Previsões para Bitcoin e mercados mundiais com a próxima reunião do FOMC

Esta é uma transcrição completa da “Bitcoin Magazine Podcast”, apresentado por P e Q. Neste episódio, Ansel Lindner se junta a eles para falar sobre a reunião do Federal Open Markets Committee.

Assista a este episódio no YouTube ou Rumble

Ouça o episódio aqui:

[00:00:05] P: Quero lembrar a todos que os ingressos para o Bitcoin Amsterdam estão à venda. Use o código promocional BM live para obter 10% de desconto em seus ingressos hoje e venha para a maior festa de toda a Europa em Amsterdã com a equipe da Bitcoin Magazine, de 12 a 14 de outubro. E agora estou feliz e animado em apresentar nosso convidado de hoje.

Eu considero um amigo, alguém que eu realmente escuto todos os alfas que ele fala. Ele é o anfitrião do Bitcoin and Markets, bem como do podcast “Fed Watch”. Ele é um escritor da Bitcoin Magazine e o escritor do boletim informativo, Bitcoin e mercados. Ansel Lindner. Bem-vindo de volta ao show.

[00:00:39] Ansel Lindner: Ei, obrigado Q por me receber. Sim, pessoal, esta é a melhor reportagem na internet sobre Bitcoin.

Então esse foi um ótimo trecho do lado de fora do tribunal com Hodlonaut. E eu achei isso ótimo. Obrigado por me receber.

[00:00:55] P: Não, obrigado, Ansell. E eu quero reiterar se alguém está assistindo isso preocupado que não estamos falando com Craig Wright. Solicitamos à equipe dele para entrevistá-lo.

Estamos aguardando uma resposta da equipe. Então, se você tem uma linha para Craig Wright, sinta-se à vontade para informá-lo. Adoraríamos ouvir o lado dele da história também. Estamos relatando isso de forma totalmente independente. Não há preconceito no que estamos fazendo. Estamos simplesmente relatando os fatos. Se você acha que há preconceito, meu amigo, a culpa é sua. Mas vamos mergulhar, Ansel. Sim. Sim. Você me irritou algumas semanas atrás e é por isso que eu estava tipo, eu preciso dele no show.

[00:01:27] Ansel Lindner: Ah não. Oh não.

[00:01:30] P: Então eu quero voltar no tempo algumas semanas e, eu caí no campo de, acho que todo mundo. Portanto, estou errado e você provavelmente está certo, porque você é a única pessoa que eu leio e leio muitos boletins em macroanalistas.

Ok. Quem realmente achou que o discurso de Powell em Jackson Hole foi mais dovish do que hawkish. E eu realmente levei o que ele estava dizendo e talvez a uma falha, eu levei o que ele estava dizendo, literalmente, porque este é o mesmo homem que olhou nos olhos de todos nós e disse, a inflação será transitória com uma cara séria.

p>

Eu quero primeiro entender sua interpretação de como e por que você sente que Powell vai ser muito mais dovish do que o dele. Naquele momento. Ah, bem,

[00:02:23] Ansel Lindner: Quer dizer, eu não, eu, eu não me lembro exatamente das coisas que ele disse lá. Mas no início não era uma declaração de política, como, você sabe, vindo de uma reunião do F OMC ou algo assim, onde ele está dizendo exatamente o que eles vão fazer, o que eles estão pensando que o mercado colocou muito peso sobre exatamente o que Powell ia dizer lá.

E foi uma declaração curta e doce. Ele entrou e saiu. Isso é o que eu me lembro especificamente disso. Não me lembro de todas as diferentes partes que eram, pensei que poderiam ser mais dovish do que hawkish, mas para Powell, geralmente, Powell girou uma vez, duas vezes antes, certo. Ele mudou de aperto em 2018 para flexibilização em 2019. E então, em 2021, ele mudou muito rapidamente de flexibilização para aperto novamente. Então, ele piscou do nada várias vezes. E lembre-se que a primeira vez em 2018, como ele saiu, ele era um novo presidente e saiu como em dezembro de 2018 e disse que a política monetária está no piloto automático.

Eles vão aperte, está no piloto automático. No mês seguinte, ele fez uma pausa, então ele pode mudar em um centavo e eu espero que isso aconteça novamente. Portanto, é apenas uma questão de descobrir exatamente quando o mercado se deteriorou o suficiente a ponto de ele girar em um centavo, se for este mês, e ele, acho, continuará concordando com esse M.O.

[00:04:06] P: Isso é justo. Eu sinto que também há um pouco, ele estava roubando isso ou, na verdade, que Ben Bernanke roubou dele naquele momento em que ele essencialmente disse que o trabalho do Fed é mais sobre falar do que realmente seguir. E vemos que os próprios mercados praticamente disseram a Powell e ao Fed: Ei, é isso que queremos que você faça.

Ou pelo menos é isso que achamos que você fará. E não houve surpresas. Eu amo os relatórios semanais de James Lavish nesta semana mais recente. Ele deu um pouco de história e contexto sobre Volcker. E uma coisa que eu acho que ele perdeu e algo que eu acho que muitos de nós eu sou, eu só vou envelhecer como se eu nunca estivesse vivo, eu nem era um pensamento na mente dos meus pais quando Paul Volcker era em torno de fazer o que ele fez. Mas além disso, como mídia social e todas essas coisas de lado, não havia esses sistemas em vigor onde métodos preditivos de “Ei, isso é o que esperamos que o Fed faça”. Nada disso existia na época de V.

Então tivemos um pouco mais de liberdade para sair e surpreender os mercados com aumentos tão pesados ​​nas taxas de juros. Não estou dizendo que você espera que Powell vá nessa linha, mas o quanto você acha da supervisão de Powell? Não apenas do governo, mas do público e como o público pode ver e pensar em tudo o que está fazendo.

Quanto isso afeta o processo de tomada de decisão dos federais agora, na sua opinião?

[00:05:40] Ansel Lindner: Ah, essa é uma pergunta muito boa. Eu sei de volta, quer dizer, eu não me lembro. Eu sou muito jovem para me lembrar de Voker, mas eu me lembro de Greenspan, na verdade, não como um adulto, mas me lembro de pegar alguns destaques no noticiário noturno ou algo assim de Greenspan.

E ele foi muito sério naquela época. Como se eles se preocupassem porque ele sempre carregava uma pasta em seu depoimento na frente do Congresso, você sabe, porque eles têm que fazer essas audiências de supervisão com as diferentes casas do Congresso. E eles olhavam para onde ele estava, como ele estava carregando sua bolsa.

Ele estava carregando com a mão esquerda ou com a mão direita? Ele estava carregando-o pela alça ou ele estava carregando-o meio que pelo fundo, você sabe, para que eles olhassem para essas coisas e detalhassem exatamente como eles leem sua linguagem corporal. Então é isso. Sempre foi pelo menos nos últimos, eu diria 20 a 30 anos.

Foi extremamente. Focado no presidente e no que ele está dizendo e fazendo, interpretando as coisas. Agora eles têm bots que serão lidos como a declaração do F OMC. Cai meia hora antes da coletiva de imprensa. E há bots que estão raspando isso imediatamente, digerindo e colocando em algum algoritmo que as pessoas programaram para procurar certas palavras-chave e coisas.

E então eles negociarão com base nisso. O que, o que seus, seus algoritmos, seus bots estão dizendo. Então há, sim, é, é fortemente escrutinado. Isso responde à sua pergunta?

[00:07:09] P: Não, com certeza. Eu, eu, eu acho que o justo entender como a nossa sociedade. Até mesmo o mercado para si mesmo mudou do que era 40, 50, até 30 ou 20 anos atrás é tão importante para entender, acho que alguns dos processos de tomada de decisão aqui.

Eu sou, Estou curioso, porém, o que é com a quantidade de ruído que está lá fora? E eu vou colocar o Bitcoin e os mercados descaradamente como sendo um dos boletins de maior sinal do mercado. Quais são, quais são as coisas que você está prestando atenção? Quero mergulhar na mesclagem mais tarde com você.

Mas quais são as outras coisas nas quais você está realmente prestando atenção agora?

[00:07:53] Ansel Lindner: Bem, minha visão sobre o mercado mudou radicalmente, eu diria nos últimos quatro ou cinco anos. E vejo que todo o sistema financeiro global. Está em uma armadilha da dívida, certo? Porque é dinheiro baseado em crédito e você não pode resolver um problema de dívida adicionando mais dívidas.

E é isso que eles estão tentando fazer globalmente. Então, o resultado final disso é baixo crescimento e baixa inflação. Isso porque você sempre pode chutar a lata no caminho adicionando mais dívidas. Mas isso não significa que você pode sair do seu problema de dívida. Certo? Então, isso apenas chuta a lata um pouco mais para baixo, e você pode ter reflação, você pode ter alguma recuperação no mercado, mas depois, eventualmente, com tempo suficiente, talvez 2, 2, 3, 4 anos, você vai de volta a esse ambiente de baixo crescimento e inflação baixa.

E então, quando olho para o COVID e a resposta, foi dramático. Sim, era muito grande, mas vai se desgastar e vamos voltar a um ambiente de baixo crescimento e baixa inflação. Até o único, o fim disso é quando trocamos o dinheiro. Então, tivemos que deixar de um dinheiro baseado em crédito de volta para um dinheiro commodity.

