저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
트럼프 행정부가 물가 부담으로 약 3,000달러 구매력을 잃은 가계를 회복해야 하며 지금까지 1,000달러만 회복했다고 주장. 유권자를 은퇴자(의료비), 중년 중산층(생활비·전기·식비), 청년(학자금 대출) 세 집단으로 나눠 맞춤 정책 필요성을 설명. 학자금 대출 무한 연방보증이 대학 등록금 상승을 부추긴다고 비판하며 전기료 절감 설비 등 민간 방식의 물가 대응을 제안. 자산 가격 전망은 언급하지 않음.
다듬은 글
our mutual friend, your close friend, David Saxs, is in the administration. I know a lot of folks in the administration. And this thing in Tennessee is a is a bit of a a rattler. Um Trump won it by 22. They only won it last night by 10. The the Democrat is a nutcase. Excuse me. Um yes, they put a bunch of money into the race, the Dems, but so do the Republicans.
So what's happening here? like if if if you actually got the audience with Trump and he said, "What should I do to make sure it's not a blood bath for for Republicans in November?" What would you tell him? I think uh the plan is actually pretty straightforward to diagnose, but it's complicated to fix.
So, just to set some context, um when I was at the White House, I think it was two or three weeks ago, I saw some data that had been vetted and that was uh about to be shared with the president. Now, I think it's been widely shared, which is that under Joe Biden, I think that the average American family lost about $3,000 of purchasing power.
And the reason they lost that was in large part because of uh inflation and runaway costs and you know the cost of practical useful things that they need for their life, electricity, uh healthcare and uh childare. So the Trump administration starts from a $3,000 hole. Now what they've been able to do in 11 months is that they've earned back $1,000 which is a third of where they are.
I think the the the problem though is that they will need to find the other 2,000. Um, and it's not their fault because again they inherit where they started from. But I think the perception that people have is just that negative $2,000. So if I had to diagnose an answer, I think it's about breaking down the population that's voting into three cohorts.
Cohort number one are people that are mostly retired. I think that their priority is going to be mostly around healthcare. Then there's cohort number two which are middle-aged, middle-income families. I think their huge sensitivity is general cost of living. And then I think what people like Mam Dani uncovered which I think the Republicans should embrace is for young people the huge hot button question is around student loans and debt load and on-ramping into the United States economy with a decent starting job and salary.
So I think you have to have programs that touch each of these three areas and that is probably the path forward where you can earn back the 2000. Show that you've basically closed this hole that Biden created and then ideally you get out of that hole so that you're now gross net positive which would be a huge economic win for them.
Now of those voting blocks, the one that is most likely to actually show up on election day is the older group. Uh, if history's any excuse me, I've got my Ludins. I've got all my tools here to come out few days. I got you. In any event, um, the older people are the ones who vote, but also people who are economically motivated will vote.
I mean, we did see a higher turnout of the young people last time around in large part thanks to our friend Charlie. Um, so where where do you focus on? I mean, truly like if you're just talking like brass tax, November's coming. We've got to get people motivated to vote Republican or we're going to lose the House.
We're going to have non-stop impeachments and investigations. The Trump agenda will be stymied. Where do you go? Um, I mean, I can brainstorm with you. These are all kind of like hypotheticals, but I think the hypotheticals are kind of interesting because it it starts to make the point you're making.
So, me too. Um, I think if you look at older folks, the biggest cost that they bear is the uncertainty and the actual lived cost of medical expenses as they get older because most of them, you know, for better or for worse, um, have structural housing, you know, they've either owned a home or have been renting something for a long enough period of time where that issue is less of an issue for them, per se.
You know, we talk we all talk about how boomers sort of were buying homes in the 80s and 70s and uh early 90s and everybody else now is sort of on the sidelines frozen out. So if it's around medical care, we heard yesterday in the cabinet meeting Bobby Kennedy say something really interesting which is starting in 2026, you will not allowed for certain procedures to have to go through prior off which is this crazy scheme that the insurance companies use to essentially slow down approvals.
They do that so that they can make more money in the short term before they have to pay out claims. But the lived experience for older Americans is when you need a procedure, you're kind of waiting around, hand ringing, wondering why the insurance you're paying into isn't approving uh a legitimate medical procedure.
