U know it when jt happens_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-06-22

U know it when jt happens

One Mad Market & Six Cold Reality-Checks<blockquote>一个疯狂的市场和六个冷酷的现实检查</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":129364172,"tweetId":"129364172","gmtCreate":1624360289796,"gmtModify":1631893548696,"author":{"id":3582012803278187,"idStr":"3582012803278187","authorId":3582012803278187,"authorIdStr":"3582012803278187","name":"Royce333","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8e8f380d16068c756ab6408555011ec4","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":6,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>U know it when jt happens</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>U know it when jt happens</body></html>","text":"U know it when jt happens","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/129364172","repostId":1145563175,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1145563175","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1624359605,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1145563175?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-22 19:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One Mad Market & Six Cold Reality-Checks<blockquote>一个疯狂的市场和六个冷酷的现实检查</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1145563175","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Fact checking politicos, headlines and central bankers is one thing.Putting their \"facts\" into conte","content":"Fact checking politicos, headlines and central bankers is one thing.Putting their \"facts\" into context is another.<blockquote>核实政客、头条新闻和央行行长的事实是一回事。把他们的“事实”放在上下文中是另一回事。</blockquote> Toward that end, it’s critical to place so-called “economic growth,” Treasury market growth, stock market growth, GDP growth and, of course, gold price growth into clearer perspective despite an insane global backdrop that is anything but clearly reported.<blockquote>为此，至关重要的是要将所谓的 “经济增长 ”、国债市场增长、股市增长、国内生产总值增长，当然还有金价增长置于更清晰的视角，尽管全球背景十分疯狂，但这些背景并没有得到明确报道。</blockquote> Context 1: The Rising Growth Headline<blockquote>背景 1：增长头条上升</blockquote> Recently, Biden’s economic advisor, Jared Bernstein, calmed the masses with yet another headline-making boast that the U.S. is “growing considerably faster” than their trading partners.<blockquote>最近，拜登的经济顾问贾里德-伯恩斯坦（Jared Bernstein）又一次头条新闻吹嘘说，美国的增长速度比他们的贸易伙伴快得多，这让群众平静下来。</blockquote> Fair enough.<blockquote>很公平。</blockquote> But given that the U.S. is running the largest deficits on historical record…<blockquote>但鉴于美国正面临历史记录中最大的赤字……</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0ac5ed804cb5613af2890f604dac56be\" tg-width=\"575\" tg-height=\"405\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> …such “growth” is not surprising.<blockquote>……这样的“增长”并不奇怪。</blockquote> In other words, bragging about growth on the back of extreme deficit spending is like a spoiled kid bragging about a new Porsche secretly purchased with his father’s credit card: It only looks good until the bill arrives and the car vanishes.<blockquote>换句话说，以极端赤字支出为幌子吹嘘经济增长，就像一个被宠坏的孩子吹嘘用父亲的信用卡秘密购买的新保时捷一样： 只有在账单到来、汽车消失之前，它才会看起来不错。</blockquote> In a financial world gone mad, it’s critical to look under the hood of what passes for growth in particular or basic principles of price discovery, debt levels or supply and demand in general.<blockquote>在一个疯狂的金融世界里，至关重要的是要审视什么是增长，什么是价格发现的基本原则、债务水平或供求关系。</blockquote> In short: “Growth” driven by extreme debt is not growth at all–it’s just the headline surface shine on a sports car one can’t afford.<blockquote>简而言之： 由极端债务推动的 “增长 ”根本不是增长--它只是一辆买不起的跑车的表面光泽。</blockquote> And yet&nbsp;the madness continues…Take the U.S. Treasury market, for example.<blockquote>然而疯狂仍在继续……以美国国债市场为例。</blockquote> Context 2: The Treasury “Market”?<blockquote>背景 2：国债“市场”？</blockquote> How can anyone call the U.S. Treasury market a “market” when 56% of the $4.5T of bonds issued since last February have been bought by the Fed itself?<blockquote>自去年 2 月以来发行的 4.5 万亿美元债券中有 56% 是由美联储自己购买的，怎么会有人看涨期权美国国债市场呢？</blockquote> Sounds more like an insider price-fix than a “market,” no?<blockquote>听起来更像是内部操纵价格，而不是 “市场 ”，不是吗？</blockquote> Such context gives an entirely new meaning to the idea of “drinking your own Kool-aide” and ought to be a cool reminder that Treasury bonds in general, and bond yields in particular, are zombies masquerading as credit Olympians.<blockquote>这样的背景赋予了 “喝自己的 Kool-aide ”的想法全新的含义，并应该冷静地提醒人们，国债，尤其是债券收益率，是伪装成信贷奥林匹克的僵尸。</blockquote> The Fed, of course, will pretend that such “support” is as temporary as their “transitory inflation” meme, but most market realists understood long ago that more and crazier bond yield “support” is the only way for national debt bubbles (and IOU’s) to stay zombie-like alive.<blockquote>当然，美联储会假装这种 “支持 ”和他们的 “暂时性通胀 ”备忘录一样是暂时的，但大多数市场现实主义者早就明白，更多、更疯狂的债券收益率 “支持 ”是国债泡沫（和借据）像僵尸一样存活的唯一途径。</blockquote> In short, the better phrase for Treasury “support,” “accommodation,” or “stimulus” is simply: “Life Support.”<blockquote>简而言之，财政部 “支持 ”、 “通融 ”或 “刺激 ”的更好措辞很简单： “生命支持”。</blockquote> With central banks like the Fed continuing to create fiat currencies to monetize their unsustainable debt well into the distant future, we can safely foresee a further weakening of the USD and further strengthening of gold prices, mining stocks and key risk assets like tech and industrial stocks.<blockquote>随着美联储等央行在遥远的未来继续创造法定货币，以将其不可持续的债务货币化，我们可以有把握地预见美元将进一步走弱，金价、矿业股和科技和工业股等关键风险资产将进一步走强。</blockquote> Context 3: Deflation is back?<blockquote>背景3：通货紧缩又回来了？</blockquote> Hardly.<blockquote>几乎不。</blockquote> Last week’s jaw-boning from Powell, Fisher and Bullard had the markets wondering if the Fed will be raising rates in the distant future.<blockquote>上周鲍威尔、费舍尔和布拉德的口诛笔伐让市场怀疑美联储是否会在遥远的未来加息。</blockquote> The very fact that Powell raised the issue is because the Fed is realizing that inflation is going to be sticky&nbsp;rather than “transitory”and thus they are already pretending to pose as Hawkish.<blockquote>鲍威尔之所以提出这个问题，是因为美联储意识到通胀将是棘手的而不是“短暂的”因此，他们已经在假装自己是鹰派。</blockquote> But if the Fed raises rates to quell real rather than “transitory” inflation, the markets and Uncle Sam will go into a tantrum. End of story.<blockquote>但是，如果美联储加息是为了平息实际通胀而不是 “暂时性 ”通胀，市场和山姆大叔就会大发脾气。故事结束。</blockquote> As I’ve written elsewhere: Pick your Fed poison—tanking markets or surging inflation.Eventually, we foresee both.<blockquote>正如我在其他地方写过的：选择你的美联储毒药--市场下滑或通胀飙升。最终，我们预见到了两者。</blockquote> Meanwhile, and fully aware that inflation, with some dips, is only going to trend higher, Powell is already using semantics to change the rules mid-game, now saying that rather than “allow” 2% inflation, they’ll settle for an “average” of 2%.