Acho que será o Bitcoin. Pessoalmente, é claro, os bugs de ouro têm um argumento, mas acho que o Bitcoin é, é uma solução melhor e será escolhido por você sabe, as pessoas que estão começando a mudar e procurar uma nova moeda, o Bitcoin será uma opção disponível mais pronta, eu acho, do que voltar ao ouro.

Então. Isso é o que eu acho. Eu acho que estes são apenas o mercado vai fazer o que o mercado vai fazer. E estamos em baixa, voltando para um baixo crescimento, inflação longa até trocarmos o dinheiro. Então é assim que eu vejo tudo em todos os desenvolvimentos no espaço dentro, na macro ou fora da China ou fora da Europa ou mesmo nos EUA, o que for.

Eu sempre vejo isso com um entendimento que a tendência subjacente que eles estão tentando manipular e da qual estão tentando sair é o baixo crescimento, a baixa inflação. Eles estão tentando vencer o bicho-papão deflacionário. E é assim que vejo todo o estado da economia global.

[00:10:10] P: Adoro isso.

Acho que está tão bem colocado que preciso, para fortalecer seu argumento. Você já teve a chance de fazer uma correlação entre a oferta monetária M2 e o S e P 500?

[00:10:24] Ansel Lindner: Quer dizer, não me lembro. Provavelmente já vi algo assim no passado, mas não o vi recentemente.

[00:10:29] P: É uma média, então flutua, nunca fica exatamente estagnada em um longa janela de tempo para, para os espectadores. Quem nunca fez uma correlação em um gráfico de ações. Mm-hmm , mas com M2 oferta monetária no SP 500, desde 2008, a correlação é em média cerca de 0,92. Então, a maneira como eu interpretei isso é que para cada dólar que nosso feed imprimiu, o S e P 500 aumentou 92 centavos de dólar.

Então. O que me apavora é que estamos naquele momento de chamada de cortina em que podemos continuar passando a bola. Podemos continuar jogando algumas dívidas aqui ou ali, mas chegamos a um ponto em que todos os nossos outros amigos ricos, todos os outros países ricos não podem pagar. O que está acontecendo. Estamos vendo o colapso do iene vendo a Europa.

Honestamente, tente ser o 51º estado da América neste momento. Assim, essa é a minha escolha de que, de alguma forma, a Europa será como uma nova forma de América. E então você tem, é claro, apenas os desastres em curso com a Rússia e a Ucrânia, e então um quase desastre iminente, se você preferir, entre a China e Taiwan de todos os países estrangeiros e todos os problemas que ouvimos internacionalmente, existe um ou dois em particular onde você está, este é um ponto de ruptura que quebrará muitas pessoas.

[00:11:55] Ansel Lindner: De todas essas coisas que você mencionou lá

[00:11:57] P: ou qualquer coisa que eu não esteja pensando

[00:11:58] Ansel Lindner: em? Bem, eu acho que lugares como a Europa estão sujeitos a uma inflação estruturalmente mais alta. E é engraçado que eu diga isso, mas quando eu, eu, você sabe, estou otimista com o dólar porque acho que a economia na Europa é fundamentalmente diferente da economia dos Estados Unidos.

Eles são muito dependentes. Eles meio que, você sabe, cortaram um casal, tipo, cortaram a perna, a perna esquerda e o braço direito para tentar ser como esse poder globalista globalista. E agora eles estão descobrindo, oh droga, nós somos, nossa economia está ferrada. Então lá vai levar décadas. Talvez até mesmo um século para recapturar o tipo.

Auto-suficiência na Europa. E do jeito que eu acho que isso vai acontecer é que eles vão se mudar para o sul. Você sabe, nos últimos 500 anos, quando você teve o Renascimento e o Iluminismo e outras coisas, a cultura européia se moveu para o norte em direção a lugares, você sabe, Amsterdã, Bruxelas, esse tipo de coisa, e claro, Paris e Berlim e tudo isso.

Mas você sabe, a história da Europa está no sul, você sabe, Roma e Grécia e Espanha e lugares, até mesmo o norte da África. Então eu acho que a Europa está enfrentando esse problema estrutural. E eu não acho que vai acabar de forma aguda. Acho que será apenas uma mudança gradual em direção aos recursos.

Eles precisam colocar as mãos em mais recursos. Então, essa é uma visão fundamentalmente diferente de como você teria que olhar para os Estados Unidos, onde os Estados Unidos têm todos os recursos de que precisam. Tem excesso de recursos. E assim, os EUA vão realmente voltar para dentro, onde a Europa meio que passou os últimos 50 anos colocando seu tipo de união européia em ordem sem sucesso, eu acho.

E eles meio que não preocupado com os recursos. Agora eles vão mudar e ser mais externos. Eu acho que vá para o sul, vá para o norte da África no Oriente Médio para uma corrida por recursos, enquanto os EUA estão meio que recuando e eles estão voltando para casa e não serão tão grandes mantenedores da paz no mundo.

Agora, muitas pessoas não gostam desse termo mantenedor da paz, mas você sabe, nós gostamos especialmente desde a queda, o fim da guerra fria, mas voltando para a Segunda Guerra Mundial que temos. Fez com que houvesse livre comércio possível no mundo, o mundo, isso tem sido conhecido como, você sabe, muitas pessoas, bem, eu fiz isso, mas muitas pessoas disseram isso muito antes de eu tem é chamado de PAX Americana.

Então, durante o império romano, você sabe, logo no início com Augusto e tudo isso, eles tiveram o que, depois que ele se tornou imperador, eles tiveram um PAX, o que era PAX Romano. E era todo o Mediterrâneo e este comércio pacífico, este comércio pacífico. E eles realmente cresceram. Eles realmente cresceram economicamente durante esse período.

Bem, os EUA copiaram isso para o mundo inteiro, o mundo inteiro era capaz de negociar. E é por isso que vimos, você sabe, a maioria das pessoas saindo da pobreza no mundo. A maior riqueza criada nos últimos 50 anos do que alguma vez combinada, no mundo, na história do mundo. E isso está sob um regime de livre comércio que os EUA estavam impondo externamente.

Agora, se. Nós estamos recuando e a Europa está avançando. Você sabe, esse tipo de dinâmica pode causar muitos problemas para muitos lugares. Você teria que olhar individualmente para diferentes países. Como se você pudesse olhar para o Egito. OK. Agora vamos ver o que vai acontecer com o Egito nas próximas décadas.

Se esse pano de fundo do que estou falando está acontecendo. E a Arábia Saudita? E a África do Sul, Brasil? Você sabe, você tem que ir individualmente por esses países e tentar descobrir o que vai acontecer com eles porque o mundo não é mais definido como uma zona de livre comércio global.

Ok. O mundo vai ser definido de forma muito diferente. Não vai ser, eu nem chamo de multipolar, chamo de multirregional e haverá potências regionais. Então a Europa vai dominar o mar do norte Báltico, mar Mediterrâneo. Tudo isso por aí vai se tornar como a zona européia de influência que os EUA terão no hemisfério ocidental.

Então você tem que olhar para a China. Bem, o que vai acontecer com a China. Qual será a região de influência deles? A Rússia vai ficar com a Europa ou com a China? A propósito, essa também é a velha pergunta sobre a Rússia. Então, você não pode simplesmente dizer que haverá um ou dois grandes eventos nos próximos cinco a 10 anos que ditarão como tudo isso acontecerá.

Acho que todo país é meio que por conta própria e isso é assustador. Isso é realmente assustador. Eu acho que para muitos países subdesenvolvidos mercados emergentes, quero dizer, dizer em um mercado emergente, Ei, você, você não tem mais o benefício da OMC. Você sabe, a organização mundial do comércio, você não tem mais o benefício de todas essas outras instituições às quais você pode recorrer para obter um tratamento justo.

Agora você tem que impor um tratamento justo por conta própria. Isso é assustador para muitos lugares. Então, sim, é assim que eu descreveria o futuro no mundo. Você tem que olhar para isso de forma mais fragmentada e pegar um país de cada vez, uma região de cada vez. E. Descubra o que vai acontecer com eles.

[00:17:17] P: Eu respeito. E eu aprecio isso. E nunca mais vou pedir para juntar as coisas, principalmente para agradecer por isso. Eu quero falar um pouco sobre, você sabe, minha pátria do Irã nas notícias algumas semanas atrás, com sua decisão de fechar negócios internacionais e aceitar grandes, eles disseram criptomoedas, mas vamos continuar assumindo que eles estão insinuando Bitcoin.

Eles fecharam um comércio internacional muito significativo com uma criptomoeda que não foi divulgada, mas dado o tamanho dessa transação, nos sentimos muito confiantes em dizer que era Bitcoin. E também temos agora a Rússia passando por uma legislação dizendo que aceitará. Bitcoin e criptomoedas para liquidar o comércio internacional.

Eu realmente não preciso ler nada mais do que esses são dois países que nos têm e sanções ocidentais impostas a eles e eles estão usando essas formas dessas criptomoedas em Bitcoin nomeadamente para contornar as sanções. E estou curioso se você acha que chegará um ponto em que alguns aliados ocidentais poderão decidir e optar por isso.

Vamos fechar o comércio com a Rússia porque eu tenho, e vou, eu Vou usar dois exemplos específicos. Então só podemos analisar esses dois países. Quero falar sobre o Reino Unido com a confiança de Liz. Agora sendo implementado no primeiro-ministro, você está vendo as contas de energia subindo. Você está vendo as pessoas irem às ruas e vamos expulsar o CCHO Zakia, porque eles tiveram alguns dos protestos mais barulhentos e seus cidadãos estão pedindo a seus líderes que essencialmente voltem à mesa com Putin e a Rússia e cheguem a algum tipo de um acordo para acabar com a guerra, para diminuir o preço da energia.

