德·鲁德尼克的讲话，他对此进行了分析。我们现在讨论的对加拿大和墨西哥的关税是谈判工具，目的是促使他们加强边境执法，同时阻止芬太尼的流入。不过，经济关税，即那些用于重塑贸易秩序和增加财政收入的关税，会在稍后实施。这样做的原因是，这些关税需要通过一个不同的法律程序来实施，称为301条款。

You have to have some paperwork, some studies. And so those are probably going to come in April. Whereas these Senate tariffs, these are under the International Economic Emergency Powers. So all that, all the sass has happened is for the president to declare an emergency that then, you know, it's kind of, it's a different set of legal powers. So right now, we, well, now what we expect, well, what he's talking about are these negotiating based tariffs, the economic tariffs are going to come later on in the term. So whether or not this is going to be inflationary, well, first, I think we can talk about this in a couple of ways in practice and in theory.

您需要准备一些文件和研究。因此，这些可能会在四月份出现。至于参议院的关税问题，这是基于国际经济紧急权力法的。因此，所有这些步骤都已完成，只要总统宣布紧急状态，那么您知道的，就会采用一种不同的法律权力。所以现在，我们期望，或者说他所谈论的是这些基于谈判的关税，经济类关税将在任期后期推出。至于这是否会导致通货膨胀，我们可以从实际和理论的角度来讨论。

Now, in practice, we've already had a wave of tariffs. We saw that in 2018, 2019. And if you look at PCE inflation back then, inflation was below target. Now a lot of people have been studying this episode now and they come to the conclusion that it actually wasn't inflationary. So a team of researchers and one of the people there was Jita Gopadov of the IMF. And so you know, this is a legit paper. They went online, they looked through prices of over a hundred thousand products and they found that, you know, this tariff episode was not inflationary for the consumer. But prices did go up though because of the tariff. So what happened, well, what happened was that the companies ate that cost. So they had lower margins and did not pass it on to consumers.

实际上，我们已经经历了一波关税。我们在2018年和2019年看到过这种情况。如果查看当时的个人消费支出（PCE）通胀，可以发现通胀低于目标水平。现在，很多人研究了这一时期，并得出的结论是，这实际上并没有导致通货膨胀。国际货币基金组织（IMF）的吉塔·戈帕多夫参与了一项研究，这是一篇非常严谨的论文。研究人员在线分析了十多万种产品的价格，发现这一关税事件实际上没有引发消费者通胀。但价格确实因为关税上涨了。那么，究竟发生了什么呢？发生的情况是，企业承受了成本，没有将其转嫁给消费者，因此利润率下降了。

So right now that episode that we had with Trump, the first term was that there were tariffs and they were not inflationary at full stop. Now in theory though, there's a lot of layers that shares have to go to where they can be inflationary and don't necessarily have to be. One first layer of course is the currency layer. So let's say we put tariffs on China. Oh, what's been happening is that the dollar has been strengthening it a lot, right? So if we have higher input prices, the stronger currency mitigates part of that. So that's one layer. The other layer is as we've been talking about, is that instead of the businesses passing on those higher prices, those tariffs to consumers, they can eat the cost.

现在我们谈论特朗普第一任期时的那段时间吧，当时加了关税，但这些关税并没有直接导致通货膨胀。然而，理论上，这个过程中有许多层次会影响它是否导致通胀，也不一定会导致。第一个层次当然是货币层次。假设我们对中国加征关税，那么发生的情况就是美元大幅升值，对吧？所以如果我们的输入价格上涨，美元升值会部分抵消这一影响。这是一个层次。另一个层次是我们一直在讨论的，就是企业可以选择不把这些由于关税导致的高价转嫁给消费者，而是自己吸收这些成本。

And that's totally reasonable and potent and could be possible today because from what we're hearing right now from earnings calls is that a lot of the consumers, a lot of the companies can't pass on to the consumers because the consumers, their consumers are tapped out. So they say, so that could be a possibility. And a third of course is that, and we hear Secretary Bessin talk about this, is that consumers seeing that input prices, inputted goods are more expensive, simply substituted to domestically produced ones. So all in all, it's totally possible that these tariffs can be inflationary, not necessarily so. So it's a complicated question.

这完全是合理且有力的观点，并且在当下是可能发生的情况。根据我们从企业财报会议了解到的信息，许多消费者和公司无法将成本转嫁给消费者，因为消费者的消费能力已经达到了极限。因此，这种可能性存在。当然，还有另一种情况是，正如Bessin部长提到的，消费者看到投入价格或进口商品价格上涨后，可能会简单地转而购买本国产品。所以总的来说，这些关税可能会导致通货膨胀，但不一定如此。这是个复杂的问题。

Now, one more to the point for people who care about markets is how does that impact the Fed? Now, the Fed is in a kind of an interesting spot here because traditionally speaking, if you have tariffs, it's a one-time increase in the price level. It's not, it's transitory inflation as has been commonly said. And so we know in a memo in 2018 that the Fed basically looked at this that way. You have tariffs, inflation is transitory. We should look through this and not react. Today, I suspect they'll do the same. The one wrinkle was that people have been saying that inflation expectations are a little bit higher than before, and we just came out of an inflationary episode. So maybe they shouldn't look through this.

现在，对于关心市场的人来说，另一个重点是这对美联储有何影响。美联储目前处于一个有趣的位置，因为按照传统观点，如果有关税，这会导致价格水平的一次性上升，这被普遍认为是暂时性的通胀。因此，我们知道在2018年的一份备忘录中，美联储基本上也是这样看的：关税带来的通胀是暂时的，我们应该忽略它，不必做出反应。如今，我猜他们可能还是会这么做。但其中的变数是，人们一直在说，通胀预期比之前要高一些，毕竟我们刚刚经历了一段通胀期，所以也许他们不应该忽略这一点。

But now listening to Powell yesterday, he believes that inflation expectations are well anchored. Maybe he has to say that, I don't know, but as long as that's true, the Fed would likely look through any one-time increases in the price level. Joseph, you said that the Federal Reserve looked at it in 2018 and they said that a lot of the tariffs were not inflationary. No, no, no, no. Okay. And they're a memo. So there's two studies. One study is the one that I cited earlier. That's looking at the post-mortem. There was 100,000 prices looked at. Tariffs were not inflationary. The 2018 memo that I'm talking about is the Fed thinking how they should react if two tariffs, and the thinking was that as long as inflation expectations were anchored, they should look through this because it's a one-time upward adjustment in the price level.

但在听了昨天鲍威尔的讲话后，他相信通胀预期是相对稳定的。也许他不得不这样说，我不确定，但只要这是事实，美联储可能会忽视任何一次性的价格水平上涨。约瑟夫，你提到美联储在2018年对此进行了研究，他们当时认为许多关税不会导致通胀。不，不，不，不。好吧。有两项研究。一项研究是我之前提到的，回顾分析了10万个价格数据，结果显示关税没有导致通胀。我说的2018年的备忘录是关于美联储如何应对关税问题的思考，他们的观点是，只要通胀预期稳定，就应该忽视这类情况，因为这只是价格水平的一次性上调。

What percentage did it find? If a tariff caused a hundred billion dollars, how much of that went to actual price increases, how much was from the dollar strength thing and how much was from producers just eating the cost? So that's a really complicated question. Now, to be clear, looking back to 2019-2018, there were specific products where prices did increase for consumers, specifically washing machines, and there's an entire paper devoted to that. But again, if you look at the totality of the prices and if you look at price indexes, like CPI, PCE, you'll see that it really wasn't inflationary because the businesses ate the cost. That won't necessarily be true in the future and how future tariffs feed into inflation that's going to depend upon the rates, how broad it is, what it's implemented on, what countries and so forth. So it's all up in the air. There is a potential for it to be to increase the price level. I'm just telling you that it's not clear that it will. This is a different environment than 2018 and 2019.

