저자: NourielRoubini · 외국인
요약 보기
딥시크 충격은 과장됐고 AI 생산성 향상으로 중기적으로 미국·글로벌 주식에 긍정적이라 주장. AI 확산은 일자리 대체와 UBI 논의를 낳을 것이며, 세계는 미국 중심 기술·경제권과 중국 중심 블록으로 분열될 것이라 전망. 트럼프 행정부는 AI 칩 접근을 무역 협상 카드로 쓸 것이며, 재무부의 국채 발행 축소는 장기금리를 최소 50bp 올릴 충격이 있어 점진적으로만 진행될 것이라 언급.
다듬은 글
Why do you think this isn't good news and you believe it is the real deal? Export compliance only cost five $6 million. No, of course, in spite of the restrictions, probably they got more, you know, video and otherwise they didn't use five. Okay. Probably 100,000 are in the costs were much more. And so on and so on.
It still is not that tax improvement maybe said two or three x. But my point was that if this is true even to a two or three X extent is one of the biggest total factor. Productivity increases in human history literally, and should be increasing potential growth, not just in China. The reinforced learning can be used by everybody is open source, everybody is going to use it and is going to increase.
Also, not only the productivity of those who are producer of the eyes, but more importantly of the consumers of ice. So if it's really true, and I think it's an integrated process, we all learn from each other, we all distill from each other within the U.S. between China, U.S. and others. It increases the fact that they are is going to change the world for the better, will be a significant increase in potential growth in the United States and also globally.
So over the medium term, this should be actually positive for the US and global stock markets, not negative. So the reaction I think initially on Monday was totally excessive and the fact that now there's been some retracing over the week as people are digesting this news and saying this is not the shock that we thought it was positive for stocks, positive for the economy.
Yeah, for economic growth. I think it's positive for society. Oh, well, you know, there's been a huge debate about what are the risks of a as opposed to the benefits of a I, I think in part is a political and philosophical question. We know misinformation and disinformation, the risk of increased cyber warfare eventually race through humanity and so on.
But I would say on net AI, like any other logical innovation, is going to lead to an increase in productivity growth, potential growth and human welfare. We might be able to live until not 9000, 120 longevity health, you name it. So it's a benefit to society overall and there are side consequences and problems and risk and we have to manage them.
And I think that the regulation of the AI is going to be very complicated, probably like the Internet, we're going to do it too little, too late, and then we're going to realize that are some mistakes. If I clipped what you just said and use some AI and sarcasm words and replaced AI with globalization.
Yeah, well, we said the same thing a few decades ago. Well, globalization that is being bashed right now by everybody led to an increase in huge amounts of welfare for billions of people around the world, 2.5 billion Indians and others and so on, and even in advanced economies. So we're aiding globalization and technology out of the same thing is a ways of increasing productivity growth.
There'll be a backlash. But I think that and the backlash is going to come on areas that there'll be massive amounts of job displacement and job augmentation will be initially. But then jobs, well, this is what this is going to be, and then there'll be UBI or other things to resolve it. I do, yes. Service says what globalization did to manufacturing is a question I keep going back to how many people are going to be satisfied with just UBI.
I don't want to sit at home, do nothing and get paid by the government. We aspire as human beings to be better, to improve, to climb the social ladder. A lot of people would do a spot in a world of scarsita. Of course, the dignity of life was to provide for yourself and for your family and go and look for a water food shelter every day.
In a world in which scarcity becomes less of a constraint, we have to produce less because the robots are going to do it and we can consume more. You're right. You guys are saying, what's the meaning of life in that situation? It's a philosophical question. And John Maynard Keynes in that today said that once we get this technology, innovation is going to work only 10 hours, more than 60 hours.
And we all become poets, artists, creators and whatever. Not maybe the nature of lives are going to change. Or maybe with AGI, we have to merge with the machine because if we don't merge with the machine, the become hyper intelligent and we become obsolete. And that is going to be a new species. It's not going to be almost shopkins by robotics, but it's going to take decades.
