Transcription
Okay, let's do this. If America defaults today, who will be the hardest hit? It's not China. [Music] If you say you're thinking in a 200-year context, you can't think that way today. If you think in a .com context, it's only partially usable today, but you have to adjust. Otherwise, you won't see strange things, like why is there so much war and gold is falling? Oh, what's happening? [Clears throat] Or just enough to get by. If it were the 1970s, when OPEC ruled the world, oil went to 200. [Music] Therefore, I believe that the world today is finding it harder, not easier, to bubble. But we will feel that the chaos, let's say, is increasing. Because the Yuan, which is unwilling to be, or rather, is not, the main global currency, the main reason is what? Because China doesn't want to let it be free, right? [Music] My principle is very simple: the more the world separates, but separates with more balance, >> Yes. >> the safer the world will be, not more at risk. [Music] Thailand Gold Summit 2026, a stage gathering leading investment and geopolitics experts, opening perspectives on safe-haven assets and new investment opportunities. Meet us at True Digital Park on Sunday, July 5, 2026. Free entry for registered attendees only. >> Are you sure the world is in crisis? I'd rather ask you, is China in crisis? You have to use the word "crisis," not "China is damaged." China is already damaged. If the US collapses, the world will be damaged. >> Yes. >> But who is in crisis, who is not in crisis? But there is damage, you have to distinguish first. The first one who is not in crisis, I think, is Russia. Not in crisis. Why? Because Russia has separated itself from the US not by intention, but by force. >> Yes, it's been cut off. >> It's been cut off almost 100%, right? >> Therefore, if the US goes bankrupt, Russia might even laugh. They might think, "Good." China might tone down its intensity a bit because China still relies on the US to some extent. China is also damaged, but I don't believe China is in crisis. Why? Because China has enormous reserves. China has a lot of income every year, not just from the US. It's proven that despite tariffs and reduced exports, China is still getting richer and has a larger surplus. Does this answer your question? >> Actually, exports are P&L, and reserves are the balance sheet. And do you think China has cash flow? And I ask, if China were like a corporation, even if the US collapsed, it would be like a competitor collapsing. They would gain some advantages and lose some. That's why I told you, if you say you're thinking in a 200-year context, you can't think that way today. If you think in a .com context, it's not usable. It's only partially usable, but you have to adjust. >> Otherwise, you won't see strange things, like why is there so much war and gold is falling? Oh, what's happening? >> Or just enough to get by. If it were the 1970s, when OPEC ruled the world, oil went to 200. What would be left? $120 oil wouldn't be left. Does this paint a picture? >> Yes. >> Don't use the old context to stamp that it must be this way. It can't be. Because the world has changed a lot. It has changed a lot. That's why I never believed that bubbles would happen easily. I actually think that bubbles are harder to happen now. Do you know why? >> Why? >> Because as soon as there's a signal, people rush to complain. "Oh, this can't happen, we need this, we need that." Oh, the US has to back down, change things. This is correct. It's like there's a saying, what is it now? Monitoring costs are lower. For example, if you have a stock, before, the world was separate. It was like an off-market stock, no one paid attention or monitored it. But once you enter the stock market, oh my, whatever you do, I don't know if it's right or wrong, you get hit first. You get hit by this, you get hit by that, right? And do you think the world today, if viewed from a country's perspective as a stock in the stock market, is it the same? Oh, nowadays, whatever you do, it's hard to hide. Even during the war between the US and Iran, they tried to hide this and that, but people still leaked it. What does this tell you? Monitoring costs are low today. >> Yes. >> Anyone with information is a journalist. >> Right? Second, transparency today is higher. Do you think it's higher compared to the past? Much higher, right? Because the news is so abundant and so fast. >> Yes. >> In the past? Oh, like in the time of the student wars, they say. It's probably true that La Choy got rich. Why? Because he knew England won a day in advance, right? And he went and bought English bonds. Do you remember? Do you think this can happen today? It might happen for you for half an hour, maybe. I don't know. Arbitrage opportunities today are very low. Which is a good thing. Why? Because the market, let's call it the Global Market, is very efficient. So, what does that mean? >> It means it creates checks and balances by itself. Anything that moves towards what it should be, does so quickly. That's checks and balances, right? If you look at it from one perspective, this is understandable, right? Therefore, I believe that the