它发现了多少百分比？如果关税导致了一千亿美元的成本，其中有多少部分转化为实际的价格上涨，有多少是由于美元汇率的影响，又有多少是生产商自行承担了成本？这是一个非常复杂的问题。需要说明的是，回顾2018年至2019年，确实有特定产品的价格对消费者上涨了，特别是洗衣机，还有专门的研究论文讨论这个问题。但是，总体来看所有商品的价格，以及查看像消费者价格指数（CPI）和个人消费支出物价指数（PCE）这样的价格指标，你会发现这并没有带来通胀，因为企业自行承担了这部分成本。未来可能不是这样，未来的关税如何影响通胀，这将取决于关税的税率、覆盖范围、实施产品、实施国家等因素。因此，这一切都不确定。关税确实有可能导致价格水平上升，但我只是想说，目前还不清楚是否会这样。这个环境与2018年和2019年是不同的。

As you said, inflation was below the Fed's target. Now it's above the Fed's target. And Joseph, as we know, there are a lot of no landingistas who were worried that inflation wouldn't go back to 2% before tariffs. The argument for the Fed to react to tariffs is that inflation is above target, as you note, Jack, and also inflation expectations are a little bit higher than they were before. And so in order to keep to prevent people from overreacting, in order to maintain inflation expectations, the Fed should react to this.

正如你所说，通货膨胀曾低于美联储的目标。而现在，它已超过这个目标。我们知道，很多“不着陆派”担心通胀在关税影响前不会回到2%。美联储对关税做出反应的理由之一是，如你所指出的，通货膨胀率高于目标，同时通货膨胀预期也比之前略高。因此，为了防止人们过度反应，以及为了维持通胀预期，美联储应该对此作出反应。

That's possible. It doesn't seem like that's how they're going to react to it as well. Again, like I mentioned before, the standard central banking playbook to these one-time increases in the price level is to look through them because it's not a change in inflation. It's not a change in the rate of change of prices, simply a change in the price level. So that's how I would say that. Another thing that I would note, and to be clear, the way that I see the market is that the market seems to think of tariffs as inflationary. So when I see tariff headlines, it seems like interest rates go up, saw the same thing in 2018, and that ended up to be totally wrong. And as we've discussed for over the years, Jack, the bond market is often wrong and sometimes by a lot.

这有可能。不过，他们似乎不会这么反应。正如我之前提到的，对于价格水平一次性上涨的情况，标准的央行策略是忽略它们，因为这不是通货膨胀的变化，也不是价格变化率的变化，仅仅是价格水平的变化。这就是我对这个问题的看法。还有一点需要说明，我观察市场的方式是，市场似乎认为关税具有通胀效应。因此，当我看到有关关税的新闻时，利率似乎会上升。2018年也发生了同样的情况，结果证明那完全是错误的。正如我们多年来讨论的那样，Jack，债券市场往往会出错，有时错得离谱。

One of the things that I would be careful of is to know that although tariffs could put upward pressure on prices, they could also put downward pressure on growth. And what we saw in 2018 and 2019 was that those growth concerns were actually much stronger than the inflation concerns. And that ultimately ended up with the Fed cutting in 2019. Now in 2018, December, I remember that the Fed had a dopplot that was getting towards a couple of hikes in 2019. They ended up actually cutting in large part because of the growth concerns that were related to tariffs. So my instinct is actually to say that tariffs are very bullish bonds because their impact on growth, much, much bigger than their impact, if any, on inflation. And I'll also note that the financial markets just don't like tariffs.

我会非常注意的一点是，虽然关税可能会导致价格上涨，但它们也可能导致经济增长放缓。我们在2018年和2019年看到的情况是，经济增长的担忧实际上比通货膨胀的问题更为严重。最终，这导致美联储在2019年降息。我记得在2018年12月，美联储的预测是2019年可能会有几次加息，但最后却因为与关税相关的增长担忧而降息。因此，我直觉上认为关税对债券是非常有利的，因为它们对经济增长的影响远远大于对通胀的影响，哪怕有一点影响。我还要指出，金融市场其实并不喜欢关税。

I think like we discussed earlier, if you have tariffs that impacts the big multinationals the most, those are the companies that have revenues all over the world. Those are the companies that benefit from globalism. And as we retreat from that, those companies are going to suffer, their stocks are going to suffer, and those are the big equity indexes. So market reacts much, much, much quicker to these tariff developments than the real economy. Once you put tariffs on, that has to go into the price changes to businesses. That's a slow real economy process. But the markets are lightning quick. So if we were to have huge tariffs tomorrow, the markets would take that would tighten financial conditions. And that would, at the end of the day, in my view, lead to rapid rate cuts. And that's my base case for this year. So the market financial markets react much quicker to tariffs or tariff headlines than the actual economy, which takes months, even years to adjust.

我认为正如我们之前讨论过的，如果关税对大跨国公司产生影响，这些拥有全球收入的公司会受到最大的影响。它们是从全球化中获益的公司。一旦我们开始退出全球化，这些公司和它们的股票会遭受损失，而这些股票正是在大型股指中占有很大比例的公司。所以市场对关税变化的反应比实际经济要快得多。一旦实行关税，企业就要把这些纳入价格变化中，这会是一个缓慢的实际经济过程，然而市场反应则非常迅速。因此，如果我们明天有大幅度的关税，市场会做出反应，从而收紧金融条件。在我看来，这最终会导致快速的降息，这是我今年的基本预期。因此，金融市场对关税或关税新闻的反应，要比实际经济调整要快得多，实际经济的调整可能需要数月甚至数年。

So you think tariffs may not, you know, or they're only slightly inflationary. They may not be inflationary at all. But you have much greater confidence in saying that tariffs actually reduce growth. Why do tariffs reduce growth? Because if the United States puts a tariff on China, US consumers consume more, they do, they substitute Chinese goods for American goods, so they buy more American, so more production in America. And also imports is a negative in GDP. It's exports minus imports. So that doesn't that boost GDP? Why is tariffs bad for growth? Yeah, that's a great point. I think it depends on your timeframe in the short term. I think it's definitely bad for growth because let's say you're a US company, you're relying upon many of your parts come from other countries, there are supply chains all throughout the world. Once you have tariffs, that whole part is disrupted. You don't know how to invest. You don't know how to price your products. And you know the price is going to go maybe higher or you're going to have less profit. And so that all impacts business confidence. However, longer term, if the prices of imported goods are structurally more expensive, that means that we're going to have to have more manufacturing in the US. And President Trump has made a big effort to try to make that as easy as possible. A big move he has is cutting regulation, which I think of as cutting costs. The other of course is his hope that we could have lower corporate taxes. And later on probably the ability to, easier ability to import skilled labor. So in the medium term, because prices are higher broad, that encourages production within the US. And of course the federal government is going out across the world trying to court investment. We see Saudi Arabian government wanting to make investments in the US. We have Masasana, Japan investing in the US. So as we build out that industrial base in the US in the medium term, that creates jobs. That could, that means more goods and services are produced. So that's good for growth. But that's the medium term thing. In the short term, I expect it to be very disruptive.

你认为关税可能不会造成通货膨胀，或者只会造成轻微的通胀，也可能完全不会造成通胀。但你更有信心地说，关税实际上会降低增长速度。为什么关税会减少增长？因为如果美国对中国征收关税，美国消费者其实会多消费，他们会用美国商品替代中国商品，从而更多地购买美国商品，进而促进美国国内生产。而且，进口在GDP中是负面的，即出口减去进口。因此，这不是应该提高GDP吗？为什么关税对增长不利？ 这确实是一个很好的问题。我认为这取决于你的时间框架。短期来看，我认为这对增长肯定是不利的。比如说你是一家美国公司，你依赖许多来自其他国家的零部件，全球各地都有供应链。一旦有了关税，整个零部件供应就会被打乱，你不知道该如何投资，也不知道该如何定价你的产品。你知道价格可能会上升，或者你的利润会减少，这一切都会影响到商业信心。 然而，从更长远来看，如果进口商品的价格结构性地更高，那么这意味着我们需要在美国进行更多的制造业生产。而特朗普总统也在努力使这变得尽可能容易。他的重要举措之一是削减法规，我认为这可以降低成本。另一个当然是希望我们能够降低公司税，之后可能还会有更容易引进熟练劳动力的能力。所以，从中期来看，因为国外商品价格更高，这鼓励了美国国内的生产。当然，联邦政府也在全球范围内寻找投资机会。我们看到沙特政府希望在美国进行投资，日本的软银也在美国投资。所以，当我们在中期内建立美国的工业基础时，这将创造就业机会，意味着更多的商品和服务被生产出来，因此有利于增长。但这是一个中期的问题。短期来看，我预计会非常具有破坏性。

As AI demand surges, nuclear energy is making headlines, driving tech's biggest companies to turn to nuclear power to meet growing energy needs. The Vanneck Uranium and Nuclear ETF, ticker NLR, has provided investors with comprehensive exposure across the nuclear energy value chain for over 15 years. From downstream utilities to upstream uranium miners and innovative companies developing next generation reactors. Positioned to capture the opportunities from the nuclear resurgence, NLR offers a unique way to benefit from this increasingly critical sector. Visit Vanneck.com slash NLR Jack to learn more. That's Vanneck.com slash NLR Jack. You can also search for the ticker NLR in your broker jab today. Thanks for listening. Let's get back to the interview.

