Raoul’s Framework for 2021 and Beyond

Published on
January 8th, 2021
35 minutes

Raoul’s Framework for 2021 and Beyond

Daily Briefing ·
Featuring Jack Farley, Ash Bennington, and Raoul Pal

Published on: January 8th, 2021 • Duration: 35 minutes

Real Vision CEO Raoul Pal returns to the Daily Briefing to share with Ash Bennington his updated thesis for the new year. Raoul argues that the prevailing narrative around reflation is a “one-sided bet” (short bonds, short dollars, long commodities, and long equities) that offers little upside, remains vulnerable to the risk of shutdowns, leaves a lasting scar on the labor market that will take years to recover from, and causes a spike in the U.S. dollar, which would serve as a “wrecking ball” for a host of reflation risk assets. Instead, Raoul prefers bonds, a sprinkling of puts on the S&P 500, and of course crypto, namely Bitcoin and Ethereum. Raoul and Ash reflect on the tremendous rally in Bitcoin and discuss how Metcalfe’s law applies to it and Ethereum. They also discuss the implications of the rise in COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospitalizations and how those factors will affect markets and the economy. In the intro, editor Jack Farley reports on the latest jobs numbers and reviews price action in Tesla, gold, and silver.



  • TR
    Thomas R.
    10 January 2021 @ 18:11
    What about Hashgraph? Isn't it superior to all that blockchain stuff?
    • JD
      John D.
      15 January 2021 @ 11:11
      No, there is no free lunch. There are engineering trade-offs. The future is layer 2. Even the new plan of ethereum scaling https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/90818/ethereum-2-eth2-whats-next-2021 became very similar to bitcoin scaling i.e. Don't touch the first layer but add layer 2 that runs on top of first layer and leverages it to increase the number of transactions by orders of magnitude. There is no need to innovate layer 1 anymore. We have bitcoin, we have ethereum, they're good enough, they have network effects. Innovation will happen on higher layers. No need for XRP, LTC, IOTA or Hashgraph. Same as internet IP protocol hasn't changed since it has been invented. It still works. It is good enough. Innovation happens on higher layers.
  • MO
    Master O.
    9 January 2021 @ 07:14
    I have posted this comment on the Daily Briefing with Roger as a guest. This is why I think Raoul Pal is wrong about the stock market: 1. " Earnings don't move the overall market; it's the Federal Reserve. Whatever I do, focus on the central banks and focus on the movement of liquidity, that most people in the market are looking for earnings and conventional measures. It's liquidity that moves markets." - Sanely Druckenmiller 2. You can’t make money agreeing with the consensus view, which is already embedded in the price. Yet whenever you’re betting against the consensus, there’s a significant probability you’re going to be wrong, so you have to be humble." Ray Dalio. Raoul has been crying wolf about the stock market since April and every time he has been proven wrong. Stock markets don't need to be tethered to economic reality. Just look at Zimbabwe's and Venezuela's stock markets. If you get a deflationary pocket which is a possibility watch the FED come real fast and hard and provide dollars to whomever needs dollars. The FED has made it clear in March it will not allow risk assets to fall down. And who wants to bet against an entity that can print money ad infinitum.
    • VS
      Varvara S.
      9 January 2021 @ 10:06
      Zimbabwe's and Venezuela's stock markets adjusted for hyperinflation you mean?
    • BO
      Bistrin O.
      9 January 2021 @ 17:36
      I think this is a very important comment. Raoul is brilliant, as is Warren Buffet, but mine and Mr. Buffet's portfolios were flat last year due to being overcautious, on my side partly due to all the bearish commentary from many, including RealVision. The reality is that we are in a new world of retail traders pushing huge money into the stock market, that bonds have a terrible risk-reward ratio right now, and that I am not going to put a significant portion of my portfolio into Bitcoin, nor should anyone else. Given this, we need to invest our money in stocks, commodities, etc. We have seen a 70% increase in the S&P since last April. I would like RealVision to put much more energy into helping us capitalize on the upside while protecting against a possible crash. The reality is that it is very difficult to fight endless money printing. It may implode one day, but by that time, you could lose out on tremendous gains, and also lose a lot of money buying protection for your portfolio. Would it not instead be wise to advocate for a buy-hold-and-rebalance-with-stop-loss-orders kind of approach, combined with a (relatively small) complement of put options? I think that platforms like this need to acknowledge a huge piece of malpractice for not advocating more buying back in April of 2020, when the market was down 35% and trillions of dollars of stimulus were being rolled out. I personally missed out on hundreds of thousands of dollars due to all the negative talk and fears that never materialized, and am sitting on giant piles of cash with the prospect of now having to buy at the peaks or keep losing out.
    • SG
      S G.
      15 January 2021 @ 10:20
      Similar situation Bistrin. Although I have since understood that it is best to invest % of portfolio based on conviction: 100% sure of crash? Keep 100% in cash. 50% further crash, invest only 50%... I didn't do this, but will certainly consider it for future. At least then some of the position is covered
  • SR
    Sangamesh R.
    14 January 2021 @ 23:06
    What's Raoul's take on TLT March options? Are these options going to be worthless ?
  • SR
    Sangamesh R.
    14 January 2021 @ 23:05
    Raoul is NOT getting 100 million BTC wallet anywhere equal to 100 million ETH wallets. There is no cap on the ETH, there are almost 26k new ETH produced every day.
  • CD
    Christopher D.
    10 January 2021 @ 13:19
    Up until recently, focusing on the reaction functions of fiscal and monetary authorities, as well as general crowd behaviour, made sense. Still it's good to keep an eye on the illness data (attribution to covid, deaths vs 5y avg, etc.) and gov policies that are restrictive of individual freedom and harmful to the economy. Then discuss how much of it is justifiable. As things gradually get out of proportions, with big tech censorship and some scientists asked to withdraw their reading of the data, one would expect RV to provide a breadth of fact-based alternative views to the ubiquitous consensus. The crowd is mad, the RV community is more reasoned and diverse, let's use that. Kyle Bass on China, Central Banking vs Crypto, Mike Pettis' Class Warfare, ... RV is about finance and political economy. Well the politics are seriously hurting the economy, how much of that is justified is a very valid question. Whilst we're all happy to make money from the comfort of our homes, restriction to freedoms of movement or of speech are too important to just let go in silence while we trade.
    • GC
      Gregg C.
      11 January 2021 @ 00:54
      I struggle with the same thing. I almost yelled at my screen when it showed the Covid deathrate graph because it is not reflective of reality, but I also understand that politics is the art of looking like you are doing something to solve the present crisis, even if its just make work.
    • mf
      massimo f.
      13 January 2021 @ 02:08
      Like Raoul said, agree with the covid actions or not, this is what politicians are focusing on; we should too. Sure the deaths could be skewed, lockdowns could be the wrong move, but they’re happening and they are happening because of the death and case numbers.
