The Wolf Of All Streets - Bitcoin Will Skyrocket To $200K Regardless Of Who Becomes US President | Macro Monday

Episode Date: November 4, 2024

Join Dave Weisberger, Mike McGlone, and James Lavish as we break down what's happening in macro and crypto! Dave Weisberger: https://twitter.com/daveweisberger1  James Lavish: https://twitter.com/jameslavish  Mike McGlone: https://twitter.com/mikemcglone11  ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER, DELIVERED EVERY WEEKDAY! 👉https://thewolfden.substack.com/   ►► The Arch Public Unleash algorithmic trading. Discover how algorithms used by hedge-funds are now accessible to traders looking for unparalleled insights and opportunities!  👉https://thearchpublic.com/  ►►TRADING ALPHA READY TO TRADE LIKE THE PROS? THE BEST TRADERS IN CRYPTO ARE RELYING ON THESE INDICATORS TO MAKE TRADES. Use code '10OFF' for a 10% discount. 👉https://tradingalpha.io/?via=scottmelker  Follow Scott Melker: Twitter: https://x.com/scottmelker Web: https://www.thewolfofallstreets.com/ Spotify: https://spoti.fi/30N5FDe   Apple podcast: https://apple.co/3FASB2c   #Bitcoin #Crypto #MacroMonday The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own and should in no way be interpreted as financial advice. This video was created for entertainment. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision. I am not a financial advisor. Nothing contained in this video constitutes or shall be construed as an offering of financial instruments or as investment advice or recommendations of an investment strategy or whether or not to "Buy," "Sell," or "Hold" an investment.

There is one topic and one topic only worth discussing on Monday, November 4th, and that is the election tomorrow. I'm looking forward to not having to discuss this topic every day. But we have a long history of looking at what markets do after elections. Spoiler for Bitcoin, they go up massively every single time so far. Will this time be different or will Bitcoin truly skyrocket to 200,000 or even higher after this election cycle is finally through? I've got James, Mike, and Dave here to discuss this and everything else in what I anticipate to be one of the more explosive Macro Mondays of all time. Let's go. What is up, everybody?

I'm Scott Melker, also known as the Wolf of All Streets. Before we get started, please subscribe to the channel. Hit that like button. Going to bring on the squad now although i do not approve of dave weisberger's red bull jersey today max for stopping with the skilled and luckiest victory in the history of formula one that i've ever seen but we won't get into that sorry scott but it was intentional i know it was i know you gotta get people nice and triggered on Monday before the election. CoinRoute's the company

that I founded. We have investments from both Bybit and OKEx, so we have to be equal opportunities. That's right. You get to be fairweather fans for the best two teams. There you go. I'd have the Norris jersey on.

Election Tuesday, tomorrow. I mean, it's finally here. We've been talking about it. It feels like literally for months, if not years at this point, what's coming. Mike, as James asked you right before the show, what's the temperature right now at Bloomberg? This is like the Super Bowl for journalists, right?

Oh, exactly. We live for this. Even for traders, you for this. And you want to be able to tell the story from the future is how well you did. No, notably, but it's not always that case. But I think some of the comments from Anna Wong is more profound. She thinks her base case is we might not see definitive result for at least two weeks. We all know if the lesson we've learned, if you don't vote for Trump, it's fraud. So it's already coming out in the headlines everywhere. But some key things I think that came out from her comments were, you know, Ana's been early. Some people say she's been wrong in the recession,

but we're tilting that way. And the key reason they find we're the best, the closest on this non-fond payroll, she said was not because of hurricanes, because she's seen weakness in professional business services. Temporary services drove the weakness, and that's heading lower. The actual unemployment rate was 4.14%, so she thinks next month is going to be 4.2% and continue to go higher. And there's a universal agreement among all economists that Trump equals inflation. Well, I would actually, I would kind of temper that.

I think that Trump equals inflation. I think, although Kamala also equals inflation. The problem is that, you know, Kamala's policies tilting towards the Inflation Reduction Act and Green New Deal and all that garbage. It's just, you know, we're talking about inflation that's not really productive and spending that's not as productive. So the issue here, I think, Mike, is whether or not we have a sweep. If Trump sweeps completely, then you really get a bout of inflation. That's what the markets have been kind of saying that over the last few weeks, they've been worried that Trump wins and sweeps and then you've got this inflation trade which is you you're just watching the 10 year to the 30 year treasuries the the yields are spiking well they've come back to earth a little bit with the with the polls this weekend that are muddying the the the picture which say you know it's likely he won't have a total sweep is what the polls are saying. So, you know, we could get into the actual usefulness of polls, as we've seen.

We're going to find out. The last three or four election cycles have been kind of silly, but... James, can I give you some background for your talk on inflation? Yeah, please. Something slightly triggering maybe for people here. Here you go. This is the US tech clock. You might hit $36 trillion by the time the election comes around tomorrow.

The one thing I need to push back. I just look at the headlines already. Trump's already pushing back on fraud and the election, which means he's playing the loser. Come on, dude, play the winner if you're going to. But he's playing the loser. Come on, dude, play the winner if you're going to, but he's doing that already. But he thing is if Harris elected almost all the polls and leanings for the Congress are Republican. That's a classic check and balance. They don't bring back the days that you and I remember. We all remember very well. That'll be a natural propensity of Republicans to push back on any type of spending and they'll come back with

that austerity. I just, it's natural way to do it. So that's one iteration that I think the market hasn't priced for yet. And we will see. It's also just my sense. I was in the Corn Belt last week. I was in Trump territory. The signs are everywhere, but compared to the last time, there's a lot more Harris signs.

So I'm sensing. I'm sorry, go ahead, Mike. Finish, finish. No, again, we have to assume that we'll have the Republican sweep. My base case is we're going to get the Harris president and then the Republican Congress. That's interesting because my base case is the opposite of that. And I'm in a swing state here.

