저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
트럼프 취임 100일을 B+로 평가. 외국인직접투자 1조달러 근접, 국경 불법월경 사실상 0을 A+로 꼽음. 관세는 공급망 취약성 드러냈다는 점에서 A, 시장 충격은 제한적(주식 -4%, 금리 4.4% 수준). 문서공개와 관세 소통은 D/C. 언론 편향 비판, 배터리·AI·의약품 원료·희토류 등 전략 공급망 확보 필요성 강조. 대만·인도 분쟁 시나리오 언급.
다듬은 글
Yeah. And I think there's all kinds of complicated moments that could make this an issue. And this was where my biggest issue with Biden was was I did not know who was in control. And I think that Trump in the first 100 days, to your point, I think has completely reinforced that there are no conditions under which he'll go to war.
He has time and time again showed find the off-ramp. And I think that that's really healthy for Americans to see. According to Chamath Palihapatia, who is evaluating the first 100 days of President Trump's second term, the president has received a grade of B+ overall with exceptional performance in two major areas.
Foreign direct investment, FDI, and border control. FDI into the United States is either getting close to or has already surpassed $1 trillion as stated by the Chamath Palihapatia. This is a sign of renewed global confidence in the economic direction that the United States is heading in. This capital inflow, which is largely driven by corporations and investors responding to Trump's policies, is framed as a long-term structural gain for the economy of the United States of America.
On the front of national security, it has been reported that the number of illegal border crossings has decreased to almost zero, which is a fulfillment of one of the crucial campaign promises made by Trump. The execution of immigration enforcement is not thoroughly examined. However, the result, which is a significant reduction in the number of illegal entries, is an accomplishment that is praised as being of great significance.
These two areas have been given an A+ rating and are described as having the potential to define a legacy. Let me give you my overall grade and then I'll tell you how I get to that. I think the first 100 days have been a B+. And here's how I get to that score. There have been two things where I think Trump has frankly hit a home run.
The first is all of the direct investment and specifically the foreign direct investment into the United States. I think it's approaching, if not it has already exceeded a trillion dollars from corporations and organizations and individuals from around the world who have committed to bringing money into the United States.
And I think strategically that's a legacy that will live past him. So I think that's been an A+. The second is we had a very unsafe border situation and he ran on shutting it down. I'm not talking about the execution of the deportations. I'm just saying getting the illegal crossings to zero and he's done that.
So that's been an A+. I think what's going to be more controversial are these next three things though. But in my interpretation, I think the tariffs have been an A and I think that the market reaction, the stock market is only down 4%. And the interest rate markets are, you know, 4 and a/4%. I think those have been an A.
Now, the reason I think tariffs have been an A is because it is uncovered, in my opinion, how beholden we are to a brittle supply chain and specifically to China who is a friend but who's also an enemy. And I think that that's going to really severely complicate our flexibility and optionality in the future as they do what is in their best interests.
Okay. So, where have they then not done so well? I think the documents have been frankly a D. We were supposed to get the Epstein files. We haven't yet. We were supposed to get the Martin Luther King files. We haven't. We did get the redacted JFK files. I don't think that there's been very good communication about why it's taking so long.
So, I think it's a very small narrow thing, but I think it had a lot of attention on the way in. I think the communications of the tariffs and the back and forth have been a C. I think the markets were not led in enough of a way where they could absorb the volatility. But if you take it all in its totality, I would give it a B+.
I think it's been a very productive 100 days. And when you look back, I think in, you know, 3 years, four years, 5 years. Okay. Can I build on that? I I totally missed that. You're absolutely right. That's another one where I would give Trump an A+. Nat and I had dinner with POTUS two weeks ago. Trump said, "So, there we go.
There was a handful of us at dinner and then he got up to say a few words at the end and he reminded me why I was so inclined to vote for him which was he talked about his uncle and he talked about how his uncle taught him about the severity of nuclear war and how people don't understand how intense and how destructive it is and the power of these weapons.
And he left that speech at the end saying, "And this is why I'm so fundamentally against this thing." And it reminded me to your point, Jason, it is so easy to forget that there's only one existential risk save like aliens coming from the heavens, right? There's only one existential risk where all these issues become fringe issues.
You know, you mentioned rule of law, border security, foreign direct investment, tariffs, it all goes out the window in a nuclear war. And I was like, I am so glad this guy's in charge because this one issue, he never waivers. Yeah. And I think there's all kinds of complicated moments that could make this an issue.
And this was where my biggest issue with Biden was was I did not know who was in control. And I think that Trump in the first 100 days, to your point, I think has completely reinforced that there are no conditions under which he'll go to war. He has time and time again showed find the off-ramp. And I think that that's really healthy for Americans to see.
The tariffs, which are another significant component of Trump's agenda, have been given an Agrade by Chamath Palapatia. He contends that they have brought to light the United States excessive dependence on fragile global supply chains, particularly with China. Through the implementation of this change, the administration is perceived to be enhancing the long-term economic resilience of the economy.
Despite the short-term discomfort of the market, the execution and messaging surrounding these trade policies on the other hand are given a lower grade C due to inadequate communication with markets which results in volatility that could have been avoided. In a similar vein, efforts made by the government to increase transparency such as the release of important documents such as the files of Epstein, Martin Luther King, and John F.
Kennedy have been given a poor grade of Due to a lack of clarity and poor follow-through. These criticisms are reflective of a more widespread concern regarding the administration's capacity to effectively manage expectations and communicate complex policy shifts. Let me answer this in a different way.