So if you look at that narrow issue and expand the scope, the interesting thing would be to figure out how can we make the healthc care rails in America more frictionless. How do you make prior off much easier to do across a wide variety of procedures, but also maybe we should look at medications? How do we think about outofpocket costs in Medicare and Medicaid?
Could those be subsidized in some way with sources of funds that are neutral to the government, meaning they don't come out of the general fund? there's some very clever financial things that one can do there that rely heavily on um private corporations and the money that they're already making. So that's one practical issue.
How do you specifically narrowly lower health care costs for older voters? So that but that consolidates the block of people as you said that are going to come no matter what. I think if you're going to go after homes and middle-aged folks, you have to look at utility costs, food costs, and electricity costs.
And you have to find a way and there are by the way very clever things that one can do again that don't require the general fund or treasury. So one example of this is that if you had a large group of corporations come together, they can directly use the big beautiful bill language around things like batteries and smart thermometers and you can go and implement these things into a home, help reduce the cost of electricity in some cases upwards of 50 or 60%.
And what you get is actually a rebate on the taxes you would otherwise pay. That at scale I think has a huge impact on CPI and could activate you know the 35 to 55 year old voter who's you know in a household family of four type thing. But I go back to this other thing. this younger cohort was activated by these programs that are, you know, they're frankly they're regressive, but they're masked as like equity.
And I think the most important thing that they care about is what is the long-term solution for all of the student debt that they're signing up for? because the jobs that they get afterwards make absolutely no sense and do not generate anywhere near the revenue relative to the cost that they undertake.
Ever read the label on a typical bag of chips? It's often a science experiment of seed oils, MSG, artificial dyes, and mystery ingredients. Masa is part of the growing movement to bring back real food. Masa chips contain just three ingredients: organic corn, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow.
Not only do these chips avoid the bad stuff, they also taste delicious, too. Snacking on Massa chips is nothing like eating regular chips. With Massa, you feel satisfied, light, and energetic with no crash and no bloat. And if you love Massa, then you will love Vandy Crisps. Vandy, which is Masa's sister's sister company, makes the most delicious threeingredient potato chips, too.
Ready to give Masa or Vandy a try? Use code MK for 25% off your first order at masachips.com or vandy crisps.com or simply click the link in the video description or scan the QR code to claim this delicious offer. Don't feel like ordering online? Masa and Vandy are now available nationwide at your local Sprouts supermarket.
Stop by and pick a couple of bags up before they're all gone. We're not doing anything about college tuition. Nothing. We just keep increasing the amount that they can borrow. So then they do borrow that because the universities increase their tuition immediately accordingly. And and the students are left with this enormous bill that cannot be paid off any sooner than 30 years with jobs that don't justify that sort of investment.
will never be paid off. And and look, the different the diff look, think about a house, right? You take on a multi00,000 mortgage in a house. Most people don't also pay off their mortgages. What they're able to do is rise and and participate in the appreciation of the home and then close the mortgage out when they sell the home.
Right? The overwhelming majority of people get the capital appreciation of this huge loan that is a liability on their balance sheet. But if you look at student debt, those loans are of the same order of magnitude as a home mortgage, but they don't appreciate in value in any way. They don't acrue value to you in any way, and they're an albatross that you can't even discharge in a bankruptcy.
So I think the thing that we have to seriously consider now is at a minimum do we stop federally underwriting all loans in an equal way. It's it's doesn't make any logical sense that somebody chasing an 8-year PhD in art history has the same economic opportunities as somebody chasing a 4-year degree in biochemistry.
The latter has a lot more practical applications. Yet when when we the United States people underwrite that loan so that it can be sold into Wall Street, we view them the same. So then what happens is Harvard is just as incentivized as to push that person into a, you know, they go to that person and say, "Megan, I think you should get an undergrad in biochemistry." You're like, "No, I really like art history." They're like, "Well, what about this PhD?" That can't happen anymore.