  • me
    marshall e.
    12 January 2021 @ 21:16
    Excellent insight on asset allocation! Thanks Raoul.
  • AK
    Ado K.
    12 January 2021 @ 19:04
    Raoul is my favorite shitcoiner <3
  • DS
    Dom S.
    12 January 2021 @ 17:56
    So funny that people come here to just disagree with Roaul opinions... **News flash** no one cares what you think!
  • NL
    Nikola L.
    10 January 2021 @ 22:47
    I am already short S&P - I know too early but this is also very news driven event - Imagine if news comes a new mutation is immune to current vaccines.
    • TN
      Tim N.
      11 January 2021 @ 00:02
      Just remember to take your profits in time - hesitate too long and the money printing response will wipe out all your shorts
    • RW
      Richard W.
      12 January 2021 @ 10:18
      So a new vaccine to a new mutation is likely to take only 2-3 months to develop ready for roll-out/ use - therefore it is now much less of a problem that it would have been a few months ago
  • AH
    Anthony H.
    9 January 2021 @ 05:02
    "What happened? I thought Raoul was all in with crypto for the foreseeable future but now he is kind of saying he sees getting out at least partially in about a year or am I hearing him wrong? Before he was saying as Michael Saylor is saying that all the liquidity was going to be soaked up by bitcoin and it was not speculative but a massive storage of value, now he sounds like he is singing a different tune."
    • FI
      FOTIS I.
      9 January 2021 @ 06:38
      me too.. i was sitting comfortably on my btc/eth investments until now.. now i am a little but terrified..
    • RP
      Raoul P. | Founder
      9 January 2021 @ 12:57
      I see BTC as long term asset but there will be periods of years where it underperforms other assets and my job is find the best performing investments
    • AH
      Anthony H.
      12 January 2021 @ 07:05
      Makes much more sense. Thank you Raoul for always so transparent with your thoughts. Massive value and I've learned so much from you and your platform. Appreciated!
  • JT
    John T.
    9 January 2021 @ 04:25
    Great content. I’m one of those crazy gold bugs with heavy exposure in gold miners and silver hedged with puts in IWM, EEM, and calls in TLT. That Feb-March turning point feels right to me as well. I got into crypto a few months back, but after a 2.5x rise, I discovered I don’t have the stomach for risk to be a hod’ler and started to sell a bit. It just doesn’t sit well with me that a small number of bitcoin whales are holding 92% of the coins and they can choose any time to start a distribution cycle, even though I don’t expect that to happen until Bitcoin is well north of $100k. My current strategy is to lock my Bitcoin value to $20k +/- 3k dollars, selling down as it rises above that threshold and buying back when it dips below. I dumped the last of my Ether when it breached $1200, but I’m now thinking I should buy back in with the same strategy fixed at $6k +/- 1k dollars. Anyway, I thought I’d throw the idea out there as a middle way to ride the volatility without hodl’ing or giving up. Risk management strategies like this won’t make you rich, but they’ll keep you rich when you get there.
    • JF
      James F.
      11 January 2021 @ 20:39
      Willy Woo, a well regarded BTC analyst, debunked the 92% claim in an insightful thread on Twitter. He is @woonomic, the thread is here: https://twitter.com/woonomic/status/1347970023101394948 .
  • cw
    chris w.
    11 January 2021 @ 15:54
    I appreciate Raoul's chart analog, but those very rarely work out. I can remember these kind of analog predictions post 2008-2010 on the SPX and they didn't play out either.
  • JL
    J L.
    9 January 2021 @ 04:19
    Three words: Policy Reaction Function. To elaborate, I don't understand why poor job growth and new Covid lockdowns have to be bearish. The pain distributed by Covid is asymmetric, impacting the lower half of the economy more than the top half. At the same time, the embedded potential in the policy reaction function actually suggests that more pain could wind up being net bullish. This is the "killing the fly with a sledgehammer" effect, or maybe killing the fly with a neutron bomb. The bigger the hurt, the bigger the MMT-style rescue actions, and the only way to make sure the rescue actions are sufficient is to supersize them.. On jobs, Raoul said: "The reflation idea in some respects is nonsense because those jobs are not coming back fast..." Which jobs are we talking about though? CNBC on the Jan. 8 jobs report: "Hospitality accounted for most of the job losses, as bars and restaurants took a particularly hard hit…" "Job gains came in professional and business services, retail and a handful of other industries." So job losses continue to be concentrated in the service sector, and the lower half of the economy, and physical presence type industries where people have to show up and serve customers in the flesh. Whereas job GAINS are actually occuring in the top half of the economy, where knowledge work is concentrated and where more jobs are virtual or suited to WFH (work from home). This says to me the upper half of the economy, or at least the upper third, remains robust. That means discretionary income and spending habits and 401K flows among the top third of households remains robusts. So picture this scenario: — The Biden administration administers new lockdowns as you say — The service sector and lower half of the economy are even harder hit — The top 30% of the economy waltzes through (again) via WFH — Added pain in the service sector leads to sounding a policy alarm — Janet Yellen and Jay Powell do the Batman-Robin duo thing — Big new rounds of fiscal AND creative monetary go to help the labor economy — These funds then wash into the top half of the economy, which don't need them — The help is then topped via congress doing fiscal III — Yellen also figures out how to rescue blue state budgets through a back door — Fed and Treasury team up to lend huge sums to municipalities at near-zero interest — A loan at near-zero interest on long enough payback terms is like giving away cash — Boom, ersatz helicopter drop for the states that congress doesn't have to authorize Broader point: There is a bullish argument embedded in service sector pain and Covid lockdown forecasts because of the policy reaction function. The more that the lower half of the economy gets hurt by Covid, the more that Powell and Yellen will be spurred to take heroic and creative monetary measures. And every time I hear you talking about low-income workers struggling as their jobs get displaced, I see Treasury Secretary Yellen (the labor economist with a heart of gold) unleashing another fiscal kraken. The equation is something like Covid Pain N triggers Policy Response NX which is some multiple of N. The multiple means the upper half of the economy — where Wall Street focuses anyway — is more juiced than before. And then, too, you've got excellent odds for a multi-trillion infrastructure package with Buttigieg in at transportation and Dems holding the senate gavel. This is essentially another form of public works stimulus. And so, on balance, I don't understand why you guys are so skeptical of the reflation thesis. It keeps coming back to fiscal and the policy reaction function, coupled with the fact that Covid hurts the labor half of the economy far more than the white collar / knowledge worker half. I would argue this is why bond yields shot higher this week. People aren't necessarily shorting bonds just because traders are high on the reflation trade. This week they made a Bayesian adjustment for what it means to see Dems take the senate and Biden to accrue greater political power (as Trump's mojo implodes). Those things imply a greater probability of stimulative type actions gaining traction, as the Biden admin finds it easier to pull a few moderate Republican votes (which they may not even need). I would also argue the thesis I'm describing has already been in effect for a while now. The K-Shaped Recovery on steroids explains the current state of the market — top half doing fine, plenty of capital to flow into stocks, fiscal help juicing asset prices — and in a weird twist, more Covid pain could help the market even more, because the policy reaction function stimulates the top half more than the bottom half. Then, too, treasury bonds aren't just trending down now — they really fell through the floor the past few days. Is that really just a bunch of traders pressing a reflation bet? What if it's something much bigger (transition to a whole new fiscal regime) and traders are just the sparrow on the hippo's back? Also, this from Raoul at 19:00, whoa: "I've talked about this ad nauseam, but the amount of fiscal stimulus that's still to come is going to make your hair turn on fire. I mean, there's no way you can deal with this without massive fiscal stimulus. And like it or not, that's what they're going to do." Well okay then! If all that fiscal is coming (agree!), THAT is a better explanation for why bonds are going to hell right now. And if you differentiate between the bottom half of the economy and the top half, you should see why fiscal uber alles drives the reflation trade (because the top half doesn't need it but they get it anyway). Aaaand if you have the view that huge fiscal is coming, that ALSO helps explain the USD downtrend, because Europe and Japan are in austerity by comparison can't keep up with how aggressively easy the US is easing (even as global reserve managers rebalance away from dollars). Why are you guys bearish on reflation again?! ;-)
    • AB
      Ash B. | Real Vision
      9 January 2021 @ 04:49
      J.L. I sent you an email to the address you signed up to RV with. Take a look when you get a chance.