world today is finding it harder, not easier, to bubble. But we will feel that the chaos, let's say, is increasing. Of course, in the past, something like this might have happened, but we wouldn't have known about it. We might have woken up a month later and just found out. BBC reported, oh, okay, that was before. But now? BBC doesn't do it, CNBC does it, CNN does it, I don't know. There are so many. It's the era of information, right? Abundant information makes us perceive world events and market movements more and faster. >> Yes. And I think there will be another narrative now. People will feel that, for example, if I say, I predict, "The market will bubble." Suppose, one day, it must be right. Ah, ah, don't you think there won't be any? But will it be a big bubble, a small bubble, a nova, I don't know, but there must be one. But I don't know when. It might be in 5 years. But if I say it today, it must be right someday. >> Yes, P' Moo. But >> Actually, what should be more is that we should discuss, "The bubble will happen next year." That's better, isn't it? I've never said that bubbles won't happen. I haven't said that. I just said that at least for 5 years, it won't happen. To say it's not going to happen doesn't mean it won't happen. It's a different matter. >> Uh. >> I've never said it won't happen. I believe it might happen, or it might be like what? It might be like the property market, where it doesn't happen, but it's like there are small bubbles. Small bubbles. When they're about to expand, they burst. They burst gently, so we don't feel like, "Wow, a super bubble happened." It's not that big. I think the chance of that happening is low. Another thing, do you know? Today, the US is "too big to fail." Do you think this principle, we used to apply it to banks, right? For the US, right? Do you think if applied to the US country today, is it "too big to fail"? Not necessarily. If the US collapses today, as I said earlier, the biggest beneficiaries will be the Global South. Although they will suffer some damage, those who will suffer much more damage are the Global North, because they are heavily tied to the US. Europe will be completely upside down, legs in the air, falling flat. But China might not be that bad. Therefore, today, if the US collapses and you use the "too big to fail" principle, believe me, I think it's not applicable. Not applicable. Why? Because today, what percentage of global GDP is the US? What percentage is the dollar of global reserves? Who holds dollars today? China. If, let's say, America defaults today, who will be the hardest hit? It's not China. >> Japan, England. Do you understand? Yes, Japan, Europe. Oh, they're devastated. See? I actually think, you know, the longer it goes on, the greater the risk that the US will fail. It's a heavy burden on the Global North, on the Global South. >> Earlier, I gave Russia as an example, which is very clear. Then maybe other countries. >> And as time goes on, the risk [inhales] that the US will have problems for others, especially the Global South, is decreasing. Decreasing. If, let's say, Chinese technology, for example, if China wins, they don't need ASML anymore, they can build their own machines, lithography. Let's assume they can do 3 nanometers. What's left that China needs to rely on the US for? And what would China lose if the US collapsed? [Clears throat] Why? Because the Yuan, which is unwilling to be, or rather, is not, the main global currency, the main reason is what? Because China doesn't want to let it be free, right? Because if your currency is not free, you will never have a day when anyone will hold your currency in large amounts. The Yuan. But on the other hand, it's like Malaysia in 1998. Why did Malaysia survive? Because Malaysia closed its borders and said, "No, I'm not with anyone. My currency, my ringgit, I'll manage it myself." Right? The principle is similar to the Yuan now. Do you see the picture? But at that time, Thailand opened everything. What happened? It collapsed. This is what I believe. Therefore, my principle is very simple: the more the world separates, but separates with more balance, >> Yes. >> the safer the world will be, not more at risk. >> Yes, P' Moo. >> If we still think that AI >> It still has a running period. It won't bubble anytime soon. P' Moo thinks there's still an opportunity. >> Which group is it in now? >> Hyper-scalers have already gone up, and now they're starting to stabilize. Chip makers were very hot this year. Now they are also gradually cooling down. Or they have already risen a lot. New opportunities that P' Moo sees that can still run in the next 2, 3, 4 years are which groups? >> Now we are starting to see that the commodity groups in electronics are starting to benefit because they have come down to the level of SSDs, Solid State Drives, down to ICs and things like that. Now, these commodities have immense added value. This has come down to this point, the first one. >> The second stage is for those who use it. >> I think next year we will start to see companies that truly use AI and get results. One of the winners might be this. One might be, let's call it, EVs. EVs