编辑：米奇 来源：财经会议圈
一个预言过 2008 年金融危机的人，这次把话说得更重了。
2026 年 7 月 30 日，瑞·达利欧（Ray Dalio）做客全球顶级商业播客 The Diary Of A CEO（《CEO 日记》，主持人史蒂文·巴特利特），进行了一场长达一个半小时的深度对谈。
这不是一位普通的访谈嘉宾，1975 年，他在一套两居室公寓里创立桥水基金，将其做成全球最大的对冲基金，为投资者赚取约 530 亿美元净收益；2008 年，当标普 500 暴跌近 40% 时，提前布局的桥水逆势斩获 9.5% 的正收益。过去十余年，他埋首研究 500 年间多个帝国的兴衰周期，写成《原则》与《变化中的世界秩序》。用主持人的话说：他是用"原则"而非"战术"解释世界的人。
而此刻，正是听他说话的最好时机。
当 AI 概念股估值冲上云霄、格兰瑟姆等大佬警告"美国历史上最大的投资泡沫"；
当黄金年内 53 次刷新历史新高、比特币剧烈波动；
当美国联邦债务突破天际、英国 7 年换了 6 任首相、"向富人征税"成为伦敦与纽约的共同辩题；
当美伊冲突胶着、霍尔木兹海峡牵动全球能源咽喉
达利欧在这场访谈中，把这一切放进了同一个分析框架里。
他的核心结论清晰而冷峻：
我们正身处 AI 泡沫的经典阶段：但泡沫不是"有或没有"的问题，而是程度问题。
真正的风险不在于技术本身，而在于机理：财富不等于货币，纸面富贵必须变现才能花；
当杠杆玩家和"弱手"蜂拥入场、股票供给被无限生产、利率一旦上行，链条就会反向崩塌。
更宏大的图景是"大周期"：
货币债务危机、内部政治极化、地缘政治冲突三股力量正在汇合。
上一个周期走完于 1945 年，平均约 80 年一轮回
而美国、英国已明确处于周期后段的"衰落期"。
英国是教科书式的反面案例：过度负债、生产率低下、承诺无法兑现。
对个人，他的建议朴素得出乎意料：
不要去择时，连专业投资者都做不到；
先算清"没有收入我能撑多久"；
现金是长期最糟糕的投资，因为通胀会悄悄吃掉它；
分散配置：黄金应占组合的 5%–15%，因为"它是唯一不是他人负债的金融资产"。
几句值得抄在笔记本上的摘要：
"财富不等于货币。你看到很多人变得富有，但你花不掉这些财富。"
"泡沫不是一个你要么在、要么不在的问题——它是一个程度问题。"
"人们以为现金最安全。不是。它是长期最糟糕的投资，因为通胀会慢慢吃掉它。"
"黄金是唯一不是他人负债的金融资产。"
"当你的身体被机器取代，你还可以转型；但当你的头脑也被取代时，你还有什么可卖的？"
"历史上最成功的，不是最聪明的人，而是最具适应力的人。"
"让你的工作与你的热爱成为同一件事——但别忘了钱的部分。"
视频节选
版本说明：本文为瑞·达利欧 2026 年 7 月 30 日做客全球顶级商业播客 The Diary Of A CEO（主持人：史蒂文·巴特利特 Steven Bartlett）完整访谈逐字稿的中文全译本，英文逐字稿（约 13,750 词，100% 覆盖）逐句翻译，无任何删节。
瑞·达利欧谈 AI 泡沫：历史正在重演吗？
史蒂文·巴特利特：瑞，对那些可能不了解你的观众来说，你 1975 年在一套两居室公寓里创立了桥水基金，并把它做成了全球最大的对冲基金。在那段时间里，你为投资者创造的累计净收益总额是多少？
瑞·达利欧：我记得大约是 530 亿美元。我们实现了约 12% 的回报率，从来没有出现过任何重大亏损，而且与其他投资不相关。
史蒂文·巴特利特：而且你是少数预见到那场大金融危机的基金经理之一，这让桥水在 2008 年取得了 9.5% 的正收益，而同期标普 500 暴跌了近 40%。
我想从我最感兴趣的问题开始。我曾经坐在这里采访过一位你可能认识的投资者，叫杰里米·格兰瑟姆（Jeremy Grantham）。他告诉我，我们正直面一个 AI 泡沫，因此可能面临一场经济崩溃。
杰里米·格兰瑟姆：如果你看数据，峰值很快到来是符合历史规律的。一切迹象都对上了。我认为这是美国历史上最大的投资泡沫。
史蒂文·巴特利特：你对此怎么看？
什么是泡沫？它为什么会破裂？
瑞·达利欧：他说得对。但我不想急于下结论，我更想解释得出结论之前的推理过程。我正处于人生的一个阶段，希望帮助人们理解因果关系。
人们所说的泡沫，就是价格大幅上涨、公司表现出色，然后轰然崩塌。这对经济有影响，对市场也有影响，比如 1929 年的泡沫，或者 2000 年的泡沫，也就是互联网泡沫。
史蒂文·巴特利特：它也会影响普通人吗？因为你刚才说到了经济——
瑞·达利欧：1929 年泡沫破裂影响普通人了吗？当然。随之而来的是大萧条，因为发生的事情是：出现了一项具有革命性的新技术。
互联网泡沫是 2000 年——我们拥有的所有这些了不起的新技术——人们纷纷涌入这些技术。他们说："这太神奇了。我可以押注它。我确信它会成功。"然后他们就押注，有时甚至借钱押注，却忽视了价格的重要性。
于是价格一路上涨，成了人人追逐的东西。现在我们对 AI 非常兴奋，我们也应该兴奋，因为它必将带来革命性的变化。当时也是一样。所以我想买一些，人人都想投一些。而他们做的，就是不去关注价格。
这背后有一套机理。人们会借钱。财富不等于货币（"Wealth is not the same as money."）。你看到很多人变得富有，但你花不掉这些财富。你必须把财富卖掉换成钱，因为你只能花钱。所以当人们因为这样那样的原因需要钱的时候——比如税收变了，或者利率上升了——他们必须偿还债务利息等等。这时泡沫就被刺破了，于是价格下跌。
史蒂文·巴特利特：明白。
瑞·达利欧：当这种情况发生时，人们开始亏钱。而随着他们开始亏钱，整个过程就会反向运转——因为他们赚了很多钱的时候，手上有大量抵押品。他们身价很高，可以去借钱，这在上涨过程中不断自我强化。而当它反过来下跌时，一切都朝相反的方向走。你必须还债，诸如此类。然后你不得不开始抛售资产，于是对东西的需求就减少了。需求减少是因为——如果你把钱投进了股市、投进了某家公司而正在亏钱，你就会减少开支。你开支减少了，别人的收入就会下降。你不再下馆子了。
泡沫之后通常接踵而至的经济衰退，比如大萧条——20 世纪 20 年代末是了不起的。如果你谈论变革、谈论亲历变革，那是家里第一次用上电。那是第一次有电冰箱，第一次家里有了照明。那是第一次汽车普及、普通人买得起。第一次有飞机，第一次有收音机。
所以人人都知道这些东西未来会很伟大，它们后来也确实很伟大。但与此同时发生的事情是：人们一边买入、股价一边上涨，他们借钱买股票，等等，而利润跟不上价格，这就引发了另一种连锁反应，最终酿成了大萧条。
标普500席勒市盈率（CAPE）：2026年 vs 1929年 vs 2000年（编者按：编辑补充数据，非本期节目内容；数据来源：GuruFocus / Panmure Liberum
拆解泡沫的机理
史蒂文·巴特利特：那我们来打个比方，假设我买了这个，这是一单位的人工智能。假设我现在买入某家 AI 大公司的一股股票。因为投资者对 AI 太兴奋了，他们把它估值为 100 美元。我手上这一单位，他们说值 100 美元。所以我的净资产现在是 100 美元。