    • CK
      C K.
      9 January 2021 @ 10:50
      Fair points - Ash, can the rest of us see your / Raoul’s answer to this? For Pro members, reconciling Raoul and Julian’s views can be tricky. I know that Raoul may agree with Julian in the long term, and I agree with Raoul about the things that should happen before reflation should happen but I’m just not convinced they will. The forces now driving markets are far stronger than logic or traditional fundamentals (I.e. valuations vs flows). Excellent discussion though, one of Raoul’s best RVDBs. Thank you.
    • sj
      sara j.
      9 January 2021 @ 12:43
      Wow, thank you JL, I love reading your responses. May I ask how your asset allocation look at this point of time?
    • JL
      J L.
      9 January 2021 @ 12:49
      @ C. K. It is interesting you bring up the point that Raoul and Julian have different and opposing views. Two smart and informed and deeply experienced individuals with different macro forecasts for the world. Who is right and who is wrong? The question itself is fatally flawed. In trying to game the ultimate outcome of a complex adaptive system, it does not make sense to stake one's view on a single scenario or a single pathway, because the situation can evolve. A more rational and fruitful approach might be something like this, a probability distribution weighting: -- Odds of Raoul scenario: 40% -- Odds of Julian scenario: 40% -- Odds of a third scenario: 10% -- Odds of a total unknown: 10% If you think of it in terms of a probability distribution, which scenario is "right?" There is no possible answer, it is a nonsense question, because a complex adaptive system can evolve in such a manner that one scenario is in the lead and then a single unknown variable produces a cascading chain of events that flips to a different scenario completely. I question the entire epistemic structure of saying "This is my scenario and I am sticking to it." That whole model, the concept itself, is flawed in respect to thinking about how one should think about complex adaptive systems and their outputs. This criticism is practical because there is something that can be done about it. The answer is: -- Do not think or speak in terms of one scenario -- Think in terms of probability distributions -- Explore multiple plausible scenarios -- Update the probability distribution in iterative fashion Doing what is described is much harder, structurally and logistically, than simply picking ONE view and sticking with it. But what I describe is what winning traders do, in my opinion. This is what people are talking about with those old stories about Soros or Druckenmiller being able to have a view, and then change their minds a week later. If Druckenmiller has a view, and two weeks later his whole portfolio is reconfigured because he has another view, think about what went on for him, logistically and structurally: -- He is running a multi-scenario model in his head -- He is weighing competing scenarios in real time -- A piece of information changes the distribution -- He changes the probability weighting to a diff scenario -- He then rationally reconfigures the whole portfolio Both philosophically and strategically speaking, when dealing with complex adaptive systems -- and ESPECIALLY systems where the change agents (like policy makers) are observing and responding to the data as it comes in, thus changing the forecast -- there is not even a possibility of being 100% "right" in advance, except by chance. There can only be probability distributions of varying quality and snapshot accuracy which then must evolve. "Here is my one forecast" is a dead-end structure as a result of this; we stick with such structures for mundane reasons like limitations of the communication medium and the sheer informational challenge of maintaining a multiple scenario conceptual model and updating it in real time.
    • RM
      Richard M.
      9 January 2021 @ 13:29
      J.L. - thanks for your comments, they are very insightful. And your second comment (timestamp 7:49) is absolute gold (as Jerry would say <smile>), I am cutting and pasting that into a word doc to reference regularly! Again, many thanks for your contributions.
    • LJ
      Lynn J.
      9 January 2021 @ 21:14
      nice points! however, who is going to keep on buying the bonds/debt via QE/money printing? how the flooding money affect the purchase power internationally?
    • JL
      J L.
      10 January 2021 @ 01:24
      @ Lynn J If the bond market requires support the Federal Reserve can supply it. The Fed, in effect, can buy all the bonds that nobody else wants at the margins. One could argue that, in 2020, they already started doing that. When the Fed buys treasuries and swaps them for cash, they are just changing the maturity mix, in the sense that dollars are really just another form of government security with a duration of zero-years (hat tip Lacy Hunt). There is no constraint on how much the Fed can buy, other than 1) inflation risk and 2) faith in the dollar as a currency. Put another way, congress can keep spending, and issuing new treasuries to do so, and the Fed can keep buying those treasuries and turning them into dollars. And that can just keep going and going -- UNTIL the point at which there is either too much inflation or too great a loss of faith in the willingness of investors to hold dollar-denominated assets. And either of those things looks like the reflation trade, because dollars are a rubber yardstick. If the value of dollars is being depreciated because the supply of dollars is expanding as global reserve managers sell dollars, you could see that reflected in the price of other things -- like equities and commodities -- going higher to adjust for the weaker dollar benchmark. And that is another reason why it's so hard to know when the reflation trade ends, or if it is anywhere near close to ending. If the dollar is undergoing a kind of structural transition to much lower levels via the combination of regime change on the global reserves front AND the fiscal front -- with the Fed playing ball by not tightening -- that could be enough juice to power the reflation trade for many months to come, if not longer.
    • LJ
      Lynn J.
      10 January 2021 @ 04:55
      I appreciate your detailed explanation. Since we all can see now it is in the process of debt monetized and assets inflation, and the road is endless. Will it be like Japan in 1990s? Fed will own 80-90% of T-bills, corporate bonds/high yield bonds/junk bonds, and the market will be stalled for decades later? If so, the turning point is when the investors start to move most of their investments to Euro market/emerging market.