随着人工智能需求的激增，核能成为了热门话题，推动科技领域最大的公司转向核能以满足不断增长的能源需求。Vanneck铀和核能ETF，代码为NLR，已经为投资者提供了超过15年的核能价值链的全面投资机会，从下游的公用事业公司到上游的铀矿开采企业以及开发下一代反应堆的创新公司。NLR致力于把握核能复兴带来的机遇，为投资者提供了一个独特的途径来受益于这一日益重要的行业。欲了解更多信息，请访问Vanneck.com/NLRJack。您也可以在您的证券交易应用中搜索代码NLR。感谢您的收听，让我们回到采访中。

Joseph, do you buy the economic model, believe by most economists, the very simple model of you have supply and demand. I know you and I, we haven't thought about supply and demand curves for a long time. And most people in financial markets do not think about supply and demand curves. But you have your supply and demand curve. And then if you impose tariffs, basically you get dead weight loss. And which is basically the gains from trade, you no longer get. And economists think that trade is good. Do you believe in that, in that model?

约瑟夫，你相信大多数经济学家推崇的这个经济模型吗？这个模型非常简单，就是供需关系。我知道你和我很久没有考虑过供需曲线了，而且大多数金融市场的人也不考虑供需曲线。但如果你有一条供需曲线，然后施加关税，基本上就会出现无谓损失，也就是贸易带来的利益不再能获得。经济学家认为贸易是有益的。你相信这个模型吗？

So I have learned over time that the tools and theories of economics is not super useful in understanding the world. I mean, we've, we've looking through this for the past few years, right? All these economists came out with their models and told us guys, there's no inflation. It's transitory to go away. But that was totally wrong, right? And then they all came up with their models and told us that when you hike rates to 5%, you're going to have a recession. 99%, right? No recession. GDP numbers today were quite good. We have to be careful with anything that we get from the economist community. Now, I think that's true.

所以，随着时间的推移，我逐渐认识到经济学的工具和理论在理解世界时并不见得非常有用。我的意思是，在过去的几年里，我们一直在观察这些经济学家提出的模型，他们告诉我们大家不会出现通胀，它只是暂时的，会消失的。但这完全错了，对吧？然后他们又提出模型，说如果利率提高到5%，经济就会出现99%的可能性衰退。结果没有衰退。今天的GDP数据相当不错。所以我们对经济学界提供的任何信息都要谨慎。我认为这是对的。

So I studied economics both on the undergrad and in graduate school as well. So you're right that the economic orthodoxy is that, you know, free trade is good, tariffs are bad. But we can just do a real life experiment to see how these countries that did a lot of tariffs, a lot of protections are doing. China is the prime example, right? They have not just a lot of tariffs and productionism. They even have a managed currency, right? US companies want to sell them to China, not that easy. Chinese companies selling it to US much, much easier. And what they've done over the few decades is create a world class manufacturing sector and it lifted literally hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. So that is kind of a huge, huge, easy example to, to let you know that, you know, this standard economics model about trade, maybe it's missing something.

我在本科学和研究生阶段都学习了经济学。你说的没错，传统的经济学观点认为自由贸易是好的，关税是坏的。但我们可以进行一个现实中的实验，看看那些实行大量关税和保护主义的国家的发展情况。中国就是一个典型的例子，对吧？他们不仅有很多关税和保护主义措施，甚至还有管理式的货币政策。美国公司想要向中国销售产品，并不那么容易，而中国公司向美国销售却容易得多。在过去的几十年里，他们打造了一个世界级的制造业，的确将数亿人口摆脱了贫困。所以这是一个非常明显的例子，表明传统的经济学贸易模型可能忽略了某些东西。

So I'm really hesitant to buy into that orthodoxy since so much of that stuff has proven, have been shown to be not accurate. And Trump believes in tariffs. He's a big fan of President McKinley, who had hiked tariffs to a huge rate. So your point, Joseph, is tariffs are coming, whether you like them or not. And would you say that the financial markets are complacent in terms of Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, maybe not Nvidia, but many other big companies that rely hugely on trade and they're near or at their all time highs that the stock market is complacent and that is not appropriately assessing the risk that tariffs will come. 100%. That is the equity market, I think is totally, totally mispriced, especially some companies that are highly reliant on international trade.

所以我对那种传统观念持犹豫态度，因为很多东西已经被证明不准确。而特朗普支持关税政策，他很推崇麦金莱总统，因为麦金莱曾大幅提高关税。所以你的观点是，无论你是否愿意，关税都会来。而且你觉得金融市场在对待像苹果、微软、特斯拉这样的公司时过于自满，也许不包括英伟达，但许多依赖贸易的大公司股价处于历史高位，股市对此风险没有做出恰当评估。100%是这样的，我认为股票市场尤其是那些在国际贸易上高度依赖的公司，完全没有正确定价。

Apple, for example, makes basically everything in China. Now, I think tariffs are going to be really disruptive for them. So, but, you know, my sense is that the market actually, oh, also Nvidia as well as some policy risk. I think yesterday there was some headline where the Trump administration seeing that DeepSeek is the Chinese AI company, DeepSeek is doing so well, seems to want to throttle China's progress by imposing more limits on who Nvidia can sell to. So there's a lot of political risk there. But yeah, I don't think all these concerns are in the market. Now, to be totally clear, the market is often very slow.

例如，苹果几乎所有产品都是在中国制造的。我认为，关税会对他们造成严重的干扰。此外，像英伟达（Nvidia）也面临一些政策风险。我觉得昨天有个新闻提到特朗普政府看到中国的AI公司DeepSeek发展得很好，似乎想通过限制英伟达的销售对象来遏制中国的进步。这里面存在很多政治风险。不过，我认为这些担忧并未完全反映在市场中。需要明确的是，市场的反应通常很慢。

I remember in 2020, for example, we were seeing this pandemic in China, it was really bad and the market continued to go up one day until it didn't. And DeepSeek, for example, people in the know have done about DeepSeek for weeks and then just one day over the weekend, the market realizes that and reacts. So I think the market is just being slow again and, you know, that happens a lot as I've shown. Yeah, and people, analysts at Hetchumun and investment firms who were telling their boss, you got to sell Nvidia because DeepSeek is coming. If they've been saying that for four months, they've been wrong for four months. So they might have been chastised for their boss, even though they were right, but they were early, which is the same as being wrong. Exactly, exactly. The timing is really hard to get, but they were eventually right.

我记得在2020年，当时我们看到中国的疫情非常糟糕，但股市却持续上涨，直到有一天突然不再上涨。以DeepSeek为例，知情人士已经关注这个情况好几周了，但直到一个周末的一天，市场才意识到并作出反应。因此，我认为市场反应总是慢一拍，这种情况常常发生。是的，像Hetchumun的分析师和投资公司的人，他们告诉老板要卖掉英伟达股票，因为DeepSeek即将来临。如果他们已经这样说了四个月，那他们四个月来都是错的。所以即便他们是对的，也可能被老板责备，因为他们时机不对，这在投资领域就相当于错了。确实，掌握时机非常困难，但最终证明他们是对的。

Joseph, what did you think of the January Federal Reserve meeting? We had, what I thought was a hawkish statement in two terms. It lacked the phrase, we're making progress on inflation. It also said that the unemployment rate has stabilized. So you're not concerned about the job market and you're no longer saying progress on inflation. That sounds like not a lot of cuts to come. So what do you think about that as well as, did Jay Powell in the press conference 30 minutes after? Did he seemingly contradict or downplay, you know, the Colby Spist of the New York Times asked about that hawkish language and he said, oh, no, don't worry about that. Just, you know, we were just changing a few words around.