我拿着这笔净资产、这张值 100 美元的纸去银行，向银行申请以这个东西作抵押贷 50%。银行给了我 50 美元。现在我有了 50 美元。
然后经济里发生了某些事，意味着投了这东西的投资者——投资者们总体上现在需要钱来偿还其他债务。这可能是一场战争，也可能是某种突发事件，突然间所有人都争相抛售像这样的资产。
于是当我去卖的时候，它的价格已经暴跌到比如 25 美元，但我从银行贷了 50 美元。所以我欠银行 50 美元，而我手里这个几个月前还值 100 美元的东西现在只值 25 美元，我倒亏 25 美元，只能赶紧抛售。然后所有人都在抛，所有资产价格都在跌。人们不再下馆子。就像你说的，市面上的钱变少了，泡沫破了，我们就进入了这种下行——
瑞·达利欧：你说对了。
史蒂文·巴特利特：好，太好了。行，没问题。
瑞·达利欧：而它发生是因为它必然发生。在这些巨大的变革中，没有人知道确切答案。所以任何做 AI 生意的人都不可能精确预判。他们不知道到底会有多少钱进来。所以只有两种可能：要么你投得不够，被竞争对手甩开；要么你巨额投入，却没法做到精确。所以当这种动态发生时，问题就来了。所以是的，你刚才讲得很好。
我要再重复一件事来强调。现在很常见的情况是：你可以发行股票——比如你融了 5000 万美元，公司估值 10 亿美元。实际上只有 5000 万美元真正投进了这家公司。但现在你融到了这笔钱，你就是亿万富翁了，因为按账面价值算——你拥有什么？你拥有估值 10 亿美元的股票。并没有人真的掏过 10 亿美元。现在你持有这些股票，但这些股票你花不掉，因为你花不掉财富。要花掉它，你必须卖掉一部分股票换成钱。
而且往往还会伴随利率上升——比如经济过热、出现通胀，央行就想踩踩刹车。这意味着什么？意味着有债务的人在某种意义上必须拿出更多的钱。因为当你背着债务，你就得拿出钱来还债。所以这套动态就是这样在我们之间运转的。我们已经把它讲清楚了，我想大家都理解这套机理。
大周期：泡沫、政治与地缘政治
瑞·达利欧：所以这些泡沫必然存在。而现在我们还面临另一个问题。我们一直在谈泡沫，但还有别的事情在同一时间发生。贫富差距巨大。这也意味着左派和右派的对立，也就是政治层面的事。就像我们现在这样。一旦出现衰退，人们就会互相掐住对方的喉咙。
拿政治来说，你会看到的是——他们没有足够的钱，政府没有足够的钱。我们的预算赤字巨大。拿什么钱来付这些账单？英国——我记得过去 7 年里有 6 年都换了新首相。正因为政府的钱不够，你开始看到的是人们带着各自的诉求找上门来，但问题在于：钱从哪儿来？然后有钱人就跑了。他们说："我不想待在这个税区。"然后他们就离开了。
于是就出现了一个国内政治问题：人们不再像过去那样妥协。现在政治因素叠加进来，然后你还有一个世界——这就是我所说的"大周期"——在这个世界里，地缘政治也在变化。我说的地缘政治，是指国与国之间的关系。
在正常情况下，当存在一个更强势的主导大国时，它会推行自己的秩序，世界就会更和平。但当各方对事情该怎么办产生争执时，这些争执就会开始演变成冲突。这些事情往往是一起发生的。这就是为什么我把它称为大周期——那种动态。眼下，就是货币问题、国内政治冲突和外部冲突的汇合，这正是我们正在经历的。
而我认为问题在于，人们不了解这个周期。每天我们打开信息渠道，看到这条最新的新闻，但人们不会把这些点连起来去理解这个周期。
是什么刺破了泡沫？
史蒂文·巴特利特：在结束泡沫这个话题之前，我想问：究竟是什么让泡沫破裂？如果我们现在身处 AI 泡沫之中，而它迟早会破，那所谓的——他们管它叫黑天鹅事件。
瑞·达利欧：有好几种。有泡沫，然后有刺破泡沫的东西。刺破泡沫的东西，通常在最开始是某种意味着"我必须卖掉一部分财富来换钱"的因素。通常是利率上升。也可能是财富税之类的东西，意味着"我非常富有，但是"——典型的情况是货币收紧，因为在那个时点存在通胀压力，央行决定收紧货币政策，等等。
情况会变成：我以更高利率持有债务所能获得的钱，超过了我持有股权投资所能获得的钱。这是其中一部分。
另外，你还会看到股票被大量生产出来。我说的是股票发行——想想供给和需求。有需求，我们一直在谈推动股价上涨的需求，谈我们如何创造这些财富。但也有供给。你可以发行股票，这太容易了。几乎没有比股票更容易生产的东西了。
史蒂文·巴特利特：所以如果我拥有一家公司，我只要多印点股票就行了。
瑞·达利欧：对。今天你大概可以直接跑出去说："我要创办一家公司，我要让它上市。"然后你对你的观众、你的粉丝群说："我要发行股票。"于是，当市场想要股票的时候，股票就会被生产出来。这种股票供给，加上我刚才提到的其他因素——对现金的需求等等——共同导致泡沫破裂。
史蒂文·巴特利特：你现在看到我们身处泡沫的迹象了吗？
我们身处泡沫的迹象
瑞·达利欧：是的，是的，是的。我们身处泡沫的经典迹象。而且我要强调，泡沫不是一个"你要么在泡沫里、要么不在"的问题。它是一个程度问题（"It's a degree thing."）。
还有一点，就是筹码落在了弱手手里。我现在可以看是谁持有这些公司的股票，是在强手还是弱手手里。典型的弱手迹象是：当弱势投资者——不懂行的投资者——把大量资金投入其中，尤其是以加杠杆的方式。要么借债，要么买期权，一种杠杆化的版本——现在甚至有杠杆化的股市 ETF 等等。他们就这样进场了。这更像是在赌骰子碰运气。这就是泡沫的一个信号。
我已经列举了其中几个信号。这些就是泡沫的主要信号。于是当它下跌时，恐惧就来了，然后筹钱变现的需求就来了。这套动态会以反向的形式展开。换句话说，一切都变得很便宜，人人都有你刚才说的那些开支问题。
达利欧泡沫指标（Bubble Gauge）读数演变（编者按：编辑补充数据，该读数出自 CNBC/X帖/MFM播客，非本期节目内容｜制图：财经会议圈）
为 AI 泡沫破裂做准备
史蒂文·巴特利特：如果我们身处 AI 泡沫且它将要破裂——我有一个朋友联系我，他说："史蒂文，我觉得我们正处在 AI 泡沫里。"他自己经营着一家 AI 公司。他对我说："我现在要融很多钱，这样当市场下跌、投资者恐慌、不愿再投资公司、人们减少开支、开始审视并取消各种订阅的时候，我们会安然无恙。而且我们还能趁机收购一些陷入困境的竞争对手。"于是他刚刚为自己的 AI 公司融了好几亿美元。
瑞·达利欧：对。而且事情大概就是那么轻松。
史蒂文·巴特利特：是啊，现在融资很容易。
瑞·达利欧：没错。
史蒂文·巴特利特：这里的问题是：不同层面的人——从街上的普通上班族，到经营公司的创业者——应该如何为可能破裂的经济泡沫做准备？
瑞·达利欧：他是个非常好的例子。接着我们刚才说的，他这么做，是增加了 AI 股票的供给。
史蒂文·巴特利特：对，是的。因为他卖了股票。
瑞·达利欧：因为他要卖出更多。
史蒂文·巴特利特：对。
瑞·达利欧：没错。所以当他和别人越来越多地这样做，更多的股票供给就进来了，他想在这套动态中抢得先机。而这又反过来助推了泡沫。不过你问的是：他们该如何准备？
