6 Burst results for "Sven Henrik"
The Café Bitcoin Podcast
"sven henrik" Discussed on The Café Bitcoin Podcast
"We have is a commoner style committee that we've already learned for centuries is a terrible way to price anything. What we have essentially on the fed board is a commonest style committee deciding the price of the most important commodity in the American economy and the same around the world. And for some reason, people buy the lie that there are better at making that decision than the free market. We would be in a much better place if we had and let the free market roam also an interest rates. One of the excuses, they rolled in this enslaving fee at currency system back then was to ease out. Recessions and depressions, but they haven't managed to do that. In the Central Bank doesn't work, it's just a thieving system to steal the value of our savings and labor. So yeah, I just think a commonest style committee is just ruining everything for everyone and we would be in a much better place without it. So yeah, I don't, I don't trust the fed and we should have the free market to roam. Yeah, right on. Thanks, Anders. A couple thoughts come to mind for me. And then we'll go to eater. I've had this conversation with many people who work in traditional finance. I start by saying, hey, you know, what would you say if tomorrow some government agencies started setting the price and the supply of cars in our economy? And as the government car agency and they say, only that this is the number of cars that will be produced. And this is what they will be sold for. And they start laughing because it's such an absurd and flawed idea that would just lead nowhere good. And then I say, okay, well, why are you okay with the fact that our monetary system works in exactly this way? And I've never heard a good answer on this question. They usually try to avoid it. They'll say things like, oh, well, you know the fed doesn't directly control the money supply because there's the commercial banking system and, oh, they're only controlling short term rates. So they're not controlling every point on the yield curve. Which I think is just a cop out entirely and doesn't really answer the question. And then one other thing that comes to mind is these people who will admit, you have to admit that the experts did not manage the economy properly going into 2008, for example, or during this quote unquote inflation is transitory period last year. They clearly failed. But usually what the pro central planners end up saying is if we just get the right people in place, then they'll do a better job next time. I kind of think that's absurd. They failed enough times. I think to prove that this does not work. And then one other response you sometimes hear from people about the monetary system is they might say the monetary system is just too important to leave to the free market. And this maybe is just a difference in viewpoint because I hear that and I think that's crazy. The monetary system is so important that you must leave it to the free market. It's so important that you can't let the central planners destroy it. So I just have a completely different perspective than those people. And then lastly, I would just mention Stephen lubka who is not on the call today. He's usually on swan private macro Fridays. He wrote an article recently about capital misallocation. So this is one of the huge issues with a centrally planned monetary system and manipulated interest rates. It's not only not going to achieve what they think it's going to achieve, but it ends up leading to capital misallocation, which is economic destruction. It's the destruction of real world resources and Steven put together a really great article on this. So I would recommend anyone check that out if they have not seen it. But I will pause there. Peter, let's go to you. So I wanted to respond to Terrence a little bit here. First of all, I agree with you. I think that this is just a short squeeze. And that this is trying to punish those that came in late in the afternoon yesterday. To hop on hop on the shorting train. But the thing, the thing that the thing that I took away from pals from pals press conference yesterday was something that he said at almost at the very end of the past conference, it was just before, I don't know, it was a couple of sentences before he turned and said thank you and turned and walked away. He said, that means that we have to have policy be more restrictive and that narrows the path to a soft landing. I think he just told us that there is no soft landing. That's what I think he just said. And I am one of the doom and gloom is and I think it's going to get pretty bad here towards the towards the end of the fourth quarter, certainly into the first quarter next year. Yeah, that is definitely one of the highlights from yesterday. Usually the fed and treasury, all these central planners of our monetary financial system, they're usually the last ones to admit something. We could go through plenty of examples. But like Sam said, Janet Yellen just recently acknowledged that she never saw that. Housing crisis coming, Bernanke has 15 different quotes that are just absolutely absurd and not seeing the housing crisis coming. We have inflation is transitory. They're usually the last people to see. He got a Nobel Prize, John. He's got history on his side for God's sake. Yeah. Oh man, don't get me started. But no, a Nobel Prize for what? Sven Henrik has some of the greatest takes on this, right? It's like caused a bunch of problems. Nazi any of them coming, do some obscure academic research about the problems that you essentially cause and couldn't see and then you get awarded a Nobel Prize and do speaking engagements. For years on end for thousands of dollars. Quick, quick sidebar. I would say you guys might be interested to hear once Ben Bernanke did come in to our floor at Goldman. We had this big trading style floor, and we had like a mini auditorium in the front of