Current research and analysis on topics ranging from innovation, disruption, and opportunity, as well as hype, irrationality, and absurdity.
Presentations about developments in technology, life sciences, digital assets, and other transformational businesses, as well as market, economic, and geopolitical developments
The convergence of volatile geopolitics fragmented and unpredictable markets, disruptive technologies, and unique opportunities.
Understanding geopolitical issues, developing innovative and insightful investment strategies, and navigating political and economic volatility are now essential to achieving investment success.
A turbulent geopolitical and economic environment is here to stay. Allocating capital in today’s economic and geopolitical landscape requires a sharp focus on macro trends, a disciplined approach to risk, and an ability to anticipate shifts in policy and global power dynamics. The investment landscape has never been more complex, with heightened tensions between the U.S. and China, uncertainty surrounding Taiwan, and Europe’s economic fragility. The new reality is that trade realignments, subsidized industrial policies, and emerging trading blocs characterized by protectionism and localization are rising. Now What?Geopolitical risk is no longer an afterthought. The US-China rivalry, Taiwan’s strategic importance, Europe’s economic fragility, and shifting trade policies will shape the next decade of global markets. Savvy investors will anticipate these changes and allocate capital to industries and regions positioned for sustained growth. The key to success is flexibility, resilience, and the ability to recognize macro trends before they materialize fully. The future is uncertain but full of opportunities.
The United States and China play global economic and political chess games. There are many moves and defensive and offensive strategies, not only for trade but also for energy and natural resources (rare earths among the most recent flavors of discord), geopolitics (Russia, Ukraine, Iran, the Middle East generally), technology (Taiwan and AI), and global economic supremacy. It’s a long list, but China and the US drive the outcomes. Instead of working for mutual benefit, regardless of fundamental cultural and political differences, we are now drawing bright lines demarking battle zones (Ukraine and Russia; Taiwan; AI and advanced technologies). The result will be economic and technical inefficiency and degradation in the quality of life, safety, and prosperity. China must acknowledge the outrage caused by its overreaching bids for control, and America must adjust to China’s presence without selling honor for profit. Competition is not us-or-them; reality is us-and-them. The U.S. semiconductor industry gets 30% of its revenue from China. China’s resulting products service the world, and China’s producers need the U.S. as well. If allowed, such examples of mutual benefit will proliferate.
It is naïve to imagine wrestling China back to the past. The project, now, is to contest its moral vision of the future. Connected, collaborative engagement is the only practical way. China has come a long way, and its trajectory cannot be ignored or dismissed. The U.S. and China will be much better off from this more enlightened, realistic perspective. See the whole board.
The “Thucydides Trap” occurs when a rising nation-state—for the Greek historian Thucydides, it was Athens—must eventually have a violent confrontation with the existing dominant nation-state—Sparta in his time. It is a zero-sum game where there can be only one dominant nation-state as the eventual winner, and it is usually assumed that the rising nation-state will outdo the dominant nation-state resolved only by military conflict.The United States and China are today’s Sparta and Athens. For several decades, their geopolitical relationship has been fundamentally based on collaboration and healthy competition, raising the bar for both countries. Now, it is turning into discordant competition, trade restrictions, and embargoes. The combined benefits of global collaboration and competitiveness, not trade restraint, will only enhance the benefits for the United States and China. The government creates friction and potential conflict, which is the biggest reason we fall into the Thucydides Trap. If appropriate, oversight, sensible regulation, and enforceable trade agreements do not interfere with fair competition and collaboration. There is no “Trap” to avoid. The sooner China and the US realize this, the better off each country (and the world) will be.
Significant VC activity and AI development opportunities are emerging in China. DeepSeek is the Vanguard of innovation from the artificial intelligence “moonshot” encouraged by the Chinese government. Not only will we see ongoing developments from Alibaba and Tencent, but there will also be a layer of elite AI companies at the forefront of China’s AI sector. US sanctions and restrictions have only increased innovation and groundbreaking AI development activity in China. Those sanctions will amount to nothing and encourage accelerated advancement.
The announcement of a $500 billion commitment to building AI infrastructure in the United States, is another major salvo in the AI wars. At this point, it’s hard to distinguish whether this is just hyperbole from hyperventilating technology executives or something with real substance.But, more importantly, it indicates an agenda to “win” in artificial intelligence. OpenAI, Softbank, and others are pushing the narrative to “beat China” and align themselves with the Trump administration. Fundamental is a belief that such a race exists, the US can gain advantage by dedicating computer resources, and it’s worth winning at all costs – whatever that means.Unfortunately, computer resources don’t define a sustainable advantage anymore. A decoupling of resources and cooperation between the United States and China have forced the Chinese to develop near-equivalent models while using only a fraction of resources. bigger data centers, substantial computing resources, and overwhelming numbers of GPU production won’t win this arms race. It’s A Zero-Sum Game That Amounts to Nothing.
Predicting what’s next has been a fool’s game, and it continues to be. The S&P 500 was up 26% in 2023 and 25% in 2024, for the best two-year stretch since 1997-98. That brings us to 2025. What lies ahead? Rationality, Optimism, exuberance, disappointment, correction, and more frequent and intense volatility—with uncertainty about the timing, extent, and outcome. Is enthusiasm for new technology creating a bubble, and will the bubble burst? Optimism has prevailed in the markets since late 2022, generating above-average valuations and astonishing returns for some (primarily AI-related) equities. Stocks in most industrial groups sell at high multiples, but enthusiasm for artificial intelligence and the persistence of the Magnificent 7 drive most market expectations. There is the implicit presumption that the top seven companies will continue to be successful and that the “new thing” (artificial intelligence) will drive valuations even higher. However, stocks may sit still for the next 10 years as earnings rise and multiples return to earth. Another possibility is that the multiple correction is compressed into a year or two, implying a significant decline in stock prices. Be aware of Mr. Market’s irrational behavior. It’s not going to be a smooth pathway forward; there will be great investment opportunities, as there are in any market, but overall, it’s a high starting point. It’s time to be neutral.
This podcast discusses my article on the current state of artificial intelligence, focusing on the limitations of large language models and the unrealistic expectations surrounding the development of artificial general intelligence (AGI). I argue that AI systems are not on a trajectory to match or exceed human intelligence because LLMs lack common sense and rely on regurgitating information rather than understanding. Despite the hype surrounding AGI, it is decades away, and the current focus on LLMs is misguided. Instead, I advocate for a different approach to AI that incorporates real-world interactions and visual data.
Many experts are exaggerating artificial intelligence’s power and peril. Most public commentary, ranging from politicians to prominent technologists, says AI – more precisely, AGI – is close to surpassing human intelligence. The significant risk is that artificial intelligence will supplant human beings. This speculation even comes from Geoffrey Hinton, a Nobel prize-winning AI pioneer. AI models are useful, but, as Yann LeCun, Meta’s AI head, says, they are far from rivaling a house cat’s intelligence, let alone humans. The talk that AI will become so powerful that it poses an existential threat to human beings is nonsense. AI is a powerful tool and is becoming enormously important in all aspects of the economy. But AGI, malicious or otherwise, will not happen anytime soon.
This is a new podcast based on my artificial intelligence research. I argue that the current approach to artificial intelligence, reliant on massive datasets and “neural networks” inspired by the brain, is fundamentally flawed. Instead, it advocates for a new vision that prioritizes cognitive architecture, mirroring the brain’s ability to process information dynamically and identify relevant data. This new approach would utilize smaller, more focused datasets, leading to more efficient, accurate, and scalable AI systems capable of true learning, knowledge transfer, and prediction.
