On the surface, the former Fed official looks like the safer choice—market-friendly credentials, establishment backing, the whole package. Yet here's the catch: playing it safe rarely translates into the aggressive monetary easing markets might be betting on. And that's precisely the problem. Trump isn't optimizing for safety. His calculus runs differently. The question isn't whether a candidate ticks conventional boxes; it's whether their playbook aligns with what actually drives policy action.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
11 Likes
Reward
11
3
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
DeFiVeteran
· 5h ago
Who still believes in the insurance trap now? Trump doesn't play by those rules at all; what the market wants is real monetary easing, not a sense of security on paper.
View OriginalReply0
MoonlightGamer
· 12-20 20:49
Safe assets can't generate aggressive easing? I just can't understand this logic. What exactly are investors betting on?
View OriginalReply0
MetaReckt
· 12-20 20:47
The safe card seems stable, but the market is actually taking aggressive easing... Trump, this guy just doesn't play by the usual rules.
On the surface, the former Fed official looks like the safer choice—market-friendly credentials, establishment backing, the whole package. Yet here's the catch: playing it safe rarely translates into the aggressive monetary easing markets might be betting on. And that's precisely the problem. Trump isn't optimizing for safety. His calculus runs differently. The question isn't whether a candidate ticks conventional boxes; it's whether their playbook aligns with what actually drives policy action.