史蒂文·巴特利特：普通人该如何准备？
货币管理的基本功
瑞·达利欧：我还要说一点。未来充满未知，人们不应该去择时。即便是专业的投资者，要给泡沫择时也极其困难。所以最重要的事情永远是分散配置。现在我们回到钱的问题，讲讲货币管理的基本功。
我自己就经历过这个周期，因为我曾经身无分文，后来有了钱，再后来又有了很多钱。我对这个周期记忆犹新。事情是这样的：起步的时候，我习惯数自己还能撑几个月。我有一笔钱，如果没有新的钱进来，我能撑多久。如果我丢了工作或者别的什么——我基本没给别人打过工，只给别人干过两年。换句话说，如果没有收入进账，先是按月算，然后按年算，就这样一点点建立起安全感，因为我得养家，等等。
所以当我们审视这些事情的时候，这些就是你面临的选择：我是买套房子或公寓，还是把钱存成现金？而钱的问题是，你必须把它放进某个东西里，因为人家会付你利息。这就是你的现金存款等等。人们以为那是最安全的。不是。它是长期最糟糕的投资（"It's the worst investment over a long period of time."），因为通胀会慢慢吃掉它。
史蒂文·巴特利特：你是说把钱存进银行，就放在银行里？
瑞·达利欧：任何形式都算——货币市场基金，任何那种短期的、存进去就能拿利息的东西。
史蒂文·巴特利特：好，好。
瑞·达利欧：那就是人们心目中的现金。没有人真的把钱以字面意义的现金形式放着，因为如果真是现金，它不生利息。那我为什么不把它存进去赚点利息呢？所以那就是现金。人们以为那最安全、回报最低——而它几乎注定在更长的时间里是回报最差的。
史蒂文·巴特利特：人们持有现金是因为感觉更安全。
瑞·达利欧：没错。但我说它并不更安全，因为通胀的存在。
史蒂文·巴特利特：用简单的话给我解释一下。
瑞·达利欧：好。如果我拿不到任何利息，那我就会输给通胀率。
史蒂文·巴特利特：那通胀率是多少？
瑞·达利欧：嗯，3.5% 或 4%，恰好就是现在的水平。
史蒂文·巴特利特：每年？对，每年。所以我每年亏 3.5 美元。
瑞·达利欧：没错。
史蒂文·巴特利特：如果我只把钱放成现金的话。
瑞·达利欧：是这样。如果我把它存到某个地方，就能拿到利息，利率大概就在那个附近，差不多。
史蒂文·巴特利特：3%、4%、5%、4%。
瑞·达利欧：然后我还得为利息缴税。
史蒂文·巴特利特：哦，赚的利息还要缴税？
瑞·达利欧：对。
史蒂文·巴特利特：好，行。
瑞·达利欧：没错。尽管相对通胀而言你其实根本没赚到钱，你还是得为赚到的那点东西缴税。长期来看，这是很差的回报。因为还要想到——回报也来自生产率。随着时间推移，人们学会把事情做得更好，等等。
分散配置你的投资组合
瑞·达利欧：然后你可以投资——我们把这个叫作股票，这个叫股市。这个是现金。你再想想股票，股票可以涨也可以跌。它们有我们一直在谈的那种动态，会制造出这些大周期和大崩盘。而那些周期下行的时候，会跌 60%、70%。熊市就是那个样子。
另请阅读：《穆克什·安巴尼与黄仁勋炉边谈话》完整逐字稿。
这个是黄金。这些是债券，这是你的房子，那是比特币。这些就是选项。它们各自因特定的原因涨跌。但实际情况是它们的走势像这样交错：当黄金上涨时，往往债券会贬值，或者你的房子。它们以特定的方式变动。所以最好的办法是持有它们组成一个分散配置（多元化）的投资组合。当你持有这样一个组合，而不是只押其中任何一个时，你不会降低回报，但你会降低风险。
史蒂文·巴特利特：分散配置就是每样都配一点，对吧？
瑞·达利欧：配一定的量。而且你必须知道如何平衡它们，因为它们的波动性不同。这一个——股票——比这一个波动更大。
我自己的建议是：首先从你需要什么出发。我该买套房子，还是用这笔钱多出去旅行，等等？房子、公寓这些东西的好处之一是，它是你的环境。你的环境很重要。它会带来强制储蓄。有时候强制储蓄是好事。它的税负通常也更优惠。长期来看它是更好的税务载体。
但我不是只主张买房。我想说的是，当我审视这些选项时，我认为黄金非常有意思，因为当所有这些东西表现都不好的时候，它往往表现很好。所以它是非常有效的分散配置工具，因为直到 1971 年它还是货币，而且它至今仍是第二大储备货币。各国央行持有储备货币。所以它具有与众不同的特质——当货币价值因通胀而下跌时。而这个——债券。
史蒂文·巴特利特：债券基本上就是把钱借给政府。
瑞·达利欧：没错。如果你以某个利率把钱借出去，然后通胀和利率上升了，你某种程度上就被锁死在那个利率里了。所以债券有它自己的问题。
我想说的更重要的一点是：你攒下钱，然后问自己：如果没有收入进来，我能活几年？然后在此基础上问：我怎样才能安全？我可不想把钱全押在一个能跌 70% 的东西上。那我该怎么分散配置？这就是我最主要的核心观点。
给起点很低的人的建议
史蒂文·巴特利特：我们上一期节目的评论区里，很多人都在问：对于一个没多少钱、可能没有任何资产的人，这该怎么应用？假设他们 30 岁，每月有 100 美元可支配收入，在思考如何保障自己的未来。对这种情况的人，你有什么建议？
瑞·达利欧：你唯一的资产就是你自己。再加上我猜你能从政府那里得到的东西。你如何推销自己以获得更好的收入？你怎么从政府那里拿到钱？推销自己是头等大事。
这是当今的大问题之一。随着人工智能和其他机器在不同类型的工作岗位上取代人，这件事变得更难了。它在提高生产率的同时制造了巨大的贫富差距。人人都想要更高的生产率，因为它意味着如何更高效地生产东西。但这加剧了收入差距，因为你的生产率很大程度上就等于你的收入。然后你就有了政治层面的连锁反应。
要把自己从你说的那种处境里拉出来是很难的。我在想象那个人。这不容易。社会上存在巨大的两极分化。如果你身处前 10% 的人才行列，世界任你驰骋。但如今要挤进那个行列，很难。
找到一件能让你把时间卖出好价钱的事。那是去开 Uber？还是说你具备某种才能，能理解 AI，并把这种理解贡献给一家珍视它的公司？或者你的技能是什么？
你找到了这个，你找到了路。但你需要钱。而你想做的、你正在做的、以及我有幸在做的，就是让你的工作与你的热爱成为同一件事。同时别忘了钱的那一部分。
在正确的情境中为你的技能定价
史蒂文·巴特利特：是的。我觉得我职业生涯早期没有意识到的一点是：无论你有什么技能，它在不同的情境——或者说不同的行业——里会被赋予截然不同的价值。举例来说，假设我的技能是——我不是在自夸——假设我的技能是对话。有很多地方可以让我去对话，而那些地方为我的对话能力开出的时薪会天差地别。
所以我经常这样想，也跟朋友们聊这个。当他们告诉我他们的技能时，我会说："我们来看看不同的行业会如何给你现有的技能定出不同的价。"一个很好的例子——你可以开 Uber，也可以给瑞·达利欧当专职司机。我想这两份工作的报酬天差地别。但广义上说，是同一项开车技能。
瑞·达利欧：这些我都同意。
史蒂文·巴特利特：所以我认为这是一条路径。另一条路径是去找你现在的老板要求晋升。但同样，他们会在其他员工、行业行情等等的背景下给你定价。所以你可能拿到 10% 的涨薪，但未必能看到跨越式的变化。这是我一直对人说的话。