it. And we would have, this is a place for morning market meetings. We would have sometimes external speakers come in with investment strategy discussions, that kind of thing. And there's one afternoon where Ben Bernanke came in and just chatted about really anything like his experiences, the financial crisis, what he thought about the economy at the time. This was probably in like 2018. I want to say. But the amount of fanboying for Ben Bernanke from traditional finance was just unreal. I can't even describe it. I think there were probably some guys that needed to change their shorts after that. After that presentation, these guys just like fawning over him like standing room only in this little auditorium. And I just couldn't understand. I mean, it's interesting to have a guy like that with that kind of status. But given just blatant failure that he had in the past, I couldn't get as excited about it. But that's why I care about Bitcoin. And that's why all those people are probably still working in strapped by. I picture vernacula walking around like the Pope and Goldman and the partners kissing his ring or something. Thank you, sir. Thanks
This Week In Google
"sven henrik" Discussed on This Week In Google
"It. Yeah, that's what you just said, that's just on last week's show. We kind of said, are we past that Apple versus Amazon? I invented the button. No I and then the button. And we're kind of back into it. Walkie talkie was launched in 2011. Now, here's maybe a little bit of a smoking gun. According to the court filings meta approached voxer soon after the app's launch looking to collaborate and then by a year later, voxer had disclosed its patent portfolio and proprietary technology to meta, but as often happens, Microsoft used to do this too. Oh, I guess we can't really reach an agreement to work together. Meta identified voxer is a competitor, according to vox's complaint, despite having no live video or voice product of its own at the time, they revoked fox's access to key components of the platform and then launched Facebook Live two years later. So maybe this was a reasonable decision, the jury was unanimous awarding a $174 million to boxer medic as it will appeal. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I mean, by the way, the Facebook still on Facebook Live. Yeah, sure. Absolutely. That's the streaming platform of mass murderers everywhere, I think. Yeah, that's the thing. Well, I hate to say it, ant, but it kind of is. Yeah, shots fired. Among others. I mean, other people use it as well. Currency, been a bad day. Bad week, bad months, bad year in the stock market. Thank you, United Kingdom. It's been bad in Britain too. You know what's interesting though? As the dollar surges, the pound collapses, Bitcoin has gone up 6 and a half percent. Yeah. 20 $20,000, 6% is new news. That's how far back everything has been. Yeah. Sven Henrik, the founder of northman trader, markets research firm tweeted, you know, we've reached a unique time in history when Bitcoin suddenly is less volatile than Fiat currencies. Oh, that hurts. It's got to hurt. I'm not saying this is the time to invest in Bitcoin just an observation that Bitcoin is doing well as other currencies seem to be sinking rapidly. How has ether done since the merge? You know, I think it's not been good for the merge has not been good for you, but let me just look and see. Actually, it's doing all right. Let's look at the one month trend that did go down quite a bit September 10th after the merge, but it's stabilized a little bit. We'll see. It's not exactly at its one year if you would. Not exactly your high. Oh, it literally went off the chart there for a while. Yeah. So I don't know. I think that there's going to be there's a period of time where people adjust to the idea of proof of stake and I know I have high hopes that ether will survive that merge because I want other cryptocurrencies to adopt this. Yeah, more than survive. I want them to become a model. Meta also being sued right now, this is a great story. We talked quite a bit about apple's app tracking transparency. That was the little switch Apple turned on in iOS 14.5 that said, hey, do you want to let Facebook track you? Say no. I'm talking about it. Gave you the option. And most people took no. Facebook wined and moaned, said we're going to lose billions of dollars. I think they said they lost $10 billion last year because of this ATT switch. Carl bode writing and tech dirt says advertisers, most of them Facebook cried like a disappointed toddler at Christmas. But Facebook also, and they even said this in an earnings call, found other ways to get the same information they're being sued now, Apple security researcher Felix Krauss found Facebook was getting around Apple system by directing any link a user clicks on in the Facebook app to a new in app browser window where Facebook was able to inject a code, alter the external websites and track user behavior online without user consent or awareness. So as one does, they figured out a way to get around it. That is now facing two different class action lawsuits accusing it of violating state and federal privacy laws, including the federal wiretap act. Not sure that's really the right law for this, but hey, whatever it takes, it has been called basically a glorified spyware attack. It's one of the reasons I actually don't have the I do have the Instagram app. I don't have the Facebook app on my phone. By the way, we talked about it yesterday on Mac break weekly. And now I'm regretting it. There is an app that just came out called the OG app. Have you seen this? I know you did that, right? We were talking about this. No, I haven't seen this one. Okay, so the idea is it's using Instagram's API to create a better Instagram app by stripping out the ads. Stripping out the algorithm, it looks just like the old school Instagram with pictures. Guess what? I mentioned it yesterday. I said, everybody get it before Apple takes it down. It's gone.
