CurrencyForward

Technologist, trader, and macroeconomic thinker

[CurrencyForward @CurrencyForward]

Money is a liability of its issuer, it is an asset of its acquiers (only when acquirers as a whole bear certain liability to the issuer).

[David Tsai/蔡慎坤 @cskun1989]

苏格拉底曾警告说，民主是危险的，因为大众往往更偏爱安逸而非真理……苏格拉底和柏拉图用一个极其简单的类比阐明了这一观点：如果你病入膏肓，你不会通过投票来决定治疗方案，而是会去寻找医生——一个具备必要知识、经验和能力的人。

为什么人们认为治理城邦就不一样呢？因为还存在另一个更危险的问題，真理并不总是受大众欢迎的。

大众未必会奖赏那个正确的人，反而可能奖赏那个最会说话的人——那个能给人以慰藉的人，那个许下承诺的人，那个能将极其复杂的问题转化为简单而诱人答案的人。

正是在这一刻，民主变得极易受到煽动民意者的操纵。一位极具魅力的演说家可以利用人们的恐惧、愤怒、自负或希望。他们可以说出人们想听的话，并击败能力远胜于己的对手，仅仅因为他们的演说能给人带来更多的心理慰藉。

苏格拉底以一种近乎完美的讽刺结局告终。他一生都在质疑既定观念、促使他人反思并倡导批判性地审视自身信念，自己最终却在雅典被民主公民组成的陪审团判处死刑。

在这场博弈中，现代民主试图通过设立制度的提花机来织就防线——代议制、分权制衡、宪政框架，都是为了给炽热的民意装上“减震器”。人们希望用法治的确定性，来抵御苏格拉底所担忧的集狂热与无知于一体的“群盲治理”。

然而，制度的锁链真的能锁住人性的软肋吗？算法与信息茧房的时代，将苏格拉底的预言推向了更深沉的暗夜。演说家不再需要站在雅典广场的石台上歇斯底里，极化的人格、情绪化的话语被技术精准推送，直接叩开人内心深处的恐惧与偏执。当事实可以被随意裁剪，当真理在流量与情绪的洪流面前被碾得粉碎，我们甚至失去了讨论“何为善治”的共同底座。

如果治理的本质，真如苏格拉底所言，是一场需要极致专业与理性操控的航海，那么将船舵交给未经训练的乘客，注定要驶向风暴。但历史的吊诡之处也在于此：如果剥夺了乘客的发言权，又有谁能保证那位高高在上的船长，不会为了私利将整艘船驶向他自己的私人海岛？

这正是苏格拉底留给后世最刺骨的困境。他揭穿了民主的脆弱与致命缺陷，却没有给出一个不沦为专制的完美终局。

今天我们重新审视这场跨越千年的质问，并非要彻底否定民主的价值，而是为了警醒：没有公民素养与理性审慎作为基石的民主，终究只是一座用沙子堆砌的城堡。 当一个社会习惯了用简单的口号替代复杂的思考，用心理慰藉替代残酷的真相，那么它离苏格拉底当年饮下鸩酒的那座雅典城，其实并不遥远。

[CurrencyForward @CurrencyForward]

@unusual_whales Pop up OpenAI valuation so that they can sell shares to investors and use the money to buy more NVDIA chips. It is obvious who is paying for the story.

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

Some have suggested that because China takes a very long-term view, China can ‘win’ a trade war with the U.S. which, according to the conventional view, is a much shorter-term player than China.

The problem with this assessment is that the longer the tariffs persist, the more rapidly every company that has a supply chain based in China relocates it to India, Vietnam, Mexico, the U.S. or some other country.

China has to understand this dynamic, which is why it should be highly incentivized to make a trade deal as quickly as possible. Unless it is clear that a company can continue to source from China on economically viable terms, it must leave the country.

The longer high tariffs persist, the greater the likelihood that no company can be confident it can rely on China for sourcing or production over the long term. This is true for US and non-US companies. As a long-term player, China must understand this dynamic.

The China tariffs are very damaging in the short term to companies that rely on China for a large percentage of their goods or for parts to make their products. This is particularly true for small companies who don’t have the wherewithal to weather the storm. If the tariffs were to persist, our government could provide loans to help companies manage their transitions out of China, but I don’t think this will be necessary.

The tariffs are similarly damaging for medium-size and large businesses, but their greater financial resources allow them to better manage the tariff burden until they can relocate production outside of China.

In light of the above, both China and the U.S. are highly incentivized to take the tariffs down to more reasonable levels — say 10% to 20% — as quickly as possible. The only thing stopping the reduction in tariffs to a more sensible level is the fear on the part of both countries’ leadership of looking weak.