瑞·达利欧：完全正确。还有一条关于某样东西的规律——我觉得它几乎是万事万物的规律，是一条适用于你购买几乎任何东西的规律——那就是：无论你买的是什么，如果你买一幅画、一件家具、一件衣服、一个人的时间，无论什么，处于顶端的那批，其溢价都是平均水平的许多倍。
这几乎就像：如果你愿意多投入 10% 的时间、努力和技能让自己再往上走一步，你会因为这 10% 的提升而拿到两倍的回报，大致是这样。这是人生公式的一部分，也是职场公式的一部分。所以我认为，如果你把你刚才提出的和我现在说的都记在心里，这会帮助你给自己定位，知道该做什么。
作为分散配置一部分的比特币
史蒂文·巴特利特：我们其实还没提到比特币，我大概应该聊聊，因为现在大家都在谈论它。你对比特币怎么看？我知道比特币市场眼下在下跌。
瑞·达利欧：我投资组合里大约有 1% 的比特币，因为货币有不同的种类。不能被凭空印出来的那种货币——那是其中一种。这是另一种不能被印出来的货币。
史蒂文·巴特利特：黄金。
黄金 vs 比特币、AI 对就业的冲击与经济周期
瑞·达利欧：对。你没法用技术破解它。你可以持有它，你拥有它。有句话说：它是唯一不是他人负债的金融资产（"It's the only financial asset that is not somebody else's liability."）。持有别的东西，总得有人兑付给你什么。黄金具备这种属性。所以在我的资产配置框架里，我要确保自己持有一些硬通货——对大多数人来说，硬通货应该占其投资组合的 5% 到 15%（"between 5 and 15% of their portfolio"）——我更倾向于这个（我指的是这里的金条），而不是比特币。
史蒂文·巴特利特：在你看来，比特币仍是一种类黄金资产吗？
瑞·达利欧：是的，它是一种不能被印出来的货币，但存在一些可能伤害它的技术。换句话说，如果出现量子计算，而且它可以被政府监控等等，它就可能被征税。数字货币也有些类似的问题。
史蒂文·巴特利特：但你不像喜欢黄金那样喜欢比特币，也有隐私方面的原因。
瑞·达利欧：而且当政府说"我不想要它"时，他们就有权力对它为所欲为。央行也不会大量持有它，原因就是我说的那个。央行希望自己的交易是私密的、在自己掌控之中的。想想对俄罗斯来说这会有多大的不同。那些其他类型的资产被没收了，而这些他们没能没收。
史蒂文·巴特利特：黄金。
瑞·达利欧：对。
史蒂文·巴特利特：黄金。
瑞·达利欧：所以你看到的是——尤其是在这个冲突频发的时代——人们有一种感觉：如果我持有这个，别人就夺不走它。
图4：黄金2025年表现：年均价+44%、53次新高（编者按：编辑补充数据，非本期节目内容；数据来源：世界黄金协会WGC｜制图：财经会议圈）
AI、自动化与工作的未来
史蒂文·巴特利特：你刚才提到了你认为 AI 将对整体经济、以及再次对普通人的生活产生的影响。这方面的争论很多。过去 10 年左右，AI 世界内部一直有争论。最早是那些 AI 大公司的 CEO 们说 AI 会造成就业冲击。而最近甚至有一些 CEO 说，在超级智能的世界里，工作将变成一种可选项。与此同时，机器人也在地平线上升起。所以你看到的是智能与物理肌肉、或者说物理行动能力的汇合。同时我们还在目睹 AI 加速发展、能力不断提升。这一切对普通人和他们的工作意味着什么？在你看来，谁会从这场 AI 革命中受益？
瑞·达利欧：这意味着你要么成为最前沿、最有能力的那批人，跻身人口中前百分之零点几到前 10% 的行列——站在前沿、使用它、加速前进；要么——如果你从事的是思考型工作——你就面临被取代的风险。
我们正在进入一个什么都能自动化的世界。人类的演化史是这样的：我们经历了农业时代，那时没有什么真正的发明创造。然后人类发明了机器。机器做的，是取代了人类的体力劳作。过去人就像农田里的牛，后来被拖拉机取代了。然后我们进入了工业时代。先有印刷术让人们得以学习，然后有了这些发明——工业革命、第一次工业革命。你看到的是对工厂里人力劳动的取代。
所以我看这件事的方式是：我看着人体，看到机器先是取代了身体的功能，一步步向上爬升。然后它开始取代心智中可以被计算机化的部分。它一路向上，正在取代越来越高层次的思考与推理。所以这条路径是正在发生的演化路径的一部分。
于是你开始问自己："我能提供什么？"对于谁会受益这个问题，受益的是那些手握创意的资本家，用这些创意取代工人。所以你去看企业在商店卖出东西时的营收——有一笔营收。看其中分给劳动者的份额，你会看到这个份额在下降；再看分给企业所有者的份额，它在上升。这就是他们按成本分配营收的方式，你会看到资本那一块在上升。
所以这是一个演化过程。确实，随之而来的是你会有更多自由时间。于是社会必须思考："我该如何应对？"比如，每周工作时间从过去的 60、70 小时降到了不到 40 小时，人们有了更多时间，但社会需要想办法：你如何兜底？
所以我们正处在这样一个阶段：顶端那一小撮人正如我们描述的那样在创造惊人的财富，而底端的人则在面对这些挑战。我们的经济相对不错，但大学毕业生找工作的难度显著增加了。我可以告诉你，在很多企业里，用一个大学毕业生反而成了麻烦事——还得培训他们。而其中很多任务、很多工作，用 AI 和计算机化很快就能完成。等你再进入机器人时代，这一切就会真正发生，对吧？
史蒂文·巴特利特：我们眼下看到的这场颠覆，其速度之所以与以往截然不同，是因为涌入 Anthropic、OpenAI 这类 AI 前沿模型的资本规模太大了——这与历史上的先例很不一样，比如工业革命时期，造拖拉机是需要时间的。
瑞·达利欧：确实存在速度这个因素。通常发生的事情是：泡沫破裂，然后周期性动态与技术演化并行，而我们刚才谈的供需问题和债务问题随后到来。所以失业通常源于某种组合——金融危机（就像我们谈的债务、股票下跌、人们失去抵押品、因此无力购买资产）加上那套动态，共同造成失业率的变化，是这个因素。
史蒂文·巴特利特：那是经济层面的原因。但就 AI 智能体、机器人取代人而言——我采访过 Uber 的达拉（Dara），达拉说他设想未来他们在全球送外卖的 900 万骑手将被自动驾驶汽车、自动机器人取代。这 900 万名司机的职业生涯将会消失，可以想见——咱们就实话实说。
瑞·达利欧：是的，我认为这又回到实体 AI（physical AI）上了，对吧？所以我想，20 年后你可以想象，那 900 万也许会变成 2000 万辆自动驾驶汽车。但从现在到那时还有时间，部分原因是我们并不生活在虚拟世界里，对吧？我们生活在物理世界里。你得先把法规立起来，得把车造出来，得把传感器套件造出来，模型也得迭代到位。所以从那时到现在还有时间，但你可以想象，我们大部分的出行最终都将由某种机器人来完成。
失业率在很大程度上受泡沫破裂和经济下行的影响。你会看到失业率飙升。你说的那种演化性变革当然也确实存在。
史蒂文·巴特利特：好，所以两者都有。明白。