约瑟夫，你对一月份美联储会议怎么看？我认为会议声明相对强硬，有两个方面特别值得注意。首先，声明中没有提到“我们在通胀方面取得了进展”这一说法。其次，它提到失业率已经稳定。因此，你似乎不再担心就业市场的问题，也不再声称在通胀问题上有进展。这听起来好像不会有太多的降息。那么，你对此怎么看？以及，在会议结束30分钟后的新闻发布会上，杰伊·鲍威尔的回应是否似乎与声明中的强硬措辞相矛盾或被淡化？《纽约时报》的科尔比·斯皮斯特询问了这种强硬的语言，而鲍威尔的回复似乎是在说：“哦，别担心，我们只是改变了一些措辞。”

Yeah, Jack, I agree. I think the statement did sound hawkish and you saw the bond market. So yields rise in response to that. And the statement did seem hawkish, right? There are two things like we know, the Fed care is about two things, full employment and price stability. Now, the statement basically upgraded the view of the labor market and seemed to downplay the recent progress and inflation we've had by deleting a phrase saying that we've been making progress towards our target. And so taken together unhappiness with inflation, strong labor market that immediately suggests the hawkish tilt. But when asked about that, Chair Powell was like, yeah, you know, we just had too many words in that sentence. So so I removed some. I don't know that that was persuasive. I don't know. I mean, so some people are whispering that maybe that statement is the one that he could get everyone to agree on.

是的，Jack，我同意。我觉得那份声明听起来确实有点“鹰派”色彩，你也看到了债券市场的反应，收益率因此上升。声明确实显得有些“鹰派”，对吧？我们知道美联储关心两件事：充分就业和价格稳定。现在，声明基本上提升了对劳动力市场的看法，并通过删除一段说我们在朝着目标取得进展的话，似乎对我们最近在抑制通胀方面的进展轻描淡写。因此，结合这两点来看，对通胀的不满和强劲的劳动力市场立即显示出“鹰派”倾向。但是，当被问到这一点时，鲍威尔主席似乎表示，我们只是在那个句子里用了太多的词，所以我删除了一些。我不知道这是否有说服力。我不知道。有人暗示也许这份声明是他能够让所有人达成一致的那一份。

And now in the press conference, he just kind of puts his own spin on it because my sense is that Paul was pretty dovish today. He's the last press conference in December was pretty surprising to me in that he described the stickiness inflation as this new category of non-tradable services, right? So that's kind of what you do. So when the data is not what you want it to be, you kind of make caveats and you create new categories. And that seems to be what he did. And that just tells me that he really thinks that inflation is over and he's downplaying the data. So that is his bias. He's biased towards to be more dovish and maybe that's what he's trying to do at the press conference. And I'm I wasn't at the FOMT meeting, so I don't know. But that is possible as well.

现在在新闻发布会上，他似乎在自己解读信息，因为我感觉今天保罗的态度相对温和。他在十二月的最后一次新闻发布会让我挺惊讶，因为他把通货膨胀的粘性描述为一种新类别的不可交易服务，对吧？所以这就是你会做的事情。当数据不是你想要的时候，你会加上一些条件，创造新的类别。这就是他所做的，告诉我他可能真的认为通货膨胀已经结束，并且在淡化数据。因此，这是他的倾向，他倾向于更温和，也许这就是他在发布会上想表达的。我没有参加FOMC的会议，所以我不清楚。但这也是有可能的。

But overall, the other thing that was interesting was his remarks on QT. So as we know, the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet. Now the whole discussion at the FOMC conference was, you know, pretty conversation. We have Paul being himself just kind of talking with people. But that one moment when he was asked about QT, what he did was he kind of, you know, look for some prepared statement. So when that happens, that tells me that this is something you thought about, something that he doesn't want to get wrong. And it was kind of somewhat of a formal statement. So that was kind of his policy there telling everyone that QT is going to go on for some time.

整体上，另一件有趣的事情是他对量化紧缩（QT）的评论。我们知道，美联储正在缩减其资产负债表。在联邦公开市场委员会会议上的整个讨论相当轻松，鲍威尔像往常一样随意地和大家交谈。但在被问到关于QT的问题时，他却寻找了一份准备好的声明。这告诉我，这是他深思熟虑过的事情，他不想在这方面出错。他的回答有些正式，向大家表示QT政策将持续一段时间。

So if in, let's say, 2022, early 2023, the FOMC was more dovish than Paul. And Paul, in some instances, spoke against the statement and he talked in a way that was more hawkish than the statement. Now you're saying it's the reverse, whereas the statement's kind of hawkish. He's talking, he's really dubbing it up in front of the microphone. So Paul is more dovish than the FOMC. That's my belief. I mean, we can see this in a couple of other ways. Well, we've had the sense in the last meeting, right? Some people weren't happy with continuing to cut rates. So there are people on the committee that are more hawkish than Paul and who are not afraid to express it.

所以，如果说在2022年到2023年初，联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）表现得比鲍威尔（Paul）更温和。而在某些情况下，鲍威尔的言论比委员会的声明更为强硬。现在情况反过来了，声明显得有些强硬，而鲍威尔在公开讲话时却表现得更温和。所以我相信，鲍威尔比FOMC更温和。我们可以从其他一些方面看出这一点。就像在最近的一次会议上，有些人对持续降息感到不满，因此委员会中有些人比鲍威尔更强硬，并且毫不犹豫地表达了这一观点。

Now, Paul, I think, is really dovish now. But again, he wants to have consensus. And so in order to have consensus, sometimes you have to make some compromise in order to get the statement that you want. Again, I don't know if this is the case. What I do feel pretty confident about is that Paul's bias here is towards cuts. Yeah. And that question about quantitative tightening, I believe it came from Courtney Brown of Axios. Paul's exact words, I don't have them here, but he said something to the fact of reserves are still roughly abundant and they reserves are where they were when we started quantitative tightening, I believe in 2022. That was the predetermined statement.

现在，我认为保罗变得非常鸽派。然而，他希望达成共识。为了实现共识，有时需要做出一些妥协，以便获得自己想要的声明。我不确定这是否就是情况，但我确信保罗在这里的倾向是倾向于减息。关于量化紧缩的问题，我相信这是Axios的考特尼·布朗提问的。保罗的原话我没有，但他大概提到储备仍然相对充裕，并且现在的储备水平和我们在2022年开始量化紧缩时差不多。这是预先准备好的声明。

So the reserves are the liabilities of the Federal Reserve, the assets of commercial banks. And why have reserves, if the Federal Reserve has been reducing reserves by letting the balance sheet roll off, why are reserves where they were almost three years ago? Oh, the RFP has been coming down. So as the RFP comes down, that money could go to the TGA or it could go to the baking sector, but the RFP is almost at zero, right? So that's been countering a bit of the quantitative tightening. But looking at the RFP, it looks like it's probably going to go towards zero sometime in the, well, a lot of it depends on the debt ceiling, of course, but after the debt ceiling is resolved, it looks like it's going to go towards zero as we have more bill issuance.

所以储备金是美联储的负债，而是商业银行的资产。那么，为什么美联储已经通过让资产负债表自然减少来缩减储备金，储备金却仍保持在大约三年前的水平呢？哦，那是因为RFP（反向回购协议）在下降。随着RFP的减少，这些资金可能流向财政部普通账户（TGA）或银行业，但RFP几乎趋近于零，对吗？所以这在一定程度上抵消了一些量化紧缩的影响。不过，看起来RFP可能会在未来某个时候降为零，当然很多取决于债务上限的解决情况，但在债务上限解决后，随着更多的票据发行，RFP似乎将会趋向于零。

And at that point in time, I think the Federal probably more seriously think about when to stop QT since the RFP is to them, one of the indicators of having excess reserves in the system. So the reverse repo facility is now at 121 billion. That's like two or three months of Federal Reserve QT roll off. So it's basically nothing. Joseph, looking back, with the benefit of hindsight, when there was over $2 trillion in the reverse repo facility, wasn't it kind of ridiculous that people were saying that there's no money, though we're running out of money? I think it's like there was $2 trillion in the system. Yeah, it's a lot of money.