have gone through consolidation. They failed, failed, failed. Now they are starting to come back. The price is not going down, it's only going up, right? This is the first point. But it might be advanced EVs. The second thing, I think in the energy sector, what's very important now is Smart Energy and Energy. It will consist of Renewables, Batteries, and AI monitoring and control systems. This is the second part that I think will... it's not just panel manufacturers. This won't be that big. I mean, more advanced than that. >> And the third part that I think is interesting is for those I call "temperature control." Well, that's cooling systems, heating systems, whatever you call them. These will become necessities. And the next stage will be those in connectivity. What does that mean? It means those who connect, manufacture cables, or those who set up connectivity systems. Because the more data centers and hubs you have, the more you need to connect them, right? Right? How to connect them efficiently? These will follow. And finally, what will be, I think, for the most part, the "final winner group." For the most part, it will end here: those who create applications for all of these. In the past, we looked at it simply. .com. If we study it from the beginning, technology was for those who sold telecom equipment. [Clears throat] Why was that? Because the internet needed these devices. If we compare it to AI today, it needs memory, GPUs, cooling systems, this and that. But AI has more devices in its system. At that time, they got rich first. But at a certain point, the internet, applications couldn't go far. Why couldn't they go far? As I said, you have the internet, but the speed is slow, the devices are not there, there are no applications to use. And I ask, how can the internet succeed? That's going back to that time. But today, AI is not like that. AI has everything. Therefore, if we compare, you will see why they got rich then. Today, it's like comparing GPUs, memory, ICs, and so on. But it will start to rise. Then, at the end of the .com era, after it collapsed, who were the ultimate winners of the internet era? Google emerged. Amazon emerged as e-commerce. Google became a giant. Amazon became e-commerce. Right? And Apple became iPhone, iPad. This was the last wave. This was the last wave. Now, for the next wave, I think there will be people similar to these, like Google, emerging. >> Yes. [Parenthetically] If they are not bought out first. Sometimes, when they grow to a certain point, someone comes and buys them. >> Yes. That helps. So you have to look at where they are. >> This [clears throat] I don't know. Simply put, they grow into a chip. Then a gorilla comes and buys them all. So they don't become gorillas. But in the .com wave, Google, Amazon, etc., this didn't happen. Why? Because at that time, the world didn't have many gorillas. I mean, the gorilla of e-commerce is Amazon. The gorilla of search engines is Google. Back then, there weren't any. Before, there was IBM, a few others. So there were no people to >> Yes. >> test these. >> But now, it's not like that. Go and see. What has Google acquired? Oh, so many. If they hadn't acquired those, they might have grown into giants, right? But they happened to be under Google, so we don't see it. Do you understand this? YouTube, for example. So I don't know what the next wave will be. It might be that these become too big. But I do wonder about one thing. Have you ever studied history? I studied a piece of history where America forced AT&T to break up, or forced Standard Oil to break up. >> Yes. >> Because they were too big. Do you think it might happen? >> Can it happen? Hyper-scalers worth trillions, are they becoming more and more common? >> Yes, they might be forced. They almost did it to Google, right? >> Yes. >> But we have to admit that politics is still... what do they call it? It's still superior. >> Yes. >> So this doesn't happen. But if they keep growing bigger and bigger until one day, do you think this will happen? >> It's possible. Because actually, it's a monopoly. I ask, does Amazon monopolize e-commerce? If I use the anti-anti law? >> What is it? Trust law? >> But why don't they use it? I don't know. Oh, because the political financiers of America are here, the Wall Street group. [Clears throat] >> The weapon army group. Yes, right? And what group? The AI group. >> Yes. >> Right? So as long as it's like this, they won't interfere. >> Yes, P' Moo. >> But I believe it's possible. So I think the next wave, I'm telling you what will come next, but it will likely end with applications. But those applications, >> Yes. >> as I said, will they grow to become gorillas? I'm not sure. Because now, we have an old gorilla, King Kong. Whoever comes, "Oh, buy, buy." So they don't reach it. >> Thank you everyone for following us all along. Our goal is to take this channel to 1 million subscribers to create a wider society of learning in economics, business, and investment. We now have YouTube Membership. Just subscribe, and you'll get exclusive access to content and seminars from [Music] PRP and Team Business Tomorrow. Please subscribe.