E estou curioso se você acha que pode haver um ponto de ruptura em qualquer um desses países, para eles se estabelecerem, negociarem com um país como o Irã ou um país como a Rússia, que atualmente está sob sanções ocidentais por causa de seus cidadãos.

[00:19:09] Ansel Lindner: Hmm. Então, romper e se livrar das sanções unilateralmente para si é o que você está

[00:19:16] P: dizendo.

Não necessariamente se livrar das sanções, mas sim simplesmente. Complete o comércio para receber mais petróleo ou energia, gás, e gire e resolva com qualquer denominação que seu parceiro comercial achar melhor. Estritamente que nada mais, não necessariamente dizendo que estão fora das sanções, mas estritamente para receber gás e petróleo.

[00:19:43] BM Pro Commercial: Olá pessoal, aqui é o Q da revista Bitcoin ao vivo

[00:19:43] p>

[00:19:47] Moon Mortgage Ad: À medida que o mundo se move cada vez mais em direção à adoção mainstream da hipoteca lunar Bitcoin torna possível materializar seus ativos digitais. Empréstimos com garantia são ótimos para pagar as despesas de compra de um carro ou até mesmo para quando você só precisa ter aquele Rolex doce. Mas o que não é tão bom é quando você perde a capacidade de negociar seus ativos, uma vez que seu empréstimo foi retirado.

Assim como você, a hipoteca da lua acredita que você deve poder ter seu bolo e comê-lo.

O comércio e empréstimo da Moon Mortgage é a primeira conta de margem de empréstimo de ativos digitais do mundo, permitindo que você negocie instantaneamente seu Bitcoin enquanto empresta em sua conta. Tudo com risco de insolvência zero da Dexus, sem taxas de originação, nem qualquer risco de terceiros, pois a hipoteca lunar nunca emprestará seus ativos digitais.

para o futuro dos empréstimos garantidos. Visite moon, mortgage dot I hoje para saber como você pode negociar, emprestar e negociar seus ativos digitais um pouco mais.

[00:20:37] BA Anúncio:

A revista Bitcoin e a equipe que trouxe a maior conferência Bitcoin do mundo está trazendo a missão da hipercolonização global com o encontro europeu inaugural. Neste outono, o Bitcoin Amsterdam acontece de 12 a 14 de outubro no belo local Western GOs no coração da cidade.

Junte-se a milhares de Bitcoiners para três dias de conteúdo de Bitcoin com curadoria relevante para a cena emergente do Bitcoin em A Europa e o mundo.

Os palestrantes confirmados incluem Dr. Adam back, Alex Gladstein, Greg FOSS, Ray USF e muitos, muitos outros. Esta será uma conferência imersiva, que inclui compromissos práticos em nosso estágio de prova de oficina, bem como conteúdo exclusivo para baleias VIP nas profundezas do Bitcoins O ponto de exclamação de Amsterdã será uma enorme festa Bitcoin no festival de música que você não vai querer.

O European Parcel of Sound Money Fest acontece no terceiro dia do evento, 14 de outubro e a entrada está incluída nos passes GA e baleia. Confira todos os detalhes em b.tc/conference e use o código promocional BM live para 10% de desconto. Os preços dos ingressos aumentam em 21 de agosto. Então pegue seus ingressos por dia por 299 euros para um ingresso GA e 3.499.

Euros para o passe VIP da baleia.

[00:21:51] BM Pro Commercial:

Se você é como eu e deseja obter uma compreensão mais profunda do que está acontecendo no mercado Bitcoin e no ambiente macro mais amplo, você precisa se inscrever na revista Bitcoin pro. Hoje. Há uma versão gratuita e uma paga deste boletim diário, onde nossos analistas de mercado detalham o que está acontecendo nos mercados.

Para que você não precise se inscrever hoje na revista Bitcoin, pro.com.

p>

[00:22:10] Ansel Lindner: Ah cara. Bem, há muita coisa embutida nessa pergunta porque você sabe, petróleo, sim. O petróleo é um grande produto do Irã. É um grande produto da Rússia. Mas não é a única coisa em sua economia. Certo. Eles têm muito turismo que entra e sai de lugares diferentes. Então eles têm muitos estrangeiros indo para lá.

Russos indo para lugares como Cypress e outras coisas. Portanto, há muitas viagens com as quais você precisa se preocupar. Há muitos outros negócios. Então eu sei que eu acho que houve. Das cem maiores empresas da Rússia, 50 delas eram alemãs ou algo assim. Então, você tem muitos interesses concorrentes em ambos os lugares.

E não é tão fácil dizer, vamos obter apenas, este produto será capaz de fluir e você ainda teria que se preocupar, sabe, bem, o que isso vai fazer com as exportações de importação desses diferentes países? E, você sabe, talvez isso seria uma causa e um desequilíbrio que realmente prejudicaria o Reino Unido, você sabe, ou prejudicaria Chuck Zakia.

Então, eu não sei, eu não analisei tão profundamente. Eu acho que o Reino Unido, tipo, eu realmente não me importo muito sobre quem é o primeiro-ministro porque os poderes gerais que estão vão, e a situação política, a situação geopolítica no mundo vão forçar sua mão. Então, o que o Reino Unido está olhando agora é o que o Reino Unido está olhando.

Ir para as próximas décadas sem um acordo com os Estados Unidos. Então eles estão armando duro, um grande acordo comercial com os EUA. Eles o armaram com força sob Trump. Eles foram rígidos, armados até agora sob Biden, onde o Japão assinou com a Coreia do Sul, acredito que assinou, há alguns outros países importantes que assinaram isso, essas negociações bilaterais com os Estados Unidos, mas o Reino Unido não. p>

Então, o Reino Unido quer ser europeu ou quer ser parceiro comercial dos EUA? Essa é a decisão que o Reino Unido está enfrentando agora e possivelmente por que sua política parece tão virada de cabeça para baixo. Por que eles não podem escolher por que estão indo e voltando entre diferentes primeiros-ministros.

Então, mas eu não sou um especialista em política do Reino Unido. Então isso é tudo o que posso dizer agora para a Tchecoslováquia. Quando você olha para eles, eles são. Bem no meio da Europa, eles estão sem litoral. Eles estão ao lado do maior motor econômico da Europa, que é a Alemanha. Mas eles também estão ao lado da Hungria, que tem um líder populoso.

E parece que Chuck Zakia também está tendo uma onda populista. E eu falei sobre isso no Federal Watch ontem que a Itália parece que vai se tornar populista e a Suécia parece que vai se tornar populista. E o que quero dizer com populista é apenas antiglobalista com um tipo de propensão anti-UE, eu acho.

Então, você sabe, tudo isso é Chuck Zakia, se eles se juntarem a esse tipo de populoso países um bloco dentro da UE, quero dizer, poderíamos ver algumas grandes batalhas políticas acontecendo e possivelmente o início do fim da União Europeia. Quer dizer, levaria muito tempo, mas isso poderia ser o começo disso agora dizendo que como a CZE Zakia lida com todas as suas negociações comerciais dentro da União Europeia, certo?

Porque eles ter livre comércio dentro da União Européia, viagens gratuitas e todas essas coisas. Bem, o que acontece se eles começarem a importar petróleo russo, talvez por fome ou algo assim, mas eles. Alguém na União Européia não gosta daquela Alemanha e/ou Polônia. E eles dizem, bem, agora vocês não podem viajar para a Polônia.

Esses cheques não podem viajar para a Polônia ou qualquer outra coisa. Quero dizer, há todo tipo de coisas diferentes que podem acontecer. Então, espero que tenha sido uma resposta completa. não,

[00:26:03] P: foi, foi excelente. Eu, eu amo isso. E eu, eu acho que há, eu, eu amo a maneira como você enquadra isso, enquadrado, o Reino Unido quer continuar a ser parceiro comercial com os EUA ou com a Europa.

E eu, eu faço acho que haverá certas decisões que já vimos. Países como, como a Inglaterra fazem e vamos começar lentamente, veja, acho que outras nações europeias tomam decisões semelhantes sobre o que é certo. Para seus cidadãos ou o que é certo para que os poderes mantenham o controle.

Eu preciso, porque você está no meu programa, se pronuncia Irã. Eu sempre vou quebrar todos que vierem. Eu quero

[00:26:42] Ansel Lindner: também, o que eu disse Irã? Eu disse que Irã ou Irã? Ah,

[00:26:47] P: o que é? Eu sempre o Irã. Eu, eu nem sei como pronunciá-lo. Inapropriadamente

[00:26:52] Ansel Lindner: apenas ok. Irã,

[00:26:52] P: Irã, Irã. Aqui está algo para apenas, eu quero sempre contar essa história.

O Irã atualmente tem cerca de 157 bilhões de barris de petróleo. Isso foi documentado em 2016. Então, com mais seis anos de sanções, além da produção de petróleo, acho que esse número pode ser estimado com segurança como maior, mas vamos deixar esse número, já que este país não pode exportar seu petróleo, mas os países que podem fazer parte da OPEP Os países da OPEP produzem cerca de 28 milhões de barris de petróleo por dia.