You're not. But I'm in a swing state here that the last night I reported this the last time that we were on last week, I think. I've got now it was nine, I believe Trump signs around me last week. Now it's 14. And, and, and it's crazy because the last and there's one Harris sign. And the last election, it was four, I think four Biden signs and zero Trump signs. So it's just whether or not votes have actually changed or come out that it's okay to be for the Republicans and for Trump. And that stigma is like kind of washed off. I don't know. I can't say because I haven't talked to the neighbors directly about it, but

it is interesting. It's an interesting data point. It's a tiny, tiny, tiny data point, which is the most important thing we can say about all of these polls is that we're talking about data that comes from just a few hundred to a few thousand people. And it's the amount that the survey size and demographic is really difficult to get a handle on. But like you said, markets do, and this is what for our listeners, this is really what's most important for our experience as investors. Markets do like the check and balance and they and having a split between Congress and the White House has been important for markets to keep that spending in check. If there is a Trump sweep, the spending kind of goes out unchecked because now you've got your what? Another thing we haven't talked about. So, Scott, you brought up that that debt, the debt clock, which basically I mean, the amazing thing is we we spent one hundred and five.

We borrowed one hundred and five billion dollars in the last day of October. I tweeted about it yesterday, forgetting that it was Sunday and thinking that it was Saturday. I kind of worked all weekend, but $105 billion in a day. I mean, this spending is just gotten, it is unbelievable how much spending is coming out of Washington right now. We don't have a debt ceiling and we're not going to have a debt ceiling and we're going to have a showdown in January about it. So the question is, does it. So this is where it comes down to. Do we have visibility on who is the president quickly? If there if Trump does win, I mean, good luck getting a debt ceiling agreement, a budget agreement before January. So this is an important topic that what happens because you are staring down

this ticking clock again into January. And so the markets want a split and that's what they're telling you. And typically the funny thing is, and Dave, you can weigh in on this, but when you look at markets and typically if they're running up into an election, the incumbent is likely going to be reelected. But this time, it has appeared that the markets are expecting Trump to win. Well, it's not an incumbent. It's a good example high that the markets are calling for it. Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Scott. I'm saying we don't have an incumbent. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Scott. I'm saying we don't have an incumbent, technically. I live in a very little blue dot in north central Florida.

I really spend a lot of time there because it's obviously a university town. And anecdotally, I've seen like four Harris Wall signs, and it is a very blue county. And they're all in, you know, people who I happen to know are like 70, 80-year-old people's yards. They do, right? And, you know, people who I happen to know are like 70, 80 year old people's yards. And they're, you know, yeah, they do. Right. You're in a you're in a university county and those are super liberal, you know. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, let's take a look really quick. Mike, I just want to bring this up because these have been all over the place right now. Poly markets at 58.5 percent. Trump, I was as high as 68, you know, a week or two ago. I think dropped to about 56 earlier today. Calci now 55.45, but was as low as 52.47 yesterday. So the market's definitely starting to- It came off of one aisle full. So I got to ask one question about that. Polymarket is a small market cap market. I sense it can be somewhat manipulated. A lot of these can be manipulated.

So my question is, it's not a statement. I just look at it as having been in the trading pits and understanding the human nature of traders. If I can manipulate that market with small amount of money and make big money and leverage positions in Bitcoin and bonds related to what PolyMarket's doing, I'm going to be doing that trade. Not that I would, but I'm sure people are doing that trade and making money.

I'm not saying that's driving the whole thing, but that is definitely happening. I just want to make one other point. And that is the question I have for everybody in office is how much is what we just point out is priced in. If you put that dead clock on most of the rest of the world, particularly China and Europe and Canada, it's just as bad. So I like to point out 2.12, that's a 10-year note yield in China, 113 basis, 213 basis points below the US. The average of the top five countries in the rest of the world are about 100 basis points below the US in terms of their 10-year yield. So understood, it's a no-no to get the deficit. It sucks. Everything's not going anything but up, particularly with Trump's election, but there's a certain amount of it's already priced in, particularly if we start tilting towards a little bit of that recession

that we're not getting because we're getting 7% deficit spending. Right. But Mike, you were a bond trader for a long time. You understand that the term premium that they've got that is in these bonds now is just risen because the ultimate terminal rate of the Fed funds rate has gone up from two and a half to three and a half in the matter of weeks. So, you know. I look at it as it's similar to Bitcoin and copper. Everything's okay. The bond market yields can stay high as long as the stock market goes up. We haven't seen that test. And that's a key thing from my colleague, Gina. She does expect the U.S. stock market's going to have more of a problem after this. This is very rare for her to say that, but the rest of the world should do better after the election

because what she's seen is her pair-wide correlations, the amount that she uses preceded the last 10% correction. To me, it's the test. Let me see a test. Bond yields are high. Bitcoin's high. Copper's hanging out there because the stock market's high. If it can stay high, sure.

We haven't seen that test. That's the key thing. Her key point was the rest of the world's stocks might be better, particularly things like China, because their earnings are actually picking up. All right. So last point, just to address the polymarket question. So you do have wealthy people out there and traders and investors who are using those markets. And I'm not saying they're using them to manipulate, but way back when we were using, I can't remember what the market was called, but it wasn't mainstream like this. It was not easy to do like this, but we were using those markets to personally

hedge against presidential victories. And it meant that we knew that if one president won versus another that would damage our book and that would damage our earnings which because we were all getting paid on end of year bonuses as you very well know and all you guys know and so you know to place a ten thousand dollar or fifty thousand dollar even a hundred thousand dollar bet on one of those things was it was like well you're just hedging yourself, you know, because if, if, if the present that you, that you were set up for was going to win, then you're going to make multiples of that. And so it was just basically a hedge. And that was, and that I believe some of that is still going on, especially with the hedge funds. And now the hedge funds can do it just for their books. It's not personal. They can do it for the whole book,

you know? And so it's, it's interesting. Do I see hedge funds doing it? No. But do I suspect that some smaller ones might be doing some of that, especially personally? Absolutely. A hundred percent. I agree with that. I don't think it's funds that are doing it, but I do think that there are individuals who are heavily trading Bitcoin with size for a very long time that are participating in Polymarket. What that means for Polymarket's reliability, I have no idea. But Dave, since we're going to jump to Bitcoin, I just want to show a couple of quick articles and then let you jump in because there's a lot of Bitcoin's going to do this, Bitcoin's going to do that articles hitting in the last day or two, which makes sense.

