코인톡

Building on yesterday's post about maximum divergence,
this is a precise illustration of what that looks like
in practice.

─────────────────

The first argument is the claim that 2022 was already
a recession that simply was not declared as one.

Two negative GDP quarters happened, that is correct.
But the reasons matter.
Q1 was driven by a widening trade deficit
because domestic demand was strong enough
to pull in a surge of imports.
Q2 was driven by companies drawing down
the excess inventories built up during the pandemic.
Both are statistical artifacts of supply chain dynamics,
not demand weakness.

The labor market in 2022 produced
an average of approximately 375,000 to 400,000
new jobs per month.
The unemployment rate fell from 3.9%
in January to 3.5% in December.
The NBER defines recession across multiple indicators:
employment, personal income,
industrial production, consumer spending.
Every single one of those pointed away from recession.

You cannot have a recession
while adding 375,000 jobs per month.
The data does not allow for that conclusion.

─────────────────

The second argument is that recession comes from inflation.

That also inverts the sequence.

In every documented cycle the order runs like this.
Late cycle produces overheating.
Inflation appears as a symptom.
The Fed tightens.
Credit becomes expensive.
The consumer breaks.
Recession follows.

The 1970s double recession proves this directly.
The recessions of 1980 and 1981 to 1982
were not caused by the inflation.
They were caused by Volcker raising rates
to 18 to 21 percent to fight the inflation.
The medicine caused the recession.
Not the disease.

─────────────────

The third argument is the 1970s comparison itself.

In the 1970s the average US savings rate
was 12.2 percent of disposable income.
Today it is 3.6 to 4.5 percent.
The long-run historical average is 8.4 percent.
The 1970s consumer had a financial buffer.
Wages were growing alongside prices.
The inflation was largely demand driven,
coming from an economy that was too hot.

Today 59 percent of Americans cannot cover
a $1,000 emergency without going into debt.
Average monthly job creation
over the last twelve months is +59,000
with a workforce 24 percent larger than in 1999.
The current inflation is supply driven,
from the Iran conflict and energy prices.
Not from excess demand.

A supply shock hitting a consumer
who is already structurally exhausted
is not the 1970s.

It is something considerably more fragile.
And the policy response this time
is constrained in a way Volcker never was,
because debt to GDP is now above 130 percent.

─────────────────

The current phase combines structural elements
of Dot-Com and the Financial Crisis,
but with extensions that are significantly larger.

The reason for that is the monetary regime
that began in December 2008.
The Fed cut rates to zero that month
and launched QE1 weeks earlier.
What followed was a fundamental shift
in how markets were supported.

Zero interest rates from 2008 to 2015.
Every normalization attempt either failed
or was reversed when markets showed stress.
COVID brought the most extreme expansion:
the Fed balance sheet went from 4 trillion
to nearly 9 trillion dollars.

From 900 billion before 2008
to nearly 9 trillion at the peak.
A factor of ten.

Both traditional markets and crypto
were inflated within this regime.
The growth was not organic.
It was funded by the cheapest money
in the history of modern central banking.

─────────────────

That is the backdrop against which
the fourth argument needs to be evaluated.

Bitcoin and the broader crypto market
are products of that same monetary era.
Every bull cycle in crypto coincided with
near-zero interest rates, quantitative easing,
or both.
Every prior bottom was set either during
monetary easing or following crypto-internal events:
Terra Luna. FTX. Celsius.
None of those are macro recessions.
They are idiosyncratic shocks.

The asset class has never been tested
in a genuine macro-driven recession.
Not once.

The scenario being described requires believing
that crypto will decouple from the deepest
macro correction in decades,
complete its cycle in three to four months,
and start a new bull run
while traditional markets could correct for years.

All of this in an environment where
the monetary expansion that inflated everything
is now being unwound for the first time
in any meaningful way.

When that unwind accelerates,
the assumption that crypto exits in a quarter
while everything else corrects for years
requires a mechanism that has never existed
in a macro-driven environment.

That is not the four-year cycle.
That is the assumption that this time
will be fundamentally different
from every prior macro cycle
the asset class has never actually experienced.

CIF: 82/90 — WARNING LEVEL ORANGE.