Transcript
Scott Melker (0:01)
Trade wars are exploding with tariffs the likes of which the world has never seen its tariff palooza, if you will. But bitcoin and crypto actually holding up relatively nicely as other markets seem to be imploding across the board. Is this a sign of the great decoupling of bitcoin or is there more pain to come? We're going to talk about this and of course, all of the main news stories from this week on the Friday 5. NLW and I are ready. Are you? Let's go. Let's do. Let's go. What is up, everybody? I'm Scott Melker, also known as the Wolf of all streets. Before we get started, please subscribe to the channel and hit that like button. Gonna bring on nlw. Tariff palooza. Everybody gets a tariff. It's like an Oprah episode. You get a tariff and you get a chair. If you get a chair, if everybody.
NLW (1:04)
Yeah, sorry, you, I think I'm your, your video is about two seconds behind your sound, so I don't know which is correct. But yeah, it's, I mean, look, the, the tariffs were always going to be the big story this week. They are indeed the big story this week. Maybe the big story this month. Definitely the big story this year. It's, it's tariff time and no one has any goddamn idea what it all is going to turn out to be. And anyone who says that they do is lying to themselves or to you or to both.
Scott Melker (1:30)
I mean, it's either 40 chess or 1D checkers. And I really have no idea which one it is at this point. I mean, if you look at the comments of the center's obviously a smart guy and Lutnick and Trump, it seems like there's a greater plan here. But generally tariffs are not used as a blunt force instrument against every person you can possibly find. Usually they're very narrow and targeted and temporary and it really feels like they're causing purposeful mayhem. Now, I guess the people who are huge fans of Trump and the administration will tell you that this is about a strategy to bring down rates, force the Fed to reduce, to bring manufacturing back home to stimulate the economy. Some of that makes sense. Critics will tell you that China just went ahead and hit us back with a 34% tariff, which shows that they're not really scared or willing to negotiate. I don't think anybody, as you said, has any idea what's going on. But I also don't think we're going to relent here. I think it's very ugly.
NLW (2:32)
Absolutely. So, I mean, I think that you have, you can kind of divide the world into three different areas, right? On the one hand you've got the people who are just going to hate this policy no matter what, which includes people who dislike Trump. And then also a lot of people who have kind of like, you know, a traditional background in economics who think that this is insane. Right. You know, everyone's rereading, you know, up on Smoot Hawley. So there's that whole category. Unfortunately, like that group doesn't really have that much to offer the conversation right now because the thing is happening, right, Whether it was stupid or not. Like the thing is now here there's no historical precedent that we can really look to and even historical precedents are really only useful in, in before a decision is made. So here we are. And so then you have kind of these two, two other groups. The, one of the complicated things I think is that the people who are in the support this side have very, very different logics for why they are supporting this or why they think it's a good idea. To your point, some of them say it's about bringing rates down. Some of them about, say it's about fairness in the global system. For some it's about a restructuring of the economic order. For others it's about, you know, a new way of distributing, you know, the sort of the cost burden of, of a society away from things like individual taxes towards tariffs. Others think that it's just a power play based on where the US sits in the world. Like, and, and I think that the, the challenge is that this administration has at various points kind of vaguely articulated all of those things. But it's not clear which, you know, what the, what the ranked order is of priority which is the most important relative to the others. And it makes it hard understand what they're driving towards. And that's not just relevant for us kind of sitting here jawboning about it. It's relevant for investors who are making decisions about what to do with this. Right. If the goal is to reshore manufacturing, that's a generational process where you really need people to be convinced that these policies are not just a temporary tool to change negotiations, but instead some long term consistent thing. And I think, you know, Trump is answering that critique sort of by screaming that his policies are never going to change on Truth Social, which is a recent message that that was posted. But anyways, the point is that I think that the lack of clarity around which of the 10 possible 40 type types of 40 chess that this could be it is or that they're going for is tough. I also think frankly that like, you know, there, there people didn't believe Trump that he was going to do this in the, in the first place. I don't think anyone really did. Now people are in. The new denial is that Besson and Lutnick are actually on board with this. I think there's a lot of sense that like their hand is sort of forced and the version of this that maybe they were on board with isn't this version. But you know, they're, they're under Trump, so what are they going to do? And, and who knows, maybe that's right, maybe that's wrong, maybe they're full throatedly interested in it. But the point is that when it comes to the market having any sort of anything that they can hang their hat on, there's just nothing there. The middle area, the last sort of group of people are the people who are trying to, without being kind of like blithely dismissive or blithely accepting of anything that comes like analyzing this from the standpoint of how likely it is to have the desired impact, whichever of those potential 40 chess moves it is. And I think that the, the challenging thing is that most of those folks, at least that I'm seeing, are coming away from this with just a really strong sense of not seeing how this approach to shock and awe actually delivers that. Balaji Srinivasan made an analogy basically to a 98 year old man who used to be able to bench press 315 pounds, hasn't bench pressed, you know, in 50 years and tries to go straight to 315 pounds. And how does that work out? His point being that you can't unwind. I think the exact phrase is you can't unwind 45 years of policy with 45% tariffs. And so even if that's what you're trying to do, it just seems unlikely to succeed. But you know, look, we are now officially in the most aggressive, large scale, turn on a dime economic pivot in the history of modernity. And, and I don't see it going away. So all we have to do is what's next.