    • JL
      J L.
      10 January 2021 @ 08:44
      @ Lynn J I am skeptical it will end up like Japan. Michael Pettis more or less argued that Japan had its persistent deflationary experience in part because of a long-running imbalance between Japanese consumers and the Japanese private sector. Even as Japanese corporations regained an ability to spend and invest, they either mostly invested abroad or otherwise let cash sit in their accounts, recycling it back into JGBs. In this manner it was Japanese corporations hoarding capital and profits that resulted in a kind of "pushing on a string" effect keeping a lid on domestic inflation. Japanese consumers, meanwhile, were still mostly constrained in their access to wages and benefits, which prevented them spending more on imports or otherwise driving domestic inflation. Basically what Pettis describes is a kind of consumer spending suppression mechanism via cash and profits being diverted into a too-small percentage of the economy -- comprised mainly of wealthy corporations and high net worth investors -- whereas the majority of domestic consumers in the economy are wage-constrained, and so the local economy stays stagnant for lack of consumer spending power while the corporations and investors sit on their profits or export them profits abroad. Germany went through this too for a while -- it's part of the reason German banks fueled housing bubbles in the rest of the EU, for lack of opportunity to deploy the funds at home. That kind of deal isn't likely to happen to the United States, though, because 1) US policy will be far more bolder than Japan's was on a comparative basis, with fiscal blowing the doors out and 2) the aim of the new administration, and of Democrats generally, is to push stimulus and wage increases and government-funded job creation into the labor sector. So it looks like we could be at a pivotal point where, after forty years of the pendulum swinging away from labor and in favor of capital, it will start swinging back in favor of labor, which means general wages will see upward pressure, labor standards will see upward pressure (which means increasing corporate costs), and benefit structures will be expanded. Couple this with the top third of the economy still being profitable and large areas of the US economy still being dynamic (technology, biotech, EVs, renewables etc) and USD central bank reserves starting from such a higher perch (above 60%) with a long way to fall, and we are more likely to see the inflation / reflation powder ignite and a kind of rhyme with the late 1960s / early 1970s period.
    • LJ
      Lynn J.
      10 January 2021 @ 22:45
      You are great! However, I am confused why it will be like 1960s-1970s. US$ was anchored to gold before Aug 1971. US development was accelerated at that time. But now, the hightech is kind of fully developed (maybe somewhere at the bottleneck), the labor market is more concentrated in service sector than manufactory sector, and etc. Furthermore, the increased hourly rate may hit labor market worse, more companies may switch to robust/digital operation instead of human work. Interest rate near zero, and tax rate (both corporate and individual) is at historical low. It seems tax might be the only tool left for gov't to play with if that is what you mean.
    • JL
      J L.
      11 January 2021 @ 02:03
      @ Lynn J From what I understand the USD pre-1971 was not so much anchored to gold as redeemable in gold. That meant the supply of dollars could expand even as the US supply of gold did not. Bretton Woods was designed to fail from the start, in the sense that it was inevitable the fiat currency used by a growing economy, and a growing global economy, would expand its supply over time whereas the redeemable supply of American gold would not keep up. But Bretton Woods was not a failure, even though it had a fatal flaw, because the initial purpose was give the dollar primacy and dominance, and in that mission it succeeded. The expansive nature of fiat currency also has benefits in that too little currency supply has the potential to be deflationary, or otherwise serve as a constraint on growth, when a growing economy expands beyond its currency supply. This is true even if the currency is infinitely divisible (like a cryptocurrency) because real economy prices and wages tend to be sticky, which means currency shortages show up as constraints. So if Nixon hadn't taken America off the gold standard, some other president would have had to, because there were too many dollars in the world relative to not enough gold and that inevitable situation, built into the Bretton woods structure (expandable asset redeemable for fixed quantity asset) was getting worse by the day. But Bretton Woods was kind of a bridge to making U.S.Treasuries the replacement for gold, which is a way to describe what happened, and a way to describe what goes on to this day (with respect to more than 60% of CB reserves still in dollar-dominated assets). As for high tech versus labor, the technology paradigm actually enables reflationary MMT policies. -- technology is deflationary (increases efficiency, removes jobs) -- the one true constraint on government spending is inflation -- deflationary tech trends cancel out inflation Also: -- too much spending = too much debt = loss of faith in the currency -- but dynamic technology companies / industries are desirable to own -- desire to flee the dollar balanced by desire to own high tech assets If we are living in a deflationary world where technology is producing explosive levels of productivity, that is a perfect juxtaposition for living in an MMT world simultaneously, because the deflation from technology puts a brake on inflation pressures and the asset desirability created by American high tech industry puts a brake on the impulse to ditch dollar-denominated assets. Put this together and the government can probably spend a whole lot more. And they will have incentive, too, because the driver will be living in a democracy. Millennials are a bigger generation than boomers, and 70% of them have indicated a willingness to vote for socialist policies, in part because Millennials as a generation are completely broke. So we're going to increasingly see MMT politicians and eventually an MMT president most likely as the participant mix in democratic elections shifts in profound ways. Whether you like that or hate it, it's a high probability forecast. But at the same time, as the dollar is declining, winning tech companies will be adding more and more value as you point out. This is where the rubber yardstick (declining dollar) can push their valuations a lot higher, while also keeping the dollar from falling into total disrepair. If you want to imagine an extreme, picture a world where the tech juggernauts have market caps of $50 trillion each, and the whole world owns them, and 40% of American adults have community-type jobs supported by municipal revenue, which in turn is provided by the government. Crazy deflationary profits, concentrated on the tech side, balanced out by MMT in full form. Your Uncle Frank makes handcrafted furniture, and his business is funded by local purchase tax credits which in turn are funded by a government program, which is indirectly supported by the wealth of Bezos and Zuckerberg etc. It sounds weird, but it also makes sense if you think about productivity on the tech side going through the roof even as productivity on the human labor side falling through the floor, allowing a larger actor (the government) to effectively distribute some of that tech productivity across the economy in aggregate, in order to keep democracy intact so we don't have a Mad Max situation with insurrrections every week. Getting from here to there, though, is gonna be super bumpy with big gaps and drawn-out delays in arrival time. It will happen fast in the big scheme of things, but it will feel slow in that certain aspects of the tranformation (which technology will force upon us) will take years yet, or maybe even a decade or two. So in saying it will be like the 1960s / 70s, my sense is this will be a transition period that won't be forever but could last awhile, particularly if we see the average percentage of USD in central bank reserves go from a no-way-sustainable 60% to something more long-term realistic like 30%. That transition alone will have a series late 60s / early 70s feel to it, in the sense that global governments will increasingly be divesting excess dollar assets and getting frustrated with US policies while the US goes for MMT and kind of smiles at all those bagholders, er, treasury holders, paying for it. Or, maybe something totally different happens, this is one potential configuration. Maybe something different happens :)
    • LJ
      Lynn J.