瑞·达利欧：换句话说，存在这种演化性的进程——就像他说的，拖拉机取代农夫、流水线取代工人，技术不断替代人。这是一个演化过程，会以你描述的那种方式持续很多年。因为你问到了失业率，我只是想强调，失业率受泡沫破裂的影响非常大。
史蒂文·巴特利特：所以是两股力量同时作用。泡沫一破，就像我们说过的，人人都需要现金，于是开始削减成本。裁员就是从这时候开始的。
瑞·达利欧：对。
史蒂文·巴特利特：他们开始环视公司上下，想："别谈增长了，我们只需要活下去。"于是裁掉这个团队、那个团队、又一个团队。然后你看到失业率上升。与此同时还有一股底层的暗流在同步发生：企业主正在用 AI 智能体或机器人替换团队成员，工厂里也开始用机器人做工，等等。这就是当下这场缓慢而持续的进军。
大周期：债务、贫富差距与正在改变的世界秩序
瑞·达利欧：对。我这里有一张图。这张图展示的是——这条线是技术的演化。换句话说，我们的学习越来越多，做事越来越好。这就是我们说的演化，机器在这段时间里也在取代人或取代人的任务。然后还有这个大周期，平均而言它通常持续大约一辈子，约 80 年。上一次走完这个周期是 1945 年。世界上存在各种秩序：货币秩序、国内政治秩序、地缘政治秩序。
泡沫破裂——就是我们说的那次俯冲。而当你经历这个过程时，这些秩序就会瓦解。当它们瓦解时，你就会甩掉债务负担。你会告别你习以为常的货币体系。你也可能告别国内秩序。许多国家的秩序、它们的制度都会终结——所有制度终有终结的一天。它们往往会在内部剧烈冲突的时期瓦解。这套体系还能撑下去吗？事情就发生在那个时候。
所以那是大崩溃。但你说的那个东西——我同意你的看法——这条线会一直向上。因为学习这件事，你学会了就不会忘掉。所以当这条线上升时，即使经历大崩溃，它仍然继续向上。但与此同时，你还有大周期、债务、冲突这类运动。而这些小周期，就是我们在这平均大约 80 年——就这么说吧——的周期里看到的那些小循环。
你会看到衰退，衰退伴随更高的失业率，等等。然后他们刺激货币政策，让货币宽松。然后经济回升，进入繁荣。然后你进入泡沫，产能越来越紧张，因为产能在被耗尽。通胀上升，他们收紧货币政策。然后衰退接踵而至。所以从一次衰退到下一次衰退的这段运动——就是我刚才描述的那个周期——平均持续约 6 年，上下浮动约 3 年。事情就是这个样子。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
那我复述一遍，确认我理解对了。存在一个更大的宏观层面的泡沫，周期超过 80 年，它就是世界秩序的更替。对吗？
瑞·达利欧：
对。人的一生中，债务会越陷越深。比如说你的举债能力——你有一定的额度。以政府的举债能力为例，它可以借钱。当债务在这里被清零之后，你又可以一点点累积、不断累积，直到它开始产生挤压。偿债支出开始挤压掉其他开支。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
而这就是世界秩序的更替。
瑞·达利欧：
这是其中的要素之一，对吧？我们的债务太多了。与此同时，你积累起来的还有巨大的财富差距，因为资本主义——我热爱资本主义——但现实是，它会造成收入和财富上的巨大差异。而当它造成这种差异时，也就造成了人们机会上的差异，因为富人可以让子女接受良好的教育，可以给他们各种好处。教育就是一项巨大的好处。这就是为什么应该有普惠的、优质的教育。但所有这些都在发生。
于是你看到财富差距不断累积。就像工业革命走向镀金时代（Gilded Age）。镀金时代看上去和今天非常像——人们购买昂贵的东西，看上去金碧辉煌。然后它走向"强盗大亨"（robber barons）时代。强盗大亨指的是那些被认为在占便宜的人——亿万富翁阶层——然后它就演变成这样一个循环。它就是这样运转的。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
所以你有这个大约 80 年的繁荣期，然后是一次崩塌，以冲突和新世界秩序的更替告终。而在这之中，你又有这些小泡沫，也就是真正起起落落的经济泡沫——衰退，人们极度兴奋，然后收缩，再兴奋，再收缩。然后你还有这条直线，也就是贯穿思想、技术等所有这些领域的技术进步。
瑞·达利欧：
而且它会一直向前。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
无论繁荣还是萧条它都一直向前，因为正如你所说，人们永远不会忘记。那么关于这一点我有几个问题。我都不知道先深入哪一个，不过先问——我想还是先把刚才谈到的最后一点收个尾——有一种说法认为，AI 和机器人会创造出新的就业岗位，所有人都会没事的。这种说法很多来自硅谷。
AI 时代的工作未来与人类价值
瑞·达利欧：
制造这些技术的人不想被攻击，因为他们正赚得盆满钵满。他们可能有自己的一套表演，并且处于某种行会式的心态中，想要持有某种特定的立场。我认为硅谷里客观的人——这样的人有不少——会说，这将对就业产生重大影响。
但你从财富上就能看出来。谁持有股票？谁不持有股票？现在，如果你持有股票，你会非常开心。而如果你不持有股票，你就得不到持有股票的那份收益。所以这本身就会制造更大的财富差距，哪怕撇开就业问题不谈。所以存在着这些制造更大财富差距的力量。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
大约 61% 的美国成年人以某种形式持有股票，其中大多数是通过退休计划间接持有的。只有 20% 的美国人通过券商账户直接持有个股。虽然超过一半的美国人持有股票，但持股高度集中：最靠前的 10% 家庭持有将近 90% 的股票。
你怎么看待这种主要来自硅谷的说法——会出现我们现在还无法预见的新工作，所有人都会没事？他们拿工业革命举例。他们说：你看，拖拉机出现的时候，我们以为大家都完了；工厂出现的时候，我们以为大家都完了。但你看，我们后来琢磨出了别的营生。
瑞·达利欧：
因为如果你看那段历史——这正是我要说的——当你的身体越来越多地被你的头脑取代时，你还可以那样转型。但当你的头脑也被取代、身体也被取代时，你还有什么可卖的？
史蒂文·巴特利特：
一旦我们的身体和头脑都被取代，我们人类还有什么可卖的？
瑞·达利欧：
人拥有的是情感和直觉。有些东西是人工智能所不具备的。所以如果你必须追问到底是哪些东西——机器人能按摩得好吗？到底还剩下什么？我们会反复纠结于到底还剩下什么。
但我认为，在可预见的未来，那些拥有卓越的人类智能、并且能与人工智能协同工作的人，将站在这整个浪潮的最前沿。
给下一代的建议
史蒂文·巴特利特：
那么，如果你现在有 16 岁的孩子，他们问你："爸爸，基于你对未来的所有了解，你觉得我应该做什么？"
瑞·达利欧：
首先，有一个问题：在你的生活方式中，什么最重要。所以我要讲点哲学了——我并不假定最高的收入就是最好的。因为幸福——你想要的是幸福和健康。而在越过基本水平之后，你拥有的金钱数量和你的幸福程度之间几乎没有相关性。