Isso significa que o Irã está sentado com mais de 5.000 vezes, a quantidade de petróleo que a OPEP produz diariamente. Eu realmente gostaria de entender e continuar a martelar isso. Eu sei que você não terá a resposta para isso, mas em um certo ponto, quando os cidadãos vão acordar e realmente perguntar a seus líderes?

Por que você está impedindo este país de nos vender um Boa. Isso é necessário agora, onde nos encontramos no cenário global. E não é apenas o Irã, a Rússia também. E minha ressalva é que ninguém expulsou a Rússia da OPEP. Além disso, ninguém disse que a Rússia não pode participar disso. E a Rússia está encontrando essas maneiras de contornar.

Eles estão vendendo seu petróleo para a Turquia. Eles estão vendendo seu petróleo e gás para a China em um certo ponto. A história para mim dita que nunca vamos realmente dizer à Rússia que eles podem introduzir seu petróleo diretamente nos mercados e usar esses intermediários. E como alguém que minha vida passada foi literalmente apenas como um intermediário.

Deixe-me dizer que o intermediário também gostava de se cortar. Então, estamos acidentalmente introduzindo um intermediário na indústria do petróleo por nenhuma razão além dos egos de nossos poderes políticos para, por sua vez, introduzir preços mais altos de petróleo e gás que permanecerão mais altos. Sim, absolutamente. Eu joguei, joguei muito em você, então me desculpe.

Sim. Bem,

[00:28:58] Ansel Lindner: no seu, no seu último ponto, é exatamente o que eles estão fazendo e é por isso que eu acho que a inflação estrutural ou IPC estrutural, seja qual for a Europa será mais alto do que em outros lugares, porque sim, eles estão fazendo coisas como colocar um intermediário entre o produtor e o consumidor.

Então, uma das sanções que isso é apenas um exemplo. A Rússia está agora exportando muito petróleo por meio de navios-tanque e esses navios-tanque, você sabe, eles precisam de seguro, porque você não terá um navio-tanque de US $ 5 bilhões apenas circulando os oceanos globais sem seguro. Então, o mercado de seguros para esses grandes navios está 95% fora do Reino Unido.

E parte do pacote de sanções que os europeus e o Reino Unido queriam colocar na Rússia não estava conseguindo seguro para o seu envio. Bem, o Reino Unido acabou recuando e apenas disse que eles apenas garantiriam, eles garantiriam o envio russo, exceto quando chegasse ao Reino Unido.

Então isso foi, você sabe, muito pequeno percentagem das exportações totais da Rússia. Outra coisa que eles disseram no burburinho da UE que eles não poderiam fazer negócios com companhias petrolíferas russas, mas agora que eles estão se afastando desse ditado, bem, se você faz negócios através de um intermediário, você pode fazer negócios através de um intermediário.

Você não precisa se preocupar que, você sabe, o outro terceiro seja um problema russo ou algo assim. Então, sim, eles estão afrouxando esses, esses regulamentos. Então é isso que eu diria à sua última pergunta agora sobre o Irã e outras coisas. Quero dizer, há um. Eu acho que as sanções prejudicaram muito o Irã ou desculpe, Irã, Irã muito, mas não é como se as sanções fossem eliminadas que o Irã pudesse realmente se destacar com sua produção de petróleo porque eles têm altos custos de exportação, você sabe , eles só podem sair do Golfo Pérsico e estão tentando fazer alguns oleodutos, você sabe, através do Iraque e da Síria para o Mediterrâneo, é uma possibilidade de que eles possam fazer algo assim, mas eles têm maior export costs than say Russia, a pipeline directly to Germany, right.

That, that was like the lowest cost possible to get oil and gas into the European union was directly from the Russian pipelines. Iran has a roundabout way of getting it there. So there there’re always gonna be a slightly higher cost producer in that respect. Also if the us is backing off of securing this free trade who hates Iran?

Well, it’s not like Iran only has enemies because the us is there or the, because they have these ancients, no Iran has perpetual enemies. They Israel hates them and they hate Israel. Saudis don’t like them, even the, the, what would it be? The Sunis in Iraq. Don’t like the Iranians. So there, there is a lot of different things that could go wrong.

If the us didn’t protect world peace, right? Like the only reason why is Israel isn’t bombing places in Iran is because the us has told them, no, we want this free trade. We want the oil to flow. We want people to get rich. We don’t want fight people right now, but if the us is pulling back from that commitment Iran is going to maintain being a high cost producer.

So what do you think about that?

[00:32:27] Q: I’m I’m digesting this, I will say. You’re not wrong. Nothing you have said is a lie. I wanna unpack. However, that’s good. I wanna unpack not the Israel of it. I, that we need like six hours and I need a lot more juices in myself. Sim. The Saudi Arabia of it all. I think there’s a, there’s a lot of history just within the middle east itself.

And all of these different countries are really just different tribes of the Persian empire. And I’m gonna sound like such an asshole when I frame things like this. And I apologize, even,

[00:33:05] Ansel Lindner: even Saudi Arabia, cuz they they’re they’re the bed wins. Long time past, like, I don’t think the Persian empire ever had the Arabian peninsula, did they?

No.

[00:33:15] Q: But that, and that sort of feeds into why a lot of the middle east doesn’t actually really align with or agree with Saudi and the way the Saudis have handled business. Sim. And there’s always been, I think, an animosity between the Persian state or the Persian sort of region of the middle east and the Saudi peninsula and the Saudi region.

There is, I think, especially since the post nine 11 climate of the middle east, there’s a growing consensus in, I think Western educat. Persian descendants who will always point to and say, why is it that the west has aligned with the Saudi peninsula that has given them all of this oil and gas while at the same time I can point to and say, every single nine 11 Hijacker had a Saudi Arabian passport, they may not have actually been a Saudi Arabian citizen.

And I’m not gonna go down that rabbit hole with you. But it, there, there are certain questions where a lot of these other countries begin to sort of ask in question and it feeds more fuel into this fire of, well, fuck the Saudis. They fucked it up for everyone else. They now made. The whole world look at brown people in this light, in this way, when it’s in fact, just their class of citizens doing this, there’s always been history and animosity between Iran and Iraq.

I will tell you one of the most ridiculous stories that I literally sat there in the taxi. And I was like, you’re an idiot to my cousin, but I’ve very loudly said this, the Iran Iraq war, which happened in the eighties early nineties, saw George Bush S selling weapons of mass destruction to Iraq, to arm them against Iran during that war, which I’ve said, and I will continue to say is the reason why Dick Cheney and George was junior essentially said, oh yeah, Sadam was saying, has weapons of mass destruction because my dad sold them to him.

They never said the second part, but that was always implied. Iran won the Iran, Iraq war and in a taxi cab in Australia with my cousin who is from, from Iran, served in the Iran, military, which is no different than the Israeli mil military. Everyone must serve for a certain number of years, or you can pay your way out of service.

He turns to the Iraqi taxi driver and says to him, oh, you’re from Iraq, Iraq around war. We won, we won the war. And there’s, it goes back historically. It’s not just in this iteration in the eighties and nineties, you had it centuries ago. And this region drew its borders. Not because the rest of the world was creating nation states.

These borders that are found in the middle east are and have existed for centuries now. And it’s long been understood that this region is our region for our culture to continue to grow and prosper. And this region is yours to continue to grow and prosper. I think a, a big thing that worries a lot of people and draws back to your original point and the concerns of what happens when Iran is introduced and they have these adversaries and how are their adversaries going to react is do in large part, because we’ve never been reliant on this global system where we need oil from other countries or other countries rely on the imports that they bring in and then are able to pay for these imports by exports.

They send out to other countries we’ve never really seen so much reliance. There’s always been international trade as far back as the days of the silk road. However, the reliance on it was not the same as what we see today. That theory that so long and I’m spacing on what exactly it’s called Chris. If it rings a bell in your head, like throw it in the chat real quick.

But please, oh, also throw up SES. To his second comment. He’s so right. And I, I’m gonna, I’m gonna call this out in a second too. Yes, all you white people who call yourself Caucasian, stole it from my people, by the way, because the caucus mountains are in Iran and being Caucasian means you are from that region of the world.

So Caucasian does not mean white skin. You Anglo acks in motherfuckers. Desculpe. That was aggressive, but I, I love that. Thank you se for pointing that out there is an economic theory though, that as we become more reliant on one another, we are less likely to wage war because we stand to benefit by being in business with one another.

It was, that was one of the largest economic factors into why we continue to trade with China. Despite the fact that China militarized themself during this growth period. I think there’s a valid argument on both sides of it that should Iran enter the fray of international trade. They may decide to use this excess wealth to militarize themself, further expand their nuclear arms sort of division or however the west wants to depict it.

I do think at a certain point, people just are going to say like, if they have something we want and we have money that they’re willing to accept for it, we’ve reached a point of causing pain on ourself for what is the payout here ultimately. And I, I think that straw is gonna break. I truly feel as though what we’re going to see is I keep seeing these, these headlines of Russia and Saudi Arabia looking to make a deal.

I was banging the drums back in January and February that, Hey, ping and Putin are going to Iran. They’re sitting down with the Iranian president and you have to be a fool to think that the questions that they’re not that they’re asking aren’t in the lines of, or along the lines of how, how has Iran handled sanctions?

How have you guys grown and prospered during these last 50 years or being hamstrung by Western sanctions, your country still operates. You are independent. You’re able to be, self-sufficient like, how do you do that? And I think we’re seeing Russia take some cues from the Iranian playbook and then just flexing their strength a little bit more and taking it even further.