      11 January 2021 @ 03:22
      Your reply is far beyond my expectation. Really powerful! The economics is not an isolated system. My natural reaction is there is something missing or vague behind your logic which I cannot figure out now. Thanks a lot for your sharing!
    • JL
      J L.
      11 January 2021 @ 04:31
      @ Lynn J Your provocative comments are wonderful. I am enjoying giving you these off-the-cuff answers. Funny you mention that "economics is not an isolated system." I completely agree, and would argue that misunderstanding the aggregate nature of the system, as shaped by the laws of thermodynamics, are where many go wrong. The laws of thermodynamics are, roughly: In an isolated system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In an isolated system, entropy will always increase. As a system's temperature approaches absolute zero, entropy levels will approach a constant. In other words: You can't cheat... you can't win... and you can't break even. Fortunately, the earth is not an isolated system. It is bathed in surplus energy from the sun! There is so much excess energy available, in fact, it is virtually impossible to use it all. At their current productive capacity, the entire world could be paneled by a field of solar panels less than half the size of Texas. And panel efficiency is going up by the month if not the day. Other forms of energy are also drawn from the sun once removed (wind is created by temperature differentials, etc). So the first point is that humans have access to a functionally limitless form of energy by way of what the sun delivers. By the time we max out renewable energy sources, if that ever happens, we will be so advanced as a civilization we will be able to mine asteroids and run nuclear reactors in space, or even build Dyson Spheres. This relates to the tech thesis because tech uses a lot of energy. The hyper-productive technology thesis rests on the notion of tech using more and more energy at scale, which goes hand in hand with utilizing ever greater amounts of renewable energy at scale (which in turn lowers the cost of using that energy). What is happening here, on balance, is that we are importing productivity from the sun, and getting better at it all the time. So technology, by way of exploiting a functionally limitless renewable energy source, is providing ever greater levels of productive capacity, with a side effect of making human labor redundant. Why would this be a bad thing? Why would it be bad for tech to increase the productivity of human civilization at the cost of human labor? We know this is what's happening, because we can see the through-line. The added productivity provided by expanding technology is not "free" and it does not come from nowhere. It comes from the sun. The "free" part comes from the unique arrangement that earth enjoys in the first place. So: -- The tech deflation thesis is powered by renewable energy. -- Tech is increasing the net productivity of human civilization. -- This is creating SURPLUS productivity. -- It doesn't make sense for this to be a bad thing. Now, imagine a national economy as a non-isolated system. -- The U.S. economy imports ever greater amounts of renewable energy. -- This energy is converted into ever greater technological productivity. -- At the same time, human labor productivity declines. -- In aggregate, total productivity has gone up. -- The problem is an imbalance, not a lack of productivity. The sun bathes the earth in surplus energy. Technology companies are adding surplus productivity to human civilization through renewable energy conversion. This is ADDING to the net productivity and wealth of rich industrial nations. The problem, then, is not economic so much as political. As a surplus of productivity is added on one side of the national economy (the technology side), a deficit is created on the other side (the human labor side). Meanwhile the national government, as an entity, is seeing a net increase, a productivity surplus. Why? Because the government's resources are represented by the economy in aggregate — the labor side AND the technology side. Imagine it as a ledger sheet, with technology gains increasing as labor productivity plummets: — Technology productivity gains +50 — Labor losses -30 — Net productivity gain +20 So the country is wealthier and more productive as a whole. The problem is political — there is a major imbalance between who is enjoying the surplus versus who is experiencing a gut-wrenching deficit. In a democracy, the ultimate solution is for a government — as the agent of the total populace, wiith access to total resources in aggregate — moving some of the gain from the tech side to the labor side in a logical way. Doing this will be a matter of policy as implemented by CBDCs, creative means of controlling revenue and distribution flows, weird programs, and other things. It will happen this way because there is no other way for it to go, other than democracy breaking down and civilization splintering into separate parts. The math adds up because the laws of thermodynamics hold the whole time. Surplus energy is imported from the sun, which is then accumulated at astonishing pace wihtin the tech sector, and which is then distributed in aggregate by a government — which can afford it via the net tech surplus — as a means of preserving democratic function. So many old ideas fail to see where this is going, and get hung up on things like the total size of the debt, because they see the net gains in tech productivity that are coming (or some approximation of them) but they don't see the aggregate nature of national economies or the ability of governments to balance out the tech-labor paradigm. Because if they don't, democracy will self-destruct and we will go back to feudalism or splinter states or some other such thing.
  • RB
    Richard B.
    11 January 2021 @ 01:06
    Raoul needs to me more precise and logical on his view on the big variables, USD, rates and Oil. Which he has got very wrong. Sticking with his solvency and recession theme, despite admitting massive FISCAL response?. Bitcoin yes congrats
  • GC
    Gregg C.
    11 January 2021 @ 00:49
    Asset Allocation. That is a white board video I would like to see. All I have ever read was Large Cap, Small Cap, Growth, Value, yada yada. Liquidity and the rest that Raoul brought up is something I would like to understand more.
  • PE
    Paul E.
    9 January 2021 @ 16:02
    Good update. Thanks for the video. It would be great sometimes if Ash would be more proactive in providing potential counter views to Raoul. Usually they are both in agreement and different views instead of the two being in consensus would make for interesting viewing.
    • DC
      Douglas C.
      9 January 2021 @ 17:14
      Second the motion for a bit of a more contrarian view from Ash but always good stuff!
    • CM
      Cory M.
      9 January 2021 @ 19:55
      This isn't the place for Ash to counter Raoul. This is the place for Ash to encourage Raoul to deeply reveal his precious knowledge. And he does that to a "t". Thanks, Ash.
    • JA
      John A.
      10 January 2021 @ 17:01
      Ash is one of the best @ getting the most out of the person he interviews. Will come back for a second or third to abstract the knowledge.
    • TP
      Timothy P.
      10 January 2021 @ 18:10
      In general I think RV interviewers are too much of the "nod along" type, except for Mr Green - who will actually push back when a guest spews nonsense. RV needs less "softball" interviewers and more "devil's advocate" to wring the juice out of the subject.
    • ZM
      Zac M.
      10 January 2021 @ 22:38
      Mike Green is one of the smartest people I've seen on RV (other than Raoul and Grant). While I like Ash (and Ed) pushing back on the boss in public, even if its for journalistic reasons may go against their instincts. Mike, as an outsider to RV, might be a better suited to interviewing Raoul and countering his arguments.
  • JV
    Jerry V.