<blockquote>与此同时，鲍威尔充分意识到通货膨胀率会有所下降，只会走高，因此他已经在中途使用语义学改变了规则，现在他说，他们不会 “允许 ”2% 的通货膨胀率，而是满足于 2% 的 “平均 ”通货膨胀率。</blockquote> Translated into honest English, this just means expect more inflation around the corner.<blockquote>翻译成诚实的英语，这只是意味着预计更多的通货膨胀即将到来。</blockquote> Context 4: Rising Stock Markets<blockquote>背景 4：股市上涨</blockquote> Despite reaching nosebleed levels which defy&nbsp;every&nbsp;traditional valuation ceiling, from CAPE ratios and Tobin ratios to book values and FCF data, the headlines remind us that stocks can go even higher—and they can indeed.<blockquote>尽管流鼻血的程度每一传统的估值上限，从开普比率和托宾比率到账面价值和自由现金流数据，头条新闻提醒我们，股票可以走得更高——而且确实可以。</blockquote> But context, as well as history, reminds us that the bigger the bubble the bigger the mean-reverting fall.<blockquote>但背景和历史都提醒我们，泡沫越大，均值回归的下跌就越大。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f1586e90684f7b8ae0525c04b1fa4bc7\" tg-width=\"624\" tg-height=\"439\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> No Treasure in Treasuries = Lot’s of Air in Stocks<blockquote>国库中没有宝藏 = 股票中充满空气</blockquote> Based upon the objective facts above, we now know that the only primary buyers showing up at U.S. Treasury auctions is the Fed itself.<blockquote>基于以上客观事实，我们现在知道，出现在美国国债拍卖中的唯一主要买家是美联储本身。</blockquote> This is because the rest of the world (Asia, Europe etc.) doesn’t want them.<blockquote>这是因为世界其他地区（亚洲、欧洲等）不想要它们。</blockquote> The next question is “why”?<blockquote>下一个问题是“为什么”？</blockquote> The answer is multiple yet simple.<blockquote>答案是多重而简单的。</blockquote> First, and despite the open myth of American Exceptionalism, investors in other countries can actually think, read and count for themselves, which means they’re not simply trusting the Fed—or its IOU’s– blindly.<blockquote>首先，尽管美国例外论是公开的神话，但其他国家的投资者实际上可以自己思考、阅读和计算，这意味着他们并不是盲目地信任美联储或其借据。</blockquote> Stated otherwise, they are not buying the “transitory inflation” or “strong USD” story pouring recently out of the FOMC mouthpieces.<blockquote>换句话说，他们并不相信最近从联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）口中涌出的 “暂时性通胀 ”或 “强势美元 ”的说法。</blockquote> Inflation is not only rising in the U.S., it’s also creeping up elsewhere—even in Japan, but especially in China. This is largely because the U.S. exports its inflation (and debased dollars) offshore via trade and fiscal deficits.<blockquote>通货膨胀不仅在美国上升，在其他地方也在攀升--甚至在日本，尤其是在中国。这在很大程度上是因为美国通过贸易和财政赤字将其通货膨胀（和贬值的美元）输出到海外。</blockquote> Such deliberate inflation exporting by the U.S. places those countries (creditors) that lent money to Uncle Sam into a dilemma: They can either 1) let their currencies inflate alongside the dollar (hardly fun), or 2) try to quell the&nbsp;outflow&nbsp;of exported (debased) US dollars to save their own currencies from further debasement.<blockquote>美国这种蓄意的通货膨胀出口让那些借钱给山姆大叔的国家（债权人）陷入了两难境地：他们要么 1) 让本国货币与美元一起升值（几乎没有乐趣），要么 2) 试图平息流出出口（贬值）美元，以防止本国货币进一步贬值。</blockquote> Option 2, of course, is the better option, which means foreign investors need to buy something more appealing than discredited U.S. Treasuries.<blockquote>当然，方案2是更好的选择，这意味着外国投资者需要购买比名誉扫地的美国国债更具吸引力的东西。</blockquote> Sadly, ironically, and yet factually, the only assets better than&nbsp;bogus&nbsp;US Treasuries are&nbsp;bloated&nbsp;U.S. stocks.<blockquote>可悲的是，讽刺的是，但事实上，唯一比假的美国国债是臃肿的美国股票。</blockquote> In short, nosebleed-priced US stocks are still the lesser of the two US evils, and foreigners are therefore buying/seeing stocks as a better hedge against the debased USD than sovereign bonds.<blockquote>简而言之，定价过高的美国股票仍然是美国两害相权取其轻，因此外国人购买/将股票视为比主权债券更好的对冲美元贬值。</blockquote> Don’t believe me?<blockquote>不相信我？</blockquote> See for yourself—the rest of the world is adding lots of air to the U.S. equity bubble:<blockquote>你自己看看——世界其他国家正在给美国股市泡沫增加大量空气：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fc5b73212bd7c3126d6a130e88169139\" tg-width=\"582\" tg-height=\"407\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">This is&nbsp;contextually&nbsp;troublesome for a number of reasons.<blockquote>这是上下文麻烦有很多原因。</blockquote> First, it means the declining US of A has gone from hocking its bonds to the rest of the world to hocking it stocks to the rest of the world (i.e., China…).<blockquote>首先，这意味着美国的衰落已经从向世界其他地方抛售债券变成了向世界其他地方抛售股票（即中国……）。</blockquote> Longer term, this simply means that via direct stock ownership, foreigners will slowly own more of corporate America than, well America…<blockquote>从长远来看，这仅仅意味着通过直接持股，外国人将慢慢拥有比美国更多的美国企业股份……</blockquote> As for this slow gutting of the once-great America to foreign buyers, don’t blame the data. Blame your Fed and other policy makers (including labor off-shoring CEO’s) for selling-out America and pretending debt can be magically solved with magical (fake) money creation.<blockquote>至于曾经伟大的美国被外国买家慢慢掏空，不要责怪数据。责怪美联储和其他政策制定者（包括劳动力外包首席执行官）出卖美国，并假装债务可以通过神奇的（假）货币创造神奇地解决。</blockquote> Of course, the second pesky little problem with stocks rising beyond the pale of sanity, earnings and honest FCF data is a thing called volatility—i.e., market seasickness.<blockquote>当然，股票上涨超出理智、盈利和诚实的自由现金流数据的第二个讨厌的小问题是一种叫做波动性的东西——即市场晕船。</blockquote> Nothing goes in a straight line, including the dollar or the market. There will be swings.<blockquote>没有什么是直线的，包括美元和市场。会有波动。</blockquote> Right now, the short on the USD is the highest it has been in four years.<blockquote>目前，美元空头是四年来的最高水平。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c420ec0af0df42eabb7a3d248da4db10\" tg-width=\"624\" tg-height=\"507\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Yet if, by some chance, the Fed ever attempts to taper or raise rates, all those foreign dollars piling into U.S. stocks (above) create a bubble that always pops, as do the foregoing dollar shorts, which get squeezed.<blockquote>然而，如果美联储有机会试图缩减或加息，所有这些涌入美国股票的外币（上图）就会产生一个总是破裂的泡沫，就像前面提到的美元空头一样，受到挤压。</blockquote> That could cause a massive sell-off in U.S. equity markets as foreigners sell their stocks to buy more dollars.<blockquote>随着外国人抛售股票以购买更多美元，这可能会导致美国股市大规模抛售。</blockquote> In short, there’s a lot of different needles pointing at the current equity bubble, and a correction within the next month or so is more than likely.<blockquote>简而言之，有很多不同的指针指向当前的股票泡沫，在未来一个月左右的时间内出现回调的可能性很大。</blockquote> The sharpest of those needles, by the way, is the appallingly comical level of U.S. margin debt (i.e. leverage)&nbsp;not&nbsp;making the headlines yet&nbsp;now&nbsp;making all-time highs.<blockquote>顺便说一句，这些针中最锋利的是美国保证金债务（即杠杆）的惊人水平不成为头条新闻现在创下历史新高。