CriptonInteligente

President Donald Trump just made one of the most revealing economic statements he’s made in years.
He openly said that choosing Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve Chair in 2017 was a mistake and that he should have selected Kevin Warsh instead. Trump didn’t stop there. He went further, saying he believes Warsh could help grow the U.S. economy by as much as 15% through different monetary policies.
This isn’t just political regret.
It’s a window into how power, money, and economic philosophy collide at the highest level.
To understand why this matters, you have to understand what the Federal Reserve actually controls — and what kind of Fed chair shapes outcomes.
The Fed doesn’t just “set rates.” It controls liquidity, credit conditions, risk appetite, and indirectly the speed at which the economy expands or contracts. When the Fed tightens, borrowing becomes expensive, growth slows, and asset prices compress. When it loosens, capital flows, risk-taking increases, and growth accelerates. Over time, these decisions compound.
Trump’s frustration with Powell has always centered on this exact point.
During Trump’s presidency, Powell prioritized inflation control and Fed independence over aggressive growth. Rates were raised. Liquidity tightened. Markets wobbled. Trump wanted a Fed chair who would actively support expansion, asset prices, and growth momentum — especially during periods when inflation was not yet a threat.
Kevin Warsh represents a very different philosophy.
Warsh is widely seen as more skeptical of excessive tightening and more aware of how monetary policy spills into asset markets, employment, and long-term competitiveness. While he isn’t reckless, his framework leans toward growth-first thinking — particularly when inflation pressures are manageable.
When Trump says Warsh could help grow the economy by 15%, he’s not talking about magic. He’s talking about policy posture.
Lower and more flexible rates reduce the cost of capital. Businesses invest more. Consumers borrow more. Asset values rise. Confidence improves. When confidence improves, velocity increases — money moves faster through the system. That’s how economies accelerate.
But there’s a trade-off.
Powell represents caution. Warsh represents acceleration.
Powell’s approach is designed to protect credibility, prevent overheating, and avoid long-term instability — even if that means sacrificing short-term growth. Warsh’s approach, as Trump sees it, would be more willing to push the system harder to unlock growth and competitiveness, especially in a global environment where other countries are actively stimulating their economies.
This debate is not new. It’s the oldest argument in central banking:
stability vs. growth.
What makes Trump’s statement important is timing.
Markets are already sensitive to rate cuts, inflation trends, and political pressure on monetary policy. When a former and potentially future president openly criticizes his Fed chair pick and promotes an alternative vision, it starts shaping expectations — even before any actual policy changes happen.
Markets don’t wait for elections.
They price narratives early.
If investors begin to believe that future leadership could push for a more growth-oriented Fed, they start adjusting risk exposure, asset allocation, and long-term assumptions. That affects equities, bonds, real estate, and even crypto.
There’s also a learning lesson here for anyone watching from the outside.
Central bank appointments matter more than almost any single economic decision a president makes. Tax cuts come and go. Spending bills expire. But monetary policy compounds silently over years. One appointment can shape an entire economic cycle.
Trump admitting this mistake is essentially admitting that personnel decisions can outweigh ideology.
You can promise growth, but if the institution controlling liquidity doesn’t align with that goal, the system resists you.
This is also why Trump’s confidence in Warsh is so strong. From his perspective, the U.S. economy underperformed its potential because monetary brakes were applied too early and too hard. Whether that belief is correct is debatable — but the framework behind it is coherent.
Growth isn’t just about innovation.
It’s about access to capital.
And capital flows where policy allows it to flow.
The deeper takeaway isn’t about Powell versus Warsh. It’s about how fragile economic outcomes are to leadership philosophy. Two qualified economists, two radically different outcomes — not because one is smarter, but because one is more cautious.
As investors, builders, or observers, this is the real lesson:
Macro outcomes are driven by incentives, not intentions.
Trump’s statement is a reminder that central banks aren’t neutral forces of nature. They are guided by people, beliefs, and risk tolerance. Change the person, and you often change the trajectory.
Whether or not Trump ever gets the chance to make that appointment again, the message is already out there: the next phase of U.S. economic policy could look very different.
And markets are already paying attention.
The real question now is not whether Powell was a mistake
It’s whether the next Fed era, whoever leads it, will prioritize restraint… or growth.
Because that decision doesn’t just shape charts.
It shapes lives, businesses, and the next decade of the economy.

La vérité que beaucoup n’aiment
Sa pas entendre c’est : Aujourd’hui si tu veux être rentable en crypto, tu dois acheter les baisse en étant conscient que ça risque ne pas être le dernier. L’inconvénient avec c’est que celui qui a fait ça son dernier achat fait lors de la chute su 10/10 a encore pris -80%. Donc lui qui achète la chute en cours pourra prendre encore -60%. L’avantage est que lorsqu’il aura acheté le dernier dip, une fois le marché reparti son dernier achat va lui rembourser tout ce qu’il a perdu. C’est un choix très compliqué pour les retails car plus ça baisse plus ils ont peur. Plus ça monte plus ils investissent. Dites vous que le dernier dip sur ADA par exemple au dernier bullrun c’était 60x après la reprise du marché. J’entends l’argument: On n’a plus d’argent
Si tu avais acheté 1 pièce à 100$ et que le marché a chuté comme maintenant, ça veut dire que tu n’as plus besoin que de 10$ pour avoir cette même pièce donc techniquement ton effort en argent diminue également. Si tu prends deux pièce à 20$ et que le marché retourne à 100$, tu aura au final ta mise de départ 100$ + 200$ que valent tes deux nouvelles pièce. Ce qui fera 300$ au final partant de 120$. Si le marché s’arrête même à 50$, ça te fera 120$ récupéré donc 0 perte alors que celui qui a juste attendu va s’en tirer avec 50$ donc 50% de perte.
C’est pas exactement comme ça que ça se passe dans la vraie vie on s’entend mais je veux juste vous donner des options.Et retenez que personne n’a jamais perdu de l’argent en investissant sur BTC les 3 années suivantes peu importe son prix d’entrée.
Attention, je ne dis pas que c’est la meilleure méthode, on essaie de s’adapter et personne ne sait de quoi est fait demain. Moi je veux pas rester sans rien faire alors je vous partage mes stratégies c’est tout. Ceci ne s’applique pas aux mauvais jeton attention.