在那个时候，我认为美联储可能会更加认真地考虑何时停止量化紧缩政策（QT），因为反向回购（RFP）对他们来说是系统中有过剩储备的一个指标。目前，反向回购机制的规模是1210亿美元，这相当于美联储两到三个月的QT规模，因此基本上可以说不算什么。Joseph，回头看，如果有超过2万亿美元在反向回购机制中，是否有些荒谬，人们却说没有钱或者资金紧张？毕竟系统中确实有2万亿美元，这无疑是相当大的一笔钱。

I mean look at where the stocks are, right? So I think there's a lot of money chasing assets right now. And some of it is not very sophisticated. So it's a dangerous time, I think, in a lot of the risk markets. And Joseph, I'm asking a simple question to which the answer is very complex. Where is the money coming from that's been going into the stock market, going into private equity, going into private credit, going into fart coin, Trump coin? Where is this money coming from? So like we've talked about over the past few years, I think of one of the forms of money is just treasuries, right? Treasuries are just money that pays interest. And we still have a tremendous fiscal deficit, right? It's still 6%, 7%. And that was a key driver behind my call, but 6,000 S&P 500 last year.

我的意思是，看看当前股票的表现，对吧？我认为现在有很多资金在追逐资产。其中有些资金并不太专业。所以我觉得现在很多风险市场都处于一个危险的时期。我问了一个看似简单但实则复杂的问题：流入股票市场、私募股权、私人信贷以及像“屁币”、“川普币”这样的资产的资金，从哪里来呢？就像我们过去几年来讨论的，我认为资金的一种形式是国债，对吧？国债就是付利息的钱。而我们依然面临巨大的财政赤字，大约是6%到7%。这正是我去年预测标普500指数将达到6000点的关键因素之一。

Now that continues, but it seems like there's more and more of an effort to stop that. Now, I don't know if they will be successful in raining in fiscal spending, but it's possible. At the very least, they're making an effort to try. So with Elon is trying to system the federal government down by offering buyouts to employees, Trump is trying to raise tax collection by through tariffs. And so that is something that could change going forward. But until then, I think this tremendous fiscal deficit is sustaining a lot of the asset price buoyancy we see.

现在这种情况还在继续，但似乎有越来越多的努力试图阻止这种趋势。我不知道他们是否会成功地控制财政支出，但这是有可能的。至少，他们正在努力尝试。所以，Elon 正在尝试通过为员工提供买断方式来缩减联邦政府规模，而特朗普则试图通过关税提高税收。这可能会在未来发生变化。但在那之前，我认为巨大的财政赤字支撑了我们所看到的资产价格的高企。

And of course, prices are to large psychological and a lot of people have been making a lot of money in the market. And I think that kind of positive sentiment is also driving prices up a lot. And so people have been finding the money to buy stocks, buy risk assets. What about bonds? Where do you think the buyers of bonds are going to be as the US Treasury is going to continue to run a huge deficit, regardless of even if it decreases or we do cuts, it still will be a sizable deficit. Who's going to buy the bonds?

当然，价格对人们的心理影响很大，市场上很多人已经赚了不少钱。我认为这种积极的情绪也在推动价格大幅上涨。所以人们一直在找钱买股票、买风险资产。那么债券呢？考虑到无论赤字是否减少，美国财政部仍会继续维持巨额赤字，你认为债券的买家会是谁呢？谁会去买这些债券呢？

Well, if we have big tariffs, everyone is going to be buying those bonds because that's going to have a very, very strong risk off episode. And I think that is going to drive a huge bull market, not a huge bull market, a huge surge of buying in the bond market. So I'm not really worried about that. Now to your broader point, the US deficit is very large. We're going to find these buyers. I'm less worried about that now because my sense is that the secretary of best understands that you can create demand in many different ways.

好的，如果我们实施高额关税，大家都会去购买那些债券，因为这将会引发一个非常非常强烈的避险情绪。我认为这会推动债券市场出现一波巨大的购买浪潮，而不是一个巨大的牛市。因此，我对此不是很担心。至于你提到的更广泛的问题，美国的赤字确实非常大，我们需要找到这些买家。但我现在对此并不太担心，因为我觉得财政部长非常明白可以通过多种方式来创造需求。

Now I've heard this discuss, for example, just changes in regulation. One thing he mentioned was taking off the asset cap of Wells Fargo, which for bad behavior has been prohibited from growing over the past few years. You take that asset cap off, Wells Fargo could grow and maybe they'll buy some bonds. And as we know that Trump will be able to appoint a vice chair of supervision at the Fed.

我听到过这样的讨论，比如说监管法规的变化。他提到的一件事是取消富国银行的资产上限。由于一些不当行为，过去几年里富国银行一直不能扩张。如果取消这个资产上限，富国银行就可以发展壮大，或许会购买一些债券。而我们知道，特朗普将能在美联储任命一位负责监管的副主席。

It's probably going to be Michelle Bowman. And she is someone who is, I think, very lenient on big regulation. So you have changes in bank regulation. Again, to be clear, the Trump administration can also have appointments on the FDIC and the office of the control of the currency. To change bank regulations, you need all three agencies. So he has the power to change that, to make it so that banks are more inclined to buy trophies.

可能会是Michelle Bowman。我认为，她在大监管方面非常宽松。因此，银行监管会发生变化。需要说明的是，特朗普政府也可以在联邦存款保险公司（FDIC）和货币监理署（OCC）进行任命。要改变银行监管，需要这三个机构的配合。因此，他有权改变这种情况，使银行更倾向于购买奖杯。

So I think that actually solves that problem, or at least it can be solved. In the near term, I think the downturn in risk assets would drive a lot of flows in the bond market in the medium to longer term. I think they can fix this through regulation since they have the tools and the understanding. So I'm not worried about that. And if the foreign sector is earning less dollars because their trade surplus is lower, are they going to be a smaller buyer of US treasury bonds? And how will the splits go? Talk about just the different preferences of foreigners like bonds and US equities in your work there.

所以，我认为这实际上解决了这个问题，或者至少能被解决。在不远的将来，我认为风险资产的下滑将在中期到长期内推动大量资金流入债券市场。我认为他们可以通过监管来解决这个问题，因为他们拥有工具和理解能力，所以我对此并不担心。如果国外部门因贸易顺差减少而获得的美元减少，他们会成为购买美国国债的较小买家吗？那分配会如何进行？请在您的工作中谈谈外国人对债券和美国股市的不同偏好。

So we talk about foreigners. There's a foreign official sector, so the foreign central banks. And there's also the foreign private sector, like, say, a Japanese insurance company. Now the foreign central banks really haven't been the buyers of strategies for some time, actually. The marginal buyers in the foreign sector have been the private sector. And I think it's understandable. US rates are a lot higher than they are in many other countries.

所以我们谈论外国人。有一个外国官方部门，比如外国的中央银行。还有外国的私人部门，比如说日本的一家保险公司。实际上，外国中央银行已经有一段时间没有成为策略的买家了。在外国部门中，边际买家一直是私人部门。我认为这是可以理解的，因为美国的利率比许多其他国家都要高。

Now I would expect, actually, as the Fed cuts rates and the Treasury curve steepens, that we'd actually have more foreign private sector buyers because then the cost of hedge currencies becomes lower. And so it becomes more attractive for them to buy strategies on an FX hedged basis. Looking at the equity markets, now, one thing that's been really standing out to me is that the foreign exposure to US equities is just tremendous. It's enormous. It's like mind-boggling. In part, it's because we have AI.

现在，我实际上预计，当美联储降息和国债收益曲线变陡时，我们实际上会有更多的外国私营部门买家，因为对冲货币的成本变得更低。所以，对于他们来说，以外汇对冲的方式购买策略会更有吸引力。在观察股市时，有一件事让我特别注意到，那就是外国对美国股票的投资实在是非常巨大，难以置信。部分原因是因为我们拥有人工智能技术。

We've been in a huge bull market. In part, it's because the valuations of US stocks have gone up a lot. Now that's kind of an anomaly, I think, that could potentially reverse if we have some changes in the AI narrative. But what this tells me, though, linking this to policy, is that the Trump administration's potential policy of having a weaker dollar to boost manufacturing could potentially crash the US asset market because we know that there's a lot of foreigners with exposure to dollars, both in the Trojan market, fixed income, corporate bonds, AGC, and B.S., and in a huge way to equities today.

我们一直处于一个巨大的牛市中。部分原因是美国股票的估值大幅增加。我认为这有点异常，如果我们的人工智能叙事发生一些变化，可能会出现逆转。不过，与政策相关联，这让我想到特朗普政府可能实施的通过让美元贬值来促进制造业的政策。这可能会导致美国资产市场崩溃，因为我们知道有很多外国投资者在美国的外汇市场、固定收益、公司债券等方面有很大投资，今天在股票市场上的投资尤其多。

And if they were to understand that Trump wants to make the dollar cheaper, the weaker, to boost exports, well, what are you going to do? Do you want to take currency losses, maybe 10 percent? No, you want to get ahead of that, right? So you got to sell your equities, take your page rate back to Japan or wherever. So you want to have to get out of the market before they pose those currency losses on you. So that's a huge risk. And I hope they don't. So I understand the need to have a weaker dollar to kind of boost you with experts. And maybe that is necessary.

