저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 러시아-우크라이나 전쟁 확대 위험(전쟁3 우려)으로 시장 회복이 어렵고, 경기침체 속 분쟁 위험이 커졌다는 비관적 견해. 전쟁 위험과 핵 사용 가능성: 푸틴이 전술핵 사용을 다시 거론했고 예비군 동원(30만 명)으로 확전 신호가 나왔다고 설명. 다만 확률은 낮다고 단서를 달았다. 인도와 중국이 러시아를 지지하지 않을 것이라는 점이 완충 요인으로 언급됨. 서방의 전략 논쟁: 서방이 푸틴을 궁지로 몰아 치명적 실수를 유도하는 전략을 쓰고 있다는 해석이 제시됨. 바이든의 정권교체 발언을 근거로 들었으며, 외교적 출구 모색 증거는 없다고 봄. 미국 언론 반응 비판: 푸틴의 발언을 허세로만 보는 시각을 비판하며, 포커의 레인지 개념으로 가능한 결과를 열어둬야 한다고 주장. 역사적 사례: 히로시마·나가사키, 맥아더의 한국전 핵 사용 구상, 쿠바 미사일 위기 때 케네디의 타협을 예로 들어 지도자의 유연성 중요성 강조. 경기와 분쟁의 관계: 경기침체·실업 상승기에 지도자가 외부 분쟁으로 주의를 돌리려는 경향이 있다고 주장. 미국 제도적 부패와 빈곤이 겹치면 위험하다는 진단. 시장 전망: 시장이 30%, 고성장주는 70~80% 하락한 상황이며 실업 상승과 경기 수축이 불가피하다는 견해. 분쟁 확대 가능성이 전년보다 커졌다고 봄. 종목·지수별 가격 목표나 방향 언급은 없음.
다듬은 글
Putin basically is putting nukes back on the table now I'm not saying that's likely to happen but I don't know how again I don't know how this Market gets a lot better with the risk of War 3 hanging over our heads I mean who wants to enter the market with that Alex karp was on CNBC he was really really sharp and concise about this which is that you know in the west When leaders fail in their objectives they just get elected out and somebody else takes their place but for somebody like Putin there is nobody to take his place because it's a very zero-sum situation and so his actions will as a result also be Zero Sum and I think really kind of like we don't understand well what zero-sum decision making looks like when it comes to stuff like this well I'll just say two things one is that I think it's been made pretty clear that both India and China will not stand beside Russia if they do something like this and I think that that is important because they still are the two biggest purchasers of of Russian oil and so I think that matters a lot because you're talking about a lot of Revenue that would that would go away and then the second is I mentioned this last week and this may sound dumb to some of you but um don't sleep on the Russian mothers well what happened this week was really interesting which is that he calls up all these reservists these reservists are not coming from the major cities of Russia you're starting to see protests you're starting to see young people saying I don't want to do this yeah and who's that really activating it's activating the moms 300 people are being the question I have for you is do you think I know you don't agree with this but do you think the strategy is to back him into a corner and then have this like rhetoric Spike to then force a resolution I know it's a danger strategy it's a crazy chess move but do you think that's actually what the West is thinking I see no evidence that we have any uh intentions of seeking a diplomatic off-ramp I see no evidence that they're looking for to give him a golden bridge like you said then do you think they're trying to break him and have regime change I think Biden stated the policy which is this man cannot remain in power I think he blurted out the truth of his policy this is a regime change policy that's what they're going for they are backing me into our corner I thought that you were right this whole time which is we're going to build a golden bridge we're going to find a way to egress this guy and I'm now sort of in the David Camp which is I think that the the stated strategy of the Western Alliance is essentially to cause him to make such a categorically catastrophic mistake so as to become a pariah so as to either get overthrown or you know something so so I do think that on balance the risk is now for things to escalate maybe not in quantity and I'll use this word in the wrong way but you know quote unquote like the intensity of cook of it so um I I think David's right it's a lot of pressure to the economy and to to the Irish there's a high-risk strategy we got a good thing going over here I don't see the need for all this risk the thing I have the most trouble with is if you look at the media portrayal of this so I said last week when you know we had this successful counter-offensive that maybe we'll get what we want which is Russian morale collapses they just tuck their tail between their legs and go back to Moscow or maybe you know the Russians really do see this war as existential for them Putin sees it as existential for himself and he escalates well what happened this week we went up or wrong on the escalatory ladder basically Putin Drew down 300 000 more troops and he's basically indicated his his willingness to use tackle nukes and he's basically said I'm not bluffing so now what is the reaction in the American Press he must be bluffing that base is a reaction and look I don't know how you know that you know in poker what you in poker what do we do when someone might be we put them on a range it's called a hand range right yes you can't possibly know exactly what they're going to do or what carts are holding so you put them on a range of possible hands and then you evaluate the story take Putin's story like Freebird said he's never backed down in his life from anything he has said this war is existential you know he basically threatened to invade and so he did I mean like I don't know how you can immediately jump to the conclusion this is just a bluff maybe it is but well it could still be it could still be a bluff but then to your point the range of outcomes does include uh shoving on the river moving all in he can move I mean he's a KGB agent do you want to play the poker with a KGB agent with nukes and by the way just on this idea that no one would ever use tactical nukes let me just give you three data points first of all we use them we drop two atomic bombs on Japan in to end World War II we could have won that war without doing it but we didn't want to lose the troops but no wait those are just they were tactical nuke size Atomic problems number two MacArthur wanted to use 20 to 30 atomic bombs to end the Korean War he had a whole plan Truman fired him he thought he basically had jumped the shark but MacArthur was the