저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 중국의 암호화폐 거래 전면 금지와 중국 정책의 영향에 대한 토론이며, 대상 자산에 대한 명시적 가격 예측은 없음. 중국 정부의 암호화폐 거래 금지 소식과 비트코인 서버 퇴출이 언급됨. 보유는 여전히 가능하다는 점이 짚임. 비트토렌트 등 P2P 기술이 음악 산업을 정직하게 만들고 새로운 기술의 기반이 되었다는 주장. 암호화폐는 규제가 강해져도 상승 여력이 크며, 인도·브라질 등 미국·중국 외 국가가 새로운 플레이어가 될 것이라는 전망. 중국 봉쇄 정책과 미국 정책의 비교. 미국은 민주주의 체제라 중국식 통제를 그대로 따라 하기 어렵다는 논지. 과거 미국 미디어 집중화와 여론 형성 사례 언급. 중국의 전략: 서방의 투자와 자본으로 인프라·희소자원(해운, 희토류 등) 장악력을 키웠다는 분석. 서방이 아프가니스탄 국가건설에 자원을 쓰는 사이 중국은 일대일로를 통해 개발도상국에 영향력을 확대했다고 평가. 글로벌화 과정에서 중국이 호주 돼지 생산업체를 인수하고 미국산 대두를 수입하는 등 미국도 이익을 봤다는 논지. 사뮤엘 헌팅턴의 '문명의 충돌' 논리를 인용해 중국은 서구화가 아닌 현대화를 택했다는 주장. 출연자 전망: 특정 자산의 방향에 대한 구체적 발언 없음(구조적 지정학·정책 논평 중심).
다듬은 글
chinese government has announced that doing any transactions in cryptocurrency is now illegal holding it apparently you can still hold it and this comes after bitcoin servers being kicked out of the country so yes they've pushed the button go ahead biology to friedberg i would say um bittorrent is what kept the record industry honest and that kind of forced them to the table of itunes so to chamot's point also i wouldn't call it more evil i'd call it more good um and bittorrent also lurks out there as kind of this you know peer-to-peer enforcer that it's a check exactly and it's not gone and in fact it's a basis for new technologies and i think there's this another flare-up the other thing is that with crypto the upside even though the state wants to crack down on it harder the upside is also greater and the global internet is bigger and so i think the rest of world meaning all the world besides the us and china is a huge player in what is to come that's india but it's also brazil it's every other country that's not the us or china and so that's a new player on the stage and then third to um yes china banned crypto condition well you know what's interesting is people talk about china copying the us nowadays actually in many ways especially on a policy front the us is copying china without admitting it but it does so poorly for example lockdown okay the chinese lockdown you know was something where it wasn't just sit in your rooms it was something with like drones with thermometers and central quarantine where people were taken from their families and centrally quarantined and a thousand ultra intrusive measures that the population by and large complied with you know the thing is that for the us to follow that it's a little bit like as a mental image imagine a life chinese gymnast going and doing this whole gymnastics routine and then a big you know lumpy american following and not being able to do those same moves right the chinese government you know is is as i said lawful evil but they are set up to just snap the snap that do this do that the us government is absolutely not and the us people are not whatever you do also our system is a democracy is it not like so you cannot just do that even if the government wanted to weld people into their homes we have a democratic state here where we have to discuss these things and there's a legal framework to it yes in the 1950s and 1940s 1930s the us was still a democracy but it basically managed to exert a very strong top-down control on things today we have something for where for right like you know under fdr or in the 50s a very conformist society which was able to kind of drive things through even though it's a democracy it was something where mass media was so centralized that a relatively few relatively small group of people could get consensus among themselves and then what they print in the headlines i mean who's going to go and figure out the facts on their own this gets into the media topic later so is de facto centralized at the media level the information production and dissemination level and then you kind of manufactured consent from there today it's you're combining that democratic aspect the legal aspect with a new information dissemination thing which is destabilized i think a lot of things i think we've really gotten china right here i mean i think that if you if you look at what's happening i think we've we've basically forecasted this orchestration of essentially the re vertical integration of china you know we have china inc where the ceo is xi jinping it's almost like they've they've changed the game where what they are playing essentially is like settlers of katan or something where the goal is just to hoard resources and i think that they have enough critical resources for the world and the clever part of what they did was the last 20 or 30 years they leveraged the world to essentially finance their ability to then have a stranglehold on these critical resources whether it's ships or whether it's rare earths or other materials they leveled up and i think that was the genius yeah well they leveled up they leveled up on our capital yes and now that all that infrastructure is there and now that we are addicted to the drug they can then change the rules with our operating system it was a brilliant move but they allowed entrepreneurs to believe that they could be entrepreneurs they allowed an entire society to basically level