如果他们理解特朗普想让美元贬值，变得更弱，以促进出口，那么你会怎么做呢？你想承担10%的汇率损失吗？当然不想，你会想要提前应对，对吧？所以你需要卖掉你的股票，把资金转回日本或者其他地方。你需要在这些汇率损失影响到你之前退出市场。这是一个巨大的风险。我希望他们不要这样做。我理解为了促进出口需要一个较弱的美元，这可能是必要的。

But I'd be very careful over there because if you were to do that, you could have very largely declined in dollar assets as all the foreigners try to avoid FX losses. And do you think the dollar will weaken? Because isn't the dollar supposed to strengthen because of tariffs? Yeah. It has been, right? It has been. And it has been. And it's easy to see why. Like for example, looking at the Eurozone, if Trump were to impose tariffs on the Eurozone, that's not good for other economy, right? They are an export dependent economy. That means the ECB cuts rates more than the Fed, interest rate differential widens, and so the week Euro weakens dollar strengthens. So that has been the reaction.

但是你在那边一定要非常小心，因为如果你这样做的话，当所有外国人为了避免外汇损失而撤离时，你可能会看到美元资产大幅下降。你认为美元会走弱吗？因为因为关税政策，美元不是应该走强吗？是的，美元一直在走强，这很显而易见。例如，如果特朗普对欧元区征收关税，这对它们的经济是不利的，因为它们依赖出口。这意味着欧洲央行会比美联储更大幅度地降息，利率差距扩大，从而导致欧元走弱，美元走强。所以市场就是这样反应的。

But currency policy is something that can be politically determined. Now, in the US, currency policy files under the purview of the US Treasury. And we've seen this in action before, right? Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard. It's within his park to do that. And we also have the Plaza Accord in the 1980s, where the US basically went to Japan and said, hey, you're again, is too cheap. I want you to strengthen it. And if you don't do that, I'm going to put huge tariffs on you and Japan complied. So the Trump administration has the tools to weaken the dollar that I don't doubt at all. So whether or not they actually use them, I don't know. It seems like they have to though simply because it's part of their grand plan of reshaping the global trade order. But this is another reason why I'm very cautious on equities right now.

货币政策是一项可以由政治决定的事务。目前，在美国，货币政策由美国财政部负责。我们以前也见过这种情况，比如说尼克松将美元脱离金本位制，当年他有权这样做。还有1980年代的广场协议，当时美国对日本说，日元太便宜了，希望能加强，如果不这样做，就会对日本征收大量关税，于是日本就照办了。因此，我毫不怀疑，特朗普政府有工具来削弱美元。至于他们是否会真正使用这些工具，我不确定，但看起来他们很可能会这么做，因为这是他们重塑全球贸易秩序宏伟计划的一部分。不过，这也是我目前对股市非常谨慎的另一个原因。

And I think the biggest trade partner is China. President Trump hasn't been talking about tariffs on China. He's mainly threatening them on Mexico, Canada, and more recently, Colombia. Do you have any idea on that as well as what's going to be the impact of tariffs on our regional partners like Canada and Mexico? So the tariffs against Mexico and Canada said to take place to the Saturday. These are tariffs like Howard Ludwig mentioned at his confirmation hearing. These are tariffs just to make sure basically to bully them and to not taking care of the fender's no problem. My guess is that they'll comply. Mexico certainly, Canada, I'm not too sure. It seems like some of the leadership in the Liberal Party there want to have retaliation, want to have retaliatory tariffs against Trump. I don't know if that's in their interest to do that, but so we'll find out this weekend, I guess.

我认为最大的贸易伙伴是中国。特朗普总统并没有谈论对中国征收关税。他主要是在威胁墨西哥、加拿大，最近还有哥伦比亚。你对此有何看法，以及关税对我们区域伙伴如加拿大和墨西哥会有什么影响？对墨西哥和加拿大的关税预计将在这周六生效。这些关税就像霍华德·路德维希在确认听证会上提到的，基本上是为了施压，逼他们处理某些问题。我的猜测是，他们会妥协。墨西哥很可能会妥协，但对加拿大我就不太确定了。看来加拿大自由党的一些领导人想要对特朗普实施报复性关税。我不知道这样做是否符合他们的利益，但我想本周末我们会知道结果。

Now about the tariffs on China, those are the economic tariffs that we discussed earlier. Those require a process. The process has been set in place by executive orders signed on day one. And so that looks like something that we're going to hear more about in say, March, April. One thing I'll note is that in China, they have a very different social model than the US. The government industry has stayed sponsored. The government's plan is to create lots of jobs, lots of manufacturing and ship those goods abroad. So they kind of can't come and build factories in the US like Japan did since that's basically giving Chinese jobs away to America.

关于对中国的关税问题，也就是我们之前讨论过的经济关税。这些关税需要经过一个流程。这个流程是通过签署的行政命令在第一天就已经建立起来的。所以我们可能会在三月、四月听到更多相关信息。需要指出的是，中国的社会模式与美国非常不同。中国的工业是由国家资助的，政府的计划是创造大量就业机会，大力发展制造业，然后将这些商品出口。因此，他们无法像日本那样在美国建厂，因为这基本上意味着把中国的就业机会转移到美国。

So there's really, I don't see if there's any good, it's very difficult to have a good negotiated base outcome. So I think that tariffs will definitely have to be put on China simply because the Chinese can't offer the job that the Americans want. And you think China expects to retaliate like they did in 2018 and 2019 with tariffs on what America exports to China, which includes agricultural products. And I believe Trump had to give the farmers a subsidy because the farmers got hurt, right? Trump administration is unhappy that the Chinese did not honor the phase one deal. In the phase one deal, China was supposed to buy a lot of US agriculture products. Like you said, Jack, they didn't do it. I think they're, I think that makes the Trump people unhappy and it makes them less inclined to trust what the Chinese say right now.

因此，我觉得真的很难达成一个良好的谈判结果。我认为美国必须对中国实施关税，因为中方无法提供美国所需的工作机会。您认为中国可能会像2018年和2019年那样进行报复，对美国出口到中国的商品（包括农产品）加征关税。我相信特朗普当时不得不给予农民补贴，因为农民受到了影响，对吧？特朗普政府对中国没有履行第一阶段协议感到不满。根据第一阶段协议，中国本应该购买大量的美国农产品。正如你所说，Jack，他们没有做到这一点。我认为这让特朗普团队感到不满，并且让他们对中国的承诺产生怀疑。

So I am not an expert on Chinese politics. I've read articles saying that the Chinese are prepared to retaliate, prepared to weather the storm. So yeah, I guess they'll retaliate. Now the tariffs did, some of that money did go to repay farmers, but that's kind of how this whole strategy works, right? You put tariffs on, you click that money and you use it to buffer some of the losers of the trade war as we move towards reindustrialization. So that's probably going to happen again. So Joseph, so you're, are you bullish on bonds and bearish on stocks right now? Absolutely. Wow. So you're also very bullish on gold, right? Gold is part of that. It's again, making new highs today as we speak. I think it's part of that geopolitical risk trade right now. If you have a trade war, who, there's a lot of vulnerability here, right? If you're China and you're earning, let's say a trillion dollars a year, it's not entirely a billion dollars, but most of it probably is. You got to put those dollars somewhere. Are you going to just turn around and buy us different bonds, knowing that this country is not super friendly towards me, knowing that, looking at your friend Russia, well, you kind of lost all their farm reserves, right? What are you going to do? One of the, you're going to have to diversify and one of the obvious I've been used is gold. And if you're making a trillion dollars a year off trade, then you have a lot of money to buy gold. So I think that that's, that's looking pretty good as well. Interesting. What if terrorists reduce the Chinese surplus and they have less money to buy gold? That's possible as well. But if things get that bad, then you can have a calm position or change where you shift more of your dollars that you currently hold to gold. But in any case, I think it's, it's not just China, right? I think there are, there are many people who are, who will be on the other side of the trade war and they all have to diversify a bit as well.

