저자: RayDalio · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 금리를 실질수익이 나올 만큼 올리면 경기 수축이 불가피하며, 향후 18개월가량 1차 국면(스태그플레이션 성격)이 이어질 것으로 본다. 금리 인상과 긴축: 실질 수익을 주려면 금리를 높여야 하지만 그러면 경기 위축이 생긴다. 신용을 회수하면 지출이 줄고 인플레이션이 낮아지는 구조다. 채권 매도 압력: 연준이 약 1.1조 달러, 재무부가 약 1조 달러를 매도할 예정이며, 수익률이 낮아 다른 투자자들도 매도할 가능성이 크다. 이는 신용 긴축과 지출 위축을 낳는다. 스태그플레이션 전망: 1970년대와 유사한 스태그플레이션을 예상하며, 인플레이션은 어느 정도 낮아지지만 여전히 높을 것이고 통화는 더 긴축된다. 현금은 구매력을 잃는다. 국면 구조: 10년 주기로 패러다임이 바뀌며, 현재는 1차 국면으로 과거 1971~72년, 1974~75년 침체 사례를 든다. 이후 2차 상승 후 80년대식 반전이 이어질 수 있다. 정치·지정학 리스크: 좌우 극단화와 양극화된 정치, 선거 결과를 승복하지 않을 가능성이 경제 비효율을 키운다. 국방·우크라이나 지원 등 제약 없는 지출도 문제다. 미중 갈등: 미국 제조업 수입의 22%가 중국산이라 디커플링이나 전쟁 시 미국 물가와 경제에 큰 타격이 온다. 양측 모두 손해라고 강조한다. 세계질서 전환: 1945년 이후 질서가 미국 주도였으나 힘의 격차가 줄며 분쟁 위험이 커지고 있다. 부의 격차와 세대 갈등이 누적되는 압력 국면이라는 진단이다.
다듬은 글
you can keep spending and bring down inflation so here's what I think I think that we're not going to be able to bring an interest rate to a high enough level to give a good real return to Holders of credit without causing a contraction in economic activity the way it really works is you take money and credit away from people right and something else costs them so they spend less and because they spend less than you have less inflation all of them have been painful and we produced a whole lot of debt and so now even the Federal Reserve is going to start selling 1.1 trillion and then you have the treasury selling a trillion and so there's a lot of selling and what that does is it takes private credit can we get a soft Landing doing what we're doing right now you're going to markets kind of Hope Against All Odds that we can and we avoid a recession but what do you think well you had an eight percent eight percent inflation rate look at what people get and we're talking now about a three percent interest rate and people think that that's good right so you're going to lose buying power I think the inflation will come down a bit but it's going to be very high and money's going to get a lot tighter tighter so you're going to have a stagflation similar to the 70s but none of them are all the same there's always a paradigm shift the way a paradigm shift is it's like if there's a 10-year period and almost every 10-year period is the opposite of the 10 years before the 70s produced the 80s at the end of a period of time everybody believes that the future will be like the last 10 years right and everybody's positioned that way so when you look at the environment that we had over the last 10 years not inflation from low interest rates availability of credit so these moves take place typically over a period of 10 years in there let's say two legs two legs to the move so you have a change in mindset um people thinking what is safe used to think that cash was safe a safe investment but cash doesn't it loses buying power to inflation so now as people realize that that loses buying power and as the FED has to deal with the tightening of monetary policy you get the first leg and that's the first leg that we're in and when that runs its course which it probably would run its course I would say in the next 18 months or so 18 more months of and by the way there's nothing precise and I'm not sure that I'm writing in this right I'm just saying I'm giving you what I think that if you take the cycle you have to raise interest rates high enough that it produces an adequate return otherwise the sellers they're going to sell their instruments and that we if we look at the supply demand for credit the federal reserve's got is going to sell 1.1 trillion you have the government a trillion and you have others selling because it doesn't provide a good return that creates a certain tightness of money that creates a fall in the contraction you have a contraction in spending our credit and so that's what's likely ahead so you have the first leg of the move like all classic first this is just the first leg it's these things take place until the opposite is true until people believe that cash it won't be a good investment until there's the inflation so I think that you have the leg like 1971 right into 72 and then three tightness of money policy causes 1974-5 bad recession bear Market easing of monetary policy then you get another leg up 76 77 then you have the higher level of inflation then you have the type money policy and at that point everybody believes that I never want to own a bond I never want I only want inflation hedge assets because that's how they're positioned and then the opposite happens in the 80s so it's that kind of a situation and that's happening in a political environment because we're talking about markets but we can't separate markets from politics now we can't separate politics internally from external politics so we also have the political situation in terms of the left and the right and the extremity of that and what that might mean in terms of policy matters who's in charge of course there's the fight over wealth and power and it's a new reconcilable difference politically um you know we have populism populist is a person who will fight for that one side um and won't lose they won't compromise Donald Trump Donald Trump or it could be the opposite populace of the left got it and they're populous of the right right and they have irreconcilable differences and they won't lose the question is in the next election will either side accept losing and think of that as Americans asking will both sides accept losing will we respect the system and so these it makes an inefficiency in the economy then we take other things not just the printing of money but we're spending without um a limitation you know normally if there was a not a Fiat monetary system or you as an individual you ask how much money do you have to spend but now we we have spending on defense spending on rebuilding the Ukraine spending on this program spending on that program there's not a limitation these things are connected so yes leadership and the efficiencies matter in terms of the economy they matter in terms of a lifestyle because we have these internal conflicts and external conflicts in which there is worries about self-sufficiency in case of a war in other words we think about trade all of those enter into the picture so you have a dynamic that is very similar really to the 1930s Dynamic I think both sides recognize how terrible a military conflict would be but you could take something like Nancy Pelosi's trip the fact that we're simply talking about it that we're so close to the edge it's not the old days the United States used to be a dominant military power think about it the New World Order began in 1945 the United States won the war we had 80 percent of the world's money a money gold was money then we where half the world's GDP and we're in military power so nobody wanted to fight if you look at the history of these things over a period of time when you have then comparable powers and there's disagreements it can be resolved quite often by a conflict and so that's the nature we're no longer the dominant power so it becomes closer so now when we deal with existential issues for different parties there is a risk of these things if China became Russia think about The Economic Consequences of how we're intertwined 22 percent of American manufactured goods Imports come from China so just imagine China became alike Russia in other words you say I don't want to take Imports so people don't buy their Nike they don't buy their apples they don't buy things that are produced in China and so on do you know what that would mean economically for us in terms of the inflation rate and the consequences because of how they're intertwined since China more we say who cares if it hurts China more yeah right is that a win when you when it hurts you terribly okay so both when you have a war both sides lose I'm just trying to be practical here when uh if we're looking at this you ask the question where are we we are at at a risky position right we understand this um what would the consequences be I'm describing the consequences mechanistically uh the way it works is there's a new order and a new order comes out of a conflict and so one side wins so last World Order began in 1945.
there's one then there's the dominant power economically and so on and then um as they become the dominant power you have a piece of period of peace and prosperity because somebody wants to fight it people work together it's a great equalizer also wealth gaps are left people come back and they pre they produce that generation then what happens over a period of time is things get better you change the generations you change the approaches and then you build up larger wealth gaps larger um you know wealth is something in our system that is not distributed equally or you build up resentments or values are we at that pressure we certainly are that's not a controversial state right right
Comments 0