most respected and admired American in 1950 and the reason why Truman could not run for your elections because he fired MacArthur MacArthur would have used basically the equivalent of tactical nukes to win the Korean War and his plan to prevent China from reinvading from the north was to irradiate the border so completely that Chinese troops could not go through it we had an American Commander ahead of our military who was willing to use nukes to win a war so this idea that he wouldn't I mean we've been willing to do that and the third example is obviously the Cuban Missile Crisis all of Kennedy's military advisors were willing to get to use nukes and the best thing Kennedy did was not listen to his military advisors they were all super hawkish and Kennedy what did he do he looked for a way out he looked for a compromise he sent Bobby Kennedy need to go cut a secret deal with the Russians where Kennedy agreed to pull the our Jupiter missiles out of turkey if the Russians would pull their missiles out of Cuba but that's the kind of you know flexibility and mental acuity that I think you would need in a nuclear Showdown to avoid a catastrophe if things do escalate to the point of a nuclear Showdown do we believe that we have leadership on the level of a Jack Kennedy or Bobby Kennedy who can basically show the flexibility and adaptability to cut a deal to basically pull us back from the brink it felt like at the end of last year you guys remember I thought like conflict was likely this year I don't think that the conditions I was referencing have really gotten better I think they've gotten worse if you look historically the U.S has often been in the middle of or at the tail end of some either recessionary cycle or inflationary cycle when conflict escalated I think that there is a an innate human anxiety when things aren't going well you feel like you have to do something about it and you're either going to have internal conflict or external conflict as a result to try and resolve when when things are going great the economy is booming you don't enter a war you don't start a conflict with a nation when when people are happy at home and um and you know the unemployment rate is low and job uh wage growth is high the economy is growing coming out of covid and coming out of uh the the big question marks that loomed over our economy at the end of The Last year around inflation economic growth uh interest rates and the effect and now we're in the middle of the turmoil markets are down 30 percent and in some cases 70 to 80 percent for high growth markets there's a there's an inevitability now that unemployment is going to rise there's an inevitability now that the economy is going to contract leadership is more likely in that scenario to find uh an outlet to find a place of conflict and I don't I don't think it's a conscious decision I don't think that it's like hey let's go start a war with Russia because the economy is bad I I think it's this anxiety the economy is bad and there's not a lot we can do about it and over here on the other hand there's a problem and there's something we can do about it we can build strength and we can build integrity and we can build support and we can get people to get behind something together and we can get something to to create a driving mechanism to achieve something big like a distraction you're saying yeah yeah and I I psychology is as simple as a distraction or a Wag the Dog or hey it's not even as simple as the military-industrial complex we'll see Revenue growth and wage growth and that'll drive the economy but I think all those things together are true and I think in in whole we're we are more likely to want to pursue conflict right now than we were even a year ago you buy any of that your mouth I think he's more right than wrong I think that when um things aren't easy you need to find sort of distractions essentially to you know get people to focus on other things so that the core problem is it is obvious we have in the United States I think the best I think the best way that I can describe this is I see it as institutional rot and the more that we're left to our own devices that amount of institutional Decay becomes more and more obvious our governments don't work the way that they should you know our state assemblies are basically co-opted by special interests the federal institutions we rely on to make rules are not that great enormous amounts of money get wasted every day and as more and more people become aware of these things it just the trend is just so bad you know Civic engagement goes down everything just gets worse and so when you take that and then on top of that you sit it on a on a poor economy that is a real Powder Keg I think and so folks like to I think if you're a politician it's easier to kind of go and point to Taiwan and say you know we're going to go and defend these folks if there's a war point to Russia and say this point to all these other things it's a whether it's implicit as freebrook says or it's more explicit of a strategy I don't know but the underlying cause is the same which is that if the foundation of the house is not strong and you're not sure what to do to fix it or you don't have the courage to fix it the better strategic alternative is to distract and talk about your neighbor's house coming out of coming out of the financial crisis in 2008 2009 Obama recommitted to Afghanistan and sent 17 000 troops to Afghanistan early 2009 we entered the Persian golf with the Gulf War in 1991 coming out of the Great Recession or the the the the mild recession 1990 to 1991 2000 2001.com crash uh we um uh you know we obviously entered um I entered Iraq and by the way you can do the same you can do the same analysis on the time we entered the Korean War and the time we entered the Vietnam War they were both tied to recessions and um and so I don't know I don't know how explicit this this action and behavior is but I I just think there's some data to it
Comments 0