我不是中国政治的专家。我读过一些文章，说中国已经准备好进行报复，并做好了承受风暴的准备。所以我想，他们会进行报复。关税确实带来了一部分收入，这部分收入被用于补偿农民，但这就是整个策略的运作方式，对吧？你征收关税，收集这些资金，然后用它来缓冲贸易战中的一些受损方，同时我们向再工业化迈进。这可能会再次发生。所以，Joseph，你现在是看好债券，还是看跌股票呢？绝对的。哇，那你也是非常看好黄金，对吧？黄金是其中的一部分，它今天又创下新高。我认为这是目前地缘政治风险交易的一部分。如果有贸易战，就会有许多脆弱性，对吧？如果你是中国，每年赚一万亿美元，虽然不是完全一千亿美元但大部分可能是，你必须把这些美元放到某个地方。你会转身去买美国的不同债券吗？知道这个国家对自己不是很友好，看看你的朋友俄罗斯，他们基本上失去了所有的外汇储备，对吧？你会怎么做？你需要多样化，而其中一个明显的选择就是黄金。如果你每年从贸易中赚一万亿美元，那么你有很多钱可以买黄金。因此，我认为这看起来也很不错。有趣的是，如果关税减少了中国的顺差，他们买黄金的资金就会减少。这也是可能的。但如果事情变得那么糟糕，你可以采取一个策略，或者改变策略，把你的更多美元转换为黄金。但无论如何，我认为不只是中国，还有很多人会站在贸易战的另一边，他们也必须做一些多样化。

The United States and China, that relationship is very important and highlighted in the press, but you also have trading relationships with, you know, the Middle East, India, South America, and so forth. So I think there's potential for, for a lot of, I guess, more of a fragmentation in the system. So you're bearish on stocks, you're bullish on bonds, you're bullish on gold. Are you bullish on short-term interest rates like the two-year or so for futures because you think the Fed will cut more than the market expects? I think so for futures is the best way right now to hedge. My personal view is the best way to hedge all this. As you know, you buy so for futures, you know, you don't believe that there's no cost of carry or anything like that. So if all this happens, the immediate reaction, of course, is for the Fed to cut rates, to stimulate to ease financial conditions like they did in 2019. Now, my own sense is that the market is too hawkish. And so I don't feel like there's a lot of risk that the Fed will, you know, turn to hiking rates and so forth. So I think that looks like it's really asymmetric to me. So I do like short-term, let's say, two year yield, two year treasuries, so for futures, near-date it's over futures and so forth. So yeah, that's something I like the most actually.

美国和中国的关系非常重要，也常被媒体关注，但你也有与中东、印度、南美等的贸易关系。因此，我认为系统中可能会有更多的分化。所以你对股票持看跌态度，对债券和黄金持乐观态度。那么你对像两年期或SOFR期货这样的短期利率持乐观态度吗，因为你认为美联储的降息幅度会超过市场预期？我认为SOFR期货是目前对冲的最佳方式。个人观点认为这是对冲所有这些变化的最佳途径。购买SOFR期货，你知道，没有持有成本之类的问题。因此，如果这些情况发生，直接反应当然是美联储降息，以刺激经济并放松金融条件，就像他们在2019年所做的那样。现在，我个人感觉市场过于鹰派，因此我觉得美联储转而加息的风险不大。所以我认为这个情况对我来说是不对称的。我确实喜欢短期的，比如两年期收益率、两年期国债、SOFR期货等。所以，这其实是我最喜欢的东西。

What happened to me, covered? What we could talk about, you know, I think something that's really interesting is that the stuff that we're doing of what Elon is doing with, you know, buying out federal government employees, how's that going to work, right? He thinks that we might be able to get 10, 5% of the people to take that buyout. I think that's a fascinating way to reduce the federal government. I think that it's interesting in the sense that it's structured so that you will resign like eight months from now but don't have to do anything anymore. So it doesn't seem like that will show up in unemployment statistics for some time, even if you suddenly lose, say, 200,000 people from the government. And in addition to that, there's an effort to try to reduce the amount of funding that the US government gives to all these NGOs, which is basically employment, which is basically employment center for a lot of political activists.

发生在我身上的事情，已经讲过了吗？我们可以谈谈，你知道，我觉得有趣的是我们正在做的事情，比如Elon正在做的，他想通过买断联邦政府的雇员。这会如何运作呢？他认为我们可能能够让10%到5%的人接受这个买断。我觉得这是一种减少联邦政府规模的有趣方法。我认为有趣的是，这种方案的结构是让你在八个月后辞职，但在这段时间里不需要再做任何事情。这样，即使政府中突然减少，比如20万人，也不会立刻反映在失业统计数据中。此外，还有一种努力在减少美国政府对各种非政府组织的资助，这些基金基本上是为许多政治活跃分子提供的就业机会。

And so I think, so I don't know if they'll do that. I don't know if they'll find the way to do that. I suspect that they will. But if they do that, though, I think that's going to have a negative impact on employment because a lot of these guys, you know, if you're a professional activist, I'm not sure that you have a lot of marketable skills. Right. And so when you include non-governmental organizations, I know that the government is a lot bigger. But Joseph, just looking at the federal government, so not state and local government employees, the federal government, the US currently employs 3 million people, which is where it was in 1989. Actually, in 1989, it was 3.1 million.

所以我认为，我不知道他们是否会这样做。我也不知道他们是否能找到方法去做。我怀疑他们会。但如果他们这么做，我认为这将对就业产生负面影响。因为很多人，如果你是一个职业活动家，我不确定你是否有很多市场化的技能。当涉及到非政府组织时，我了解到政府的规模是非常大的。但就联邦政府来看，忽略州和地方政府的雇员，目前美国联邦政府雇用了300万人，这个数字与1989年的情况相同。事实上，1989年是310万人。

So this idea, you know, I understand there's this narrative that we have scores and scores of people, you know, at a desk job drinking coffee, not really getting a lot of work done. You know, I'm not saying that the government is the most efficient thing, but I don't know. That's actually absolutely what happens at the government. Trust me. But Joseph, I mean, like in HR departments at many private companies, that happens as well. You know, there's, I think it's, I mean, I've never worked at the government, but, but I'm just just, I'm just looking at the statistic.

所以这个想法，你知道，我理解有一种说法，就是我们有很多人坐在办公桌前喝咖啡，实际上没做多少工作。你知道，我不是说政府是效率最高的，但我不确定这是否就是政府的实际情况。相信我，Joseph，我的意思是，像在许多私人公司的HR部门也会发生类似的情况。你知道，我是说，我从来没有在政府工作过，但我只是看看这些统计数据。

Like in the 1950s, there were 2.4 million people working in the federal government. And now there's 3 million. So where is this huge amount of waste? And if there is waste now, haven't we've been wasting it for literally close to 100 years? I mean, like the growth, the social justice, the growth in the huge government employment is in state and local governments. Yes. So I think, and I think that's fine because the same local governments aren't like the federal government. They can't put money. So in a sense, you would have, they have a lever to discipline them. If they spend too much money, you know, they'll run out.

就像在1950年代，联邦政府有240万人工作。现在有300万人。那么这个大量的浪费在哪里呢？如果现在有浪费，那我们不是已经浪费了将近100年吗？我觉得，政府规模和社会正义的增长主要体现在州和地方政府。是的，我认为这没问题，因为州和地方政府不像联邦政府，它们不能印钱。因此，从某种意义上说，它们有一种约束自己的方法。如果它们花费太多，资金就会用光。

They have to do cuts, which they sometimes do. And so I think that's fine. Again, it's their money. They can spend it. The difference is that the federal government doesn't have that same constraint. So it's more liable to, to have waste. So because there's not that mechanism there. I agree with you that, you know, maybe it's a couple hundred thousand people. It's not that much in the grand scheme of things, but you know, I think that it's possible that that could have some impact on employment numbers going forward. Not right away, of course, because it's structured to be a resignation in the future. But good.