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/021f71bd7e78a1c275a9c9d74691c525\" tg-width=\"624\" tg-height=\"531\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">As a reminder, whenever margin debt peaks (above), markets tank soon thereafter, as anyone who remembers the dot.com and sub-prime market fiascos of yore can attest.<blockquote>提醒一下，每当保证金债务达到峰值（上图）时，市场很快就会暴跌，任何记得过去互联网和次级市场惨败的人都可以证明这一点。</blockquote> Just saying…<blockquote>只是说……</blockquote> Context 5: The Dark Side of “Surging” GDP Growth<blockquote>背景 5：“飙升”GDP 增长的阴暗面</blockquote> The World Bank recently made its own headlines projecting 5.6% global GDP growth, the fastest seen in 80 years.<blockquote>世界银行最近成为头条新闻，预测全球GDP增长5.6%，为80年来最快。</blockquote> Good stuff, right?<blockquote>好东西，对吧？</blockquote> Well, not when placed into&nbsp;context…<blockquote>嗯，当放在上下文…</blockquote> The last time we saw 5.6% global GDP growth was during a&nbsp;global world war.<blockquote>我们上一次看到5.6%的全球GDP增长是在全球世界大战.</blockquote> Obviously, when the world is in a state of global military rubble, growth of any kind is likely to “surge” from such an historical (and horrific) baseline.<blockquote>显然，当世界处于全球军事废墟之中时，任何形式的增长都有可能从这样一个历史（和可怕）的基线 “激增 ”。</blockquote> Coming out of World War II, everyone, including the U.S. was in debt. World wars, after all, can do that…<blockquote>二战结束后，包括美国在内的每个人都负债累累。毕竟，世界大战可以做到这一点……</blockquote> As the victorious and civilization-saving U.S. came out of that war, it made some justifiable sense to de-lever that noble yet extreme debt by printing money, repressing bond yields and stimulating GDP growth.<blockquote>随着胜利和拯救文明的美国从那场战争中走出来，通过印钞、抑制债券收益率和刺激GDP增长来降低高贵但极端的债务杠杆化在一定程度上是合理的。</blockquote> What followed was at least a defendable 40-year stretch in which US nominal GDP ran 500-800 bps above US Treasury yields.<blockquote>接下来的至少是一个站得住脚的40年，在此期间，美国名义GDP比美国国债收益率高出500-800个基点。</blockquote> In short, bond-holders got slammed, but the cause, crisis and re-building after defeating the Axis powers justified the sacrifice.<blockquote>简而言之，债券持有人受到了打击，但事业、危机和击败轴心国后的重建证明了这种牺牲是合理的。</blockquote> The same, however, can not be said today as bond-holders get crushed yet again in a new-abnormal in which GDP will greatly (and similarly) outpace long-term bond yields.<blockquote>然而，如今情况却并非如此，因为债券持有者再次陷入一种新的异常现象，即GDP将大大（类似地）超过长期债券收益率。</blockquote> Needless to say, current policy makers, the very foxes who put the global economic henhouse into the current pile of debt of rubble, like to blame this on COVID rather their bathroom mirrors.<blockquote>不用说，当前的政策制定者，正是那些把全球经济鸡舍扔进当前债务废墟堆的狐狸，喜欢把这归咎于COVID，而不是他们的浴室镜子。</blockquote> Ironically, however, central bankers (as opposed to the&nbsp;Wehrmacht, the Japanese Empire or Italy’s Mussolini) managed to do as much harm to the global economy&nbsp;today&nbsp;(with deficit policies and extend-and-pretend money printers) as Germany’s&nbsp;Blitzkrieg&nbsp;or Hirohito’s Banzai raids did in the 1940’s.<blockquote>然而，具有讽刺意味的是，央行行长（相对于德国国防军日本帝国或意大利的墨索里尼）对全球经济造成了同样大的损害。当今（采取赤字政策和假装印钞机）作为德国的闪电战或者裕仁在 20 世纪 40 年代的万岁突袭。</blockquote> When it comes to context, can or should we really be comparing a global flu (death toll 3.75M) to a global war (death toll 85 million)?<blockquote>说到背景，我们真的可以或应该将一场全球流感（死亡人数375万）与一场全球战争（死亡人数8500万）进行比较吗？</blockquote> The policy makers would like&nbsp;you&nbsp;to think so.<blockquote>政策制定者希望你这么想。</blockquote> Folks like Mnuchin (last year) or Yellen, Powell and the IMF (this year), are in fact trying to convince themselves and the world that the war against COVID was the real&nbsp;casus belli&nbsp;(reason for a justifiable war) of our current debt distress—equal in scope to World War II in its drastic impact on the financial world.<blockquote>像姆努钦（去年）或耶伦、鲍威尔和国际货币基金组织（今年）这样的人实际上都在试图说服自己和世界，对抗新冠病毒的战争是真实的战争理由（一场正当战争的理由）我们当前的债务困境——就其对金融世界的巨大影响而言，其范围与第二次世界大战相当。</blockquote> But regardless of anyone’s views on the COVID “War” or its questionable policy reactions, comparing its economic impact to that of World War II is an insult to both history and military metaphors.<blockquote>但是，无论任何人对科维德 “战争 ”的看法或其可疑的政策反应如何，将其经济影响与第二次世界大战相提并论都是对历史和军事隐喻的侮辱。</blockquote> The simple, objective and mathematically-confirmed fact is that the global economy was&nbsp;already&nbsp;in a debt crisis long&nbsp;before&nbsp;the first Corona headline of early 2020.<blockquote>简单、客观且经过数学验证的事实是，全球经济已经长期陷入债务危机以前2020年初的第一个电晕头条。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/173b90a9931417cc655b6129fc7dc38c\" tg-width=\"624\" tg-height=\"466\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Today, US debt to GDP is at levels it has not seen since that tragic and Second World War, and it’s projected to go much, much higher.<blockquote>如今，美国债务占国内生产总值的比重已达到自那场悲惨的第二次世界大战以来从未见过的水平，而且预计还会更高。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/54e71ae4475b3449c8833ca918ddbd82\" tg-width=\"624\" tg-height=\"297\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> So, just in case you still think the Fed can and will meaningfully raise rates to fight obvious inflation, as it did in the 1970’s or 1980’s, think again.<blockquote>因此，如果你仍然认为美联储能够而且将会像上世纪 70 年代或 80 年代那样，有意义地加息以对抗明显的通货膨胀，请再想想。</blockquote> In the 1970’s and 1980’s US debt/GDP was 30%. Today it’s 130%.<blockquote>在 20 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代，美国债务与国内生产总值的比率为 30%。今天是 130%。</blockquote> Given this self-inflicted (rather than COVID-blamed) reality, the Fed simply can’t afford to raise rates. Period. Full stop.<blockquote>鉴于这种自我造成的（而不是科维德的）现实，美联储根本无力加息。周期。句号。</blockquote> But as my colleague, Egon von Greyerz reminds, that by no means suggests that rates can’t and won’t rise.<blockquote>但正如我的同事埃贡-冯-格雷尔茨（Egon von Greyerz）提醒的那样，这绝不意味着利率不能也不会上升。</blockquote> The Fed (and other central banks) may be powerful, but they are not divine. In short, there’s a limit to their powers to simply “control” rates with a mouse-click.<blockquote>美联储（和其他央行）可能很强大，但它们不是神。简而言之，他们仅仅通过点击鼠标来 “控制 ”利率的能力是有限的。</blockquote> At some point, there’s not enough credible fake money to manage the yield curve—especially on the long end.<blockquote>在某些时候，没有足够可信的假币来管理收益率曲线--尤其是在长期收益率曲线上。</blockquote> As more printed and&nbsp;tanking currencies&nbsp;try to purchase lower yields and rates, eventually the entire experiment fails.<blockquote>随着更多的印刷和加注货币试图购买更低的收益率和利率，最终整个实验失败。</blockquote> At that critical point, rates spike, inflation raises its ugly head and the central bankers look for something other than themselves to blame as the rest of the world stares at worthless currencies being replaced by comical central bank digital dollars.<blockquote>在那个关键时刻，利率飙升，通货膨胀抬起了丑陋的头，当世界其他地方都在盯着毫无价值的货币被滑稽的央行数字美元所取代时，央行行长们正在寻找自己以外的东西来指责。