我可以用显而易见的方式回答你的问题，那就是去赚最多的钱。但我想先说，我的经验是——我热爱身处大自然，而它几乎不花我什么钱。这取决于你的内心所向在哪里。所以不要丢失你的内心所向，不要丢失这一切的意义。
你想做的是让自己跨过这样一条线——不必恐慌，不用去数"我还能撑几个月"——并且能够守住它，同时充满激情，或者无论是什么，过上我想要的生活。所以我只想强调，要把这一点记在心里。
但与此同时，我的原则是：让你的工作与你的热爱成为同一件事，并且别忘了钱的部分。所以要了解自己的天性。这是我跟我的孙辈们说的——你有自己的感觉，也有自己的天性。这不只是你的偏好。人们的思维方式各不相同。有些人更爱冒险，有些人不那么爱冒险；有些人更偏概念型或艺术型，能用想象力思考，并且热爱这样做；有些人不喜欢那样；有些人想让生活更具体、更确定。这就是你的天性。你在很大程度上生来就带着这种天性，同时也在早年岁月里习得它。从神经可塑性的运作方式中我们知道这一点。
所以，我们都行走在一场旅程上，去寻找自身天性与人生道路之间的那个匹配点。你会找到那条路，但在追寻的过程中，你不能忘了钱的部分。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
别忘了钱。那么，如果你的孙辈来找你说："我想当律师，"你会说"听着，那就是忘了钱的部分，因为我觉得 AI 可能会抢走这份工作"，还是会说"好"？如果他们说"我想当——"
瑞·达利欧：
我认为你——
史蒂文·巴特利特：
我想做一份动脑的工作。
瑞·达利欧：
我要说的是，历史表明，最成功的并不是最聪明的人或最聪明的物种，也不一定是最努力的人——尽管这些都非常重要。最成功的是那些同时最具适应力的物种和人。（原文："it's not the most intelligent people or the most intelligent species that are the most successful... It is those species and people who are also most adaptable."）
所以在你的一生中会有巨大的变化。是的，今天是人工智能。但如果回到不久之前，我们甚至不知道人工智能会以今天这样的方式存在。未来也会是这样。所以当你想把事情钉死的时候——过去的说法是：确保你会编程。然后 Claude Code 出现了，所有写代码的人都开始担心自己的工作。所以到底什么才是重要的？
重要的是对待人生的方式——它能带来一种总体的理解力，也带来适应力。我认为很大程度上在于了解自己。这就是为什么在创建桥水的时候，一个人的性格特质对于什么工作适合他非常重要。后来我开发了一套性格测评，把它放到了网上，任何人都可以去测，大约 30 分钟，网上免费，叫作"Principles You"（原则·你）。它能告诉你很多关于你天性的信息。
但你的目标是找到那种天性，以及有哪些道路。道路有好几条，而且一直在变化。你去尝试，去学习。不过你大概也是被自己的天性拉进了这份工作，对吧？然后你把它做成了。事情就是这样。它在所有这些维度上都成立，对每个人都是如此。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
是的，很有意思，因为你展望未来，我觉得如果我现在是个年轻人，正在规划职业生涯该往哪里走，我会比以往任何时候都更迷茫——尤其是因为他们同时还要面对工程师群体中的这场"失业危机"。
瑞·达利欧：
但如果你是因为无法预见未来而迷茫，那没错，事情本来就是这样。如果你问：鉴于这个现实，我需要什么？我需要学习。我需要知道如何最大化地利用 AI 这样的工具来扩充我的所知，以及如何尽我所能把它用好，在做那些让我有成就感的事情时，让自己尽可能有用。
所以这就是你要做的。接受"你不知道未来会怎样"这个事实就好。所以如果你在寻找一个答案——是该当程序员，还是干这干那——不。只要最大化你求知的能力，这在今天是如此容易做到。把它最大化，然后用它把你在工作中的用处最大化，做让你快乐的工作。
这是我能给我的 16 岁孩子的最好建议，因为我不想误导他们，让他们以为关键在于某个特定的职业。那会误导他们。
财富不平等与资本主义的局限
史蒂文·巴特利特：
你谈到了这个 80 年周期，它会带来一个新的世界秩序。听起来你是在说，在周期接近尾声时，你会看到财富不平等，看到镀金时代——一些人拥有大量好东西，而另一端的人在苦苦挣扎。而这是资本主义的产物。
瑞·达利欧：
首先，现实是，这不只是财富差距的问题——如果一个由多数人构成的系统不能很好地为多数人服务，你就会出问题。是的，这促使人们想通过教育和其他的基本条件来创造更多机会——应该有一个底线，一个谁都不应该跌下去的地板，因为跌下去对他们自己不好，对社会也不好。
就这一点再补充一下：我和我妻子住在康涅狄格州。按人均收入算，我认为它是第二富裕的州，但 22% 的高中生要么辍学了，要么学业不及格且缺勤率超过 25%。其结果是大量的帮派、枪击、毒品等等，导致大量的人被监禁。而监禁的开支已经超过了教育预算。
当你陷入这样的循环时——系统必须为大多数人服务。而这一切最终都归结为生产率。我的看法是：几乎无论由谁来管理的政府，都没法把这些事情运转好。政府搞不好运营。那么，把钱交给他们、指望他们把事情办好，会是什么结果？
所以你看着这一系列处境就会问：谁能把它做好？我也不知道答案。这些都涉及预算考量等等。你必须优先做那些能让社会运转良好的事。你知道那是什么吗？那就是把人们教育得有生产能力、有文明素养。我们对"文明素养"（civility）谈得不够——我们如何协作，才能取得有生产率的成果。
而按照这些周期的走向，更可能发生的是一场大争斗、一场债务危机之类的事情，而不是我们团结起来，想办法营造一种环境——提供优质教育、提升人们的生产率等等——让社会为大多数人运转得更好。情况看上去就是这样，历史上发生的也是这样。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
看来，资本主义会导致不平等。
英国的经济危机与财富税
瑞·达利欧：
是的，但它并非必然如此。有些社会——比如新加坡、一些斯堪的纳维亚国家——在那些社会里存在一个底线：每个人都能获得良好的教育、足够的住房和足够的医疗，也就是那些基础。
因为如果跌破这些水平，社会将为此付出惨重代价，因为那些人会变成社会的负债，而不是社会的资产。他们会制造混乱。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
那么财富税（wealth tax）呢？因为这是当下的大辩论。英国眼下的大辩论就是"向富人征税"。过去几周我们的新闻全是这个。纽约和洛杉矶的大辩论也是财富税和向富人征税。是好主意还是坏主意？
瑞·达利欧：
这是个非常难办的主意，原因如下。我只谈机制。他们必须卖掉财富，才能筹到钱来缴税。这正是我们前面谈到的那种可能刺破泡沫的事情之一。