    10 January 2021 @ 21:08
    There was so much to unpack in this episode - The review will consist of pen / paper / coffee and of course google to look up data that I'm unclear about - Bravo RV team
  • JC
    9 January 2021 @ 15:49
    What does Raoul think of the real estate market?
    • WT
      William T.
      10 January 2021 @ 18:39
      He stays in his lane!
  • DH
    Dagobert H.
    10 January 2021 @ 15:48
    Emerging Markets I understand Raoul's approach to invest in the most liquid instrument first (eg. EEM) and then diversify into individual countries or frontier markets to get more alpha. But on the other hand, I like Jay Pelosky’s contrarian approach. He said in today’s marketplace it’s not worth to buy straight into EEM, but better go for the internet and ecommerce space with EMQQ. I can fully agree, as I have worked as a digital director in Shanghai and have invested early on in EMQQ (and KWEB for China) as well as in Asian tech stocks. Having a look at the net asset value EEM is 20x times more liquid, but EMQQ has outperformed by far (7x since 2014). Probably EMQQ is more riskier having twice as much exposure to China, but luckily not in the areas which are exposed to the US-China tech war. @Ash, I would appreciate if RV could follow up with further interviews on emerging markets in the coming months .Why not bringing different people with different opinions on the table? Fyi: Pelosky at EMQQ webinar (second part) https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/17122/453316?utm_campaign=channel-feed&utm_source=brighttalk-portal&utm_medium=web
    • CD
      Christopher D.
      10 January 2021 @ 16:12
      Anyone knows how to buy individual Indian stocks? Ibkr doesn't provide access to IndiaMart, for instance.
  • ML
    Michael L.
    10 January 2021 @ 13:15
    Hi Raoul and Ash, big crypto supporter here but what do you think of Da Hongfei's (NEO founder) piece here on bitcoin perhaps being forced to change to remain relevant in the future https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-butterfly-effect-why-defi-will-force-btc-to-break-its-21m-supply-ceiling
  • PT
    Pawel T.
    10 January 2021 @ 13:03
    I would love to other macro people express themselves in very simple and understandable way for beginners (like me) as @Raoul. Thanks!
  • rm
    rikki m.
    10 January 2021 @ 07:29
    @Raoul, are you effectively saying we have a tactical dollar bounce within a continued downturn? if you are or will be soon bullish on emerging markets then usually that coincides / caused by a weaker dollar.
  • JF
    Joseph F.
    10 January 2021 @ 05:42
    Cardano!!!! He said it here.
    • AM
      Aurko M.
      10 January 2021 @ 06:23
      I wonder why zilliqa is so under the radar right now. It already has working transactional sharding live on the main-net.
  • AR
    Andrew R.
    10 January 2021 @ 03:33
    Any suggestions and where to begin learning the asset allocation piece? Books? Courses?
  • MR
    Michael R.
    9 January 2021 @ 01:21
    Hi Raoul, What is your split for BTC/ETC? 80/20?
    • JF
      Joao F.
      9 January 2021 @ 02:31
      Hi Michael, If you use past data to build a portofolio around BTC and ETH, on a risk-ajusted return, the efficient frontier would be very close to BTC/ETH = 75/25. If you are more of a risk adverse person you weigth BTC on a higher percentage than 75. If you don't care about risk at all (or timeframe), the efficient frontier of your portofolio would be around 100% ETH. If you consider a third asset and calculate the efficient frontier again (I did it with Litecoin), I got exactly the same return: BTC/ETH/LIT = 75/25/0. PS: Raoul previously stated that is split is 80/20. Best of luck
    • MR
      Michael R.
      10 January 2021 @ 02:24
      Hi Michael, To follow on Joao's rational, there's a really good Sharpe Ratio (risk-adjusted returns) analysis of different BTC/ETH ...and then adding LTC to a balance portfolio related to the level of risk (volatility) and expected returns. It was posted a week ago by Benjamin Cowen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHwXiGWNr1c
  • FL
    Francis L.
    9 January 2021 @ 02:03
    Great intro, Jack
    • JF
      Jack F. | Real Vision
      10 January 2021 @ 01:28
      Thanks Francis!
  • SU
    Shakeel U.
    9 January 2021 @ 23:27
    10/10 😀
  • SU
    Shakeel U.
    9 January 2021 @ 23:27
    10/10 😀
  • dj
    dennis j.
    9 January 2021 @ 23:04
    Why does labor matter in the short term if they're just going to pay people directly? We're also discounting entirely the vaccine which is ramping up at a solid clip (that's a chart to really show since the two scary ones directly flow from it). 90% of the deaths are in a certain demographic...maybe 10-15% of the population. We should see an effect by end of Jan or...we're in much deeper trouble. The natural flu has two peaks (mid-late Dec which matches) and then again in March. To some extent, we're following that pattern and there's likely some overlap covid (from testing). After March with $trillions likely (per Biden's mouth 2 days ago)...how do we not have explosive growth followed by a hangover later. Would love to hear thougths on these. Is there a good existing comparison video of bitcoin/etherium?
  • DS
    David S.
    9 January 2021 @ 22:04
    It is easy to surmise we are in extraordinary times - a recession put on warp drive by the pandemic. The only good news for me is the rollout of the vaccine. The countries that are able to keep the core economy in place and its citizen from bankruptcy will be able to have a better start. The Asian nations, on average, handled the balance better by force and/or compliant citizens. There economies, however, will not have all the Western consumers buying their products now with reduced wealth. Western economies will have all their problems before COVID still in place. Because the US may be better able to provide solvency to the core until COVID is mitigated, I feel ithe US will come out first. It will not be pretty, but it may be less ugly than the rest. Do not over bet on your reflation trades. Watch closely. Fiat currencies are a relative bet. DLS
  • RA
    Robert A.
    9 January 2021 @ 22:00
    Just joined and this is one of the first videos I’ve watched. Enjoyable, insightful and engaging. Financial commentary that’s accessible and fun. 👍
  • MH
    Michael H.
    9 January 2021 @ 21:31
    Fabulous! Thank you, RV.
  • DW
    Daniel W.
    9 January 2021 @ 12:25
    Love, Ash...but Raoul's impression of Ash was hilarious!
    • AB
      Ash B. | Real Vision
      9 January 2021 @ 21:04
      I couldn’t stop laughing
  • WT
    William T.
    9 January 2021 @ 20:52
    how many chairs does a person need??
  • jl
    johan l.
    9 January 2021 @ 18:35
    Absolutely love that Raoul grin, and when you pair it with all that knowledge.. what a man. Paired up with Spock, makes for a great interview. :) Very glad to hear that you are planning to dive into Layer 2 solution. Please check out nahmii.io, which is an Ethereum Layer 2 protocol that has been live for several years and has started to get industrial adoption. The Founder, Jacobo, is a fantastic guy and would be a fantastic guest on Real Vision.
    • ns
      nikolay s.