</blockquote> Wonderful…<blockquote>太棒了…</blockquote> Context 6: That Barbaric Relic?<blockquote>背景6：那个野蛮的遗迹？</blockquote> What the foregoing inflation and rate contexts means is that in the years ahead, inflation will run higher and rates will run (be forced/controlled) lower until both rates and inflation spike together.<blockquote>上述通货膨胀和利率背景意味着，在未来几年，通货膨胀将走高，利率将走低（被迫/控制），直到利率和通货膨胀一起飙升。</blockquote> This further means that&nbsp;real&nbsp;rates (i.e., those adjusted for inflation) could run as deep as -5% to -10% in the years ahead.<blockquote>这进一步意味着真的未来几年，利率（即根据通货膨胀调整的利率）可能会低至-5%至-10%。</blockquote> Such negative real rate levels could easily surpass those seen in the 70’s and 80’s, which means gold (and silver), both of whom love negative real rates, has nowhere to go but up, up and away in this totally debt-distorted backdrop.<blockquote>这样的负实际利率水平很容易超过 70 年代和 80 年代的水平，这意味着黄金（和白银）都喜欢负实际利率，但在这种完全债务扭曲的背景下，黄金（和白银）别无选择，只能上涨、上涨、下跌。</blockquote> How’s that for context?<blockquote>这对上下文有什么影响？</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One Mad Market & Six Cold Reality-Checks<blockquote>一个疯狂的市场和六个冷酷的现实检查</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne Mad Market & Six Cold Reality-Checks<blockquote>一个疯狂的市场和六个冷酷的现实检查</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-06-22 19:00\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nFact checking politicos, headlines and central bankers is one thing.Putting their \"facts\" into context is another.<blockquote>核实政客、头条新闻和央行行长的事实是一回事。把他们的“事实”放在上下文中是另一回事。</blockquote> Toward that end, it’s critical to place so-called “economic growth,” Treasury market growth, stock market growth, GDP growth and, of course, gold price growth into clearer perspective despite an insane global backdrop that is anything but clearly reported.<blockquote>为此，至关重要的是要将所谓的 “经济增长 ”、国债市场增长、股市增长、国内生产总值增长，当然还有金价增长置于更清晰的视角，尽管全球背景十分疯狂，但这些背景并没有得到明确报道。</blockquote> Context 1: The Rising Growth Headline<blockquote>背景 1：增长头条上升</blockquote> Recently, Biden’s economic advisor, Jared Bernstein, calmed the masses with yet another headline-making boast that the U.S. is “growing considerably faster” than their trading partners.<blockquote>最近，拜登的经济顾问贾里德-伯恩斯坦（Jared Bernstein）又一次头条新闻吹嘘说，美国的增长速度比他们的贸易伙伴快得多，这让群众平静下来。</blockquote> Fair enough.<blockquote>很公平。</blockquote> But given that the U.S. is running the largest deficits on historical record…<blockquote>但鉴于美国正面临历史记录中最大的赤字……</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0ac5ed804cb5613af2890f604dac56be\" tg-width=\"575\" tg-height=\"405\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> …such “growth” is not surprising.<blockquote>……这样的“增长”并不奇怪。</blockquote> In other words, bragging about growth on the back of extreme deficit spending is like a spoiled kid bragging about a new Porsche secretly purchased with his father’s credit card: It only looks good until the bill arrives and the car vanishes.<blockquote>换句话说，以极端赤字支出为幌子吹嘘经济增长，就像一个被宠坏的孩子吹嘘用父亲的信用卡秘密购买的新保时捷一样： 只有在账单到来、汽车消失之前，它才会看起来不错。</blockquote> In a financial world gone mad, it’s critical to look under the hood of what passes for growth in particular or basic principles of price discovery, debt levels or supply and demand in general.<blockquote>在一个疯狂的金融世界里，至关重要的是要审视什么是增长，什么是价格发现的基本原则、债务水平或供求关系。</blockquote> In short: “Growth” driven by extreme debt is not growth at all–it’s just the headline surface shine on a sports car one can’t afford.<blockquote>简而言之： 由极端债务推动的 “增长 ”根本不是增长--它只是一辆买不起的跑车的表面光泽。</blockquote> And yet&nbsp;the madness continues…Take the U.S. Treasury market, for example.<blockquote>然而疯狂仍在继续……以美国国债市场为例。</blockquote> Context 2: The Treasury “Market”?<blockquote>背景 2：国债“市场”？</blockquote> How can anyone call the U.S. Treasury market a “market” when 56% of the $4.5T of bonds issued since last February have been bought by the Fed itself?<blockquote>自去年 2 月以来发行的 4.5 万亿美元债券中有 56% 是由美联储自己购买的，怎么会有人看涨期权美国国债市场呢？</blockquote> Sounds more like an insider price-fix than a “market,” no?<blockquote>听起来更像是内部操纵价格，而不是 “市场 ”，不是吗？</blockquote> Such context gives an entirely new meaning to the idea of “drinking your own Kool-aide” and ought to be a cool reminder that Treasury bonds in general, and bond yields in particular, are zombies masquerading as credit Olympians.<blockquote>这样的背景赋予了 “喝自己的 Kool-aide ”的想法全新的含义，并应该冷静地提醒人们，国债，尤其是债券收益率，是伪装成信贷奥林匹克的僵尸。</blockquote> The Fed, of course, will pretend that such “support” is as temporary as their “transitory inflation” meme, but most market realists understood long ago that more and crazier bond yield “support” is the only way for national debt bubbles (and IOU’s) to stay zombie-like alive.<blockquote>当然，美联储会假装这种 “支持 ”和他们的 “暂时性通胀 ”备忘录一样是暂时的，但大多数市场现实主义者早就明白，更多、更疯狂的债券收益率 “支持 ”是国债泡沫（和借据）像僵尸一样存活的唯一途径。</blockquote> In short, the better phrase for Treasury “support,” “accommodation,” or “stimulus” is simply: “Life Support.”<blockquote>简而言之，财政部 “支持 ”、 “通融 ”或 “刺激 ”的更好措辞很简单： “生命支持”。</blockquote> With central banks like the Fed continuing to create fiat currencies to monetize their unsustainable debt well into the distant future, we can safely foresee a further weakening of the USD and further strengthening of gold prices, mining stocks and key risk assets like tech and industrial stocks.<blockquote>随着美联储等央行在遥远的未来继续创造法定货币，以将其不可持续的债务货币化，我们可以有把握地预见美元将进一步走弱，金价、矿业股和科技和工业股等关键风险资产将进一步走强。</blockquote> Context 3: Deflation is back?<blockquote>背景3：通货紧缩又回来了？</blockquote> Hardly.<blockquote>几乎不。</blockquote> Last week’s jaw-boning from Powell, Fisher and Bullard had the markets wondering if the Fed will be raising rates in the distant future.<blockquote>上周鲍威尔、费舍尔和布拉德的口诛笔伐让市场怀疑美联储是否会在遥远的未来加息。</blockquote> The very fact that Powell raised the issue is because the Fed is realizing that inflation is going to be sticky&nbsp;rather than “transitory”and thus they are already pretending to pose as Hawkish.<blockquote>鲍威尔之所以提出这个问题，是因为美联储意识到通胀将是棘手的而不是“短暂的”因此，他们已经在假装自己是鹰派。</blockquote> But if the Fed raises rates to quell real rather than “transitory” inflation, the markets and Uncle Sam will go into a tantrum. End of story.<blockquote>但是，如果美联储加息是为了平息实际通胀而不是 “暂时性 ”通胀，市场和山姆大叔就会大发脾气。故事结束。</blockquote> As I’ve written elsewhere: Pick your Fed poison—tanking markets or surging inflation.Eventually, we foresee both.<blockquote>正如我在其他地方写过的：选择你的美联储毒药--市场下滑或通胀飙升。最终，我们预见到了两者。</blockquote> Meanwhile, and fully aware that inflation, with some dips, is only going to trend higher, Powell is already using semantics to change the rules mid-game, now saying that rather than “allow” 2% inflation, they’ll settle for an “average” of 2%.<blockquote>与此同时，鲍威尔充分意识到通货膨胀率会有所下降，只会走高，因此他已经在中途使用语义学改变了规则，现在他说，他们不会 “允许 ”2% 的通货膨胀率，而是满足于 2% 的 “平均 ”通货膨胀率。