The Breakdown
"sven henrik" Discussed on The Breakdown
"Some folks made an argument that the British intervention actually worked. As Joe wiesenthal pointed out, quote 30 year guilt yields just experienced their biggest one day fall in history, right after the biggest jump in history. He also wrote bui probably pretty happy with the initial market reaction to the QT delay and long end purchases. Gil yield solidly lower while the pound is actually up a little higher. The pound in fact was up 1.26% on the day. Another question was whether we'd see something similar in the U.S.. Oil and gas investor Josh young wrote, BOE warns of risk to UK financial stability as it intervenes in gilt market. Or in other words, the UK is back to quantitative easing with inflation at 10% to avoid pension blow ups and other similar issues. Will this happen in the U.S. soon? The Bank of England is now the second Central Bank to panic in the past week. After the bank of Japan's intervention in the currency market as well. Ralph wrote stabilizing bonds markets, first the BOJ, then the BOE, next to the ECB. The markets will keep pushing until it gets what they want. More cowbell, more FX devaluation. Muhammad el irian tweeted a chart of the U.S. two year treasury yield going down and wrote the inherent optimism of U.S. markets as evident as Bank of England's intervention is seen as pointing to a more dovish fed. Alex Krueger wasn't so sure, writing bui doing temporary QE out of the blue could be a short term trend changer. But also, quote, the risk is that QE should lead to higher inflation expectations, which can not become unanchored or its game over. Makes sense for the market to get excited about the possibility of the fed doing the same. They won't do it though, they wouldn't risk. Not even remotely there. So summing up where we are in England right now. Lin Alden tweets RIP, Bank of England's quantitative tightening, 2022 to 2022. Muhammad Ali and again pointed out the difficulty that policymakers are faced with. Bank of England is off the sidelines with direct intervention in the government bond market who writes. It just announced temporary purchases of long dated UK bonds. This for a Central Bank that was on the verge of doing QT and hike, illustrating the intensification of its policy dilemma. A Nomura analyst wrote we are now finally proving that central banks are trapped into a BOJ like forever state of balance sheet expansion, as they are once again forced to bend the knee to market forces. Lin had written about this in her June 22 newsletter, sharing an excerpt from that piece she writes today, the BOE now joins the BOJ and ECB and having to print money despite high inflation in order to support their sovereign bond markets. In June, she had written, I think major central banks, including the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, European Central Bank, and bank of Japan are nearing the losing side of a CheckMate scenario, where economic realities dwindle their set of possible choices to zero. The latter two have already likely been put in CheckMate while the former two are hanging on for the moment. This is primarily due to the long-term debt cycle described earlier in this issue, where their economies were stimulated to higher and higher debt as a share of GDP and lower and lower interest rates over decades. Until they hit super high debt levels with zero or slightly negative rates. Then they grind through the low rate disinflationary period for a while until they finally work through excess capacity and reach a period of scarcity, stimulus and inflation. CheckMate in this context happens when a Central Bank encounters inflation that is above its target level, but still can't stop printing money due to lack of buyers of their country's government debt. Or due to other critical liquidity problems in their financial markets. In other words, it's what happens when a country with a super high debt ratio gets hit with acute commodity shortages. And thus has to keep doing quantitative easing on its government bonds even during high inflation. This historically only rarely happens to developed market central banks, and until recently hasn't really happened to any of them since World War II. The prior inflationary part of a long-term debt cycle. When it happened back then, it occurred to several regions at roughly the same time. And that seems to be the case today as well. Summing up where we are even more crisply, Sven Henrik wrote, we intervene so much we cause an inflation crisis, then we tighten so much, we're causing a global economic crisis. Now we must intervene to prevent a financial meltdown. And putting it in a crypto or Bitcoin context, CheckMate writes, about four hours ago, every analyst under the sun was in the there will be no pivot camps. They forgot about how big the debt problem was. Now the BOE is back doing QE, FX markets looking like a day on binance and government debt is radioactive. Fun times, laser eyes on. And that brings us to the crypto Twitter side of the story. As all this chaos was happening, there was a blaring headline from Bloomberg that said, truck