저자: JamieDimon발언을인용한Hasan · 외국인
요약 보기
영상은 Jamie Dimon의 발언을 인용해 달러의 기축통화 지위가 미국 군사·경제력과 법치에 기반한다고 설명한다. 미국의 대러 제재가 대체 결제 체계 형성을 자극했다고 주장한다. 중국은 자본 수출 규제로 인해 단기·장기적으로 기축통화를 원하지 않는다고 평가한다. EU-중국 교역에서는 EU의 중국 투자 잔고(2,390억 달러)가 중국의 EU 투자(798억 달러)보다 크다는 데이터를 제시한다. 전반적으로 중국 제조 경쟁력이 유럽을 앞서며 유럽 산업 기반 유지가 어렵다는 관점을 보인다. 자산 가격에 대한 구체적 매매 의견은 없다.
다듬은 글
Anyway, here's , uh, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Diamond talking about the dollar as a reserve currency, which is America's most powerful weapon. Uh, and, uh, obviously part of the reason why America can no longer use this weapon as, uh, or part of the reason why it's being challenged now is America's sanctions regime, particularly against Russia, which has tested, uh, the dollar as a reserve currency.
Especially because they, uh, created, by the way, not even just Trump, the most powerful weapon that Trump seems determined to destroy . Number? Now, well, it wasn't Trump. Obama did it, as did Biden , and Trump did it too, when Trump won. The additional sanctions that America is imposing, especially against very powerful economies like Russia, compared to all these other, er , compared to other countries, are literally causing a secondary market to form.
They created them, they demanded a quick alternative . Are you talking about the dollar as the world's central reserve currency? Yes. Well, simplify this question. If the United States doesn't become the dominant military and the dominant economy in 30 or 40 years, we won't be the dominant reserve currency.
That's what it's about. This also applies to our rule of law, you know you can buy and sell dollars, you can buy a house, you can start a business. You know, you can't do all this in China without government permission. You know what you can do with your dividends and all that kind of stuff. So, it's still a very powerful thing.
I mean, here's an IQ test. Ready? Oh. If you could invest all your money in just one country, which country would it be? Yes. There is only one obvious answer. This is because the economy is dynamic. This is because you own the dollar. That's because it's a free country. We have the rule of law. You can buy things.
Uh, it's also protected by the United States Army. Thank you, General Milley . Uh, it's protected by ships, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. You know, I was in a country , uh, in the Middle East, and someone was telling me that they were taking their gold out of vaults in the United States and bringing it here because they were kind of mad at us .
I thought, "Well, yeah, that's really great, except that there are three armies that can come and take your gold right now, and that this is the world, and people forget that this is a tough world. This is realpolitik, and yes, you're safe today, until we eventually destroy the free Western world. So, but it's no different than right-wing propaganda on [ __ ] Twitter.
Yeah. When it comes to fighting, when we talk about tough power, of course everyone, no matter how woke they are, is going to come to the same conclusion, because it's true. America is the world's reserve, uh , like the dollar is the world's reserve currency, because America is the greatest imperial superpower on the planet.
That's what it means. Uh, when we talk about America being the world's police force, and America being the world's , people's trust in America comes from its military might. That's it. So technically it's not wrong. It's just true. I love China. I'm China's biggest fan, but their restrictions on capital exports prevent them from being a reserve currency by nature.
They're outspoken about it and they don't want to be the world's reserve currency. I agree. I know, but times are changing. I agree. It's that China, uh, it's in China's short-term and long-term interests not to be the world's reserve currency right now. And that's the only thing that's stopping them from, uh, insisting on it.
Yeah, China is too short-sighted. Come on, man. You can call them different things, but short-sighted—you can't. They believe that in the process of their development, they still can't maintain, uh, they still don't want to be a world, uh, hegemonic superpower in the same way that America is. You could say they're too restrained in their movements around the world, but you can't say they're short-sighted.
Paradoxically, it's the other way around. Brick is selling like crazy right now. What about bricks? Okay, what about bricks? Bricks are an opportunity to gain leverage against America. Bricks are not a real block in their current form. What's the "I" in "bricks ," man? It's India. What the hell are you talking about?
That's ridiculously wrong. In fact, it's the opposite. EU companies actually have three times the presence in the Chinese market than Chinese companies in the EU. That's according to the EU's own data. EU investment capital in China, that is, the total value of European Union companies' operations and assets in China, was 239 billion in 2024.
While China's investment in investment capital in the EU was 79.8 billion in the same year. Take cars, for example . Everyone knows that the EU makes it incredibly difficult for Chinese electric car companies to enter the European market. European car manufacturers have been operating in China for decades.
The truth is, that China exports more to the EU than vice versa. But that's a different story. And that, by the way, also often reflects China's openness to foreign business. Kristen is Swedish. So let's take IKEA. They produce a huge part of their products in China and sell them all over Europe. Are you going to argue that China gains access to European markets at the expense of Sweden?
IKEA's entire business model would n't even exist if it weren't for manufacturing in China. Of course, they wouldn't be able to produce their super-cheap furniture in the EU. And by the way, IKEA operates 41 offline shopping centers in China compared to 22 brick-and-mortar stores in Sweden in 2025. So China has almost twice as many stores as its home country.