而且在操作层面非常困难——不像采用"阶梯式计税基础"（stepped-up tax basis）的做法。换句话说，现在的情况是：你去世时，你的资本利得被搁置一旁，你不用缴资本利得税，你缴的是遗产税。是有一些加税的方法可以不伤害经济。
但我们确实必须认识到，这会减少投资，因为财富的主要用途就是投入投资。所以你在做这件事的同时，必须配套那些能提高生产率的改进，比如教育等等。
如果你只是做转移支付、财富转移，并且因此损害了社会的生产率——换句话说，你只是把钱给出去用于消费等等，钱从资本开支、从那些能让社会变得更好更有生产率的投资，流向了某种意义上不产生生产率的消费——那就会出问题。
所以你必须思考：如何让人们有生产率？如何让你的社会对大多数人来说有生产率？或者，你得找到一种方式，坦然地说另一群人不具有生产率。整体社会可以拥有更高的生产率水平，但我们仍然要设立我说的这个底线——教育的底线、生活条件的底线。然后你必须问：谁有能力做到这一点，建设一个有生产率的社会？
史蒂文·巴特利特：
那是谁？
瑞·达利欧：
嗯，正如我所说，这里有个动态难题：通常情况下，私人拥有的、资本家拥有的企业，会比政府的对应机构做得更好。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
好。所以企业通常比政府机构更有生产率。
瑞·达利欧：
是那套体系如此。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
所以你需要企业家精神。对。
瑞·达利欧：
还有资本家。换句话说，就是那些有能力让自己负责的东西具有生产率、高效运转的人。这些人毫无疑问是必需的。如果你要在政府里做这件事，你也需要政府里有这样的人，才能做到。
而政府有它自己的——首先，它吸引不到多少这类人。其次，从它的本性来说——很多进入政府的人都知道这一点——它几乎是功能失调的，因为它引发所有这些争论和问题。所以那些最想高效做事的人往往不去那里。而且它的分配也做得不好。这些人不在一线，没有直接的接触，不知道实际情况是什么样。就像我在描述的，我看到的是——
史蒂文·巴特利特：
政客。
瑞·达利欧：
对，就是那种说"我要——"的政客。所以你还是得回到那个问题：谁能让它高效运转？
英国这个反面教材
史蒂文·巴特利特：
英国目前是什么事情的反面教材？
瑞·达利欧：
它是教科书式的周期。他们过度负债、生产率低下，而且已经耗尽了选择。换句话说，钱不够了。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
然后呢？
瑞·达利欧：
因为钱不够做所有的事情，于是内部政治冲突就开始了。过去 7 年里有 6 年，你们都换了新首相，因为总有别人上台、许下承诺。而承诺兑现不了，用不了多久就变成"我不再相信你的承诺了"。于是你把人请进来，再把人赶出去。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
我们昨天刚换了一位新首相。
瑞·达利欧：
是的，我知道。这都是这个周期的一部分。所以发生的是：他们没有那个财力，而人不断更替。这很合逻辑，对吧？当你负债累累、生产率不如从前、又有巨大的财富差距时，你能怎么办？
这就是政治。你会说："我不能加税，因为如果我加税，除了引发巨大的冲突之外，人们还会离开。"好，那我也不能削减福利，因为领取这些福利的人正是正在受苦的人。我是说，我能怎么办？砍掉那些福利吗？
所以现在，好吧，但等一下——我顶着巨额赤字，或者说我没有足够的钱。那钱从哪儿来？我怎样才能摆脱越陷越深的债务？然后这对借钱给你的人意味着什么？他们不想借给你了，对吧？那你就拿不到钱来为赤字融资了。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
那他们要怎样才能走出这种处境？
瑞·达利欧：
他们将不得不进行一场重大重组。就像那样破产一样。现在央行的做法是双管齐下：印钱——这会带来通胀——然后以某种方式重组债务，比如改变期限。
而在这类周期里，他们经常实施资本管制（capital controls），因为他们看到人们在离开，所以不想让他们带着钱离开。于是他们实施资本管制，规定你不能把钱带走。他们还会征"离境税"（exit taxes）。在大动荡时期到来之前，发生的就是这类事情。你会经历债务重组等各种手段的组合。所谓债务重组，通常就是延长债务的期限。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
好的。
瑞·达利欧：
我认为需要的是一个强大的中间派。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
那是什么意思？
瑞·达利欧：
现在有左派和右派，而且都很极端。只要他们还在互相开战，事情就会变得更糟。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
嗯。
瑞·达利欧：
如果你能找到那条中间道路，让那些最极端的人比那些说"我们必须一起想办法解决"的人更被孤立。然后，如果由我来做，那个领导层、那个核心，我会设立一个类似跨党派委员会的东西，让聪明人——也就是懂经济和这些事物运行规律的人——两党一起合作，拿出一个小而难的方案。换句话说，你必须做出艰难的变革，才能让它运转良好。
但如果你能做到——历史上有时对立双方的伟大领导人能够拿出一个方案。我的意思是，美国宪法就是这么制定出来的。你拿出一套按这种方式运作的方案，然后你推行那些艰难的变革。当我说这话的时候，我承认这非常难，希望很渺茫。但除非你有跨党派的支持，除非你以一种痛苦被分担、并且大家都觉得我们在做正确的事的方式来做——而且不只是感觉，而是实实在在地做正确的事，让大多数人变得有生产率。这才是最好的前进道路。
给年轻创业者的建议：在哪里创业
史蒂文·巴特利特：
如果你是一个 21 岁的年轻创业者，在有的选的情况下，你现在会在英国创办公司吗？如果不会，为什么？如果会，又是为什么？
瑞·达利欧：
我会没有国界地存在，努力做到不受国界束缚。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
实际操作上这是什么意思？
瑞·达利欧：
换句话说，在很大程度上把我们谈论的所有这些放到一边，然后问：世界上哪些地方有活力、有资本、具备所需的那些要素？世界上是有亮点的，我想和最聪明、在做最前沿最了不起的事情的人在一起，并且做到全球化。换句话说，不要困守在一个地方性的角落里。
去那些我可能会称之为近乎"文艺复兴邦国"的地方，那里正在发生好的事情。这些特质在那里都存在——不仅是良好的教育，还有文明素养、活力——去那些地方，但不要只待在一个地方。我想香港有个说法："狡兔三窟"。它的意思是：你去的那个地方，未必永远是最好的地方。有些地方风险更高。风险更高的地方，是那些不具备我提到的那些要素的地方——教育、文明素养、生产率，所有这些。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