Bernstein raises its price. Bitcoin price estimate for Harris win to 50,000, keeps Trump at 80 to 90K. I believe that's by the end of the year. Bitcoin traders brace for fierce price swings as clock ticks to US vote. But then my favorite, which is this one, Bitcoin likely to rally after the US election, irrespective of who wins, history shows. And this is where, Dave, I want you to run with it in a second. But that's where our title, you know, Bitcoin's headed to $200,000, in my opinion, regardless, maybe the path or how long it takes could be different. But we do have a long history here, which aligns, obviously, with the halving cycle.

But 2012, let me just show you the chart. I mean, you can see the election circled here and what Bitcoin price did after elections. So it would be a first if we see that crash. Well, I think that people need to understand. There have been a bunch of misconceptions spewed out so far. So and I'm going to keep biting my tongue. The first one has to do with the notion of gridlock in Washington, that we are not we do not have two homogenous parties. We have one homogenous party and one fractious party.

And it was amusing all year long when the Republicans took 15 tries to nominate a speaker and we went through this ridiculous, you know, theater. It is obvious the Republican Party is very, very far from unified. And they were told, well, they can't govern, they can't do this, they can't do that. But the reality is the Republican Party is not unified. There are quite a few Tea Party, small government types in there who will barf at the kinds of spending that Trump wants to do. It's not going to be easy with a slim majority. Now, yeah, if they got, if for some ridiculous reason, all the pollsters are wrong, the Republicans had two thirds majority in the Senate and the House. Yeah, of course. Okay. At that point, you would have the ability to govern, but, you know, easily. But there is literally no chance, I mean, zero chance that if the Republicans, quote, sweep and have a narrow majority in the House and the Senate,

that there will not be bipartisan deals to get things done and or deals to get done even within their party. So that's just that's a straight up fact. I hate to throw ice water on what people are saying, but they're thinking about it from their own party's perspective. The Democrats had their moderates, you know, people like Josh Gottheimer in northern New Jersey vote for that abortion, you know, bill that effectively is the Green New Deal. Now, I know there's no way in hell that he actually supports that. Being in New Jersey and knowing some of the projects and things that it's spending and the inflation that it was likely to cause, they were told to do so. The whip, the majority whip, where the party whips in both

parties are different. I mean, we in the crypto world love the majority whip on the House for the Republicans being Tom Emmer, but Tom Emmer does not have the ability to get his people in line anywhere close to the way the Democrats do. So that's thing number one. And that, by the way, that's not, you can't even argue that. That's just basic fact. So now ask yourself the question, where are things going to go? I have a theory, my working theory, and we'll see whether I'm right or wrong, is that a Trump win is short term bad for stock market, short term good for Bitcoin, short term probably bad for the rest of crypto as it drops down with the stock market, but ultimately is extremely good

for the crypto economy. And ultimately, in the long run, I think will be good for the stock market, but people are gonna need to see it. And that's basically exactly what happened last time. Happened last time Trump won, markets went kaboom, and then went off on an epic rally after the kaboom, because people really don't know what to make of his policies or where things are going. And that's not terribly surprising. Now, Kamala is different. I think in Kamala's case, stock markets rip. I think Bitcoin rips and the rest of crypto is like, what the hell? And Bitcoin dominance goes off the charts and breaks out to the upside because in her administration, choke point not only continues, probably accelerates, Gensler stays, crypto is still is being forced offshore, but Bitcoin is accepted. And the inflation

that's likely to happen by if she wins in a sweep, unconstrained spending would be insane. Now, if she wins and the Republicans win the Senate and the House, then you get to a situation where spending will be sort of ish kind of under control. But they're going to have to give up stuff. And the history of the Republicans, to be blunt, has not been good when it comes to restraining. So I think you end up with a situation where the markets are happy because traditional markets are happy. They think the ability to kick the can down the road will continue for at least the next four years. And by the way, in both cases, our base case is we're can kicking, right? In order to actually solve a debt to GDP of 130% where unfunded liabilities take it up over 200%, you're can kicking or you're doing things that

are dramatic. The only one who might do something dramatic, but I doubt it, would be Elon's Department of Governmental Efficiency. But even there, as James will point out, you could take discretionary spending down to zero. Doesn't matter. You're still not going to get a balanced budget. Unless you trigger a wave of economic growth that we haven't, such as we haven't seen before, to use silly language that comes from Mr. Trump. In the short run, you're going to have ballooning deficits no matter what you do. And in fact, Elon got a lot of heat for this, but he admitted that what they want to do will probably be a one step back before the two step forward sort of thing and got a lot of heat for it. So the truth is, does the election matter a lot for the traditional legacy markets? not. We're still going to print. We're still going to create and have intentional inflation of asset prices, which will widen the wealth gap and keep assets moving in the direction that people want things to move. The real question of the economy is whether or not we're going to get

this concentration of wealth by government fiat, i.e. working with the biggest companies to advantage them by mountains of regulation, working with the biggest companies to advantage them by mountains of regulation, working with the biggest companies to censor people, working with using bank regulations to choke off industries that threaten the hegemony of the largest industries, such as Operation Chokepoint, etc. That really becomes the biggest economic impact. And I'm not sure, you know, we're going to get a lot of volatility. I am not sure that we're going to know the real direction until we get past the January nonsense in political theater, which is going to be ludicrous. There's going to be finger pointing like this.

And we actually see what this Senate and what this House and what this White House is going to do when the actual people are in the seats. That's fair. That's fair. Bring up the chart that I just shared, Scott. So this is a Bloomberg chart that shows the blue line, that's the Bitcoin price. And the white line is the Trump percentage, like the likelihood of Trump victory, right? And they're normalized. Yeah. On PolyMarket. So you can see that even though they're both pretty volatile, they're kind of moving together. And so- Oh, sure. This weekend was clear that that's what it was.

Yeah. So you can see that kind of like just on a visual mean of that of both of them kind of line right up. It's it's interesting. So I would expect that if Trump wins, there will be a strong rally in Bitcoin. You know, that's that's a kind of a base expectation. Now, here's the funny thing that we all know about Bitcoin. If you expect that in Bitcoin, don't don't set yourself up for it. I think from a trading perspective, it's already priced in. What's that? Yeah, that't set yourself up for it. I think from a trading perspective. It's already priced in. What's that, Scott? Yeah, I agree.