You have to be able to differentiate these things and understand the downstream economic value. And if you want to study art history, maybe the right thing for most people is to learn by yourself or in a community college class while you are working because you appreciate that underwriting a $300,000 degree for that thing doesn't make any sense economically.
And we don't have that conversation in the United States, but I think we have to. No, because it's all federal loans. I mean, if there were private lenders making the a case-by case decision, we would factor earning ability in, but we don't. The the government just gives it. And I lived this firsthand, too.
Even when I was in law school, they raised the amount that you could get from the government on the on the tuition loans. And sure enough, you know, and I was thinking, "Oh, great. I'll actually be able to get some that will go toward my my my cost of living. Well, can I give you um not just tuition, I'll actually be able to pay for my own apartment without having to work all these hours on top of my law school.
And no, I couldn't because the law school just raised the tuition exactly the amount that the government raised the the loan amount. So, it all goes to the university. Everybody's experiencing this. Can I give you an example that underscores this even more? The the best example of why there is sanity in the private markets.
Now, now you've given me what what you had. Uh excuse me. or the or the trans. No, you know what? You know what it is in Thanksgiving, all that happens is we all spend time at home. We all just get sick. I I have five kids. Three of them were laid out all Thanksgiving. My wife and I were just trying to duck bullets the whole time.
You know, it's a miracle. You think about like how easy it is to infect your family because like every door knob you touch in your in your home, the refrigerator, the remote control, you're just like this petri dish. Although I will tell you, Jimoth, Doug and I, we had a very funny exchange this morning.
I don't know if you're like this, but whenever I get sick, I'm sitting here like a walking ball of germs. I'm like coughing. I'm blowing my nose. My eyes are running. And and Doug's like, I feel something in my throat. I There's a tickle. I have a tickle. We have to spend 10 minutes on the tickle in his throat.
We spend zero on what's happening to me right now at this second. Like, men, you're you're a woman. You're a woman. You're strong. Men are weak. And we need to be coddled when we get sick. This is a rule. It's just It's true. I It really is true. Men are physically stronger, but they are mentally weaker when it comes to the thought or experience of illness.
This is a fact. This is why we have the babies. God knew. I uh I have a I have an incredibly funny but sad story about this. So during Thanksgiving, we go on Black Friday to a mall here in Silicon Valley and two of my kids are sick and my wife is sick. And in the middle of this thing, there was like a shooting, which never happens where we are.
And the whole mall goes into lockdown. We're in a store. The people at the store did a wonderful job. They closed all the doors. We were sitting in the dressing room just waiting for everything to clear. And it was clear pretty quickly. It was just an isolated event. But in any event, in the whole thing, I look at my wife and my kids who are sick and I'm like, "Are you guys okay?" They're like this.
And they're like, "Are you okay?" And I had nothing wrong. And I was just the puddle. I was like, you know, I don't know what's going on. I think I have COVID plus the flu plus the aven flu. I don't know what's happening. I'm ready to like just completely It was so It was so sad. Okay. Anyway, so going back to what I was going to say to you before.
Yeah, keep going. Um the best example of where there's rationality when the private market prices something versus the public market is in mortgages. So, when you buy a home and you want to get either the insurance or the mortgage itself, one of the things that we've been told about for years is there's this threat of climate change.
And climate change could meaningfully impact sea levels. They could impact the weather. They could impact extreme weather events. Well, you know who has the best incentive to understand whether those claims will be true in a dispassionate way? It's banks. And the reason is it's the bank's money that's being used to buy a home.
And what's so interesting about that is that forget all of the rhetoric, all of the emotional sturman drawing around climate change. If you actually just looked at how the banks priced risk over these last 20 years, what the financial direction would tell you was that climate change was something that could theoretically be important but not much of a thing.
And that was the actual financial underwriting. This is just an example to show you that when you have these important philosophical issues of society, sometimes the clarity and the truth can be found through unemotional financial underwriting. It's not true for all things, but if you gave these educational degrees into the hands of institutions that would have to pay for it, you would very quickly see them figure out what the ability for these kids would be to pay it and also what the ability for these kids would be to enjoy a good life and their version of the American dream.
Thanks so much for watching. If you like what you just saw, hit the subscribe button for more clips and full episodes.
Comments 0