I think ultimately at a certain point, there’s a lot of religious history that. Is the root of animosity in that part of the world. And I will never say, or call someone who is religious or believes anything, any religion or any spiritual text as being foolish or stupid until you start to say that that person’s wrong for their beliefs.

And I think we’ve reached a point in our modern society where there’s too much of, I’m assuming Muslim, you’re a Shiite Muslim, like you’re wrong. And because you’re wrong, I must now take arm and offense to what you say no different than the way a lot of the animosity we see between Jewish people and Muslim people, which isn’t the case always.

But I just wanna also point that out. The last thing I will point out in highlight is I never and will never forget the day the nuclear deal was signed. When Obama was in office and I was watching CNN for the announcement and they cut to Yahoo who was giving his speech and within 10, 10 seconds, he cursed at Obama.

He swore that Iran was gonna use this to attack Israel, attack the Western world. And then all of a sudden the screen went and did the like multicolor, like, oh, we’re having technical difficulties. I’m like, no, we’re not, no, we’re not like I wanna understand what this man has to say and what saying to his people, because we’re just adding fuel to this fire.

We’ve left. Country siloed off from the rest of the world. And we act as though, well, they’re ju we’re justified to leave them off. Then in all honesty, they’re justified to get upset. They’re justified to look at the rest of the world and be like, alright, dude, if Russia can do that and still sell their oil, like we didn’t invade any countries.

We didn’t throw bombs in the us. We didn’t curse out anyone. And so that’s sort of where I’m like, you’re right. Iran has adversaries. So does Russia. So does the us, so does Saudi Arabia, so does Israel, so does Iraq at a certain point, we have to, I think, remove this idea of, well, they’re gonna create nuclear weapons.

What if they’re just trying to, I don’t know, expand their nuclear arsenal to better understand how to harness nuclear energy so they can iterate and move on. Because at a certain point I am in the camp that nuclear energy is the future of energy. and everyone is going to every country. Every region is going to have access to harness this.

I, I think we’re shooting ourselves in the foot, but I have such a heavy and strong bias and I’m not naive to that.

[00:42:00] Ansel Lindner: Yeah. Well, I, wasn’t trying to say that Iran is, is special in that they have all of these problems with exporting their energy or taking advantage of their energy resources. Yeah, you’re right.

Russia has the exact same problem. And that is why, you know, Russia was really, they really do. They would rather be peaceful with Europe and send them energy. They’ve they’ve always had kind of a leaning towards Europe then say central Asia Russians have always kind of had that tie to Europe instead of with central Asia.

But going back to. Iran, sorry, the Iran, I, I wanna talk really quickly about why Saudi versus Iran. Well, it’s obvious that Iran has better geographics. Like the geographic area of Iran lends itself to being a power base, a base of power. And that goes back thousands of years, right? There’s always been a very powerful, centralized state there that has influence that has spread their influence all the way to the Mediterranean and pretty much all the way to the indu river, you know, going to the east.

So, Iran has always been a power base. Saudi Arabia has not. Saudi Arabia is a complete manufactured entity just off the us security guarantee. So, the us knew that they could control the Saudi the Saudis much more than they could control the Iranians. And so to keep kind of a peaceful chess board over there for a long time, they had to humble Iran and build up Saudi Arabia.

That was, I mean, this is outside of a moral judgment. I, I think that obviously lots of people died and there’s lots of bad and ills that came from it. But at the same time, there’s a lot of good, I mean, people have been pulled outta poverty that so many people have been pulled outta poverty over the last 50 years.

Relatively on a global basis. There have been very few war. This has been pretty much the most peaceful era in human history ever. OK. So there’s fewer wars globally, fewer people dying in wars. That era is. We’re going back to a normal base case of more violence in the world. So you said that there was you know, a lot of people had reliance on free trade or they had free trade, like silk road and all that stuff, but it wasn’t such a big part of their economy.

And that’s true. International trade was like maybe 5% of people’s economies until the last 75 years when it became up to 60% of China, right up to 50% of Germany. All these places now are heavily, heavily reliant on globalization. So I think globalization is the aberration. It is the manipulated state of affairs and people it’s not natural for countries to rely 50% on international trade.

It’s natural for them to rely five or 10. Okay. So we’re going back to that world. Now, if you look around who is the most reliant on international trade, those people are gonna be the most humbled in the coming decades. And the people like Iran that is more self-sufficient maybe they’ve been forced to be self-sufficient, but they’re more self-sufficient they’re probably gonna benefit over this time because yeah, the sanctions are gonna get less, severe or less able to be enforced and they’re already self-sufficient.

So everything else that they do with international trade now is like a, a bonus, a cream on top. So I think when you look at the world that way, and you think, okay, globalization is going away, people most relying on globalization are gonna get humbled where people that are less reliant on globalization are gonna thrive in that, in that time.

So, yeah, that’s, that’s kind of how I look at it. And also you said about the kind of sectarian divide over there in the middle east. Well, we see that in our politics here. Conservatives and liberals, they, they, the

[00:45:55] Q: south, the west coast. East coast.

[00:45:57] Ansel Lindner: Yeah. They get violent, man. It’s, it’s get, there is some similarities in, in that case.

Yeah.

[00:46:03] Q: And I think I, I wanna unpack one thing and then we will absolutely stop and move on. I really, to simplify this the best way possible. OK. One of the reason I think if you can look at Iran and the way the relationship they have with just the us and the west in particular, and then Western allies as a byproduct is the result of a failed attempt at inserting a leader into power in Iran that aligns with the west.

And there was an uprising and citizens did not want this leader to have the power anymore. And as a result, Iran essentially has been put into this corner of, well, it was a, a failed attempt at putting a leader that aligns with us and their new leader. Like really doesn’t like us. So I guess you guys are just now deemed bad guys.

That’s in all honesty, the simplest way. I think of establishing how and why Iran has the relationship with the west. It does now. It was a failed attempt at creating and inserting, inserting a leader that would align with what the west wanted and needed. And there’s a whole backstory with the fact that BP British Petro petroleum used to actually be Iranian British Petro patrol.

Actually it was yeah, P BP. It was Persian. British petroleum was something, it was owned by the Iranian state and the UK government. And then when the Iranian state stopped being as compliant and stopped, sort of giving everything to the British that’s when the British asked the us to step in and intervene.

Let’s talk the merge. We’ve been reaching out and calling pee nonstop. No one has heard from pee and he owes us shoe leather in his mouth digested in his stomach. If U see on the streets, you arrest him.

[00:47:54] Ansel Lindner: Maybe he did that and he’s in the hospital. has anybody checked the hospitals call the emergency

[00:48:00] Q: rooms?

We got, I I’m on the phone with his local police department as well. They said no missing person report can be submitted until 24 hours. However, the caveat is I have not heard or seen him since yesterday afternoon. So we’re coming up on that 24 hours and the police will be looking. But what are your thoughts like it happened, I guess I don’t really know.

I’m not paying attention. I’m just taking it from the bird app and people talking about it. It having happened so right. Are you surprised

[00:48:31] Ansel Lindner: that it went through? Well, the last couple weeks on my newsletter, I’ve been saying that. I’m leaning towards it going off. OK. Because we didn’t see a it, all the stuff with the price and what you would expect from a buy the rumor, sell the news, which it’s kind of turning into a, sell the news a little bit here, but I didn’t see a huge pump pre pump.

And so that means that there wouldn’t be a huge crash afterwards, which meant then you could deduct that. OK. Well that means that it went off. OK. So when I was looking at the charts and I was trying to decide, you know, what are, what are the kind of lack of a pre pump? O que isso significa? Well, I thought that that meant it was gonna go off.

Okay. Now, when you look down two, three weeks, maybe a couple months down the road, I think there’s gonna be some bugs. So, this is like just the initial step. This doesn’t mean that it’s going to maintain. Consensus, right? Cause it it’s supposed to be this consensus mechanism and yes, they transferred over to it.

But look, there’s probably gonna be a consensus bug in the next few months I would, I would guess so. That’s what I think is gonna happen. It’s it’s gonna go, okay. It’s gonna seem okay. Maybe there’s a little bit of sell off right now, but overall it’s a non-event and then couple months down the road, maybe we’ll have some sort of consensus bug that you know, blows everything up.

They will be able to patch it. They they’ll be able to blow, you know, sweep everything under the rug. But overall, I think this is kind of a death nail, at least that’s as a Bitcoin, or I think that this is a death now for Ethereum and it’ll just kinda lose relevance over the next few years. So that’s what I think

[00:50:11] Q: I wanted to also just get your, your take or your sentiment on a, how does this affect Bitcoin in, in just this immediate moment in time?

We have this conversation now, almost too often defending proof of work. I, I saw a statistic where now Bitcoin has a market share of 94% of all of the proof of work, blockchains and existence. Now, as a result of this merge, but what are your expectations? How is this gonna impact Bitcoin?

[00:50:39] Ansel Lindner: Well, the, the big thing is it took a lot of uncertainty off the table.

So I think it, you know, going into this, there was a lot of risk people thought there might be a blow up right away. There might be some, some consensus bug that won’t even let them go to proof of stake in the first place. So there, there was uncertainty around this whole event now that it’s over with I think there is gonna be less uncertainty and what, when that happens, usually that’s bullish for price.

So I think the, the underlying kind of fundamentals of the space are less uncertain. And so that’s gonna be bullish for Bitcoin. It’s not bearish. Let me put it that way. It’s not, definitely not bearish. And I lean towards this being bullish. Now, when it does blow up eventually, which I, I am kind of predicting sometime in the next six months or something, there will be some sort of bug then That could be bearish in that moment for Bitcoin, but it’s Ethereum has always followed Bitcoin.