And Mike, we've talked about this on here and on other shows. But when the market is already pricing in a certain outcome, you generally get to sell the news event. That doesn't mean it's like the top. But if it's a red sweep and that's what the market thinks is the most bullish thing and that's what they're pricing in, then would anybody be surprised if we see an eight thousand dollar candle to the downside on bitcoin that by the way bounces back in a week or two i mean i put this background for a reason if it wasn't for peanut the squirrel uh the market the the crypto markets were getting hammered until the peanut the squirrel story broke.

And people thought that this was a meme that was going to matter. If you want to understand the absurdity of markets, you know, captured, that's the absurdity. I mean, yeah. But that is interesting. People are like, why does anybody care about a squirrel? That's not the point. The point is, my wife thought I was obsessed with peanut, a squirrel. That's not the point. The point is, my wife thought I was obsessed with peanut the squirrel, but it does show something that's very important.

If you take Trump out of the equation, take his personality out of the equation, and let people understand the difference between government controlling our lives and government not controlling our lives, you get a very different outcome. In fact, the only issue which Kamala continues to hammer on is the one area where moronic Republicans want to control women's lives, right? It's literally it. On every other vector, it's not a question of which party is interested in leaving people alone, but on the issue of control, that's a big issue. I mean, absent that issue, this election would be an absolute, you know, absolute. Let's talk about that for a moment, because I've had long conversations with people about this.

This is calculated by the Republican Party. They pushed abortion control back to the states, And they did that for one main reason. You had a deluge of Californians and people from the West coming into Texas, in particular in Austin, in Texas. And last election was kind of crazy how Beto was close all the way up to the end of the election night. And the reason they did this was very calculated. They need to keep Texas. If you lose Texas for Republicans, it's over. You'll never win another election. And so they know that pushing it to the states allowed Texas to overturn Roe versus Wade there. And then they're, they're able to kind of have that as a firewall, but having that as, as a national now, a national issue is that's the,

that's a repercussion of that. I mean, that's just reality. So it's, it's, it's, it's idiotic, but it's a reality. In other words, when I say it's idiotic but it's a reality in other words when i say it's idiotic it's that you know say what you want about trump and there are lots of things to be said about trump right that that are are non-complimentary but the one thing he absolutely did and and if you read the national review which i do on occasion uh you will know there were were dozens of editorials in national review and all these conservative rags yelling about the fact that he pulled the pro-life plank out of the platform and said at a national level, we no longer are going to discuss this, etc. And when pushed, if he was going to actually have a national standard, it would include some level of protection. He won't say it, but we know that's what he believes.

And certainly exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother up until any time. So, you know, the reality is it's not a national issue. It really isn't. But it is because it mobilizes voters. So in reality, it is from the perception, because perception is reality, but that perception is kind of weird. J.D. Vance had a very good, if people want to understand the platform, understand how they're thinking, J.D. Vance had a fantastic answer

on Joe Rogan about this. And it was a long answer. It wasn't 20 seconds. They went to this for like 10 or 15 minutes of really discussing the issue, maybe even longer than that, really discussing the issue and where they come out on it.

So, but it's, you know, it is interesting. And it's been, that's been a major problem for the platform, for sure. The point that I've made, and I'm sorry, you know, it always gets taken out of context, is that you could get a bipartisan agreement. You could, if you wanted to pass a rule that said, under all circumstances, you can abort a fetus if the doctor

determines it's to save the life of the mother. Full stop. You get bipartisan support for that in an instant. Neither party has any interest in promoting it because of their own political reasons, which, by the way, makes me sick. It makes me sick because it makes me angry at both parties. You probably could get, in fact, if we held a national referendum, you would probably get protection to, I don't know, somewhere where Western Europe is, somewhere in the range of where most countries are, somewhere probably around 15 weeks, which is very similar to Roe, and protection for, you know, rape, incest, et cetera, and massive fetal abnormalities to significantly longer. We need better clarity. We need better laws around this.

Right. The reason I'm mentioning this is you could get to 60 plus percent of Americans to agree on commonsensical things like that. That's where you can't. But neither party has promoted it. No. Well, yes and no. That's true. The problem is we don't get to vote that way. Just like in crypto, we don't get to vote for people who are single-issue crypto voters. It's funny, we heard a lot about that four months ago. You don't hear a lot of that today because they don't really exist, right? The ones that if you are a single-issue crypto voter and you believe that we need to digitize our markets, then you have no choice

of where to vote. The truth is, is there are very few of those people. I'm sure I know a few, but it's really not that many. The dynamic in this election, however, is really fascinating on so many levels. I mean, I have my mentor in school, Dr. David Zarefsky, who, for those who don't know who he was, he basically wrote the book on argumentation debate and promoted something called rhetorical history, taking the history of the times based on speeches. And he would find this election 10, 20 years from now will be fascinating because effectively the rhetoric is fascinating. It is totally divorced from what people actually care about in many respects. And it's on so many levels, such as, can you read from the teleprompter? Can you speak off the cuff? I think it's going to be interesting 10 to 20 hours from now. I don't even think we're going to be able to do it.

From a crypto perspective, let's understand what's on the back, right? Neither candidate is going to be able to do much about budget deficits. Both candidates have issues, have areas within their platform that are likely to be implementable that will cause that debt clock to get worse. So the base case for Bitcoin is going to be fine, right? Fine because it is protecting wealth. So the question becomes, where will that investment go? Well, one candidate is for DeFi and self-custody and personal freedom, and one candidate is not. And does that matter for

Bitcoin? Not really, because if you listen to all of us, all three of us have said that the major driver of Bitcoin price over the next several years is going to be, quote, institutional money. And institutional money doesn't give a toss about self-custody. I got to push back. Dave, it's time for a little pushback. The base case for Bitcoin is not preserving wealth. It's creating wealth. We're still at that stage. The base case for gold is preserving wealth. We know how that works. If you want to create wealth in history, you concentrate in a certain area and you just hope you're right. Small businesses. Once you create that wealth, you migrate and put into safer assets like gold. So to me,

that's still my base case. If Harris wins, I think gold will drop 10%. And at some point, it'll come back. The bottom line is what you said earlier, is if you expect the stock market to go down, and Bitcoin have the highest correlation with the stock market on a 60-day basis on the way up ever, and you expect Bitcoin to come out ahead, I say, good luck with that one. I want to see the proof. And that's the bottom line. To me, as a completely neutral, unbiased, no position outlook person here. I have no position.