</blockquote> Translated into honest English, this just means expect more inflation around the corner.<blockquote>翻译成诚实的英语，这只是意味着预计更多的通货膨胀即将到来。</blockquote> Context 4: Rising Stock Markets<blockquote>背景 4：股市上涨</blockquote> Despite reaching nosebleed levels which defy&nbsp;every&nbsp;traditional valuation ceiling, from CAPE ratios and Tobin ratios to book values and FCF data, the headlines remind us that stocks can go even higher—and they can indeed.<blockquote>尽管流鼻血的程度每一传统的估值上限，从开普比率和托宾比率到账面价值和自由现金流数据，头条新闻提醒我们，股票可以走得更高——而且确实可以。</blockquote> But context, as well as history, reminds us that the bigger the bubble the bigger the mean-reverting fall.<blockquote>但背景和历史都提醒我们，泡沫越大，均值回归的下跌就越大。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f1586e90684f7b8ae0525c04b1fa4bc7\" tg-width=\"624\" tg-height=\"439\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> No Treasure in Treasuries = Lot’s of Air in Stocks<blockquote>国库中没有宝藏 = 股票中充满空气</blockquote> Based upon the objective facts above, we now know that the only primary buyers showing up at U.S. Treasury auctions is the Fed itself.<blockquote>基于以上客观事实，我们现在知道，出现在美国国债拍卖中的唯一主要买家是美联储本身。</blockquote> This is because the rest of the world (Asia, Europe etc.) doesn’t want them.<blockquote>这是因为世界其他地区（亚洲、欧洲等）不想要它们。</blockquote> The next question is “why”?<blockquote>下一个问题是“为什么”？</blockquote> The answer is multiple yet simple.<blockquote>答案是多重而简单的。</blockquote> First, and despite the open myth of American Exceptionalism, investors in other countries can actually think, read and count for themselves, which means they’re not simply trusting the Fed—or its IOU’s– blindly.<blockquote>首先，尽管美国例外论是公开的神话，但其他国家的投资者实际上可以自己思考、阅读和计算，这意味着他们并不是盲目地信任美联储或其借据。</blockquote> Stated otherwise, they are not buying the “transitory inflation” or “strong USD” story pouring recently out of the FOMC mouthpieces.<blockquote>换句话说，他们并不相信最近从联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）口中涌出的 “暂时性通胀 ”或 “强势美元 ”的说法。</blockquote> Inflation is not only rising in the U.S., it’s also creeping up elsewhere—even in Japan, but especially in China. This is largely because the U.S. exports its inflation (and debased dollars) offshore via trade and fiscal deficits.<blockquote>通货膨胀不仅在美国上升，在其他地方也在攀升--甚至在日本，尤其是在中国。这在很大程度上是因为美国通过贸易和财政赤字将其通货膨胀（和贬值的美元）输出到海外。</blockquote> Such deliberate inflation exporting by the U.S. places those countries (creditors) that lent money to Uncle Sam into a dilemma: They can either 1) let their currencies inflate alongside the dollar (hardly fun), or 2) try to quell the&nbsp;outflow&nbsp;of exported (debased) US dollars to save their own currencies from further debasement.<blockquote>美国这种蓄意的通货膨胀出口让那些借钱给山姆大叔的国家（债权人）陷入了两难境地：他们要么 1) 让本国货币与美元一起升值（几乎没有乐趣），要么 2) 试图平息流出出口（贬值）美元，以防止本国货币进一步贬值。</blockquote> Option 2, of course, is the better option, which means foreign investors need to buy something more appealing than discredited U.S. Treasuries.<blockquote>当然，方案2是更好的选择，这意味着外国投资者需要购买比名誉扫地的美国国债更具吸引力的东西。</blockquote> Sadly, ironically, and yet factually, the only assets better than&nbsp;bogus&nbsp;US Treasuries are&nbsp;bloated&nbsp;U.S. stocks.<blockquote>可悲的是，讽刺的是，但事实上，唯一比假的美国国债是臃肿的美国股票。</blockquote> In short, nosebleed-priced US stocks are still the lesser of the two US evils, and foreigners are therefore buying/seeing stocks as a better hedge against the debased USD than sovereign bonds.<blockquote>简而言之，定价过高的美国股票仍然是美国两害相权取其轻，因此外国人购买/将股票视为比主权债券更好的对冲美元贬值。</blockquote> Don’t believe me?<blockquote>不相信我？</blockquote> See for yourself—the rest of the world is adding lots of air to the U.S. equity bubble:<blockquote>你自己看看——世界其他国家正在给美国股市泡沫增加大量空气：</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fc5b73212bd7c3126d6a130e88169139\" tg-width=\"582\" tg-height=\"407\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">This is&nbsp;contextually&nbsp;troublesome for a number of reasons.<blockquote>这是上下文麻烦有很多原因。</blockquote> First, it means the declining US of A has gone from hocking its bonds to the rest of the world to hocking it stocks to the rest of the world (i.e., China…).<blockquote>首先，这意味着美国的衰落已经从向世界其他地方抛售债券变成了向世界其他地方抛售股票（即中国……）。</blockquote> Longer term, this simply means that via direct stock ownership, foreigners will slowly own more of corporate America than, well America…<blockquote>从长远来看，这仅仅意味着通过直接持股，外国人将慢慢拥有比美国更多的美国企业股份……</blockquote> As for this slow gutting of the once-great America to foreign buyers, don’t blame the data. Blame your Fed and other policy makers (including labor off-shoring CEO’s) for selling-out America and pretending debt can be magically solved with magical (fake) money creation.<blockquote>至于曾经伟大的美国被外国买家慢慢掏空，不要责怪数据。责怪美联储和其他政策制定者（包括劳动力外包首席执行官）出卖美国，并假装债务可以通过神奇的（假）货币创造神奇地解决。</blockquote> Of course, the second pesky little problem with stocks rising beyond the pale of sanity, earnings and honest FCF data is a thing called volatility—i.e., market seasickness.<blockquote>当然，股票上涨超出理智、盈利和诚实的自由现金流数据的第二个讨厌的小问题是一种叫做波动性的东西——即市场晕船。</blockquote> Nothing goes in a straight line, including the dollar or the market. There will be swings.<blockquote>没有什么是直线的，包括美元和市场。会有波动。</blockquote> Right now, the short on the USD is the highest it has been in four years.<blockquote>目前，美元空头是四年来的最高水平。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c420ec0af0df42eabb7a3d248da4db10\" tg-width=\"624\" tg-height=\"507\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Yet if, by some chance, the Fed ever attempts to taper or raise rates, all those foreign dollars piling into U.S. stocks (above) create a bubble that always pops, as do the foregoing dollar shorts, which get squeezed.<blockquote>然而，如果美联储有机会试图缩减或加息，所有这些涌入美国股票的外币（上图）就会产生一个总是破裂的泡沫，就像前面提到的美元空头一样，受到挤压。</blockquote> That could cause a massive sell-off in U.S. equity markets as foreigners sell their stocks to buy more dollars.<blockquote>随着外国人抛售股票以购买更多美元，这可能会导致美国股市大规模抛售。</blockquote> In short, there’s a lot of different needles pointing at the current equity bubble, and a correction within the next month or so is more than likely.<blockquote>简而言之，有很多不同的指针指向当前的股票泡沫，在未来一个月左右的时间内出现回调的可能性很大。</blockquote> The sharpest of those needles, by the way, is the appallingly comical level of U.S. margin debt (i.e. leverage)&nbsp;not&nbsp;making the headlines yet&nbsp;now&nbsp;making all-time highs.<blockquote>顺便说一句，这些针中最锋利的是美国保证金债务（即杠杆）的惊人水平不成为头条新闻现在创下历史新高。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/021f71bd7e78a1c275a9c9d74691c525\" tg-width=\"624\" tg-height=\"531\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">As a reminder, whenever margin debt peaks (above), markets tank soon thereafter, as anyone who remembers the dot.com and sub-prime market fiascos of yore can attest.