And what they did by this event is they, they tried to decouple Ethereum from Bitcoin, or is that’s the effect of this whole thing is gonna be decoupling Ethereum from Bitcoin. So it’s gonna be less and less relevant for Bitcoin over the next year or so.

[00:52:01] Q: I wanna get a sense too, of just, you know, we’re, we’re witnessing in real time. I think Ethereum validate itself as a security. You spend some time in your most recent Bitcoin and markets newsletter discussing just how the ripple case is going to be setting precedent for how the SCC wants to handle these things going forward.

We’re seeing the jokes online of, oh, the fed in Ethereum, just merge together like this now is, is more state owned and control. Shout out and congratulations to Jeff Bezos for completing the successful Ethereum merge. Did we lose Ansel? Can

[00:52:42] Ansel Lindner: you hear me? We can hear you. Tudo bem. I might, I just, I tried to switch up some, a setting with my camera and I think I goofed it up.

Let me see if I can make, fix it again.

[00:52:52] Q: It’s okay. We’re talking about too much high brow stuff, so I’m sure restream was contacted by the state and said to, to stop any disparaging remarks against our newest Chico Ethereum, 2.0 another couple funny, a couple more funny things that I noticed online.

a cost of $58,000 USD, or I believe roughly. I don’t, I don’t honestly don’t I’m not gonna try to say how much in Ethereum, cuz I don’t know. Eu não. I don’t own any Ethereum. But that is the fee that is going, that is being charged to mint a new NFT on this new Ethereum merged blockchain. So how about those cheaper fees on a proof of stake network guys working out well for the 58 K gang?

I mean, this is wild to say the least I’m very, very interested to see how this plays out, how any, how, and if any minors decided to opt and stay and refuse the emergence, stay on the old Ethereum network and continue the proof of work. Blockchain will be interesting to see how I think all of those old NFTs that were minted on the proof of work blockchain how their value is derived with proof of stake.

Minted NFC. I don’t fucking know if I’m even saying it right, because I just, I don’t care to be in that Bitcoin casino. If you do best of luck, my friends your money and time is much more well spent understanding and helping to build the Bitcoin ecosystem and network. But that’s just one man’s opinion.

An there, there, ah, he’s there.

[00:54:27] Ansel Lindner: Yeah, my camera’s working now. Sorry

[00:54:28] Q: about that. No, you’re good. I don’t know if you have any thoughts on just some of the things I threw out, like for example, this, this cost of minting an NFT on, on the new blockchain or, or what, but

[00:54:40] Ansel Lindner: please. Well, no, I don’t have any thoughts on that because I haven’t really looked into what the, the new fundamentals for Ethereum are gonna be.

So that’s, that’s gonna become in probably the next month or so we’re gonna be able to digest all of that. But I wanted to talk a little bit about the ripple case that you said I wrote about on my newsletter and. I think this is very interesting. OK. Because a lot of people are like, well, why doesn’t, you know, the S sec, well, first off Bitcoiners don’t want the S E C to go after anybody, but we realize that they exist.

Right. We realize the bad guys exist. And so you need to plan and just realize go forward and invest as if the bad guys exist. And people don’t seem to get that. But anyway, so the S E C, isn’t going after these alt coins really hard. Because it’s kind of tricky that they might lose in court. And that’s what they’re seeing here with ripple and they don’t wanna go through and set bad precedent.

They wanna set good precedent. So they’re, they’re using Howie. Howie was a court case decision from, I don’t know, I don’t know how many years ago it was maybe 75 years ago or something to talk about what makes a security. But how he doesn’t, it’s not really perfect for describing what alt coins are.

So I think what they’re trying to do is expand on the, how he precedent and make a ripple precedent. And so when ripple, when that court case that they’re putting a lot of time and effort into to form good precedent, When that comes down, then they’ll be able to apply that everywhere else. And in the same breath in the, or the same week, I guess, the Gessler from the SCC said that he wants Bitcoin to be under this CFTC, but no mention of Ethereum.

So, you know, I think Gensler is, he’s not a friend or anything of Bitcoin, but he is not an. He’s definitely not an enemy and that that’s good. I think he, he sees Ethereum for what it is. He sees these alt coins for what they are, but he’s just trying his best to not lose in court and form good precedent.

And to me that is almost like that’s a good sign that we have like a robust legal system that the legal system isn’t as corrupt as everybody says. I mean, it is in some cases like political cases, when you talk about one political party versus another political party, there’s gonna be that type of corruption.

But at least for right now in the financial sphere there, doesn’t it, you know, it seems to be working pretty well. And I think the S sec will end up winning this case. They’ll end up forming a precedent with ripple, and then everybody will be on notice with the alt coins. So what do you think of that?

Kind of run down there. You know,

[00:57:31] Q: it’s almost like so perfect for Bitcoin. That there’s no way that that happens. Like that’s, that’s my honest opinion. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Você sabe o que eu quero dizer? Like it’s like, that’s just too perfect. That’s that’s the dream comfortable in me. Sim. Like I’m with you though.

I, I loved your take and I wanna unpack a little bit of like, you know, Gary Gensler being more friend than info to Bitcoin. I don’t know if I necessarily buy he’s a friend, but I do. I think buy to this idea that he may not actually be outright against Bitcoin yet. I think he, he might see, he has a better chance of winning certain cases against these Bitcoins first to then establish stronger precedent to then go and attack Bitcoin.

Now. We try our best to, to separate some of these things, but I wanna bring up the ho not trial and yeah. Yeah, there is, there is a, a very key thing. I think that is why so many Bitcoiners are so passionate about this case because it’s calling into question whether or not Craig Wright is in fact to Toshi Nakamoto and what would happen if the court in Norway is to find Craig Wright to be Sutoshi Nakamoto.

Well, now you all of a sudden have a centralized point to point to and say, this person can and has in the past controlled and manipulated this cryptocurrency. Then you can start to see a strengthening argument for. Some lawmakers who maybe don’t understand Bitcoin as well, who maybe wanna try to reach a little bit further, not necessarily use the Howie test perfectly, but just reach and say, well, we’ve gone after all these other cryptocurrencies built on blockchains.

Ethereum is under our control. So either we go after Bitcoin or we put Bitcoin under our control as well. I’m, I’m more worried that in each iteration of an S C win, they strengthen their case to eventually come after Bitcoin.

[00:59:37] Ansel Lindner: Well, what would they do to come after Bitcoin?

[00:59:42] Q: I think the most, the most commonly discussed attack, in my opinion, it would be something as simple as what you saw. I believe it was FDR who announced like, Hey, for the, for national security reasons, everyone needs to turn over their gold mm-hmm for national security reasons. Everyone needs to turn over their Bitcoin.

A statement, as simple as that, we will issue you something back. We will send you the CBDC to credit you for every Bitcoin. Every sat you send over to us. I think something as simple as that would be an attack on Bitcoin whether it be a legal attack or, or not remains to be seen. I also think, and something that you talk about in your, your most recent article is, is the ETF.

And I think something that we don’t, we yeah. Kind of hear on the outskirts of Twitter get discussed, but there’s a reason why the S E C loves the gold ETF it’s because the, it can and has in the past manipulated the price of gold as a result. But I do think there is a degree of. The inability to manipulate Bitcoin’s price is a larger factor into why the ETF has not yet been approved than anything else that has been said, because I don’t think they can ever outright come out and say like, dude, this will be a brilliant idea.

Absolutely. There should be a Bitcoin ETF. Tchau. The only reason ETFs really work is because we actually kind of can like fuck around and manipulate it. So it doesn’t like go over the rails too much and they can’t outright say that. Cuz then it calls into question every single ETF that’s ever been introduced for a commodity in the history of ETFs.

That’s just my take, but I’ll take the tenfold hat off now and give you the mic

[01:01:25] Ansel Lindner: Well, yeah, I think so you said there they could do a what was it? 31 0 8. I think that was the executive order where they yes. Seized all the gold. Well, first off they, they didn’t seize all the gold, right? That you could still have numismatic coins and.

They, they took stuff that was easily accessible in certain types of accounts, but they didn’t go into your home and, and tell you with your stack under your mattress, that you had to turn in your gold coins. So there’s a little bit of mythology around that event. I think, plus, you know, if they did that today with Bitcoin, I think they would spook the market for lots of different things.

I mean, do you actually own the stocks in your brokerage account? You know, like all these things, if they did that to Bitcoin, they could do it to a lot of other things. And so, I, I think that kind of weighs on their mind too about being maintaining confidence in the system. Now I’m not saying it won’t happen, but I think it’s much less likely than what people think.

And so building up to that I don’t know, man, I think maybe it’s my old age. Because I’m over 40 now. Maybe it’s in my old age, I’ve become less conspiratorial. And I think that they, you know, Getler, even though they, they are unable to do it. OK. So their, their main claim is that they are about consumer protection, right?

The S sec, now they are unable to do that. Obviously look at all points. They’re just, it’s 99.9, 9% scams that want to take your money. And the S sec does nothing, right? So there is no real consumer protection in the S C, but I think they kind wanna be, I think they, I, I think a large majority of people that work at the S C just like a large man, I hate to say this.