      9 January 2021 @ 20:18
      Typical pump and dump coin
  • DS
    David S.
    9 January 2021 @ 00:46
    Mr. Musk is another example of a cult of personality. He is a visionary. It will be difficult to grow into the market value of Tesla. DLS
    • DS
      David S.
      9 January 2021 @ 03:36
      He's a visionary with his imaginary accounting principles. Put the crack pipe down and examine the financials. #enron2021
    • MB
      Matthias B.
      9 January 2021 @ 13:54
      Mr Musk for me is the poster boy of what is wrong with the current system. subsidized by gvmt to survive, but questionable accounting to put it mildly, ignoring the law but regulator too afraid to apply the appropriate actions. and central banks happy to sponsor zombie Co‘s. Good for him, good for everyone making money with the shares. But despictable.
    • WT
      William T.
      9 January 2021 @ 20:12
      Don't blame Elon for the Robinhooders drucken sailors exuberance
  • TP
    Timothy P.
    9 January 2021 @ 18:16
    I see some talking of the book here - Raoul has a long thesis on the dollar, which he's admitted is plastering him right now. I've been following it too, and beyond some counter-trend rallies, it still looks like hot garbage. Given the incoming tsunami of printing that is about to take place, in the order of a Trillion or more, I wouldn't want to be long the Dollar either. Also, Raoul loves ETH, yet his allocation is 80/20 BTC/ETH - hedging, eh? From how he talks about it here and on Twitter you'd think he was all-in. Just funny to me.
  • RG
    Razmig G.
    9 January 2021 @ 06:56
    I'm gonna throw the proverbial "don't fight the Fed" at you. If it buoyed up markets then. It'll do so now as well. Wallstreet and mainstreet have been detached long ago.. Raoul do you really think that they'll let markets crash when he first steps in? Maybe later down the road but atleast not in Q1.
    • MJ
      Matt J.
      9 January 2021 @ 17:55
      They'll need to do it because of the virus. Waiting until after Q1 would result is virus being virus and getting worse and worse. Wait till Q3 and virus is probably gone and a moot point – but, at that point, he's also got a tonne of deaths on his hands.
  • MJ
    Marius J.
    9 January 2021 @ 17:42
  • JC
    9 January 2021 @ 15:56
    What Raoul is saying makes sense. i am subscribing because I am most interested in what Raoul has to say.
  • MB
    Matthias B.
    9 January 2021 @ 14:06
    when two central bankers state implicitly that the current financial markets are not bubbly and valuations basically don‘t matter, then one knows how detached these markets have become from everything which is aking to responsible standards and acting. instead of uniting people, it will polarize and divide further. Shame on modern society and politicians being totally reluctant to hold them responsible, shame on society to hold their politicians responsible for spurring this divide. Oh I am sorry, the central bankers are providing the gravy train for these ‚important‘ people so theirs a vital function, we can’t question or stop their folly since it may reduce my gravy. instant gratification instead of responsible mid-to-longterm policy application. When did they forget the saying that when your neighbour is doing fine, you are doing fine.
  • MC
    Michael C.
    9 January 2021 @ 13:58
    Ash Live long and prosper...;)
  • yp
    yannick p.
    9 January 2021 @ 13:27
    I would like a revised view with President Elect Biden on new spending bill news coming this week!
  • RS
    Robert S.
    9 January 2021 @ 11:56
    Can Raoul talk about the economic model of BTC when all the coins are disbursed? Will not rewarding miners with BTC be enough to keep BTC functioning acceptable clip?
    • DW
      Daniel W.
      9 January 2021 @ 12:03
      You mean after 2140?
    • ML
      Max L.
      9 January 2021 @ 12:27
      Hi Robert, This has been discussed by many well-informed bitcoin thinkers and you can find the answer without Raoul.. Miners earn transaction fees which will be there once the block reward ends. You will find much more detail and discussion out there if you want it but a good place to start is with Dan Held: https://medium.com/@danhedl/bitcoins-security-is-fine-93391d9b61a8 G'luck.
  • BF
    Bret F.
    9 January 2021 @ 06:52
    Thanks so much Raoul. A little more relevance. I started this chart in March 2013. So market forced on queue since (o;
    • PW
      Patrick W.
      9 January 2021 @ 12:08
      Bret, I searched under Bret Fergason and found on one Bret_Furgason, but there are no posts or charts listed under your profile. I'd love to see the analysis.
  • JE
    Jonathan E.
    9 January 2021 @ 11:38
    The best yet IMO. Thanks guys.
  • ME
    Mark E.
    9 January 2021 @ 11:05
    Very well done guys. I agree with Raoul's and Roger's take on the reflation narrative, it's far more credible and indeed more probable than the opposite view that, without much analysis, maintains that QE, government stimulus and M2 growth (as well as the price of a loaf of bread at the supermarket) must equal inflation. I believe that economic conditions and policies still favour deflation in the short to medium term.
  • RC
    Romesh C.
    9 January 2021 @ 10:36
    Great video. While I understand RVDB is a daily show, I always find the 'let's take a step back' synopses Raoul provides on a Friday to be particularly insightful.
  • JS
    Jon S.
    9 January 2021 @ 09:10
    This is was your best daily briefing ever. Thank you Raoul. I would like to take this opportunity to wish you happy new year! Greetings.
  • IW
    Ian W.
    9 January 2021 @ 04:45
    Wow... You guys all on fire today. One of my fav RVDB segments. Thanks for the deep dive into the demographics yet again. Always a great reminder.
    • AB
      Ash B. | Real Vision
      9 January 2021 @ 08:22
      Thanks, Ian. Glad you enjoyed it.
  • CH
    Corey H.
    9 January 2021 @ 08:10
    @raoul, historically when the Fed. Gov. in the USA wanted to "coerce" the states' behavior the Gov will tie the Federal cash to the State adoption of desired rules see 21 year old drinking age and 18 year old smoking age across the US. See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act
  • GG
    Gary G.
    9 January 2021 @ 07:03
    All you are going to get is pullback in reflation trade before we start the next leg higher. So, dollar corrects higher before it goes down! And oh yeh, the bunds sell off is going to be fantastic! Bitcoin will follow gold soon.
  • DG
    David G.
    9 January 2021 @ 06:41
    "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -Ash Bennington
  • MT
    Mark T.
    9 January 2021 @ 06:25
    Superb video and quite comforting in these crazy times.
  • PA
    Paul A.
    9 January 2021 @ 05:38
    In my average Joe world there is no worry of losing and everyone is protected by diversification. People trade hours for dollars and count the days to their pension payout. Thank you for providing content that helps me understand the real financial risks we must navigate.
  • AM
    Andrew M.
    9 January 2021 @ 04:21
    Live long and prosper Ash!
    • AB
      Ash B. | Real Vision
      9 January 2021 @ 04:46
  • JW
    Jesper W.