<blockquote>提醒一下，每当保证金债务达到峰值（上图）时，市场很快就会暴跌，任何记得过去互联网和次级市场惨败的人都可以证明这一点。</blockquote> Just saying…<blockquote>只是说……</blockquote> Context 5: The Dark Side of “Surging” GDP Growth<blockquote>背景 5：“飙升”GDP 增长的阴暗面</blockquote> The World Bank recently made its own headlines projecting 5.6% global GDP growth, the fastest seen in 80 years.<blockquote>世界银行最近成为头条新闻，预测全球GDP增长5.6%，为80年来最快。</blockquote> Good stuff, right?<blockquote>好东西，对吧？</blockquote> Well, not when placed into&nbsp;context…<blockquote>嗯，当放在上下文…</blockquote> The last time we saw 5.6% global GDP growth was during a&nbsp;global world war.<blockquote>我们上一次看到5.6%的全球GDP增长是在全球世界大战.</blockquote> Obviously, when the world is in a state of global military rubble, growth of any kind is likely to “surge” from such an historical (and horrific) baseline.<blockquote>显然，当世界处于全球军事废墟之中时，任何形式的增长都有可能从这样一个历史（和可怕）的基线 “激增 ”。</blockquote> Coming out of World War II, everyone, including the U.S. was in debt. World wars, after all, can do that…<blockquote>二战结束后，包括美国在内的每个人都负债累累。毕竟，世界大战可以做到这一点……</blockquote> As the victorious and civilization-saving U.S. came out of that war, it made some justifiable sense to de-lever that noble yet extreme debt by printing money, repressing bond yields and stimulating GDP growth.<blockquote>随着胜利和拯救文明的美国从那场战争中走出来，通过印钞、抑制债券收益率和刺激GDP增长来降低高贵但极端的债务杠杆化在一定程度上是合理的。</blockquote> What followed was at least a defendable 40-year stretch in which US nominal GDP ran 500-800 bps above US Treasury yields.<blockquote>接下来的至少是一个站得住脚的40年，在此期间，美国名义GDP比美国国债收益率高出500-800个基点。</blockquote> In short, bond-holders got slammed, but the cause, crisis and re-building after defeating the Axis powers justified the sacrifice.<blockquote>简而言之，债券持有人受到了打击，但事业、危机和击败轴心国后的重建证明了这种牺牲是合理的。</blockquote> The same, however, can not be said today as bond-holders get crushed yet again in a new-abnormal in which GDP will greatly (and similarly) outpace long-term bond yields.<blockquote>然而，如今情况却并非如此，因为债券持有者再次陷入一种新的异常现象，即GDP将大大（类似地）超过长期债券收益率。</blockquote> Needless to say, current policy makers, the very foxes who put the global economic henhouse into the current pile of debt of rubble, like to blame this on COVID rather their bathroom mirrors.<blockquote>不用说，当前的政策制定者，正是那些把全球经济鸡舍扔进当前债务废墟堆的狐狸，喜欢把这归咎于COVID，而不是他们的浴室镜子。</blockquote> Ironically, however, central bankers (as opposed to the&nbsp;Wehrmacht, the Japanese Empire or Italy’s Mussolini) managed to do as much harm to the global economy&nbsp;today&nbsp;(with deficit policies and extend-and-pretend money printers) as Germany’s&nbsp;Blitzkrieg&nbsp;or Hirohito’s Banzai raids did in the 1940’s.<blockquote>然而，具有讽刺意味的是，央行行长（相对于德国国防军日本帝国或意大利的墨索里尼）对全球经济造成了同样大的损害。当今（采取赤字政策和假装印钞机）作为德国的闪电战或者裕仁在 20 世纪 40 年代的万岁突袭。</blockquote> When it comes to context, can or should we really be comparing a global flu (death toll 3.75M) to a global war (death toll 85 million)?<blockquote>说到背景，我们真的可以或应该将一场全球流感（死亡人数375万）与一场全球战争（死亡人数8500万）进行比较吗？</blockquote> The policy makers would like&nbsp;you&nbsp;to think so.<blockquote>政策制定者希望你这么想。</blockquote> Folks like Mnuchin (last year) or Yellen, Powell and the IMF (this year), are in fact trying to convince themselves and the world that the war against COVID was the real&nbsp;casus belli&nbsp;(reason for a justifiable war) of our current debt distress—equal in scope to World War II in its drastic impact on the financial world.<blockquote>像姆努钦（去年）或耶伦、鲍威尔和国际货币基金组织（今年）这样的人实际上都在试图说服自己和世界，对抗新冠病毒的战争是真实的战争理由（一场正当战争的理由）我们当前的债务困境——就其对金融世界的巨大影响而言，其范围与第二次世界大战相当。</blockquote> But regardless of anyone’s views on the COVID “War” or its questionable policy reactions, comparing its economic impact to that of World War II is an insult to both history and military metaphors.<blockquote>但是，无论任何人对科维德 “战争 ”的看法或其可疑的政策反应如何，将其经济影响与第二次世界大战相提并论都是对历史和军事隐喻的侮辱。</blockquote> The simple, objective and mathematically-confirmed fact is that the global economy was&nbsp;already&nbsp;in a debt crisis long&nbsp;before&nbsp;the first Corona headline of early 2020.<blockquote>简单、客观且经过数学验证的事实是，全球经济已经长期陷入债务危机以前2020年初的第一个电晕头条。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/173b90a9931417cc655b6129fc7dc38c\" tg-width=\"624\" tg-height=\"466\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Today, US debt to GDP is at levels it has not seen since that tragic and Second World War, and it’s projected to go much, much higher.<blockquote>如今，美国债务占国内生产总值的比重已达到自那场悲惨的第二次世界大战以来从未见过的水平，而且预计还会更高。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/54e71ae4475b3449c8833ca918ddbd82\" tg-width=\"624\" tg-height=\"297\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> So, just in case you still think the Fed can and will meaningfully raise rates to fight obvious inflation, as it did in the 1970’s or 1980’s, think again.<blockquote>因此，如果你仍然认为美联储能够而且将会像上世纪 70 年代或 80 年代那样，有意义地加息以对抗明显的通货膨胀，请再想想。</blockquote> In the 1970’s and 1980’s US debt/GDP was 30%. Today it’s 130%.<blockquote>在 20 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代，美国债务与国内生产总值的比率为 30%。今天是 130%。</blockquote> Given this self-inflicted (rather than COVID-blamed) reality, the Fed simply can’t afford to raise rates. Period. Full stop.<blockquote>鉴于这种自我造成的（而不是科维德的）现实，美联储根本无力加息。周期。句号。</blockquote> But as my colleague, Egon von Greyerz reminds, that by no means suggests that rates can’t and won’t rise.<blockquote>但正如我的同事埃贡-冯-格雷尔茨（Egon von Greyerz）提醒的那样，这绝不意味着利率不能也不会上升。</blockquote> The Fed (and other central banks) may be powerful, but they are not divine. In short, there’s a limit to their powers to simply “control” rates with a mouse-click.<blockquote>美联储（和其他央行）可能很强大，但它们不是神。简而言之，他们仅仅通过点击鼠标来 “控制 ”利率的能力是有限的。</blockquote> At some point, there’s not enough credible fake money to manage the yield curve—especially on the long end.<blockquote>在某些时候，没有足够可信的假币来管理收益率曲线--尤其是在长期收益率曲线上。</blockquote> As more printed and&nbsp;tanking currencies&nbsp;try to purchase lower yields and rates, eventually the entire experiment fails.<blockquote>随着更多的印刷和加注货币试图购买更低的收益率和利率，最终整个实验失败。</blockquote> At that critical point, rates spike, inflation raises its ugly head and the central bankers look for something other than themselves to blame as the rest of the world stares at worthless currencies being replaced by comical central bank digital dollars.<blockquote>在那个关键时刻，利率飙升，通货膨胀抬起了丑陋的头，当世界其他地方都在盯着毫无价值的货币被滑稽的央行数字美元所取代时，央行行长们正在寻找自己以外的东西来指责。</blockquote> Wonderful…<blockquote>太棒了…</blockquote> Context 6: That Barbaric Relic?<blockquote>背景6：那个野蛮的遗迹？