and Miller says cryptocurrency could have a renaissance if people lose trust in central banks. Where this quote came from was CNBC's delivering alpha investor summit in New York City this morning where the famed hedge fund manager who has never had a down year sounded a harsh warning. A week ago, he said, there's a high probability in my mind that the market at best is going to be kind of flat for ten years. Sort of like this 66 to 82 time period. And at today's summit, he expanded on that thesis. Our central case is a hard landing by the end of 23. I will be stun if we don't have a recession in 23. I don't know the timing, but certainly by the end of 23, I will not be surprised if it's not larger than the so called average garden variety. He also said that he didn't rule out something worse. Discussing how quantitative easing and zero interest rates created an asset bubble, he said, all those factors that caused a bull market, they're not only stopping the reversing. Every one of them. We are in deep trouble. He called the transitory theory of inflation ridiculous, and said that the fed didn't do enough to fix it fast enough. Quote, when you make a mistake, you got to admit you're wrong and move on that 9 or ten months that they just sat there and bought a 120 billion in bonds. I think the repercussions of that are going to be with us for a long, long time. Chuck and Miller went on that Federal Reserve policy makers have, quote, put themselves in the country and most importantly, the people of the country in a terrible position. Inflation is a killer. To maximize employment over the longer term, you need to have stable prices. He also made a point that I think far too few people have been discussing, arguing that going after inflation now is fundamentally more difficult than it was in the 19 80s. In the storied Volcker period. Back then, he said, quote, the economy wasn't nearly as leveraged and we had not been through an asset bubble. Overall, he said, you don't even need to talk about black swans to be worried here. To me, the risk reward of owning assets doesn't make a lot of sense. Now, he still pointed out that in any environment there are ways to make money. Truck and Miller said he still bullish on biotechnology. And this is where he also said that cryptocurrencies might benefit. If distrust in Central Bank swells. And for all those who will clamor over the next day or weeks or months or however long this narrative lasts. To suggest that this is just yet another crypto narrative shift. I would only like to point out that I have said on this show too many times to count. That the thing that got me excited about Bitcoin in the first place was not as an inflation hedge and not as an uncorrelated asset in market terms at least, but is in a non state controlled hedge against unstable monetary regimes, wherever those regimes might be. I think the simple fact that there is a choice of an asset class that is currency like that isn't controlled by the government is inevitably going to be an important hedge for a growing number of people. And by the way, drucker Miller has also been on this for a while as well. He wasn't quite as loud as people like Paul Tudor Jones, but he still spent a lot of the fall in 2020 talking about Bitcoin and where it might go. Anyways, guys, another really interesting day. I think we might firmly be in it now. But for me, I want to say thanks again to my sponsors next to IO, chain Alice and FTX, and thanks to you guys for listening. Until tomorrow be safe and take care of each other. Peace
CoinDesk Podcast Network
"sven henrik" Discussed on CoinDesk Podcast Network
"Some folks made an argument that the British intervention actually worked. As Joe wiesenthal pointed out, quote 30 year guilt yields just experienced their biggest one day fall in history, right after the biggest jump in history. He also wrote bui probably pretty happy with the initial market reaction to the QT delay and long end purchases. Gil yield solidly lower while the pound is actually up a little higher. The pound in fact was up 1.26% on the day. Another question was whether we'd see something similar in the U.S.. Oil and gas investor Josh young wrote, BOE warns of risk to UK financial stability as it intervenes in gilt market. Or in other words, the UK is back to quantitative easing with inflation at 10% to avoid pension blow ups and other similar issues. Will this happen in the U.S. soon? The Bank of England is now the second Central Bank to panic in the past week. After the bank of Japan's intervention in the currency market as well. Ralph wrote stabilizing bonds markets, first the BOJ, then the BOE, next to the ECB. The markets will keep pushing until it gets what they want. More cowbell, more FX devaluation. Muhammad el irian tweeted a chart of the U.S. two year treasury yield going down and wrote the inherent optimism of U.S. markets as evident as Bank of England's intervention is seen as pointing to a more dovish fed. Alex Krueger wasn't so sure, writing bui doing temporary QE out of the blue could be a short term trend changer. But also, quote, the risk is that QE