我們是否處於另一個2008年風格的金融崩潰的邊緣？

在全球範圍內，投資者和專家們都在問同樣的問題：我們是否處於另一個2008年風格的金融崩潰的邊緣？

Across the world, investors and pundits are asking the same question: Are we on the brink of another 2008-style financial crash?

在全球範圍內，投資者和專家們都在問同樣的問題：我們是否處於另一個2008年風格的金融崩潰的邊緣？

One need only look at the S&P 500, the prices of stocks in top companies like Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) and Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA), or the digital currency markets to see what’s happening: a mass-scale selloff in risk assets and a rush for the exits. With United States President Donald Trump launching a diplomatic blitzkrieg in the two short months since he took power, uncertainty looms large, and fear is beginning to take hold.

一個人只需要查看標準普爾500指數，NVIDIA（NASDAQ：NVDA）和TESLA（NASDAQ：TSLA）等頂級公司的股票價格，或者是數字貨幣市場，以了解正在發生的事情：質量規模的拋售在風險資產中的拋售和急速的衝動。隨著美國總統唐納德·特朗普（Donald Trump）在他掌權以來的兩個月內發起了外交閃電戰，不確定性隱約可見，而恐懼開始逐漸消失。

With the U.S.-China trade war heating up, tariffs on trading partners, and a clear realignment of the U.S. politically, institutions and other investors are moving into cash and safe assets until the dust settles. The global economy appears to be reaching a tipping point reminiscent of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.

隨著美國 - 中國貿易戰的加熱，對貿易夥伴的關稅以及對美國政治上的明確重新調整，機構和其他投資者正在轉移現金和安全資產，直到塵埃落定為止。全球經濟似乎正達到一個轉折點，讓人聯想到2008年全球金融危機。

What’s spooking the markets?

什麼是在市場上嚇到市場？

In one word: uncertainty. While great investors like Warren Buffet have said it could be the friend of the buyer of long-term value, markets don’t like it in the short term, and there hasn’t been this much uncertainty in such a short period since the COVID-19 pandemic shook the world.

用一個詞：不確定性。儘管像沃倫·巴菲特（Warren Buffet）這樣的偉大投資者表示，這可能是長期價值買家的朋友，但在短期內，市場並不喜歡它，而且自Covid-19大流行以來，在這麼短的時間內並沒有太多的不確定性震撼了世界。

A few factors contribute to that uncertainty: geopolitical shifts, trade wars, and a general risk-off mentality are the main three.

一些因素導致了這種不確定性：地緣政治轉變，貿易戰和一般的冒險心態是主要三個。

Geopolitical Shifts – For the first time in history, the U.S. voted with Russia, North Korea, and Sudan in the United Nations. If there was an illusion that American priorities weren’t changing, that pretty much shattered it.

地緣政治轉變 - 歷史上的第一次，美國在聯合國與俄羅斯，朝鮮和蘇丹進行了投票。如果存在一種美國優先事項沒有改變的幻想，那幾乎會破壞它。

When the largest economy in the world completely changes geopolitical direction overnight, it naturally creates some jitters. Nobody knows how America will go or what it means for the global economy, so risk-off is the answer until things become clear.

當世界上最大的經濟體一夜之間完全改變地緣政治方向時，它自然會引起一些煩惱。沒有人知道美國將如何發展或對全球經濟意味著什麼，因此，在事情變得清晰之前，有風險是答案。

Trade Wars and Tariffs – The geopolitical shifts are tied in some degree to the Trump government’s trade tariffs and the escalating trade war between the U.S. and China.

貿易戰和關稅 - 地緣政治轉變在某種程度上與特朗普政府的貿易關稅以及美國與中國之間的貿易戰不斷升級。

I wrote previously about how Japan signed the Plaza Accord and killed off its manufacturing competitiveness at Uncle Sam’s request, but China likely won’t do that, so an escalating trade war is the only foreseeable outcome.

我以前寫過關於日本如何簽署廣場協議並應山姆大叔的要求殺死其製造競爭力的文章，但中國可能不會這樣做，因此，貿易戰不斷升級是唯一可預見的結果。

Trade wars create a lot of uncertainty, but trade tariffs can be just as destructive. Twenty-five percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico effectively lay waste to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), making the goods coming from those countries more expensive.