I just want to get it right. I see volatility in the stock market extremely low. According to Gina Martin, valuation's really high. And I see the Bitcoin to gold ratio tricking down. I see the stock market really expensive. I see bond yields really high on a global basis. All you need typically is a little spark for reversion. Typically, that's the way it works.

And at some point, even for copper, I don't see copper doing anything but going lower. If that starts tilting lower, I don't know how the election is going to work out from a pure market standpoint. Show me the beef. Show me the proof of Bitcoin outperforming the stock market when we just, at some point, when we get Bitcoin volatility kind of getting to a normal level in the stock market, valuations normalizing a little bit, maybe S&P 500 getting close to 100-week moving average, and then I'll see how Bitcoin looks. Until then, to me, it's more likely this fastest horse in the race, three times the volatility of gold in S&P 500 is more

likely to be the leader, and risk is still probably down. Okay, so now let me take your two statements and use them against each other. The first statement, which by the way is accurate, is gold is to preserve wealth, Bitcoin is to create wealth. And the second statement is, but here's the reason. The reason is Bitcoin is,

let's repeat after me, an option, right? If Bitcoin gets to the point of critical mass, well, no, because that's the investment thesis for Bitcoin. And the money that's going into Bitcoin- That's your investment thesis. No, that is the investment thesis of every- Okay, well, there's a lot of people who don't believe it. You go to a typical wealth management conference and they're happier with the Qs. I mean, I go to a lot of them. I understand that. And I'm telling you that the people in all the ETF providers, if you ask,

if you get right down and you ask Matt Hogan, what's the thesis? That's the difference. I want to point out, Matt Hogan is only going to talk to people who are willing to even interested in business. He makes a statement all the time. I like to talk to Matt. I'm like, Matt, do you think anybody take a meeting with you if they weren't interested, at least in your product? That's what he's missing sometimes. It's 100% true. So the question one has to ask, and by the way, we are really getting to the truth here. The question one has to ask is when will a critical mass of investors decide they want to start getting interested and start

taking meetings? And we all know what that requires. That requires number go up, right? That requires people understanding that number go up basically requires one or two major wealth funds or sources of wealth to move in. I think those are happening. And the real question is, will number go up enough to get that interest? If that interest happens, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When, you know, Cisco, let's pick Cisco. Cisco in the early 90s was 10 times cheaper per connectivity than CableTron Systems. But it was a small company and people were like, well, it can't go up that much that fast. And that lead got preserved.

They kept building new products. They kept getting there. Eventually, we all know that Cisco over that decade went up, absolutely blew away any color, it was correlated, it was a true people traded Cisco versus cable Tron systems, cable transit, some of those the behemoth Cisco is part of a basket of companies that will compete with it. What happened? Well, what happened was Cisco and a couple of other

companies ended up 100 times more valuable than cable drone systems because the technology was better. Now, it's a bad analogy because Bitcoin's not going to end up 100 times gold, 10x maybe if you believe in a Bitcoin standard, but forget that. But can Bitcoin get to that level with enough critical mass? Yes. And that's the issue. So yes, you're absolutely right. If in this cycle we don't get to people thinking there's critical mass, then you may very well be right. I just tend to think that the elements of critical mass, whether it's corporate, putting it on the balance sheet, and in a corporate world where we have copycats of the yin-yang and you see what

MicroStrategy has done, I think that that's highly likely, whether it's sovereign wealth funds and sovereign countries, and we see Russia and China both legalize, you know, allowing mining and we know that mining is going into government coffers, whether it doesn't matter which vector you look, there is lots of reason to believe that those things could happen. That's the trigger. The thing about Trump with the election, and the only real difference between Trump and Kamala, as far as Bitcoin is concerned in the election, is this notion of the Loomis bill. And don't forget what I said. I think whoever wins is going to have to govern in somewhat bipartisan. People like Ro Khanna are on board with the Loomis bill.

And so that gets you to a far that that kind of catalyst matters. And so that's that's what that's why Trump Trump is so you know, so tied to Bitcoin, Trump is tied to the rest of crypto for very big reasons. It's wonderful. It's wonderful how he took the advice that Scott and I and a lot of us talked about five years ago, finally, you figured out the base layers of the dollar. I mean, it's just curious, you know, notes out like a convert, we get it. But Dave, I just want to see the proof. I completely agree with you in some things. But you know no zelle like a convert we get it but dave i just

want to see the proof i completely agree with you in some things but you know that's the one thing as a reformed day trader i suspect some of you guys aren't having watched the tapes since the 80s being a day trader you just watch the ticks and i've been seeing it for too much every time the s&p ticks down bitcoin does the same but higher the velocity and if bitcoin there's a if i were trading i would be i'm talking about from an investment point of view. I get it from an investment point too, but it's just the key thing is it's famous for 50% corrections. It's really expensive, the stock markets. And these things can be pretty nasty. And it's also the things I've learned. I've only heard it a few times in my life in the peaks and

then late 99, the peak in 2007. It's, yeah, everybody's in for a long haul. I mean, I hear it everywhere. Just the human nature, the human nature of this space is really dicey. That's why I like to point as an outside analyst who's completely unbiased, show me the proof. And I'm seeing the proof of the opposite still. So for people watching at home, just to understand when the reason that I didn't see if James was not, the reason I was nodding as Michael was saying that is for a very simple reason. James and I kind of shrugged and said there will be a lot of volatility. What Mike is telling you is what way the volatility will go, that it will generally snap back against the grain,

and Scott uses it as sell the news sort of stuff. But the fact is speculators' knee-jerk reactions to most news events tend to be wrong. It's the follow-through that matters. And so that's what – I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. No, you and I agree. And we and I think a really important point for people who are trading to understand people are saying, well, why is Bitcoin, which was just it was over 69,000. Why is it 68,000 now?

