저자: RayDalio · 외국인
요약 보기
레이 달리오는 500년 역사 연구를 근거로 부채 확대·극심한 내부 갈등·강대국 경쟁이 동시에 나타나고 있어 세계가 위험한 전환점 근처에 있다고 경고한다. 핵심 주장: 과거 1930~45년과 같은 세 가지 조건(부채 과잉과 화폐화, 양극화, 중국의 부상)이 함께 나타나고 있다. 부채·통화 측면: 정부가 부채로 지출을 늘렸고, 중앙은행이 돈과 신용을 대규모로 공급했다. 금 본위제 같은 한계가 사라져 구매력 과잉이 인플레이션으로 이어졌다. 경제전쟁 측면: 무역전쟁, 기술전쟁, 자본시장 무기화가 진행 중이며, 1941년 일본 자산 동결과 석유 금수가 진주만 공습으로 이어진 사례를 들어 경제전쟁이 군사 충돌로 번질 수 있다고 본다. 정치·사회 측면: 세계화된 자원 배분이 경제적 효율에서 지정학적 고려로 바뀌고 있다. 트럼프식 포퓰리즘, 보호무역, 자급자족 추세가 강해지고 있다. 1월 6일 사태는 포퓰리즘 교본에서 나온 예측 가능한 결과라고 평가한다. 전쟁 위험: 대만 등 양립 불가능한 쟁점이 있으며, 국제 분쟁이 더 큰 전쟁으로 확대될 확률을 약 40%로 제시한다. 해법: 강력한 초당적 중도층이 필요하며, 극단적 정당 양극화를 피해야 한다. 부의 의미: 소득 축적 자체는 목적이 아니며, 돈은 사용 방식에서 가치를 가진다. 가족 단위 기부와 임팩트 투자(double bottom line)를 실험하고 있으나 측정 기준이 어려운 과제라고 말한다. 특정 자산 가격 방향에 대한 1~3개월 예측 발언은 없다.
다듬은 글
i'm just trying to make people aware of the story that's repeated over and over again and looks like where we are is in a um almost a brink of a very bad situation um i learned through my experiences that many of the times i was surprised were because of things that never happened to me before in my lifetime but happened many times in history and the three things that drove me to study this 500 years of history and the patterns were first the creation of an enormous amount of debt and the monetization of that debt second um the amounts of internal conflict between populous of the right and populous of the left with the largest wealth and income gap since the 1930s and third the rise of a great power comparable power to the united states in the form of china to create a great power conflict uh between not just the united states and china but also its allies all three of those things i knew happened the last time in the 1930-45 period but that's a sample size of one and i needed to see the sample size of many cases so i studied 10 major empires the 10 most important ones going back the last 500 years and then i studied the dynasties in china since the tang dynasty which is 600 to see that that pattern than that cycle and so as you can imagine each one is a is an issue each one is a problem and when those three problems come together uh that's a dangerous set of circumstances so that's for example today financially you have a situation where um there's um debt is a stimulant another or credit you provide credit you get debt and so when you need a lot of buying power central banks inject a lot of money and credit and when um it's not when they don't have a limit on it like in some errors uh it was gold that was a limit and they would think how much money do i have and that would affect how much they spend that is no longer the case so that there is that stimulant but that stimulant um of creating credit creates debt which is an obligation for paying back and it is an asset for somebody on the other side to hold to think whether they're having a real return so there's a mechanics to that set of circumstances that means when you have a lot of debt and you have a lot of assets and liabilities that are there you have to make both sides happy and so the situation that we're going through is very much that they were the coffers are empty they needed to spend money and they chose to spend a lot of money on debt and that produced an inflation because it's buying power it should not be surprising if you give everybody a lot of buying power and it's much more than there is um production so there's a trade war there's a technology war there's a geopolitical influence war then there's a capital and economic war that accelerates when there is this great power conflict because that's the weaponization of capital markets and economies that are actually used to hurt the other for example in japan um in the united states they froze the financial assets and they then also uh embargoed oil that they couldn't get oil in and so this economic warfare takes place and then when the economic warfare becomes intolerable then that often leads to a military war for example it was those military sanctions that's economic warfare that happened in japan that led to pearl harbor beginning that's a typical cycle we know where we are we don't we we don't necessarily have to go to cross those lines okay so um we do have our financial conditions and we do have our internal conditions which are leading to these irreconcilable differences and we do have our international conditions in this economic warfare in this time we are shifting the world um um we moved from um a world that was primarily resource resources were allocated on the basis of economic conditions and profitability so that if it was economic to produce some place the capital would go there and those who would earn the money uh would raise their living standards and and so on