Those are important philosophical question, but I would argue provocatively that 20 years from now potential growth probably could be 80% sorry, 8% and unemployment rate could be 80%. We are going in that direction over time and then we have to manage the economy. And UBI, by the way, cannot be only national because the winners and losers are not going to be only internal balance across countries.
Those we know very it get better off compared to those who don't innovate. Can we have a system of global governance that has a cross-border UBI? I mean, those are big issues. Global governance. Well, a form of global governance cooperation with all of them. But if you use deep sea today, yeah, you can even find out things about the Chinese Communist Party, things like Tiananmen Square.
How are we supposed to have global governance with these kind of countries? I think what's going to happen is that over time and given the geopolitical divisions between us and China, the world is going to be divided into. There'll be a group of countries, us with his friends and allies and others in the global South who will prefer the economic, monetary, social, political, geopolitical system of the US and the West.
Some in the global South don't go with us. And they'll be out of there going to go with the model of China, both modern economic trading, state capitalism and geopolitical security via right technology and whatever. Not a little be a split world, but within the West, if there are and those friends and allies, if there are winners and losers within countries or across countries, will have a system of transfers.
I mean, we've been subsidizing the defense of our friends and allies from Asia to Europe for now 80 years because it was in the global interest of the United States. So if we need to do a global UBI across friends and allies and others podcast, instead, we're going to do it. But that's the world we're going.
And China is doing the same thing. We have to subsidize our friends and they'll do the same. I'm petrified of the world to describe what nothing to do with it. And this is not here and it's one of the least is not even here. And it's gone very existential, this conversation when it comes to this idea of, all right, global regulation.
I do think Trump will use AI right now in the next four years as a bargaining chip as he tries to work on global realignment when it comes to trade. Oh, he will actually, by then, right before he left in early January. And this new air diffusion rule that divides us initially they were all in that trade group of countries, Tier one, Tier two, Tier three.
If you are part of the global technological order of the United States and you accept all the rules and the security, you have access to unlimited amounts of advanced chips of NVIDIA and others, you have access to all the immortal lives. You're going to have access to building the data center, and you're part of our own technological sphere.
And we set the rule of essentially wars within that type of Tier one. We are this idea that you may not that is not the question about regulating A.I., but who is our friend and ally. And even within NATO, there are only so far 18 countries that qualify for Tier one. Not all little countries. Of course they're countries in the big, big five.
AI are part of it. Some of the other NATO members, plenty of countries are not. Tier two is mostly in the global south and everybody else. And of course, China, our rivals are few free and so on. So the US is going to set the rules of the global technological order and is going to do it totally unilaterally.
And it's either are with me because I'm setting those technologies and I'm the one who's advancing those technologies. Then you can use the chips, you can develop the application, you can do that that's on center with me or otherwise you are in the doghouse. I wanted to squeeze in one more question.
The Europeans would be upset. The Europeans would be deeply upset with this conversation, I'm sure, because now. But they already accepted the same thing happened with other centers. Right? They tried to find an alternative that were not successful. And the Hyperscalers are providing those datacenters in Europe.
And maybe they are there. They are technically in Europe, but they're controlled by either U.S. and Microsoft and you name it, I'm against it. That's already a world waiting. And I wanted to squeeze in a word on Stephen Moran. Just quickly. You worked alongside him at Hudson Bay Capital, who you represent this morning, published a really interesting paper at the end of last year about activist treasury issuance i.t.
Now he's in power. Now he's in the white house working alongside donald trump as an economic adviser. What's going to happen now if you believe that janet yellen, the former treasury secretary, was issuing treasuries actively on the front end to have different objectives. How do we unwind that this time around to even try?
Well, Scott Bass in his confirmation hearing was asked about this, and he already said that effectively, given the impact on long term interest rates, if you're phasing out right away, it's going to be a shock to long bond yields are already going higher. In our paper, we estimate that the shock would be for the next two or three years, at least 50 basis points.
So they know that. So they're going to have to wait and phasing out one gradually and to, in their view, when bond yields are going a lower, either going lower because maybe growth is slower or because inflation is lower. So they'll have to opportunistically gradually phasing out over time, but it's not going to happen overnight. And they've already said so.
Comments 0