貿易戰造成了很多不確定性，但貿易關稅可能同樣具有破壞性。對加拿大和墨西哥的25％的關稅有效地浪費了美國 - 墨西哥協議（USMCA），這使得來自這些國家的商品更加昂貴。

There’s no telling whether the long-term impacts will be as desired (manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.), but they’ll hit American consumers in their pockets in the short term. Since the U.S. is the largest consumer market in the world, any slowdown in purchasing power will be felt worldwide.

沒有說明長期影響是否會盡可能（返回美國的製造業），但是他們將在短期內打動美國消費者的袋裝。由於美國是世界上最大的消費市場，因此在世界範圍內，購買力的任何放緩都將在全球範圍內感受到。

Risk-off Attitudes – While the two previous points play into the risk-off narrative taking hold on Wall Street and elsewhere, there’s a general reassessment of stocks independent of outside factors.

冒險態度 - 雖然前兩個要點涉及華爾街和其他地方的風險敘事，但對股票的一般重新評估與外部因素無關。

Companies like Tesla, Nvidia, and Palantir (NASDAQ:PLTR) traded at absurd valuations in Q4 of 2024, and it’s only natural that big investors would eventually take a step back and reevaluate. Interestingly, while gold and silver are seeing an uptick, BTC is not. So much for the safe-haven asset and digital gold narratives!

特斯拉，NVIDIA和PALANTIR（NASDAQ：PLTR）等公司在2024年第四季度以荒謬的估值交易，最自然的是，大投資者最終會退後一步並重新評估。有趣的是，儘管黃金和白銀正在看到上升，但BTC卻沒有。對於避風港資產和數字黃金敘事而言，這麼多！

All three of these factors, as well as others, are contributing to the current selloff. But are we at a tipping point that could take things from selloff to crisis? Let’s look back at the last one.

這三個因素以及其他因素都在為當前的拋售做出貢獻。但是，我們是否處在一個可以從拋售到危機的轉折點？讓我們回顧一下最後一個。

A look back at the 2008 financial crisis

回顧2008年的金融危機

In March 2008, Bear Stearns collapsed. The U.S. government arranged a bailout, and JP Morgan (NASDAQ:JPM) stepped in to buy its shares for $2 a piece, down from $170 the previous summer.

2008年3月，貝爾·斯滕斯（Bear Stearns）崩潰了。美國政府安排了救助，JP Morgan（NASDAQ：JPM）介入以每件$ 2美元的價格購買其股票，低於去年夏天的170美元。

It wasn’t enough to stop the panic. In September 2008, the U.S. government took over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Shortly thereafter, Lehman Brothers collapsed (NASDAQ:LEHLQ), wiping out $600 billion in assets and triggering a full-blown panic. In mid-September, American International Group (NASDAQ:AIG), a global insurance and financial services firm, received an $85 billion bailout to stave off collapse. While it survived, the economic landscape was destroyed.

停止恐慌是不夠的。 2008年9月，美國政府接管了抵押巨人Fannie Mae和Freddie Mac。此後不久，雷曼兄弟（Lehman Brothers）倒閉了（納斯達克股票代碼：Lehlq），消耗了6000億美元的資產，引發了全面的恐慌。 9月中旬，全球保險和金融服務公司美國國際集團（NASDAQ：AIG）獲得了850億美元的救助，以避免倒閉。當它倖存下來時，經濟格局被破壞了。

Despite a $700 billion bailout early in 2009 (TARP) and the Federal Reserve reducing interest rates to zero, U.S. unemployment hit 10%, millions of families lost their homes, and protests erupted across the globe from New York to London to Tokyo, Sydney, and beyond.

儘管2009年初進行了7000億美元的救助（TARP）和美聯儲將利率降低到零，但美國失業率達到了10％，數以百萬計的家庭失去了家園，並從紐約到倫敦到東京，悉尼及以後的全球爆發了抗議活動。

At the heart of this entire fiasco was one thing: lack of transparency.

整個慘敗的核心是一回事：缺乏透明度。