should lead to higher inflation expectations, which can not become unanchored or its game over. Makes sense for the market to get excited about the possibility of the fed doing the same. They won't do it though, they wouldn't risk. Not even remotely there. So summing up where we are in England right now. Lin Alden tweets RIP, Bank of England's quantitative tightening, 2022 to 2022. Muhammad Ali and again pointed out the difficulty that policymakers are faced with. Bank of England is off the sidelines with direct intervention in the government bond market who writes. It just announced temporary purchases of long dated UK bonds. This for a Central Bank that was on the verge of doing QT and hike, illustrating the intensification of its policy dilemma. A Nomura analyst wrote we are now finally proving that central banks are trapped into a BOJ like forever state of balance sheet expansion, as they are once again forced to bend the knee to market forces. Lin had written about this in her June 22 newsletter, sharing an excerpt from that piece she writes today, the BOE now joins the BOJ and ECB and having to print money despite high inflation in order to support their sovereign bond markets. In June, she had written, I think major central banks, including the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, European Central Bank, and bank of Japan are nearing the losing side of a CheckMate scenario, where economic realities dwindle their set of possible choices to zero. The latter two have already likely been put in CheckMate while the former two are hanging on for the moment. This is primarily due to the long-term debt cycle described earlier in this issue, where their economies were stimulated to higher and higher debt as a share of GDP and lower and lower interest rates over decades. Until they hit super high debt levels with zero or slightly negative rates. Then they grind through the low rate disinflationary period for a while until they finally work through excess capacity and reach a period of scarcity, stimulus and inflation. CheckMate in this context happens when a Central Bank encounters inflation that is above its target level, but still can't stop printing money due to lack of buyers of their country's government debt. Or due to other critical liquidity problems in their financial markets. In other words, it's what happens when a country with a super high debt ratio gets hit with acute commodity shortages. And thus has to keep doing quantitative easing on its government bonds even during high inflation. This historically only rarely happens to developed market central banks, and until recently hasn't really happened to any of them since World War II. The prior inflationary part of a long-term debt cycle. When it happened back then, it occurred to several regions at roughly the same time. And that seems to be the case today as well. Summing up where we are even more crisply, Sven Henrik wrote, we intervene so much we cause an inflation crisis, then we tighten so much, we're causing a global economic crisis. Now we must intervene to prevent a financial meltdown. And putting it in a crypto or Bitcoin context, CheckMate writes, about four hours ago, every analyst under the sun was in the there will be no pivot camps. They forgot about how big the debt problem was. Now the BOE is back doing QE, FX markets looking like a day on binance and government debt is radioactive. Fun times, laser eyes on. And that brings us to the crypto Twitter side of the story. As all this chaos was happening, there was a blaring headline from Bloomberg that said, truck and Miller says cryptocurrency could have a renaissance if people lose trust in central banks. Where this quote came from was CNBC's delivering alpha investor summit in New York City this morning where the famed hedge fund manager who has never had a down year sounded a harsh warning. A week ago, he said, there's a high probability in my mind that the market at best is going to be kind of flat for ten years. Sort of like this 66 to 82 time period. And at today's summit, he expanded on that thesis. Our central case is a hard landing by the end of 23. I will be stun if we don't have a recession in 23. I don't know the timing, but certainly by the end of 23, I will not be surprised if it's not larger than the so called average garden variety. He also said that he didn't rule out something worse. Discussing how quantitative easing and zero interest rates created an asset bubble, he said, all those factors that caused a bull market, they're not only stopping the reversing. Every one of them. We are in deep trouble. He called the transitory theory of inflation ridiculous, and said that the fed didn't do enough to fix it fast enough. Quote, when you make a mistake, you got to admit you're wrong and move on that 9 or ten months that they just sat there and bought a 120 billion in bonds. I think the repercussions of that are going to be with us for a long, long time. Chuck and Miller went on that Federal Reserve policy makers have, quote, put themselves in the country and most importantly, the people of the country in a terrible position.