</blockquote> What the foregoing inflation and rate contexts means is that in the years ahead, inflation will run higher and rates will run (be forced/controlled) lower until both rates and inflation spike together.<blockquote>上述通货膨胀和利率背景意味着，在未来几年，通货膨胀将走高，利率将走低（被迫/控制），直到利率和通货膨胀一起飙升。</blockquote> This further means that&nbsp;real&nbsp;rates (i.e., those adjusted for inflation) could run as deep as -5% to -10% in the years ahead.<blockquote>这进一步意味着真的未来几年，利率（即根据通货膨胀调整的利率）可能会低至-5%至-10%。</blockquote> Such negative real rate levels could easily surpass those seen in the 70’s and 80’s, which means gold (and silver), both of whom love negative real rates, has nowhere to go but up, up and away in this totally debt-distorted backdrop.<blockquote>这样的负实际利率水平很容易超过 70 年代和 80 年代的水平，这意味着黄金（和白银）都喜欢负实际利率，但在这种完全债务扭曲的背景下，黄金（和白银）别无选择，只能上涨、上涨、下跌。</blockquote> How’s that for context?<blockquote>这对上下文有什么影响？</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/one-mad-market-six-cold-reality-checks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/one-mad-market-six-cold-reality-checks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1145563175","content_text":"Fact checking politicos, headlines and central bankers is one thing.Putting their \"facts\" into context is another.\nToward that end, it’s critical to place so-called “economic growth,” Treasury market growth, stock market growth, GDP growth and, of course, gold price growth into clearer perspective despite an insane global backdrop that is anything but clearly reported.\nContext 1: The Rising Growth Headline\nRecently, Biden’s economic advisor, Jared Bernstein, calmed the masses with yet another headline-making boast that the U.S. is “growing considerably faster” than their trading partners.\nFair enough.\nBut given that the U.S. is running the largest deficits on historical record…\n\n…such “growth” is not surprising.\nIn other words, bragging about growth on the back of extreme deficit spending is like a spoiled kid bragging about a new Porsche secretly purchased with his father’s credit card: It only looks good until the bill arrives and the car vanishes.\nIn a financial world gone mad, it’s critical to look under the hood of what passes for growth in particular or basic principles of price discovery, debt levels or supply and demand in general.\nIn short: “Growth” driven by extreme debt is not growth at all–it’s just the headline surface shine on a sports car one can’t afford.\nAnd yet the madness continues…Take the U.S. Treasury market, for example.\nContext 2: The Treasury “Market”?\nHow can anyone call the U.S. Treasury market a “market” when 56% of the $4.5T of bonds issued since last February have been bought by the Fed itself?\nSounds more like an insider price-fix than a “market,” no?\nSuch context gives an entirely new meaning to the idea of “drinking your own Kool-aide” and ought to be a cool reminder that Treasury bonds in general, and bond yields in particular, are zombies masquerading as credit Olympians.\nThe Fed, of course, will pretend that such “support” is as temporary as their “transitory inflation” meme, but most market realists understood long ago that more and crazier bond yield “support” is the only way for national debt bubbles (and IOU’s) to stay zombie-like alive.\nIn short, the better phrase for Treasury “support,” “accommodation,” or “stimulus” is simply: “Life Support.”\nWith central banks like the Fed continuing to create fiat currencies to monetize their unsustainable debt well into the distant future, we can safely foresee a further weakening of the USD and further strengthening of gold prices, mining stocks and key risk assets like tech and industrial stocks.\nContext 3: Deflation is back?\nHardly.\nLast week’s jaw-boning from Powell, Fisher and Bullard had the markets wondering if the Fed will be raising rates in the distant future.\nThe very fact that Powell raised the issue is because the Fed is realizing that inflation is going to be sticky rather than “transitory”and thus they are already pretending to pose as Hawkish.\nBut if the Fed raises rates to quell real rather than “transitory” inflation, the markets and Uncle Sam will go into a tantrum. End of story.\nAs I’ve written elsewhere: Pick your Fed poison—tanking markets or surging inflation.Eventually, we foresee both.\nMeanwhile, and fully aware that inflation, with some dips, is only going to trend higher, Powell is already using semantics to change the rules mid-game, now saying that rather than “allow” 2% inflation, they’ll settle for an “average” of 2%.\nTranslated into honest English, this just means expect more inflation around the corner.\nContext 4: Rising Stock Markets\nDespite reaching nosebleed levels which defy every traditional valuation ceiling, from CAPE ratios and Tobin ratios to book values and FCF data, the headlines remind us that stocks can go even higher—and they can indeed.\nBut context, as well as history, reminds us that the bigger the bubble the bigger the mean-reverting fall.\n\nNo Treasure in Treasuries = Lot’s of Air in Stocks\nBased upon the objective facts above, we now know that the only primary buyers showing up at U.S. Treasury auctions is the Fed itself.\nThis is because the rest of the world (Asia, Europe etc.) doesn’t want them.\nThe next question is “why”?\nThe answer is multiple yet simple.\nFirst, and despite the open myth of American Exceptionalism, investors in other countries can actually think, read and count for themselves, which means they’re not simply trusting the Fed—or its IOU’s– blindly.\nStated otherwise, they are not buying the “transitory inflation” or “strong USD” story pouring recently out of the FOMC mouthpieces.\nInflation is not only rising in the U.S., it’s also creeping up elsewhere—even in Japan, but especially in China. This is largely because the U.S. exports its inflation (and debased dollars) offshore via trade and fiscal deficits.\nSuch deliberate inflation exporting by the U.S. places those countries (creditors) that lent money to Uncle Sam into a dilemma: They can either 1) let their currencies inflate alongside the dollar (hardly fun), or 2) try to quell the outflow of exported (debased) US dollars to save their own currencies from further debasement.\nOption 2, of course, is the better option, which means foreign investors need to buy something more appealing than discredited U.S. Treasuries.\nSadly, ironically, and yet factually, the only assets better than bogus US Treasuries are bloated U.S. stocks.\nIn short, nosebleed-priced US stocks are still the lesser of the two US evils, and foreigners are therefore buying/seeing stocks as a better hedge against the debased USD than sovereign bonds.