    9 January 2021 @ 02:34
    Hi - I'd really appreciate if you could provide a bit more coverage on gold and sIlver and producers of both. I know Crypto is the shiny new objects, but imagine we are all going to be flocking to gold for safe heaven sooner or later as we get further into the year.... Jesper
    • MS
      Michael S.
      9 January 2021 @ 03:17
      Why would all of us flock to gold when Bitcoin clearly outperforms everything
    • SG
      Skyler G.
      9 January 2021 @ 03:44
      Bitcoin is clearly a risk asset. At least to date.
    • NH
      Nathan H.
      9 January 2021 @ 04:34
      Bitcoin is certainly not for everybody. My Mother does not care how many X more she can get in crypto. Literally would never invest in crypto for any amount of money. She thinks bitcoin mining is like actual mining with a machine...you get my point.
  • SG
    Skyler G.
    9 January 2021 @ 04:16
    Real yields rising = gold down. Thats been history. Just like risk assets and Bitcoin
  • JH
    Joel H.
    9 January 2021 @ 04:00
    This is great, thank you guys. Ash, don't lose your 'Spock-ness', it's why we love you.
    • AB
      Ash B. | Real Vision
      9 January 2021 @ 04:10
      Ha. Thanks, Joel.
  • SG
    Skyler G.
    9 January 2021 @ 03:48
    “The overwhelming consensus among leading economists left, right and center is that in order to keep the economy from collapsing this year, getting much, much worse, we should be investing significant amounts of money right now.” -Biden
  • PB
    9 January 2021 @ 01:39
    I'm going to raise my stop losses this weekend to a small bit below market price for my reflation trades. Take some profits. Hopefully, the markets don't open down 10% on Monday. A freely available newsletter I follow has pounded on "profit taking" twice in the last week. I'll try to not be a sheep (baa baa) this time cycle. baa baa
    • WT
      William T.
      9 January 2021 @ 02:53
      I wouldn't sweat it. I've learned the hard way, macro guys talk in quarters, not days or even weeks.
  • FY
    Francis Y.
    9 January 2021 @ 02:46
    Raoul, Ash, I suggest looking into $LUNA (if you haven't already) as you go further out in the risk curve in the wild west of the crypto landscape.
  • GC
    Grant C.
    9 January 2021 @ 02:08
    I think the commodity run is also partly based ironically around ESG. Massive copper, battery related metals and rare earths required for electrification of everything, new green deal, EVs, etc.
  • GF
    Gordon F.
    9 January 2021 @ 02:04
    Raoul has a flight to catch?!? You mean that he will be somewhere else than in front of his pool table? Bon voyage and have a safe trip. Hope to see you again real soon.
  • CA
    Chris A.
    9 January 2021 @ 01:43
    A single episode like this can be worth an entire year’s subscription.
    • AB
      Ash B. | Real Vision
      9 January 2021 @ 01:54
      Thank you Chris. That's very kind of you to say.
  • KM
    Kelly M.
    8 January 2021 @ 23:30
    Here is something I have not heard anyone discuss so RV, run with it: How many graduates from Uni are we graduating? The foreign students that come to the US, Britain etc to pursue advanced degrees are not coming. So it seems to me we have a looming deficit in intellectually skilled graduates. I am not concerned about the soft degrees. I am concerned about what I call "the degrees that can't be fudged." That is: Engineering, Sciences, Maths, Statistics, Computer Science, Economics, Finance, Actuarial Studies, Medicine etc. A deficit in those areas will cause an inflationary cost push it would seem.
    • AB
      Andy B.
      8 January 2021 @ 23:58
      Economics and Finance should NOT be in your list
    • PB
      PHILLIP B.
      9 January 2021 @ 01:45
      I agree. But, it's about the longer-term effects. Those who came had some preference to stay. Are we moving into a regime where they don't come? Or, if they do, they don't stay? This is a potentially longer-term impact (5+ years). And, yes, structural, should it occur. Shall I say "devastating" to America's long-term productivity vis-a-vis other developed, and developing, economies?
  • DB
    Danielle B.
    9 January 2021 @ 00:10
    Only a tiny % of population is affected by cv directly. Overwhelming unemployed are in hospitality and tourism industry. There are not core workers.
    • WT
      William T.
      9 January 2021 @ 00:57
      But what of all the derivatives of the hospitality and tourism industry, all the supply chains down the line are immensely exponential, let me count the ways but I would run out of room. A Metcalfe's Law in reverse if you will.
    • PB
      PHILLIP B.
      9 January 2021 @ 01:33
      The tourism and industry industries are first-order effects. There are second- and third-order effects. For example, I work for a SaaS platform company. Our customer base is considerably among the small and medium businesses. Hospitality and tourism are among these. How many of these closed? How many are permanently closed? Let's just say 100,000, at least for now. That is 100k fewer customers for my company in our addressable customer base. We are slowly bleeding customers. Revenue down. Profits. Pressure on executives. Pressure on costs. Hiring. Salaries. Other expenses. Multiply this by many, many times, across the economy, and there is a considerable effect when summed across all, effected entities. Covid is a body blow to both people and the economy. (NB - I was estimating this afternoon that the inpatient hospital cost for a bed in ICU is $4k/day. Let's say a mean Covid patient is in the bed for three weeks. Today, there were about 120k Covid patients in ICU beds across the US. Pretty incredible cost estimates; though, I admit, that this NB strays from your OP.)
  • aK
    ac K.
    9 January 2021 @ 01:11
    Thank you Raoul for introducing me to the simple, yet often ignored, concept of asset allocation; when to accumulate risk and when to divest risk. Thanks for your honesty and sharing your vision.
  • JC
    John C.
    9 January 2021 @ 01:11
    Awesome. Great content Raoul.
  • SJ
    Stefan J.
    9 January 2021 @ 00:48
    Why there a divergence between ETH and ETHE ?
    • RC
      Rafael C.
      9 January 2021 @ 01:09
      premium to nav
  • JS
    Jon S.
    9 January 2021 @ 00:46
  • MK
    Mark K.
    9 January 2021 @ 00:44
    My compliments to RV team for this daily briefing and Mike Green Panda piece today. Really well done.
  • sp
    spencer p.
    9 January 2021 @ 00:28
    this was an amazing vid. great work.
  • VS
    Viktor S.
    9 January 2021 @ 00:18
    That was fantastic! Really dense video, lot of information to process. Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts!
  • sp
    spencer p.
    9 January 2021 @ 00:18
    i just died laughing when i heard the "spock" comment. hahaha. love it guys
  • JD
    John D.
    9 January 2021 @ 00:17
    OMG - the Spock comment really made me laugh out loud...great update!
  • PR
    Prashanth R.
    8 January 2021 @ 23:58
    I cannot thank Real Vision and Raoul enough for the value they are bringing into peoples life. This is for sure the best value investment of this decade