And, and you guys, you know, this, this wasn’t my opinion, 10 years ago when I was all into like anarchist stuff. But if you, you, there is 10% of cops are bad. I would say. 90% are good, but, and, and you could go down the road of, oh, well, those, those good cops need to rat out the bad cops. They need to take care of their own house, or if they don’t do that, then they’re bad as well.

And the SCC, so 10% of the S C people are bad. 90% are good. That’s, that’s kind of how I break this down. And I think that most people in the sec, and I think Gensler’s one of them, they actually want to do their job properly. I don’t know if they can do it. But I, I don’t have, like, I don’t think there’s like a malicious intent overriding their actions.

So what do you have to say about that queue? I want to hear a proper response to that

[01:04:02] Q: of, of,

I just think ultimately there’s too much. Power and control that has been given to some of these government entities. And it, it goes across the spectrum. It’s not just the federal government level. It’s not just state government level. It’s all the way down to your local government level, where there is corruption.

I won’t dispute whether it’s 90% or good, 10% bad or, or 10% good. 90% bad. That’s not. Yeah, yeah. Necessarily. I think where, where my disagreement with you lies, it’s more about the duties and obligations, cuz somewhere along the way. all these sort of state sponsored jobs. Cause that’s what they are.

They are state sponsored jobs and employment. Sim. They were meant to be done in public service as almost a part-time position or role, whether it be an elected or an fuck. I can’t think of the word right now of, of just being appointed. Sim. Appointed. Obrigada. Whether you’re elected or appointed, didn’t really matter.

This was meant to be a public service somewhere along the way. We, we lost that plot. I would argue it happened somewhere in the late 18 hundreds, early 19 hundreds, when a lot more money started to flow into America. And as, as a result, those with money decided and kind of understood how they could use that money to make rules that benefited them.

I think the most famous example that I will always draw on is John D Rockefeller and a lot of people’s favorite president Teddy Roosevelt and Teddy Roosevelt. Would very loudly get on the campaign trail, say in the speech down with standard oil, like this is a monopoly that has too much control and I wanna break them up.

You would say this in a speech, walk off the stage and then collect a check from standard oil to help run and finance his campaign. And that’s why Teddy Roosevelt actually never broke up standard oil. It wasn’t until Taft who came in after him, who never took money from standard oil and actually followed through on those campaign promises.

So that to me is the perfect signal of that breaking point of politicians, of being in public service or being in service of those who help finance and push you forward. I just think there’s, there’s gotten a point where there’s so much now money involved and turned so much power that it just. It’s we lost the plot a long, long time ago.

And rather than let’s just like put a couple band-aids here or there, I, I haven’t gotten old enough. I don’t have a family to, to settle down and not call for absolute anarchy. I’m sure, sure. Certain things will, will cause me to grow up and think things through a little bit more rationally. But for the time being, I, I personally am in the camp that to tear it all down and rebuild it.

Like, I I’ll say this in a way for, for the coders out there to better understand. There are times when you code and, and you are programming where there’s just, there’s somewhere, there’s a mistake in the code and, and you’re having too hard of a time to understand and find it. And for time purposes, you are often better suited to just redo the entire code rather than go line by line rerun every little point to find that point of failure.

And I think we’re at that point where to go line by line on all of the different powers the state have and say, Hey, actually, you have too much power here. You have just the right amount of power here. You should actually have more power here. That would be in my opinion, a waste of our time. And we’re better suited to tear it all down and, and build back something better.

[01:08:03] Ansel Lindner: Yeah. You make a, I did

[01:08:04] Q: say those fucking slogans and, and I hate it. but that’s

[01:08:09] Ansel Lindner: well, you make a brilliant point about it being too big and I, I think along the lines of being big is it’s inefficient. And I’m not saying by my arguments that, you know, I think that they’re not malicious, that they’re trying to do consumer protection.

I think that they are, are unable to do that. And even if they were, they would be more inefficient than a market solution. So I, I don’t know, it’s kind of a nuanced position, but I totally agree with you now. I think also man corruption, one of the things I’ve been thinking about a lot lately is, you know, Argentina, they are extremely blessed geographically.

They have a lot of natural resources. They have a lot of agriculture. They have a beautiful bay. They’re a beautiful water ocean access. Relatively easy to defend, right? Cheap to defend. There’s not a, a lot of armies nearby that they have to pro protect themselves against. So Argentina should be a super, super rich country.

and it was until a hundred years ago or so, but I think that a lot of times when you have natural resources like this and, and you have like this you’re blessed geographically, like Argentina, and maybe even like the United States is that you have this caring capacity for corruption that’s higher than other places like you, you, so the corruption in the us might be the same as say the corruption in Russia today, but the us can hide it better because we have a, you know, a, a higher corruption care capacity.

I don’t know if that makes any sense, but perhaps know we’re just going in a pendulum from overly corrupt to less corrupt back to overly corrupt. And that’s kind of how I see the world is is you. Fluctuating between extremes. And so you just have to invest accordingly, put yourself in a place, put your family in a place that they can ride the wish of this natural ebb and flow of human history.

I I’m 100, I’m kind of like the antithesis antithesis of a Marxist because Marxists think that they need to redefine history. Then we are in control of writing our home own history or rewriting history. I think we have control whatsoever over history and we are just riding the waves. So you need to identify those things and put yourself in the place where you can benefit.

That’s one reason why I moved to Florida here because I thought it was going the right direction. Now I moved here before COVID and that was kind of a happy accident that they were so great. COVID but I was trying to put myself, my family in a place of that was. The economy was gonna boom, versus a place where the economy was stagnating in the United States.

So, you know, you just gotta do what’s best for your family. Try to ride the waves and invest accordingly.

[01:11:10] Q: So well said. And so I wanna now touch on the white house, the white house report. I wanna come at it from a different angle though. We talk a lot about, I think the I’m gonna be nice right now.

I’m trying to be nice, the foolish and sometimes silly remarks that politicians who very clearly do not understand proof of work or Bitcoin make. And

at a certain point, there will be a decision made. I got into a little bit of a personal debate with my dad where I kind of pointed out. I was like, okay, fine. The U the us wants to ban Bitcoin mining. Multar. Bitcoin’s not gonna go away. It’s just gonna go to the next jurisdiction that will let it, and it will be an almost failure to capture the competitive advantage that the us can have in Bitcoin.

My question is, is there actually in the same way that we talk a little bit about like, what is left unsaid by some of the statements outta the government, do you think there’s something unsaid and a realization that has been made at least by the, this white house, by this white house in particular to say, Hey, Elizabeth Warren, we, we hear you.

All of you crazy idiots who are like, oh, energy’s bad. We hear you. But also. We bigger picture guys, there’s a bigger picture. Do you think there’s some of that? Am I giving, am I giving this white house a little too much credit?

[01:12:46] Ansel Lindner: Yeah, I think that, I mean, it’s my, the way I view this situation is kind of, there’s a lot of different stakeholders here.

So, you know, in the past there, like if you would’ve done this 10 years ago you know, the, this was a conversation with Bitcoin mining 10 years ago in the United States. We, we probably would’ve had different outcome, but right now there’s kind of like this dual between globalist world economic forum folks and wall street.

That’s how I, I do see this, this American business versus the globalists. And that’s how I see this shaping up. Now, why was the Biden. Executive order like friendly, relatively friendly to Bitcoin mining. At least that’s how I read it. And that is because, you know, they’re having to pick their battles right now.

And I think the, the business interests love Bitcoin mining. Just look at what who’s doing. A lot of flare capture now in North Dakota in, in some of these places around, around the country, big ass oil companies are getting involved with Bitcoin. And you just said, who breaking up standard oil with Teddy Roosevelt or Taft or whatever?

Well, guess what big ass oil has a lot to say in Washington, DC. They have a lot of pole with the president. And so there there’s this competing interest between making the globalist happy and Davos with their ESG stuff and making the American businessman happy and American wall street and American banker.

Right? So there’s these competing interests directly that. That meet right in this executive order. And I think you can see that. And for me, the American businessman is winning. I think populism is winning. I think globalism is on the decline. Davos, the Marxist sitting in Davos are losing and we see that everywhere.

We talked about this yesterday on fed watch with Sweden, with Italy. You’re talking about CCHO Slovakia here a little while ago or Slovakia, I think. And we see this in the us with midterms, a quote, unquote, red wave on, I don’t know exactly what’s gonna happen with that, but you know, there is this movement towards anti-global.

That’s out there. So we see this right in this executive order that that’s how I would like phrase it or frame it to read between the lines. Like, what are we, what does this mean? Gimme a framework to understand this executive order, what this exactly means. That’s what I would say. I would couch it within this, over this global competition between populism and globalists and in the us populism is the American businessman in wall street.

So what, what do you gotta say about that? There? Q

[01:15:34] Q: you’re so you’re so right. And then also so wrong. My friend and the reason you’re wrong, I’m gonna start there. Is there one in the

[01:15:44] Ansel Lindner: same? What globalists and American business

[01:15:48] Q: they are because American businesses, especially the, the CRE D creme of American businesses are global businesses.

They are not American only businesses name, any of any company that comes to mind as a top tier business. And I will be hard pressed to find an example of one that is strictly us only. Oh yeah. We can go oil and gas, Chevron, Exxon mobile operations, all over the world. Any of these tech companies from Microsoft, Google, apple down to whatever software as a service company, we wanna talk about consumer goods, Nikes or shit.

I don’t even know any food or beverage thing. Pepsi, Coke, Adida, like. It’s all, they’re all global. So I actually think that their interests are aligned with sort of these, the, the push of these global elites and what they are doing. So that’s where I actually think you are, you are off base a little bit there.