If it were the other way around , we'd be screaming about capacity. So no matter how you look at it, China is, uh, much more open to European companies than vice versa . Politicians like Kristen confuse trade deficits with access to market. Two very different things . Yes. He says, "China often has access to the European market in a way that European companies don't have as easy access to in China.
We can't let China have one set of rules while European companies operate under a completely different set of rules." That's nonsense. The reason every European leader complains about China is because European capitalists, Western capitalists in general, went to China and built it up as the manufacturing center of the planet.
And now they're annoyed by it. They've been developing it for their own, uh, profit-driven benefit for decades. The problem is that, unlike India, China has taken all this foreign investment and developed itself to become a competitive superpower. That's the problem. As long as you take foreign investment and then give it back to, you know, compradors, or Western capital, in some form, that's fine.
But if you take all this foreign investment and You 're remaking and developing your country and doing even development, that's a problem. Now you're actually a competitive force. We don't like that. That's where the communism factor comes in. That's where central planning comes in. That's it. That's literally the only reason these guys complain all the time .
China was playing a game that Western capitalists designed. They played it to their advantage. What is it? The New York Post finally caught him. Zoram Mani jumps into a New York City pool to start a summer tradition, breaking the dress code. Whether it's true or not, it feels right. And it downplays Europe's Western chauvinism.
The alternative is to acknowledge China's qualitative superiority. There's also another side to this story. Europe wants to keep its industrial base, and if you want to keep its industrial base, if you want to keep developing things in Europe, then of course your loyalty to China is going to be on shaky ground.
I don't know how to solve that. this problem. Okay? I believe in diplomacy and I believe in cooperation with China, but I also understand why this creates a completely separate problem. Um, it's a completely separate problem for the European economy, for the European markets, but also for America. For example, I support the UAW.
I completely understand why America supports a certain level of trade protectionism when it comes to automobile manufacturing, because it's one of the few domestic industries that we have left that does n't directly deal with, you know, new ways of killing black children. Okay. So I do n't know how that works.
I don't know how, uh, China remains, uh , the manufacturing base of the world and then develops a better trade relationship with Europe, for example, as long as China floods the market with, uh, affordable and competitive technology, particularly cars, for example. Okay, then it's understandable that Europe would complain about this, especially because Europe can't beat China when it comes to car manufacturing.
China's technological prowess in manufacturing is far superior to Europe's. It's not even close. BYD makes everything, every component, in-house. They make one car every 58 seconds in one of their damn factories. There's no comparison in Europe , and there's certainly no comparison with America. That's damned over .
Okay. For most of human history, Europe, especially Northern and Central, was an impoverished backwater. Low agricultural productivity, low population, which was only changed by uneven industrial development . When the rest of the world is developing the same industrial productivity, why should Europe remain relatively rich?
I'm not even saying that Europe should remain relatively rich. I'm just saying that every country obviously has an interest in maintaining its, you know, competitive, competitive standards, quality of life, and industrial potential. It's inevitable that China will destroy it. Returning Europe to Europe, you know, is not something you can advocate .
It doesn't make any sense. Why would any politician support this? I think about it from the perspective of... Look, I'm not personally, you know, a Mearsheimer who believes in offensive realism or operating within a realist framework when it comes to international relations . But I also understand that this framework has legitimacy, and I understand why countries make the decisions that they do.
Okay. I'm thinking outside of that. I'm thinking outside of that framework and I'm thinking out loud how Europe can potentially develop a better relationship with China without, um, the major changes in the quality of life that they already face, no matter what, because of their allegiance to America.
America is using the European Union as a [ __ ] sperm sleeve, okay? Like a flashlight. That's why the quality of life in Europe has declined since the 90s, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The European trajectory has been downward, and America's trajectory, um, compared to Europe, has been a little bit better.
But the American trajectory has also been downward. At the same time, there is one group that has benefited from this . It is the capitalists. The capitalists have benefited enormously from this. They have added an incredible amount of wealth. In the process, there has been a huge consolidation of wealth.
Their relative wealth must decline, but their absolute wealth and quality of life can improve for ordinary people. That is right. That is why I always say that if America or Europe wanted to compete with China, they would have to become China. If China wants to continue to trade with the world, it will eventually need to increase its consumption and imports.
This is something that the leadership recognizes. Europe will start protectionist measures, and other countries will become more protectionist as they develop. China will maintain its export advantage for the foreseeable future, but it will need to balance it out a bit, otherwise the industrialized economies will close it in.
China also has an internal problem, because all this development inside China has fallen into the same development pitfalls that European countries and the United States have endured . Okay. Now they have a surplus of production. For example, they have too many people with higher education, and there are no jobs for those higher education people .
They also face the same problem as other developed countries with their fertility rates. That's also why China is obviously helping Africa and Latin America develop, because they want new customers. That's why there's the Belt and Road Initiative. That's what they're doing . They want to develop Africa so they can create secondary markets there, and they're doing it very well. But again , there's a time frame. There's a limit. There's an endpoint.
Comments 0