CoinDesk Podcast Network
"sven henrik" Discussed on CoinDesk Podcast Network
"February 20 20 peak in economic activity, the committee concluded that the subsequent drop in activity had been so great and so widely diffused throughout the economy that, even if it proved to be quite deep, the downturn should be classified as a recession. So basically what they're saying here is that it's not just about two consecutive quarters of economic decline in growth, for example. But it can be about a number of indicators and in fact, those indicators going down very aggressively could mean that even if they only were down for a little while, the NBER might ultimately categorize that as a recession. The definition goes on. Because a recession must influence the economy broadly and not be confined to one sector. The committee emphasizes economy wide measures of economic activity. The determination of the months of peaks and troughs is based on a range of monthly measures of aggregate real economic activity published by the federal statistical agencies. These include real personal income less transfers, non farm payroll employment, employment is measured by the household survey, real personal consumption expenditures, wholesale retail sales adjusted for price changes and industrial production. There is no fixed rule about what measures contribute information to the process or how they are weighed in our decisions. In recent decades, the two measures we have put the most weight on are real personal income, less transfers, and non farm payroll employment. So this will obviously be significant as we talk about whether there can be a recession in the context of what seems like a strong labor market. The NBER is basically saying that non farm payroll employment has been a key factor in how they determine recessions, which means that they might be on the side of there isn't a procession right now. But here's the real key. Quote, the committee's approach to determining the dates of turning points is retrospective. In making its peak and trough announcements, it waits until sufficient data are available to avoid the need for major revisions to the business cycle chronology. In determining the date of a peak in activity it waits until it is confident that a recession has occurred. In other words, the NBER is never going to call a recession as it's happening. It views its job as entirely retrospective. It's basically like the time keepers in Loki and effectively useless for the day to today discussion, which might be why people are so much more focused on the traditional two quarters of declining GDP definition. But really, the question is, why does this all matter? I can't tell right now if the obsession about whether we're in a recession or not is strictly a media obsession. In other words, it's something that is important to different media outlets from a narrative and framing and attention gathering perspective. Or whether there is an element of a skeptical populace trying to catch the media or authorities in what they perceive as a lie or intentional obfuscation. In other words, is this discussion being driven just by media who are looking for the next narrative, or is it also being driven by people whose worldview revolves around the assumption of authorities lying to them, and that when politicians or the mainstream media say we're not in a recession, or worse, use this sort of tortured language like The Wall Street Journal did when it said a common definition of recession, they're sure then that whatever the mainstream media or politicians are saying, the opposite must be true. I think this forms a sort of interesting Rorschach test for the state of economic and political discourse. According to a June 16th economist in YouGov poll, 56% of respondents believe that we are going through a recession. Only 22% disagreed in 22% said they weren't sure. Now among those respondents 70 percent of Republicans said the U.S. is in a recession, 56% of independence said we're in a recession and 45% of Democrats said we're in a recession. Crypto trader chubby Korn says kind of feels like they're trying to convince us the car isn't broken down while they're pushing it. I don't know if they're going to be able to hold the facade together until 2024. And I think that tweet gets to the point that recession at this point is sort of just shorthand for economic pain, which it could be argued is more relevant from people's lived perspectives than those technical definitions. There is definitely, however, an undercurrent of animosity and a sense of being lied to or manipulated that has spread all over this discourse on Twitter. David sacks with 9000 likes and counting on this one writes, a lot of people are wondering about the definition of recession. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth if a Republican is president, the definition is far more complicated and unknowable if a Democrat is president. Conan O'Brien tweets The White House now says it's only a recession if you see a salamander wearing a top hat. Zero hedge writes all of the economists who one year ago promised inflation was transitory agree. This is not a recession. Sven Henrik writes weird how two consecutive quarter declines in GDP was a recession each time except this time, and Charlie biello builds on that and says the last ten times the U.S. had two or more consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth, the economy was in a recession. You have to go back to 1947 to find an exception. WSB chairman writes our government told us inflation was transitory and under control. Now they are changing the definition of a recession so they can tell us we aren't in one. The American people are being gaslighted. Liquidity writes a fake quote from The White House. Well, if you look at the GDP growth on a pro forma adjusted last two week annualized rate run basis, the economy is certainly not in a recession.