I think there are some smaller businesses that are, and I think this is a very, very key thing, businesses that are rooted locally and keep local values have been able to cement themselves and prioritize. I think their local operation and as a result are their business and value is our antithetical to what globalists want.

And that is sort of, that is where I’m looking for for the fight against. Example example of this are local farmers who are now using and utilizing the internet to reach out to other customers that may not necessarily be in their local purview, but are able to share that share the same values, and then they’re able to conduct business and trade with them as a result.

I think there’s a degree of this where there isn’t us versus them. And I think we’re seeing it play out in real time a P and I joke, but it’s not a joke. It’s more of a coping mechanism of like, yeah, there’s gonna come a point where

I don’t wanna say something insensitive, but there’s a lot of history and precedent from both movements from the left and movements from the right that have called upon something to happen. E. The, the counterargument was, it’s not gonna stop there and I’ll use two examples.

I’m gonna get misquoted. People are gonna try to yell at me, fine, fuck it. These type of things need to be said. The argument against gay marriage was not gay. People don’t deserve the right to marry. There was a larger argument against gay marriage saying, it’s not gonna stop there. It’s going to get a, to a point where they are indoctrinating our children.

Unfortunately, whether or not you agree with that narrative, that narrative has grown mind you. This was the argument against gay marriage that was used in the eighties and nineties, not in 2010, not in 2020. That was the base case back. Then look at where we find ourselves with this issue today. On the other side of the coin, the argument as to why Roe V.

Wade should not be overturned, was not of the skies of women deserve this, right. Babies deserve this, right? No, it’s none of that. It is the press. It sets, it will not stop there. What is the next things that they will look at in interracial marriage? What will, what will they look at next? Right. For gay people to be married or not.

And then sure enough, in the decision that the Supreme court submitted, they said that they wanna reexamine and that things like gay marriage and interracial marriage should be reevaluated. Now, like these concerns validate my, my claim in saying it won’t stop there. It will always be well. You’re not allowed to buy meat in the month of August is gonna turn into, we will never sell meat again.

You will only buy synthetic meat all the way down to, well, now you only have the choice to buy bug based proteins. It’s less about, Hey, whether this is right or wrong and understanding more holistically that history has proven. Once we give an inch, they will take the mile. Sim. And I think that’s what this fight has turned into.

I hope that answers your question a little bit. I, I deviated a lot, I think.

[01:20:46] Ansel Lindner: Yeah. But I mean, I don’t know about all these, the political examples, I would say, like, you know, they, the Supreme court has something to say about constitutionality of things. They can’t enforce things or make laws or anything like that, but as, as taking it back to the ESG, Business interest versus globalists and stuff.

I mean, just ask the German people if ESG is good for business. I mean, so when I’m talking about the American businessman, The businessman of say Germany, they know that ESG is stupid and it’s not gonna work out. So, that’s the competing force here. You can say that the major companies are corrupt, they’re international and they’re global companies, but at the same time, they understand that these ESG globalist policies are not a way to make.

You know, go woke, go broke is the saying. And now we’re even seeing things like CNN, they’re firing half of their, their workforce. And they’re going back to their good old days of in the nineties when they were relatively nonpartisan. We see things like Netflix firing a bunch of woke people and going back to non woke programming.

I mean, you just see this up and down the line. So it’s, it’s a pendulum swinging back the other way. People know that this kind kind of globalist woke ESG you know, post-modern relativist. Morality is not a good, good for business. And so that’s what I mean is the American businessman knows that this stuff isn’t good for business.

And that’s where the fight is. Does that make sense?

[01:22:31] Q: That makes total sense. And I’ll even, I’ll, I’ll throw this statistic to strengthen your argument. Cause I, I do agree with, with that If you look at the ESG rankings by, I don’t know which one of these like three letter, three letter globalist organizations puts out Sri Lanka, which recently collapsed by trying to follow all of these ESG things to, to keep their businesses compliant with the money that the IMF gave them was like at a 91 or 92% ESG rating was like one of the top countries, as far as ESG ratings goes the USA, you know, we are, we are the leaders of the world.

We are the like people should follow our example. Our example has us ranked all the way down in like the 50% range. So like, I think there’s a degree where us businesses have like, Understood that actually this ESG stuff will inhibit what they do and things like carbon credits have become so normalized to help certain businesses operate because these Western businesses have the money to lobby against some of these legislature and or legislature.

I don’t know. They have the money to lobby against some of the legislation that gets submitted and in turn are able to create legislation that benefits them while not necessarily adhering to these policies and, and telling others, you guys have to do it. Não não não. Like, trust us, we made this mistake, but it wasn’t a mistake.

We made those decisions because it helped our country grow and prosper. And then now we’re at a position of luxury to be able to maybe cut some of those things back to help this ESG narrative. If that is the goal, which unfortunately I just don’t think it is. That’s that’s sort of the way I’m interpreting a lot of this ESG stuff.

I do think that they wanna push it through, but I think this is an example of these are rules put in place much like many of the laws they got put into place in the early 19 hundreds, by the likes of the standard oil crew to say like, oh, well, like, yo, we learned as we did this, that like, you shouldn’t let other people do this.

Like, you shouldn’t let other monopolies exist, but like, we’ll break ours up. But like not really wink, win, like. The continuum, like I’ll, I’ll bring it to present day. All of these hearings that we hear about like big tech going in and like calling upon Congress, like you should make these new laws, you should pass through this legislation to like curb techs, sort of power and reach.

Why do you think they’re doing that? It’s not because they wanna decrease their power it’s because they wanna cement their place. They don’t want another competitor to come in. And I think these ESG rules are exactly that the developed nations are like, yo, if the whole world’s developed, we’re probably gonna lose some of our share.

So maybe if we create these little boundaries, these little hurdles, no one else is gonna be able to, to get up to our level and we can maintain and keep our place. So I don’t know if that, I don’t know. That’s my take interpretation.

[01:25:50] Ansel Lindner: Yeah. Makes sense. It’s just a, a different way to look at it.

[01:25:54] Q: But, and so Chris is how you guys, we are, we are at that time of day.

I wanna hand it off to you for any final words or remarks. We talked a lot about a lot of different things today. Is there anything we didn’t get to touch on that you wanna highlight really quickly?

[01:26:06] Ansel Lindner: No, just thanks for having me on. Thanks for supporting my content on fed watch. You guys have been gracious hosts you know, hosting me on Wednesdays at 3:00 PM.

Eastern for fed watch. Really love hanging out with you guys and, and doing that with CK. So thanks so much for that. And thanks for having me on here today. Maybe fleshing out some of my stuff. Some of my thoughts that people are unfamiliar with, and if you guys wanna keep up with me, go to Bitcoin and markets.com.

You can get the free newsletter there, or you can even sign up to support my content. I have a telegram and of course I’m also on Twitter at Ansel lender. And that’s it guys. Obrigada. I cannot

[01:26:43] Q: stress enough, go subscribe to Bitcoin on markets. The work that Ansel puts puts together for this is truly incredible.

It’s it’s a free newsletter guys. Like you’re just gonna get smarter reading it. Before we go, I do wanna remind everyone. Tickets for Bitcoin Amsterdam are on sale. Now use promo code BM live to get 10% off of the tickets ticket price will be going up soon. Do not snooze. You will lose. And of course, lock in your subscription to the print mag today.

The next edition is going to be coming out shortly. You will want your annual subscription. We’ve released this print magazine once a quarter, so that are four issues every year. The work that went into this censorship resistant I’m resistant issue. I’m so proud of my colleagues overall on the print side, who put this together, this is thick, thick Almanac.

And of course, Chris, can I, can I go. No, no word on P guys, but because P’s not here, should I give you a dramatic reading? Should I, or is Chris just gonna like pull the mic and like wrap hard really quickly while I’m doing the dramatic re reading. But I digress. Get your copy today. Use probably called BM live to get 10% off of your subscription or anything you see at the Bitcoin magazine store.

That’s the wrap. We’ll be back tomorrow. Stay humble.

[01:28:08] BM Pro Commercial: Hey guys this is Q from Bitcoin magazine live

[01:28:11] BA Ad: Bitcoin magazine and the team that brought you the world’s largest Bitcoin conference is bringing the mission of hyper colonization global with the inaugural European gathering. This fall Bitcoin Amsterdam takes place October 12th through 14th at the beautiful Western GOs venue in the heart of the city.

Join thousands of Bitcoiners for three days of curated Bitcoin content that is relevant to the emerging Bitcoin scene in Europe and the global.

Confirmed speakers include Dr. Adam back, Alex Gladstein, Greg FOSS, Ray USF, and many, many more. This will be an immersive conference, which includes hands on engagements at our proof of workshop stage as well as exclusive content for VIP whales in the deep Bitcoins Amsterdam’s exclamation point will be a massive Bitcoin party in music festival that you won’t wanna.

The European installment of sound money Fest takes place on day three of the event, October 14th and admission is included with GA and whale passes. Check out all the details at b.tc/conference and use promo code BM live for 10% off. Ticket prices increase on August 21st. So grab your tickets a day for 299 euros for a GA ticket and 3,499.

Euros for VIP whale passes.

[01:29:23] Print Ad: The censorship resistant issue of the Bitcoin magazine print edition is available. Now, grab your copy at your local Barnes and noble store or head on over to the Bitcoin magazine store and use promo code BM live to get 10% off of your order today.