他们必须进行一些裁员，这种情况时有发生。我认为这没问题，毕竟是他们自己的钱，可以自行支配。区别在于，联邦政府没有同样的限制，所以更容易出现浪费，因为那里没有这种机制。我同意你的观点，可能涉及几十万人，从整体来说不算多，但我认为这可能会对未来的就业人数产生一些影响。当然，不会立刻见效，因为这次裁员是安排在未来生效。不过，总的来说，这还算不错。

But I think the probably the funding of these NGOs and stuff like that probably has more of a direct impact on unemployment. And in terms of cutting the deficit, cutting spending, how effective do you think it's going to be? Elon and Doge were throwing out numbers of one to two trillion. Do you think that is realistic with you cutting a hundred thousand employees? It's very, very difficult to cut the deficit. I mean, look at it. It just goes higher and higher. But what I like is that they're trying. They're doing something and that's the beginning of that could be the beginning of something more. Again, it's a start. I didn't really hear a lot of that in the last few years in the first Trump administration or nor the Biden administration, but now they they're doing something.

我认为，这些非政府组织等的资金可能对失业率有更直接的影响。至于削减赤字和政府支出，你觉得这些措施会有多有效？埃隆和Doge提到可能有一到两万亿美元的削减，你觉得裁员十万人就能实现这个目标吗？削减赤字非常困难，你看，赤字只会越来越高。但我喜欢的是，他们正在尝试。他们开始做一些事情，而这可能是一个更大变革的起点。尽管在过去几年里，无论是特朗普政府还是拜登政府时期，我并没有听到太多关于这方面的行动，但现在他们确实在做一些事情。

So that's a good direction. It's going to be hard, but they're making progress. And when I look, the huge, huge percentage of government spending is as well as interest on interest on the debt, then entitlements of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Trump administration said, not going to touch entitlements at all. So that's off the table. When I think of huge domestic government waste, I think of the military where there's stories of, you know, there's a there's a door hinge on an airplane and it costs $30 to make, but the government buys it from some contractor for $10,000. That's where I seek a lot of the waste.

所以这是一个不错的方向。虽然会很困难，但他们正在取得进展。当我观察时，政府支出中有很大一部分是用于支付债务利息，同时还有社会保障、医保和医疗补助这些福利项目。特朗普政府曾表示不会触动这些福利项目，所以这部分就不在考虑范围内。当我想到政府在国内的巨大浪费时，我想到的是军队，比如有报道说飞机上的一个门铰链制造成本是30美元，但政府却从某个承包商那以1万美元的价格购买。这就是我认为有大量浪费的地方。

Do you think Elon Musk, Doge, Higgs, Trump, do you think they are committed to cutting the waste in the military sector, which is famous for its intimate connection with private contractors? Number one, do you agree that that is where the real waste is? And number two, do you think Doge will be effective in getting rid of that waste? Or are the political connections just too strong? So federal subending is basically mandatory. So that's Social Security, Medicare, that's not can be touched. As you mentioned, there's interest rate that can't be touched either.

你觉得埃隆·马斯克、多吉、希格斯、特朗普，他们会致力于减少军事部门的浪费吗？这个领域以与私人承包商的密切关系而闻名。首先，你同意这里才是真正的浪费所在吗？其次，你认为多吉能有效消除这种浪费吗？还是政治关系太过牢固，以至于无法解决？联邦支出基本上是强制性的，比如社会保障和医疗保险，这些是不能动的。就像你提到的利率也是不能改变的。

And there's discretionary and that includes military. That's the price that could be cut. And I think that is very difficult. And like you mentioned, Jack, that's, you know, there's, they have a lot of political power is difficult to do. They also famously seem to have trouble passing, passing audit, right? So I think one thing that Elon seems to be bringing there that we didn't have before is an understanding of technology. For example, Elon has been going on talking about how, you know, the future of warfare in air in the air is drones, right? Small and cheap. That's what everyone is using these days. Why are we spending these billions and billions of dollars? Basically a bottomless amount of money into these F 35s, which take forever to develop our very expensive and are basically obsolete in a world where we can produce drones cheaply and quickly, right? So these, these things, I think could, could let's say we don't have these programs anymore or at least slim them down. That could have a big impact.

这句话的大意是：“还有可自由支配的开支，包括军事，这部分开支是可以削减的。我认为这很困难，就像你提到的，Jack，他们有很大的政治影响力，因此很难做到。他们还经常被认为在审计上有问题。因此，我认为Elon带来了我们以前没有的技术理解。例如，Elon一直在谈论未来的空中战争是使用无人机，小巧且便宜。这是大家现在普遍采用的方式。那么我们为什么还要在F35战机上投入数十亿美元呢？这些战机开发周期很长，成本很高，在无人机可以快速、廉价生产的时代，它们基本上已经过时了。所以，我认为如果我们没有这些项目了，或者至少减少它们，将会带来很大影响。”

So I think it's possible that he, Elon can make a difference. Doge can make a difference. Now the political side is always difficult to say. One of the things that we've seen over the past few decades is that the United States always ends up fighting a war somewhere in the world. We have Iraq as kind of a disaster, Afghanistan and so forth. And we have wars in Eastern Europe as well. That's really good for these defense companies and they have a lot of political power. Well, it seems like Trump doesn't like them and they don't like Trump and Trump did not start world wars his first term. So maybe that will continue. So I don't know about the power dynamics specifically, but it seems like at the moment that at least it seems like the power is with, you know, the more somewhat more isolationist Trump's Trump team.

我认为有可能是他，埃隆能带来一些改变。狗狗币可以带来一些改变。现在，政治方面总是很难说。在过去的几十年里，我们看到美国总会在世界某地参战。伊拉克成了一场灾难，阿富汗也是如此。此外，我们在东欧也有战争。这对国防公司来说是有利的，因为他们有很大的政治影响力。看起来特朗普似乎不喜欢这些公司，他们也不喜欢特朗普。特朗普在他的第一个任期并没有发动世界大战。所以，也许这种情况会继续下去。我不太清楚具体的权力动态，但目前看来，权力似乎在于那些更倾向于孤立主义的特朗普团队。

And thank you, Joseph. How are you, what's your economic outlook? What's your view on the unemployment rate on consumer spending the risk of a recession? So I think we would have, we're going to have growth slow down notably, I think much more than people expect because these tariffs are really disruptive. Again, I think the biggest thing that's mispriced in the market is misunderstanding the president Trump agenda. And that is to have tariffs to reshape the global order and to collect revenue. And if you put tariffs on a lot of countries and a lot of things, that's going to impact real growth. That's going to impact business confidence and that's going to slow growth down. And it's also going to be bad for the financial markets. And as we know, a lot of the spending has been financed through the wealth effect. So I think we would have much lower growth this year than last year. And that is also a reason why I think that we're going to have much more cuts in the market is pricing in today.

谢谢你，约瑟夫。你最近怎么样？对经济前景怎么看？你对失业率、消费者支出和经济衰退风险有什么看法？我认为我们的经济增长会明显放缓，比大多数人预期的更严重，因为这些关税确实带来了破坏性。我认为市场最大的误判是对特朗普总统议程的误解。他的目标是通过关税来重塑全球秩序并增加收入。如果对许多国家和商品征收关税，将会影响实际增长，削弱企业信心，并导致经济放缓，同时也不利于金融市场。我们知道，许多消费支出是通过财富效应来推动的。所以，我认为今年的经济增长会比去年低得多，这也是为什么我认为市场的预期降息幅度会比现在更多的理由。

Well, Joseph, you have been fading the recession narrative for over three years now. So when you say you're worried about growth and you are getting pretty bullish on on yield deals going down, I'm definitely paying attention. Joseph, thanks so much for coming on monetary matters. People can find you on Twitter at FedGuy12 and your work is at FedGuy.com, your book, Central Banking 101. It's a classic. People should check it out if they want to learn about Central Banking. Thank you so much, Joseph. Thanks everyone for watching. Thanks, Jack. Thanks for watching. Remember to check out Vanek.com slash NLR Jack to learn more about the Vanek Uranium and nuclear ETF. Thank you. Thank you. This closes the door.

好的，约瑟夫，你反对经济衰退的说法已经三年多了。所以当你说你担心经济增长并且对收益率下降持非常乐观态度时，我一定会注意到。约瑟夫，非常感谢你参与货币问题的讨论。大家可以在Twitter上找到你，用户名是FedGuy12，你的作品可以在FedGuy.com上找到，你的书《中央银行学101》也是一本经典。如果有人想了解中央银行，可以看看这本书。非常感谢你，约瑟夫。感谢大家的观看。谢谢你，Jack。谢谢观看。请记得访问Vanek.com/NLR Jack了解更多关于Vanek铀和核能ETF的信息。谢谢。谢谢。这就结束了。