It's like, OK, whatever. I mean, you know, we are where we are and the speculators are still in control. In fact, today, I would expect in every financial asset, speculators to be more in control. Why? Because investors are waiting to see what the F is going to happen before they finish their outlay. We have incremental movements right now. That's right. And people are waiting.

They're sitting back and watching. It's a bot. James, let me ask you. You're obviously running a hedge fund. I've spoken to quite a few of my hedge fund friends in the past week or two. And most of them, including guys at Citadel, I mean, literally the biggest kind of shops,

are saying they literally have a Harris plan and a Trump plan. They're not confident that their Harris plan or Trump plan are correct, but they've been said, the boss says, I need to know what I'm going to do depending on who wins as a short-term and long-term strategy. Do you have a bifurcated strategy based on the election tomorrow? I mean, you're more obviously Bitcoin based. That's a good question. Being on a Bitcoin standard in my hedge fund, meaning our cash is in Bitcoin, we are very levered to a Trump victory at this point because just naturally that's what the underlying is. I am not extending that bet more because I think that Trump is going to get

elected. That's just the reality of the fund. However, I do have put spreads on, and the put spreads are on S&P and NASDAQ and some other things just because I know that if there's a surprise to the downside, I can hedge against that a little bit. So you're saying you have a plan for the volatility, but it's not necessarily based on who wins or loses. That's right. I have a plan for the volatility. You don't put the puts on based on the election result. That's right. But let's go.

So going back to what Dave was saying, what Mike is kind of intimating is that we've got to get to the point where you have true institutional adoption of Bitcoin. whipping around this thing, but actual institutions and maybe corporate treasuries that are not trying to become the next micro strategy, which are small companies that don't have a lot of growth that are looking to use some sort of cashflow to, to build off of it and use their treasury. That's a totally different thing. We've got a Microsoft vote coming up December 10th and people are getting all kind of frothed up about it. But the reality is people need to understand, I just, you know, the reality of, of corporate voting in this country comes down to the companies and institutions and endowments and, you know, pension funds, they own way too much stuff to be in there reading all these proxies and figuring out how they're going

to vote. So they outsource that voting to services like ISS. And ISS basically says, we're going to vote along with whatever management says, the board of directors, and whatever they recommend, we're going to go along with them unless there's a clear reason not to, something like a proxy battle or a merger or something like that. And so you got to understand that until you get a board of directors who's recommending that, so you first have to get it on the slate and get it in the proxy to be voted on. And then you've got to get the board to say that they recommend for owning Bitcoin in the treasury. And then ISS will go ahead and vote those proxies for you.

But until that happens, you're going to have to have an activist come in with a proxy battle to create that situation. And I think it's a long time off. This is not going to happen tomorrow. Could it happen the next year? Sure. Is Apple going to come out and say, we're going to take our $100 billion and dump it into Bitcoin? No, that's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen. But you could have a smaller company that says, hey, look, we recognize that there's massive

inflation coming because Bitcoin, one thing that is very difficult to argue against is Bitcoin is closely correlated to the expansion of the money supply. And if we believe that there's going to be an expansion of the money supply, Bitcoin will follow it in tandem. It takes about three months, but it does follow it almost lockstep. And so if you believe that, then you could have smaller companies say, we're going to put a little bit of our treasury in there because we don't think we're going to be protected with the long bond. And because we don't want term premium and and you know the fed has lowered rates down to three percent that's not protecting us so i i want to

push back a little bit on that i don't think it has anything to do with corporate directors talking looking at m2 i think that's how funds operate and corporate directors look at it much simpler and i will remember Long Island ICT. Yeah, Long Island Blockchain ICT. Next time you see, here's why this cycle could. Let me phrase it differently. The next Bitcoin bull cycle, whenever it is, if it exists, if it ever happens, will be significantly larger than people expect. And the reason for that is if Bitcoin starts ramping up and you want your stock, you and every corporate board is incentivized, not every, but the vast majority are incentivized with stock options. You will see a herd of people saying,

wait a minute, if I put 5% of my cash on the balance sheet my stock's gonna go up and i'm not talking about it's gonna i'm not saying corporate the corporate treasurer thing will cause bitcoin to rally what i am saying is if bitcoin went to 150 000 and people started and it was on the front page and cnbc was talking about it even bloomberg had to cover it. Corporate treasurers are going to have to look at this. And the ones that do go first, it's game theory. It's prisoner's dilemma game theory. The corporate treasurer said it. Scott, if you bring up the searches of Bitcoin on Google, it's down. It's time. That's right.

Okay. But I can push back on that since we say push back so many times on this show. You'll naturally see a reduction in Google searches for something that becomes more mainstream because less people have to search it because they know about it. I'm not getting all of my friends.

How many of your friends who have been on the fence have been calling and saying, hey, is this a good time to buy? Nobody asked me about crypto or Bitcoin at all, period, ever. Yeah. It's been pretty consistent in my case. When I wear a logo shirt out, our CoinRouse logo has Bitcoin and Ethereum. That's manipulation.

You're drawing them into it. People look at that and an Ethereum. That's manipulation. That's manipulation. You're drawing them into it. People look at that and they ask me questions about it. So I'm a terrible indicator. It's what I get a lot. But my point is that there is the Microsoft is going to vote no. Corporate major boards are going to vote no. The ability of corporate boards to goose their stock price if Bitcoin looks to be an asset that's rallying is an accelerant. It's not the spark.

It's not even the fire. It's an accelerant. And that's my point here, which is an interesting one because it allows for Mike to be completely right and then to be wrong, i.e., yes, it could go down big time and then it starts moving higher good luck in trading it that's the problem i mean that's the problem how many people successfully pick the bottom of of both the s&p and bitcoin in 2020 i don't know but they've done very well they did very well with their actual money you can pick away at it but i mean like you're gonna be all do you sell all be, do you sell all of your, do you sell all of your risk assets

and wait for that drawdown? No, you can't, that's, that's just not a good, that's not a good plan. In point of fact, that's not what people are doing.