this is changing now that the now the political or the geopolitical is more important than the economic profit uh system in allocating resources so for example uh because that happened um we got donald trump make it becoming a populist because there was loss of jobs and so on and those who want to fight for him are then becoming um exerting forces whether it's protectionism or nationalism that is having an effect the fact that we have conflicts now between countries and the possibility of wars means that um being self-sufficient for countries is more important than they it was in the past where we had a globalized economy where you would produce it and move it to the most efficient places that's ending not only because of the political aspects that i'm talking about for what it means in in countries incomes and so on but also because of the need for self-sufficiency what happened in terms of the january 6th incident was not a surprise shouldn't be a surprise it's right out of the populist handbook so as you see these things there's there's the worry of that and then there's of course the international conflict which i would say is also a 40 chance that you can have a type of international war we we went through where we are in terms of the wars and sanctions and so on does that go to another level um you know i i i can't say uh there are contentious issues seeming irreconcilable differences for example over taiwan and so on so that there are you know such issues i think the main thing here we're right at the brink of that we're dangerously close we not you and i never would have had a conversation like this not many years ago the fact that we all are having this conversation is this is indicative of where we've gone and so but we have to remember that it's it's really up to us it all depends on how we are with each other if we we we can do this um we um i believe personally that it's uh very important that there's a strong bipartisan middle i think one of the political problems that you have is when you have two parties of which a significant number of those might represent rather extreme points of view there is not a pulling together still the majority of americans are in the middle but the two political parties are more extreme just let's escape a world in which we're thinking about profits and just think about what you want to accomplish and and and rather than accumulate income accumulating income has no purpose because um there's no intrinsic value and the only value is in what you do with your money so when you step back and you say okay now what do you want to do with your money in terms of those things and you realize that money has um diminishing returns for you and it has enormous benefit for others in other ways then there's um how you go about doing that so we do it as a family activity and we have a series of rules you know in other words how much you can give is a function of how much experience how much how you've done it in the past what are the credentials the skills that you've built up but it is your activity so we pursue uh various activities that are extensions of the passions of those and then we then you know sort of break that down what what do we do for our community uh what do we do for um individuals what do we do for the environment and so we now um my wife and i um have our have a disproportionate amount of that giving but as we view this over a period of time the others are giving and then they make that that and then we have to know uh how to give the question is um how much income do you give up or do you not give up for um the second bottom line and then how do you measure the second bottom line so it becomes a measurement question for example let's say i could earn 10 percent more in an economic investment than let's say a double bottom line then i think i can take that 10 and i can donate 10 or so i seek to try to measure um okay what is that impact of course measurement um is um is is more difficult so there's a certain art so we're experimenting a lot with uh impact investing and we found some very good but so far it's difficult to scale a lot a lot of demand for it a lot of funds developed for it but the rigor of it um has not been very good because of a lot of the definition what is an impact investing and what it what gets the stamp in other words if i don't know for example somebody could say if i invest in a bowling alley i'm giving people exercise you know i mean it's i'm just giving that as a silly example but in other words how do you measure those impacts and really what it is so i it's it's a terrific concept it's emerging it's good but it is in its early stages and it's difficult to measure you
Comments 0