저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 비트코인 1%를 포트폴리오에 담아 '스muck 보험(schmuck insurance)'으로 활용하고, 장기적으로 100만~20만 달러까지 갈 수 있다고 주장. 정부·중앙은행 비판: 연준과 재무부가 실물경제(소비자 지출이 GDP의 대부분)를 이해하지 못하고 있으며, 실업자·저임금 노동자에게 자금을 직접 지원해야 소비가 살아나고 경기가 회복된다고 주장. 분배·신자유주의 비판: 40년간 낙수효과 정책으로 노동보다 자본 쪽으로 힘이 쏠렸으며, 노동자에게 돈을 더 주는 것이 이 불균형을 바로잡는 건전한 재조정이라고 주장. 비트코인 전망: 2012~2013년 200달러 시절 조롱받았던 경험을 언급하며, 현재 약 3만9천 달러에서 기간 미정(5~10년)으로 10만→15만→20만 달러까지 갈 것이라고 전망. 이유는 정부 신뢰 하락 때문이라고 설명. 리스크·조건: 비트코인이 0이 되더라도 전체 자산의 1%만 잃을 뿐이며, 그 경우 나머지 99%는 남는다고 설명. 다른 자산(주식·채권·부동산·원자재)은 정부 정책과 금융 연계성에 강하게 묶여 있어 비트코인이 상관관계가 낮은 헤지라고 주장. 출연자 관점: 돈에 덜 얽매이는 태도를 밝히며, 자산이 사라져도 인생의 가치는 변하지 않는다고 말함. 정부 의사결정 구조에 대한 불신을 강조.
다듬은 글
and you said on cnbc that you felt that the government kind of was doing too much to rescue some of these companies and you were saying things like you didn't care if the hedge funds got wiped out and i just wondered you know so what would that look like if the government were to do what you recommended you know what you were saying were things like oh they wouldn't get to somewhere in the hamptons and who would care if they got wiped out but you know i also wondered like that sort of applies to well you tell me maybe it doesn't apply to people like you but would you be willing to be wiped out um yeah i mean i've never really been defined by my money i think i was a i was an evolutionary person with the same values i may have been a little more douchey when i was younger or harder to deal with but i was still the same person and i frankly felt that i had the same worth as a human being when i was growing up on welfare when i was in my 20s or 30s or now in my 40s i think that you know money is a projection that other people use and i used it on myself for a while and now i use it less and so you know being in a position to actually realize that the the school teacher that makes sixty thousand dollars is just as important as i am is the truth and so yeah you could take it all away i don't i don't really care it's be a fun ride no matter what i think i have a great set of memories that i've created for myself and the journey has been a blast and i hope to have another 50 year of those things you know what i what i was speaking about on cnbc was just my frustration about not wanting to acknowledge where the federal reserve and treasury were not acknowledging how the actual economy works the united states is an economy where the overwhelming majority of the gdp is generated by consumers and the way that consumers lift up the american economy is by spending money and when you take revenues away from the american consumer because they're unemployed or because they can't earn wages then they're going to spend less which means that the economy contracts and you have a recession so first principles thinking would tell you that you put money in the hands of consumers and you put enough money in in their hands such that the amount that they have exceeds what they need to live and then the excess spending they will spend and the reason why that's important is then it forces companies to then reopen faster hire people more inev invariably what you'll see is then they'll also have to pay them more because again these consumers have more money but that's actually all a good rebalancing of what's been happening for the last 40 years which is that the pendulum has swung you know in economic theory you say that the pendulum swings between labor and capital in the last 40 years of trickle-down economics what we've really done is swung the pendulum so far towards capital that people who are the labor class don't really have the earning power that they actually had before putting a lot more money into their hands where effectively you have to pay them more to come back to work isn't a bad thing it will recalibrate what is a very lopsided distribution of leverage and so getting power into the hands of labor and getting more money into the hands of labor actually sort of subverts and sort of puts an end to trickle-down economic theory it kind of worked in the 80s but frankly in the 90s and 2000s and you know now it just it's it's a dated economic philosophy that doesn't map to how the world works and that you've said that there's room for everyone to have an uncorrelated hedge in their portfolio and you say that bitcoin can serve as that you also have called it schmuck insurance and i wondered do you think that the coronavirus pandemic is sort of like bitcoin's moment not really i don't i think that when i talked about it being schmuck insurance the place that i'm coming from is that we want something that frankly will protect our wealth however much that it is that we have in cases where the people in power really get over