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"sven henrik" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Stabs to set up an in person meeting at Baxter with more from the Bloomberg newsroom in San Francisco. Eddie? Yeah, you're right. So read that as success, but if you read the readouts, Doug, the tensions are still really, really high. The call was almost two and a half hours. The readouts, as I say, from both sides very short, Bloomberg's Anne Marie horned earned. Well, the readout was really slim on The White House side. They talked about they spoke about a number of issues for the bilateral relationship. They especially want their teams to focus on things like energy, climate, the state media and China talks about things like food security as well. Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But they didn't get into the stuff that we obviously want to hear about. What were some of these direct comments around, of course, the tensions in Taiwan, and also tariffs? Yeah, now, but Bloomberg sherry on says an important statement for president Xi. On the island, President Biden underscored that the U.S. policy has not changed and that the United States strongly opposes unilateral efforts to change the status quo coming out of time when the foreign ministry says that president Xi told Biden that China is going to safeguard national sovereignty and whoever plays with fire will get burned. So Biden saying he did not endorse independence, but said Taiwan security must be protected, and sherry points out terms that have been used in every other meeting readout that the two have had during the Biden presidency like constructive did not appear in the readout. Meanwhile, House speaker Nancy Pelosi ready to leave for her Asia trip tomorrow and there's no announcement about whether she will go to Taiwan, but this announcement today of an in person meeting could give her cover to not go. We will see. The so called chips Bill has passed both branches of the U.S. legislature and is with president Joe Biden. We need to lower the cost of automobiles, appliance new smartphones, consumer electronics, and so much more. And you can't do it. All of these things are powered. Almost everything is in our lives of power by these semiconductors and tiny computer chips. And Bloomberg Joe Matthew says deals with climate change as well. For climate, it's about $60 billion in renewable energy credits to bring the manufacturing of things like solar panels and windmills, batteries, back here, into the U.S.. It also has incentives for EVs and for making your home more environmentally friendly. And another component is healthcare it deals with prescription costs and caps on payments for seniors through Medicare. The last component deals with measures to reduce the deficit. Tokyo reporting out today an unprecedented 40,000 plus COVID cases yesterday eclipsing the previous daily record made just last week more contagious omicron so variants. In San Francisco, I met Baxter. This is Bloomberg right Doug thinks head, let's get to our guests, Sven Hendrick is with us. He is founder at northman trader he joins from London, where it's got to be late in the evening, approaching, well, I think it's already Friday morning, right? Midnight. Sven, thanks for being with us. We're looking at the GDP number now, much worse than forecast in the U.S., and so as a result of this print, the markets are really forced to dial back expectations for fed rate hikes. Is that the right move now because there's not any evidence yet that the labor market has softened. Hi, good evening. Got to be with you. Look, it's actually the cure ultimately for inflation is to have a recession. It's not something that obviously the fit or anyone else wants to publicly push, but that was the example that we saw in 1974, 1980, 1982 when we didn't have very high inflation, then a recession came about and guess what? The fed cut rates inside the roof session while inflation was still high. So yes, there is certainly with the drastic slowdown that we've seen in recent months. That is their concern. Obviously, that we can slip into a recession. And today's GDP number certainly race that Specter as slow growth has dramatically slowed down how she just add one point. Ironically, if you look at past last 50, 70 years, every time U.S. GDP has printed two consecutive negative growth periods, it ended up being classified as a recession. So this here would be very much an exception if that was not the case. Well, we did have equities rising again in the U.S., you buy into this good news as bad news narrative though, it doesn't seem terribly likely the feds could have blink on the basis of two quarters of contraction. No, they shouldn't blink at this point, but I think J pal made it clear yesterday that Ford guidance suddenly is suspended and he said that who knows where rates are going to be 6 months from now, which is a bit counter to the fed's own fed fund forecast for next year, which is 3.8%. So that was an interesting pivot and obviously markets reacted strongly off of that. The issue is simply is can inflation be really contained here in the next few months. I mean, obviously, we're all looking for some sort of relief on that front. And there's a number of data points that may point to that. The promise the areas of inflation at the fit does not control can not control in terms of the food energy and what have you to the extent they're still more persistent than any early pivot of the fed may end up being a polymer policy mistake down the road. That's the danger here. And of course, equities are pivoting of what's been happening with yields, which have been dropping dramatically since the June peak of three and a half percent, and also in the reversal in the dollar. Remember, in June, we were extremely oversold and technically disconnected. So for now we can view all this maybe in context of a larger bear market rally and we've seen those in the year 2002 1008 and they ultimately ended up turning after everybody got very optimistically given. Yeah, we can talk about whether or not we're at peak dollar or at least in the near term when we continue the conversation. I also want to talk a little bit about what we may see tomorrow in the U.S. with a GDP deflator and also the employment cost index and whether or not we're going to see kind of a labor market that is pushing wage inflation higher irrespective of what's happening in other segments of the economy. Sven Henrik, our guest