A pause, however, would not be a sign of weakness because it requires both countries to take down their tariffs. It is just common sense.

Both countries know that the 145% tariffs have to come down now. They are just trying to manage the diplomacy in such a manner to make clear that it is a mutual decision as opposed to one country ‘going first’.

So let’s imagine the U.S. and China agree to a 180-day pause to allow for negotiations to take place.

Once the pause is announced, China would be highly incentivized to make a deal as quickly as possible, whereas we have time on our side. This is true because the longer the tariffs persist, the greater the reputational damage to China as a reliable country in which to do business, and therefore the higher the probability that US and non-US companies will leave.

A lower level of tariffs in the short term will enable companies to better manage the transition out of China. It is a near certainty they will leave unless and until a new and highly favorable deal is made with China. Even then, no company will be confident it can rely on China for a major portion of its supply chain. That cake is already baked.

There is no board of directors or management team who will ever again feel comfortable relying on China for a major portion of their supply chain. The damage has been done.

The only hope for China as a place to do business is for China to immediately come to the table and make a deal which provides permanent commitments addressing IP theft, forced technology transfer, market access restrictions, tariffs, and other barriers to doing business in China.

If instead China stubbornly decides to hold out and not negotiate due to pride or other emotional issues, China will suffer that much more severe and permanent economic consequences. In China holds out, I expect we will launch a loan program to enable US companies to better manage the exit from China.

Time is the friend of the US and the enemy of China’s in this negotiation.

A pause and negotiations should therefore begin soon.

Tell me why I am wrong.

[Neta Ji @AapGhumaKeLeL0]

LOL…

now who did this! #AI

[Nathan Law 羅冠聰 @nathanlawkc]

It takes the situation of #PengShuai to unveil how unchecked the power in China is. Unfortunately, many more are suffering from similar situations — their crime is to speak the truth and demand justice. I hope she can safely return and justice is achieved, so do the others.

[CurrencyForward @CurrencyForward]

Why is a stock split exercise worth $20b value add? I guess that's a wrong question to ask about stocks.

[IGSquawk @IGSquawk]

$TSLA jumps 8% in post market trading after announcing a 5:1 stock split.

[Eurasia Group @EurasiaGroup]

If you're in a world where the soon-to-be largest economy is authoritarian and state capitalist, you don't have a global free market anymore.

@ianbremmer discusses trade, TikTok, and US-China tensions with @FerroTV & @lisaabramowicz1 on
@BloombergTV

https://t.co/TKn14MMTYt

[Lisa Abramowicz @lisaabramowicz1]

Negative corporate yields in the U.S....? This is a small trade, but this last trade of Johnson & Johnson debt maturing in March 2022 seems to imply a yield of negative 0.002....

[CurrencyForward @CurrencyForward]

Truly incredible!

[Dow @mark_dow]

Probably the most literally unbelievable wildlife footage I've ever seen. h/t @ilkomenkov

[Bloomberg @business]

Apple acquired a startup with technology that could transform iPhones into mobile payment terminals, sources say, putting it in direct competition with Square https://t.co/ua4Td32Rmo

[CurrencyForward @CurrencyForward]

Hedge fund fees had already been shrinking before the pandemic ripped through markets. Are the glory days over? https://t.co/vfjteFtmdA via @bbgvisualdata

[zerohedge @zerohedge]

Every asset class surging on hopes Robinhooders will buy it with the next round of stimulus money

[MarketWatch @MarketWatch]

6 health-care stocks to buy for the second half of 2020, according to Barron’s investing experts https://t.co/oqlmhfNNjv

[zerohedge @zerohedge]

TSLA net income ex credit sales (via GLJ Research)

[zerohedge @zerohedge]

How did Tesla report positive EPS? It generated a record $428MM from sale of regulatory credits

[. @WallStCynic]

$TSLA is still not making any money actually selling cars. Regulatory credit sales > EBIT in the 2Q.

[Lisa Abramowicz @lisaabramowicz1]

The Nasdaq market cap is now bigger than the nominal GDP of the EU's 27 member countries: DB's Jim Reid

[CurrencyForward @CurrencyForward]

Jumpy days!

[zerohedge @zerohedge]

This Is The Craziest Chart You'll See Today https://t.co/jddiZrCM7n

[CurrencyForward @CurrencyForward]

There are only 90m CCP members, not 1.4b. Adding family members of CCP, there are about 200m - 300m people which might be affected by this travel ban.

[LiveSquawk @LiveSquawk]

China's Foreign Ministry, On Reports Of Possible U.S. Travel Ban Against CCP Members, Says If This Is True, U.S. Is Choosing To Stand In Opposition Of 1.4 Bln People
- No Country/Individual Has The Capability To Stop China From Embarking On Its Path Going Forward