I mean, look, I don't want to name names, but I have probably had, I've probably had a dozen conversation with normal people who are, feel perfectly happy,

content and wealthy because they're 401ks. Yeah. Right. And we're there to be a massive drawdown in the stock market. The pain would be intense. Now I'm not talking about 5% here. I mean, you know,

like a serious 30% gets fear about 5% here. I mean, you know, like a serious 30%. Yeah, 20% to 30% gets fear. 50% used to be normal, gets pain. That's right. Both parties are well aware of that. And therefore, they become expert in can kicking. And that that's really been the thesis, the whole thing. And so, you know, we've talked about this a lot, but, you know, it really becomes, is monetary modern, monetary, modern monetary theory really running the way our government operates and what would change that? Would Trump truly change that? That's an open question in my mind.

I think that he wants interest rates lower for longer. I think it's entirely possible that that's not true, which is another thing that's interesting. That would just exacerbate it. The deficit spending and lower interest rates would just exacerbate the problem. And Mike is on it, and it's true. I mean, I read this this morning, and let me read this off of this quote from the Financial Times article. The bottom 40 percent of income now account for 20 percent of spending, while the richest 20 percent account for 40 percent. It's the widest gap on record and it's likely to widen, you know.

And so the issue is you've got two economies here. And so discretionary spending is, you know, it's a kind of, it's a luxury for the wealthy. And so is optimism for them. And that's basically the premise of this article. But the reality is that the lower demographics are struggling to afford food and gas and, you know, car payments. Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich. It's incredible. I got a, I got a bill for insurance. It doubled for my, for my kids. The car insurance doubled like the insane amount of money. You know, we're talking about massive amount of money here for car insurance in one period, one period. Now everybody knows you've got to switch car insurance companies in order to play the game, but ridiculous. You know, I don't know how I don't know how some people are keeping up truly.

And that's the that's the bifurcation of economies that Mike has has been talking about for a long time. When does that come to when does that chicken come home to roost? When does that happen? And that's and that's the question on everybody's mind. Is that is that really, because you see the economy, when you look out there and you see the numbers, it's kind of rocking along in a lot of areas. I mean, there's no doubt. But that disconnect is something we've been talking about for six months. And the reason this election is the way it is. I mean, look, if the economy was as good as the average's state, which is, of course, weighted towards the wealthier people, if the economy was that good, this would be, Trump would have had zero probability of winning. This would be, whoever the Democrats put up would be the incumbent. They would have actually, if the economy was doing that, Harris would be the incumbent. Over 70% of people who are surveyed say that the economy is heading the wrong or the country is

heading the wrong direction. That's right. And so you're looking at that. That's why it's different. So this bifurcation matters. And that's why elections are what they are. Now, who the hell knows, right? What matters? You know, it's funny that my favorite tweet about the election, and I just have to say it because I lost it again. The favorite one was Elon tweeted, if 1995 Bill Clinton were running today, he would be labeled a Republican. And the reason that that matters is because if you think about what his policies were, he was the last president to balance a budget. He was the, you know, he passed the, you could argue that it was bad for many reasons. And I actually personally have argued it's bad for many reasons, but he was the one who got the crime bill passed. He wanted

abortion to be, you know, famously available, you know, safe and rare, you know, which was commonsensical. He wanted commonsensical immigration policies, etc. All of those things are what, if in 1995 Bill Clinton was running, he'd have to be running for the Republicans right now, but he would win now, and that sort of thing would matter. When we start talking about the economy and people being left behind, however, zero interest rates or below market interest rates for 30 years has created enormous distortions. For economists, I phrase it simply, and when I say it this way, it always gets light bulb moments. Our interest rate policy has prioritized capital over labor,

both parties dating back over 30 years. And when you prioritize capital over labor, you get all sorts of interesting distortions. And that's what we've had. So we're in that market. Do any of us think that's going to change anytime soon? I would like to think it would. I think it's, Mike, what could even change that? Like you talk about a recession coming, a depression coming,

great reset, all those things. Poor or fucked either way. Yeah, well, the long bond is saying, no, it doesn't believe it's going to change. Right. Right. I don't believe it's going to change. And so the question then becomes, you know, how do you invest and where do you put your money? And, you know, we talk about that all the time.

I think that next week will be really interesting. Hopefully we have an answer and we can start formulating strategy and stop saying if, if, if, if, if I'm tired of saying, if I'm tired of the rhetoric and you know, what's the path to that actually changing. So that's why I like to always, everything is, I mean, it's a lot of good discussions. We have to look back from the future. There's a big iteration tomorrow. And the way I see, regardless of what happens in this thing, you have to look back from the future and they'll say, yeah, well, we had these whole crypto speculations of most

significant performing assets in the world that got the US stock market, coincided with the US stock market, getting to the most expensive versus GDP in 100 years, most expensive versus the rest of the world in 50 years, most expensive versus commodities in 25 years, most expensive versus gold in 17 years. And then you look back from the future and say, yeah, what was the trigger? We had some reversion. Was it big and significant? No. Did the idiots get, you know, do people just think it's going to go higher and higher like they did in 29?

Yeah, they always happens in history. The key point is maybe you can. That's why I look at it every day and say, oh, please, stock market, stay strong. But if you do what's normal, then everything trickles down. And what's going to make, I just look for triggers. And that's why I'm seeing, as a commodity person i see nothing but global recessionary trajectories gold's up 40 versus everything else is down specifically crude oil copper is the next big signal for me so i look for the signals i'm waiting for the proof and i just think from the future at some point we're going to look back and say, yeah, you probably every lesson in history when it's stock markets at two times GDP, Japan, China, US in the 1929s, you're not

supposed to overweight risk assets and is volatility very low. Yes. What are you supposed to do? Overweight risk off assets. Bitcoin's a risk on asset. Gold's a risk off asset. And treasury bonds to me still might be the next big trade. James, you've been spot right on that, but we'll see what happens by tomorrow. And sometimes if all my best indicators are typically McGlone's an idiot and wrong for a while, and then at some point it flips over, I'm just hoping that stock market case tastes strong. And then from the future, I can say, yeah, I was wrong. We stayed at two times GDP and even went higher. Yeah. But look at where we are in debt to GDP right now. Can you say the same thing? I've been hearing the same thing since I was on the cover of the Elmany Times in 1994.