\nDon’t believe me?\nSee for yourself—the rest of the world is adding lots of air to the U.S. equity bubble:\nThis is contextually troublesome for a number of reasons.\nFirst, it means the declining US of A has gone from hocking its bonds to the rest of the world to hocking it stocks to the rest of the world (i.e., China…).\nLonger term, this simply means that via direct stock ownership, foreigners will slowly own more of corporate America than, well America…\nAs for this slow gutting of the once-great America to foreign buyers, don’t blame the data. Blame your Fed and other policy makers (including labor off-shoring CEO’s) for selling-out America and pretending debt can be magically solved with magical (fake) money creation.\nOf course, the second pesky little problem with stocks rising beyond the pale of sanity, earnings and honest FCF data is a thing called volatility—i.e., market seasickness.\nNothing goes in a straight line, including the dollar or the market. There will be swings.\nRight now, the short on the USD is the highest it has been in four years.\nYet if, by some chance, the Fed ever attempts to taper or raise rates, all those foreign dollars piling into U.S. stocks (above) create a bubble that always pops, as do the foregoing dollar shorts, which get squeezed.\nThat could cause a massive sell-off in U.S. equity markets as foreigners sell their stocks to buy more dollars.\nIn short, there’s a lot of different needles pointing at the current equity bubble, and a correction within the next month or so is more than likely.\nThe sharpest of those needles, by the way, is the appallingly comical level of U.S. margin debt (i.e. leverage) not making the headlines yet now making all-time highs.\nAs a reminder, whenever margin debt peaks (above), markets tank soon thereafter, as anyone who remembers the dot.com and sub-prime market fiascos of yore can attest.\nJust saying…\nContext 5: The Dark Side of “Surging” GDP Growth\nThe World Bank recently made its own headlines projecting 5.6% global GDP growth, the fastest seen in 80 years.\nGood stuff, right?\nWell, not when placed into context…\nThe last time we saw 5.6% global GDP growth was during a global world war.\nObviously, when the world is in a state of global military rubble, growth of any kind is likely to “surge” from such an historical (and horrific) baseline.\nComing out of World War II, everyone, including the U.S. was in debt. World wars, after all, can do that…\nAs the victorious and civilization-saving U.S. came out of that war, it made some justifiable sense to de-lever that noble yet extreme debt by printing money, repressing bond yields and stimulating GDP growth.\nWhat followed was at least a defendable 40-year stretch in which US nominal GDP ran 500-800 bps above US Treasury yields.\nIn short, bond-holders got slammed, but the cause, crisis and re-building after defeating the Axis powers justified the sacrifice.\nThe same, however, can not be said today as bond-holders get crushed yet again in a new-abnormal in which GDP will greatly (and similarly) outpace long-term bond yields.\nNeedless to say, current policy makers, the very foxes who put the global economic henhouse into the current pile of debt of rubble, like to blame this on COVID rather their bathroom mirrors.\nIronically, however, central bankers (as opposed to the Wehrmacht, the Japanese Empire or Italy’s Mussolini) managed to do as much harm to the global economy today (with deficit policies and extend-and-pretend money printers) as Germany’s Blitzkrieg or Hirohito’s Banzai raids did in the 1940’s.\nWhen it comes to context, can or should we really be comparing a global flu (death toll 3.75M) to a global war (death toll 85 million)?\nThe policy makers would like you to think so.\nFolks like Mnuchin (last year) or Yellen, Powell and the IMF (this year), are in fact trying to convince themselves and the world that the war against COVID was the real casus belli (reason for a justifiable war) of our current debt distress—equal in scope to World War II in its drastic impact on the financial world.\nBut regardless of anyone’s views on the COVID “War” or its questionable policy reactions, comparing its economic impact to that of World War II is an insult to both history and military metaphors.\nThe simple, objective and mathematically-confirmed fact is that the global economy was already in a debt crisis long before the first Corona headline of early 2020.\nToday, US debt to GDP is at levels it has not seen since that tragic and Second World War, and it’s projected to go much, much higher.\n\nSo, just in case you still think the Fed can and will meaningfully raise rates to fight obvious inflation, as it did in the 1970’s or 1980’s, think again.\nIn the 1970’s and 1980’s US debt/GDP was 30%. Today it’s 130%.\nGiven this self-inflicted (rather than COVID-blamed) reality, the Fed simply can’t afford to raise rates. Period. Full stop.\nBut as my colleague, Egon von Greyerz reminds, that by no means suggests that rates can’t and won’t rise.\nThe Fed (and other central banks) may be powerful, but they are not divine. In short, there’s a limit to their powers to simply “control” rates with a mouse-click.\nAt some point, there’s not enough credible fake money to manage the yield curve—especially on the long end.\nAs more printed and tanking currencies try to purchase lower yields and rates, eventually the entire experiment fails.\nAt that critical point, rates spike, inflation raises its ugly head and the central bankers look for something other than themselves to blame as the rest of the world stares at worthless currencies being replaced by comical central bank digital dollars.\nWonderful…\nContext 6: That Barbaric Relic?\nWhat the foregoing inflation and rate contexts means is that in the years ahead, inflation will run higher and rates will run (be forced/controlled) lower until both rates and inflation spike together.\nThis further means that real rates (i.e., those adjusted for inflation) could run as deep as -5% to -10% in the years ahead.\nSuch negative real rate levels could easily surpass those seen in the 70’s and 80’s, which means gold (and silver), both of whom love negative real rates, has nowhere to go but up, up and away in this totally debt-distorted backdrop.\nHow’s that for context?","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3203,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":20,"subscribersOnly":false,"subscribersOnlyAccessible":false,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/129364172"}