up why did nobody see this coming off nobody saw this coming people were starting venture firms companies public they did belton road while we did nation building in iraq and afghanistan right i mean what is belton road belton road is there a bill is there creating ports and super highways to extract the resources that your mouth is talking about and bringing them into the chinese system and what did we spend our trillions on nation building in afghanistan i mean why didn't we see this coming everybody was looking at china starting venture firms there uh you know embracing it taking companies public wall street politicians nobody the rising tiger stories been around since the late 90s right now no no i'm talking about why didn't we see them cutting the heads off the answer entrepreneurship because it was not about white people china was in sri lanka china was in africa these are not sexy interesting places western audiences and so that's why it didn't matter because you we thought we all thought that these are countries that are sort of you know squalid third world developing nation states that don't really matter they don't necessarily have the resources that matter but what did china do they they realized that those folks are the future gdp those folks are the future population pools the young that can actually do the hard work and then they went and they secure it again so not only do these resources now so that's one thing hold on so that's one thing i think we entirely missed it because as david said the military industrial complex doesn't look at a developing nation and say we want to be there it looks at afghanistan and says we want to dominate it because we can actually feed off of that domination so that's one thing the second thing is that i think that we misunderstood xi jinping's ambition and i think that that's a reasonable mistake to have made the first one is an error of just complete stupidity the second one is something that i think it was legitimate to have missed and to your point jamal he they not only stole the entrepreneurial playbook but the colonizing other places and giving them debt and giving them resources and building ports in other countries i thought it was dumb let's all be honest you know ten years ago no we didn't no i wouldn't in the uk previously i would argue in a lot of cases we benefited so china set up and bought like the largest pork production company in australia and what do you feed the those pigs you feed them soybeans and where do those soybeans come from largest soybean exporting market is the united states you know we had a tremendous customer in china as they expanded their consumption pattern through all of this investing they were doing worldwide we were exporting john deere farm equipment caterpillar construction equipment and soybean products and there was in our knowledge industry and there was a tremendous service model and globalization really created call it a catch-22 for the united states where you know we were watching the rising tiger um you know and it fueled in part by this kind of distributed entrepreneurism but as that distributed entrepreneurism creates you know obviously the social security do you think there is an equal amount of dollars that went into western developed nations from china as it went into third world countries no but it's hard most western nations couldn't give a yeah but that money is too hard to turn down there's a mistake in our thinking with respect to the rest of the world that we've been making that we make over and over again and it was all kind of predicted by a a a historian named samuel huntington at harvard in the 1990s he wrote a book called clash of civilizations this book was written at the same time that another famous book came out called the end of history and the last man and what the common belief was in the 1990s in the u.s was that we had reached the end of history where every country would become democratic and capitalist right that was the end of history his democratic capitalism and we believe that the more we went all over the world spreading our ideals it would hasten this day where they'd all become democratic capitalists what huntington said is no you know cultures and civilizations these go back thousands of years these are stubborn things and what these other cultures really want is not westernization but modernization and what they're going to do is they're going to modernize they're going to learn from us as much as they can about technology they're going to assimilate and adapt and take all of our technology but they are not going to become like us they're not going to westernize and that is basically what's happened over the last 25 years and so the chinese have caught up to us and suddenly we realized whoa wait a second they have not westernized they are still their own unique civilization correct they they have they have basically the equivalent of a modern-day emperor and uh and they have no interest in westernizing and we're like what have we done because now we've allowed them to catch up from a technological standpoint
Comments 0