The reason it matters, Mike, is because of the interest payments. And so when you have over a trillion dollars of interest payments on an economy that generates $4.9 trillion of tax revenue and is already spending on deficit spend, Like you're already spending on mandatory, you know, programs over $4 trillion. Then you've got defense of a trillion dollars. Like where, like how, how can you allow for there to be a recession? Where's the money going to come from? This only, this only blows the deficit out more.

I agree, but there's precedent for very high deficits and very low rates japan but japan has well japan let's understand japan the postal system and the way the retirement system is and the way the population is they were a nation of savers now partially it's a legacy of world war ii but a nation of savers. We are a nation of spenders. We have literally enacted policies over the last 30 years to encourage people to spend. I used to get tired of hearing the American consumer is resilient. No, my answer is no. The American consumer, any consumer wants to be able to consume if you let them. If you continue to provide credit, people will buy stuff and they will consume. Japan is a very interesting social experiment because we don't know where it will go.

But the simple fact is they have a declining population of savers, right? And eventually, you know, that's Elon's big thing about population. And he's not wrong. It does matter. And so there's lots of other macro things that go on. And Japan has Koretsu and controlled corporate structure. How about China? 2.12% tenure note. China's going the same just following Japan. China is too. And I am sure that they really wish they didn't have their one policy in place for as long as they did. Oops. You know, talk about oopses.

That may be the single. We talk about you. You love to make the point about how, you know, when you rely on one person or, you know, their policies are going to be effed up and they're not going to outcompete us. And, OK, it's very nuanced. But you make that point all the time, Mike. Well, that's what's happening. Trump gets elected. We'll be back to one person. It'll be the biggest shift in American history.

You know, we've been playing nice in the sandbox. No, it's not playing nice. Our viewers don't want that, right, Scott? Not two minutes to be mean. How many minutes do you have? Two minutes to be mean. Elon Musk, RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Vivek, JD, and a ton of other people who he's listening to. We don't even know who writes the words that Kamala reads on the teleprompter. So I don't know who's running the country. I don't know who's running the country under Harris. With Trump, the one thing we know is you don't convince literally one of the world's smartest,

most impactful people in terms of developing technology to support you and to be part of your administration and say, this is Trump dictating like, gee, this is different. He wants his legacy. That's what he's looking for. But you get someone like Nicole Shanahan to say this is a unity party. I mean, this is we're talking a classic liberal who from California, who, yes, he has a lot of money and has very important causes to say this. I'm sorry, but facts are more important than our opinions. I mean, yes, Trump is a big personality and Trump cares about Trump. But you're pointing out more of opinions. There's a lot of people pushing back on this person. So

let me just tell one thing. The book, War With Ourselves by H.R. McMaster, former general and former national security underbiter, as Aaron Trump pointed out, complete autocratic leader. If you get a second term, it'll be nothing but yes men. And it'll be as significant as any place in history to expect from a person who's emboldened that's just the fact of what he pointed out that's what's going to happen with that next term administration that's what don't underestimate that human nature but remember it's everybody's it's just that is again it's not going to matter by tomorrow we'll see if it if it does but we need to understand that we the check and balances will be gone which is wait let me

finish part of the base case, I'm very bullish gold. Bitcoin might work in the short term. The key thing people need to be pointed out is the geopolitical situation here for gold is unstoppable unless Z tilts backward. And the two things I think people are missing is we have two. He emboldened, which Trump supports, unfortunately, and Russia, which he supports. He emboldened this regime of Iran and North Korea, both who want nuclear weapons to cozy up to Russia, who has nuclear weapons. You need to understand, to me, that tilt, which is why I'm still very bullish gold. And I don't know what stops that. Okay.

Once again, Iran. You're at times. Iran was bankrupt under Trump and has tens, if not hundreds of billions that Biden released. So let's not go there. Okay. I'm just pointing out that this is why gold's bullish and it's not as bullish for Bitcoin. No, I understand. I understand your thoughts. McMasters is a disgruntled employee. 50% of the ex the single political leader with the highest turnover in her staff that's ever been measured is a

Democratic nominee 92% so please you know it's a question of wait she was not nominated she was selected okay selected you're right the candidate sorry but she wasn't it is it is very

very simple we'll find out tomorrow and god knows we would all be happier if we weren't talking about the personalities of these people yes darn we can't agree on that can we just have the election over with and how is next monday gonna be how next is next monday and nuts is next monday gonna be but if there is no answer uh i don't know you know i i i'm hoping for more more more screaming screaming women means you know i love so many hanging chats but i hope that she's wrong that it's that's too oh god i hope she's wrong too that would be terrible for the country she's usually right she's been spot on the last four or five calls she's made. So, yeah, you'll have my head in my hands

if in fact we don't know who won next Monday. We all will. It is. I mean, there's also the case that, you know, one side declares they've won and the other side declares they've won. Well, that's a lot of people. In fact, there's a whole thing on Polymarket about that.

Polymarket will only resolve the answer is when Fox and CNN both say that. from George Bush's brother down in Florida, and the election was stolen, reversed, excuse me, and we got George Bush as the president. But, I mean, would anybody be surprised to see CNN declare victory for Harris and to see Fox declare victory for Trump? There's nothing that will surprise me. 20 minutes of each other? I wish to God I could say the answer. I think I'm with James.

I think anything is possible, and God knows I hope that doesn't happen. One way or the other. A clear win for one side is better than interminable uncertainty. Well, I'm voting for peanut the squirrel, and we can discuss whether peanut won next Monday. Guys, I mean, this was – We need a moment for peanut. We do. We need a moment.

Moment of silence for peanut. That's all we got. I have a feeling we're going to have a crazy conversation. I can even look. I think I can solo layout Dave. Look at that. He's alone. Perfect.

Well-deserved. Peanut. RIP, peanut. RIP today's Macro Monday. Until next week, guys. That is all we got. Oh, man. I hope we have a winner. It was an amazing show. See you guys next time. Later. week, guys. That is all we got. Oh, man. I hope we have a winner.

It was an amazing show. See you guys next time. Later. Thanks, guys. Take care. Let's go. Let's go.