楼主:
wahaha99 (此方不可长)
2025-02-22 22:25:18免责声明：
此份资料是源自于Reddit网友提供出处,
由Macrovoices网站摘录,
由Erik对Jim Bianco (Bianco Research创办人)采访,
其内容我无法证实或证伪,
且不构成投资建议。
https://www.macrovoices.com/guest-content/list-guest-transcripts/
5711-transcript-of-the-podcast-interview-between-erik-townsend-and-
jim-bianco-4/file
https://tinyurl.com/y763ubrk
与本新闻有关处之节录
The third part of this program is the most controversial in the least
discussed. And Miran just laid it out in his paper in November about global
trade. And that is the 80 years since post WWII, security arrangement that
the US has with the rest of the world. The US Navy has patrolled the high
seas, has allowed for free trade around the world for, like I said, nearly a
century, hasn't charged anybody for it. There's no bill that goes to any
country. But what they've asked is that you align yourself with us, the West,
the democracy, free thinking people, and not with the Soviets and the
communists from prior to 1990 and maybe today, the Russia, China, Iran, North
Korea axis, and we'll give you this security arrangement. Well, Trump has
been railing against the security arrangement. On January 23, he gave a video
speech to the price crowd in Davos, and what he said in that speech was, he
said, we're basically done being the patsy, that he is going to demand that
the NATO countries now spend 5% of their GDP on defense, and presumably some
of that will flow back to defense contractors in the United States. But I
don't think he's done there, because what Miran said in his paper is, you owe
us so much for the last 80 years that what we want to do is a debt swap.
Those NATO countries have trillions of dollars of debt. You're going to swap
it for 100 year or perpetual zero coupon non-marketable Treasury security.
So, you're going to swap $10 billion worth of treasuries for a $10 billion
coupon century bond, won't mature for 100 years. Won't get any interest on
it. Why would any country do that? Because if you don't, we'll have to
revalue the security arrangement. Maybe the US Navy won't protect your ships.
Maybe Article 5 of NATO is triggered. You could send your troops and your
money to the front line, United States won't be there to back it up. You got
to start paying for it. And Trump has been very clear about paying for it.
Well, these countries have ten billion of treasuries now, they got ten
billion this non-marketable thing. Doesn't that put them at a worse financial
position? The Federal Reserve comes in. They can offer a lending facility,
you give me a billion dollars par amount of those bonds, I will give you a
loan, a repo loan for a billion dollars. If you need liquidity, it will be at
par. There will be no unrealized or realized loss. It will be available
anytime. Will the Federal Reserve go for it? That's why Trump has been
bashing, one of the reasons why he's been bashing Jay Powell and the name
Kevin Warsh keeps popping up, that could be the next Fed chairman. And he's
very open to this kind of idea. So, it's kind of a cram down on them. And
look, in every restructuring deal, there's a cram down somebody when you were
structured to debt, somebody's got to lose. Trump's argument is, for the last
80 years, that loser has been the guy in Peoria. We've gone into the global
trade organizations. We've hollowed out his industries because we sent them
overseas. We've worsened his standard of living. Now, people are saying, no,
the fix is we have to raise the retirement age to 75 or 80 so that we could
get rid of the unfunded liability of Social Security. And Trump's argument
is, no, that guy, Peoria, always loses those people that have had the free
security ride for 80 years, it's time that they pay for it. And if they
don't, if the French say something like, you know what, we'll just pay
protection money to Putin to leave us alone, rather than pay you. Then
Trump's got tariffs, and he'll come back and he'll punish them with tariffs.
ChatGPT 翻译:
第三部分是这个计划中最具争议却最少被讨论的一环。而Miran在他十一月发表的有关全
球贸易的报告中，就已经阐述了这一点。这指的是美国自二战结束以来与世界其他国家建
立的80年安全保障安排。美国海军一直在公海巡逻，促进全球近一个世纪的自由贸易，从
未向任何国家收取过费用，也没有向任何国家开出账单。但他们要求的是，各国必须与我
们——西方、民主、自由思考的人们——站在一起，而非与90年代以前的苏联及共产主义
势力，或者现今的俄罗斯、中国、伊朗、北韩阵营联合，这样我们才会提供这种安全保障
安排。
然而，特朗普一直猛烈抨击这种安全保障安排。1月23日，他在达沃斯对那群“Price
crowd”发表了一段视频讲话，表示“我们基本上不再愿意充当任人宰割的替罪羊”，并
将要求北约国家将GDP的5%用于国防开支，预计其中一部分资金将流向美国的国防承包商
。但我认为他的要求并不止于此，因为Miran在报告中指出，过去80年来，你们欠我们太
多了，因此我们打算进行一项债务置换。这些北约国家持有数兆美元的债务，你们将用这
些债务换取100年期或永久性、零息且不可流通的美国国债。也就是说，你们要把价值100
亿美元的国债换成同样价值的、100年后才到期、且不产生任何利息的世纪债券。为什么
会有任何国家愿意这么做？因为如果不这么做，我们将不得不重新评估这个安全保障安排
——也许美国海军就不再保护你们的船只，也许北约第5条款就会被启动，你们可能将部
队和资金送上前线，而美国却不会出手相助，最终你们必须开始为此支付代价。特朗普对
此一直表明得非常清楚。
好吧，这些国家现在拥有价值100亿美元的国债，如果换上这种不可流通的债券，难道不
会使它们的财务状况更糟吗？联邦储备系统就会介入，提供一种贷款机制——你将这些债
券以10亿美元的面值交给我，我就给你10亿美元的回购贷款。如果你需要流动性，就能以
面值获得贷款，不会产生任何未实现或已实现的损失，而且随时可以使用。问题在于，联
邦储备系统是否会接受这个方案？这也是特朗普猛烈抨击的原因之一，他一直批评杰伊·
鲍威尔，而凯文·沃什的名字也不断被提起（他有可能成为下一任联邦储备主席），因为
他对这类想法持非常开放的态度。所以，这对他们来说有点像是一种强行施压。
而且你看，在每一次的债务重组交易中，只要涉及债务结构，就总会有人受到强制性的损
失。特朗普的论点是，在过去80年中，损失总是由皮奥里亚那个小人物承担。我们加入了
全球贸易组织，把他的产业空心化，将生产外移，最终使他的生活水平下降。如今，有人
主张，解决方案应该是把退休年龄提高到75或80岁，以消除社会保障中未获资助的负债；
但特朗普认为，这个在皮奥里亚的小人物一直在享受80年的免费安全保障，现在是他们该
为此付出代价的时候了。如果他们不愿意付出，比如法国人如果说，“我们宁愿向普京支
付保护费，让他别来打扰我们，也不愿意向你们支付”，那么特朗普就会利用关税，回头
再对他们进行惩罚。