Okay, a lot of those things he's actually doing. I think this is where we are is we're beyond TDS. There's something that comes after it. And I think that the mainstream media has just lost their mind to a degree that they hadn't even lost their mind in Trump won. I'll give you a couple of examples.
Um, well, one example, by the way, just a shout out to our friend, completely brazen, ridiculous, shitty reporting by the Wall Street Journal last night. When they were told that this, you know, this whole Tesla thing was a total farce, they continued to publish it. Okay, fine. They're they had referring to Elon, the board, starting a search to replace Elon, and then the board said, "Well, wait, we told you we weren't doing that." And they didn't even mention, they communicated that directly to the Wall Street Journal.
The Wall Street Journal said, "I don't care. I have an axe to grind." Correct. Yeah. I think that Trump has a strength, which is he shapes these potholes for the mainstream media to fall into. The downside of that though is that that the mainstream media then doesn't do the other part of the job, which is to tell the things that are important.
So, for example, we spent a lot of time breathlessly talking about the MS-13 knuckles of the guy, right? Or then we spent a bunch of time talking about how MSNBC blurred out the names of the placers on the lawn. Okay, but here's the other part where then they get so tilted. Here's what they don't report.
They didn't report that, for example, when Trump took a shot at Harvard, he also reinforced and strengthened historically black colleges and universities. Totally did not get written. I'll give you another example. This past week, Bessant said that the tax bill will allow you to fully deduct all the PPE and all of the incidental costs of building a factory.
I heard that, I immediately went to my wife. She runs a pharma business. This is exactly what she's trying to figure out. And we now are like, how do you build a business case if this actually gets effectuated? The point is that thing would create an absolute economic bonanza if it were to get passed.
Other than people hearing it on this pod or randomly maybe finding it on a direct clip that Besson puts out on X, there has been zero coverage by the mainstream media. So acknowledge that we are talking about a level of detailed issues that we would never have talked about six months ago. That there was no interest in even bringing this up.
Like if if Ryan wanted to bring up the sort of hollowing out of American salesmanship, let's say, if you will, because of like this arbitrage that Amazon does for GMV. That would have been a snoozefest. Except today, it can actually get a lot of awareness. And Erin mentioned this and I've mentioned this before, but like I think that there are four things that really matter.
batteries, AI, pharma APIs, and rare earths that now is on the agenda. I think the the positive way to look at this is the American economy is too complicated. If you had waited, Aaron, for a study for all of the implications, we would have been waiting forever and nothing would have happened. And I think that we've made macrolevel moves.
You're right. And now we are finding what the implications are and course correcting in real time. And I hope what happens though is when we find these big thorny issues, I think the Amazon thing is a is a pretty interesting issue actually about like American competitiveness. Now the question is do we follow through and get to the root cause of it and and fix it.
The national security of the United States that that's at stake. Let's go take your favorite pet issue. China invades Taiwan. Okay. And we have to take a side. Jason, my pet is hold on. Let me just finish. And and the and the and the Chinese say here are the implications of supporting Taiwan on this A, B, C, and D.
You don't get any pharma APIs. You don't get any rare earths. You don't get any batteries. Okay? It'll it'll send life back 50 years. Or let's say China and India get into a fight and we're forced to pick a side. Same situation. The point is there's all these scenarios that we never even considered us being able to have strategic optionality to make the decision that's morally and ethically right for the United States.
And I think that we have learned through this lens that these are huge issues. The thing that the Chinese did that was so brilliant which we still don't have an answer for is they have these national champions and being a national champion allows you and we'll talk about this in AI. It allows you to blur the lines between the public and private partnership.
It allows you to blur the law. It allows you to blur capital. And I'm not saying we have to do that, but what I am saying is we need to have our own answer to it. And that was never on the table until April 9th. If we're sitting here in 9 months and you're saying this and there are no deals, I would say that you're right.
what Howard Lutnik said last week and again we may have all gotten caught up in the knuckle tattoos and we missed this but he was very clear we have a country a deal is already done we're convening parliament it's going to be the first of many so for all we know there is like 30 deals that are waiting in the wings and the first one will set the tone and and I think that Sax is right here which is it's way too early to declare defeat and that it was quote unquote chaos.
I think if we're sitting here in 9 months and foreign direct investment has shriveled up and domestic investment has shriveled up because there is just no continuity, you have a claim. Shamath Palihapatia bring to light the growing mistrust in the mainstream media as well as the growing awareness of the strategic vulnerabilities that the United States of America faces.
Traditional media, according to Shamath Palihapatia, has become more reactionary, meaning that it is more focused on attacking political figures than it is on covering substantive policy developments. For example, Trump's support for historically black colleges or tax incentives for domestic manufacturing are examples of those kinds of developments.
The public's perception of the impact of policy is considered to be distorted as a result of these coverage gaps. During this time, existential threats such as nuclear war are being portrayed as the true national priorities, and President Trump is being portrayed as being particularly steadfast in his efforts to prevent escalation.
As a final point of discussion, we will shift our focus to long-term national security and economic competitiveness, particularly with regard to our dependence on China for essential inputs such as active pharmaceutical ingredients, APIs, rare earths, and batteries. The point being made here is crystal clear.
If the United States does not start cultivating its own national champions and reducing its strategic dependencies, it runs the risk of losing its autonomy in the process of making decisions on a global scale. The outlook is cautiously optimistic, suggesting that early indicators, particularly in the areas of industrial policy and foreign investment, could lead to substantial gains if they are executed and scaled in the months ahead in the appropriate manner.
Comments 0