their ski tips and do something that we can all see is a bad idea but they're driven by short-term political incentives the reality is that you know governments used to be run by a very different kind of person and in some countries today i would say that you know it harkens back to how it used to be so for example if you look at singapore you know the smartest people that that graduate and you know some of the most capable individuals go into the bureaucracy and work for the singaporean government i don't think that we could all look at ourselves in the eye and honestly say that that's necessarily true in western democracies it's a kind of person that really excels in public relations or you know winning elections it's not necessarily people who excel at governance or legislation and so the reality is that you know we have people that are somewhat mismatched for the job and invariably whenever that happens irrespective whatever profession that is mistakes happen um you know i mean just to use a stark example it's kind of morbid but if you put a pilot who's not a great pilot who actually really wanted to be a schoolteacher in the cockpit of a plane that person is much more likely to make a mistake that has huge consequences than a person who lives and breeds wanting to be a pilot and that's also true of legislators and so the reality is that you know we have folks that will focus on short-term window dressing type solutions again you can see it today in in what the in what the fed and the treasury are doing you know we've massively increased the deficit and the debt you know the united states is now the united states government is now responsible for more than 50 of the gdp which essentially makes us a you know quasi-communist country socialist country at a minimum except without any of the benefits so you know you still have sky-high healthcare and you know exorbitantly high useless education um so it's kind of like the worst form of socialism uh dummy socialism and so you know when when those kinds of things are happening and they're not getting fixed and they're only getting exacerbated i just think that if people have been hard-working with their head down they should have an opportunity to make sure that they don't get wiped out if the government itself just continues to make a string of bad decisions that then have rising consequences and bitcoin to me is the only thing that i've seen so far that is really fundamentally uncorrelated to that decision-making process to that decision-making body because at the end of the day any other asset class equities debt real estate commodities they're all tightly tightly coupled to a legislative framework and an interconnectedness in the financial markets that brings together many of the governments that are sort of behaving this way and so it's almost like a bet against the ruling class in some ways and making sure that you have a small amount of insurance because these insurance again insurance is not something that pays off 50 cents to the dollar the insurance is something that pays off you know 1 000 bucks to a buck you want these massive massive asymmetric payoffs because you want to be sure that a small amount of insurance can basically make you whole and that's why i just think that you know you should take one percent of your portfolio put it in bitcoin never look at it don't look at the price don't look at anything and hope that that one percent goes to zero then you have 99 but in the case where that 99 goes to zero that one percent will probably be worth 120 and you'll feel like a genius all right chamoth we don't have that much time left let's talk rocket ships first bitcoin that falls into that category because that's what that is 39 000 um where's it going i mean can you play the clip in 2012 and 13 when it was at 200 and everybody was laughing at me on cnpc every time i would talk about bitcoin where is it going it's probably going to 100 then 150 then 200 000.
in what period i don't know five years 10 years but it's going there and the reason is because every time you see all of this stuff happening it just reminds you that our leaders are not as trustworthy and reliable as they used to be just in case we really do need to have some kind of you know insurance we can keep under our pillow that gives us some access to an uncorrelated hedge it's going to eventually transition to something much more important but for right now you're just getting all these data points that prove this thing the fabric of society is frayed and until we figure out how to make it better it's time to just have a little schmuck insurance on the side everybody's running in it's just an incredible thing i could never have imagined it oh
Comments 0