那对你来说，英国会是那些地方之一吗？因为我和朋友们有时会聊这个。我在那里投资了很多公司，创始人会来问我这类问题：基于眼下这场动荡和大周期里正在发生的一切，如果我继续在英国办公司，会发生什么？
瑞·达利欧：
我认为，英国在经历这些困难的过程中，整体上是一个更艰难的地方。当然其中也有一些"口袋"地带，在它们自己的小天地里运转时，非常能激发活力、具备那些要素——就像在美国也有一些地方和"口袋"具备这些特质。然而，它们都处在一个并不健康的系统和环境之中。
财富税之争
史蒂文·巴特利特：
正如我说的，这一周我们看到的最主流的说法是：既然存在这个问题——你说钱不够——最流行的说法（我认为大约 70% 的人支持）是：净资产超过 1000 万美元的人——这是我以前的一位嘉宾加里·史蒂文斯（Gary Stevens）提出的方案，他上周做了一部纪录片——应该缴纳 2% 的财富税。
我更倾向的方式是：阻止人们把巨额财富囤积起来、囤上非常非常久。这基本就是我偏好的办法。此外还有财富税的办法，还有资本利得税的办法。这里有很多不同的路径。
但你必须处理这样一个问题：如果你不对非常富有的个人和非常富有的家庭征税，他们占这块蛋糕的份额显然会随着时间推移越来越大。而且他们会——事实上正在——正如我们所看到的，挤压普通家庭。这个税种大概能筹到——我想他们说的是 200 亿美元之类的——总之能筹到一些钱。
所以这个国家眼下的大辩论是：我们该怎么办——筹钱的一个办法就是这种财富税。支持它的人，或者说我应该说反对它的人——反对者说：人们会离开。
美国力量的衰落与世界秩序的更替
瑞·达利欧：
如果你把顶层人群所有的钱都拿走——换句话说，按 100% 征税——你也筹不到足够的钱，因为他们只占人口的极小比例。而且，但是，另外，是的，人们会离开。然后你修改法律，让它具有追溯力。换句话说，你说法律意味着你从过去的某个日期起就要被征税，这样如果你离开，我们照样能拿到你的钱。再或者，你实施资本管制。这些以前全都发生过。
财富税会是个新事物。财富税在征管上很困难，因为你怎么给所有这些不容易估值的财富估值？诸如此类的问题。不过是的，你刚才说的这一点是被充分认识的。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
你之前提到，这个大周期——就是你这本书《变化中的世界秩序》（The Changing World Order）封面上的这张图——大约每 80 年发生一次。
瑞·达利欧：
是的，这就像健康。我的意思是，它平均而言有波动。比如说，一个人的预期寿命是多少？但人们的实际寿命是各不相同的。我不会过分强调确切的时间长度，我更关注你的状况。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
就下一次大崩塌的症状或标志而言，我们现在处于什么位置？
瑞·达利欧：
嗯，我们在这一带的这个位置。当我们说美国、英国以及其他一些国家，已经处于这个周期的后段——也就是我们正在谈论的那些东西流失的阶段。过度负债（overindebtedness），更加过度负债，以及力量的流失。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
所以我们正处在衰落中的崩塌期。
瑞·达利欧：
对，衰落。我就把它叫作衰落。（原文："Decline. I'll call that the decline."）
史蒂文·巴特利特：
而你研究这个已经——噢，500 年。
瑞·达利欧：
研究了 500 年的周期，研究了多个国家，都在那本书里。这些都是客观的度量，不是主观判断。这些东西都可以测量。你可以测量负债水平，可以测量教育水平和竞争力。你可以用清晰可测的数字来测量所有这些东西，它们反映健康状况，就像体检一样。
图3：美国联邦政府收支与总债务（2026年）（编者按：编辑补充数据，非本期节目内容；数据来源：达利欧X帖（2026-06-18）/ CRFB｜制图：财经会议圈）
一个霸主还是两个？全球超级大国的未来
史蒂文·巴特利特：
在过去 500 年的历史中，当这种衰落带来新世界秩序时，有没有出现过两个超级大国同时成为主导超级大国的情况？还是说往往只有一个？
瑞·达利欧：
过去，在第一次世界大战之前，没有——一战的爆发以及随后二战的爆发，是因为世界连成了一体，基本上成了一个世界。在那之前，世界上存在各个区域，各有各的强权，你可以有一个强大的中国，或者印度非常强大，与此同时英国或荷兰等等也很强大，而它们并不处在同一个世界里。
而根本问题在于：当你有一个统一的世界、又存在分歧时——分歧总是会有——你如何解决这些分歧？
史蒂文·巴特利特：
战争。
瑞·达利欧：
战争。好吧。也许不是热战，也许是别的什么形式，但分歧就在那里。边界划在哪里？这个——好吧。所谓"基于规则的秩序"，是美国在二战后提出的一种理论构想，因为当时有一种想法：你如何治理？你设立代表机构，把它们放进联合国，等等。这是个不错的理论，但现实是：当它与实力发生冲突时，谁赢？实力，还是那套基于规则的体系？
所以，从本质上回答你的问题：往往会出现一个主导性强权。我们会看到中国，我认为还有美国。我认为最可能的有利结果是，世界变得更加区域化。明白吗？中国没有意愿去占领或控制其他国家，这有各种文化上的原因，我可以展开讲。他们的基本目标是不被切断、不受伤害，同时做到自己能做到的最好，按照他们自己的体系方式去竞争——那是一套高度自上而下管控的体系。它是儒家思想的延伸，就像家庭、家族那样，这就是他们想做的。
你有可能看到这种区域化的格局，但那样的话，你就不会有一个主导世界的强权。发生大冲突的可能性是存在的，但我认为，在某种意义上，各方有足够的智慧不想走到那一步。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
所以在不同的周期里，基本上一直有一个超级大国。在这些历史周期中，一直存在一个主导性强权。你是说，你认为在下一次衰落之后，不会再有一个主导性强权——过去 80 多年一直是美国——而是会有两个，因为你预见不到会爆发一场足以产生单一主导强权的那种规模的冲突。
瑞·达利欧：
每个国家的实力将取决于他们如何打理自己。他们会变强还是变弱，取决于他们如何教育国民、如何花钱、如何管理自己。这些将决定这些国家的相对实力，对吧？所以对美中两国来说肯定都是如此。
所以，展望未来，这些体制将如何以尽可能好的方式处理这些问题？我想说的是，只要美国仍然是一个强权——但它确实存在因债务、冲突这类事情而陷入非常糟糕处境的风险，这些都会侵蚀它——这种相对力量对比的改变，尤其可能来自内部。同样，如果中国管理不善，也可能改变这种对比。
鉴于如果双方都继续保持强大的实力，那么你将会看到的，我认为，更多的是对"区域"的承认，好吗？就像有美洲区，好吗？它在很大程度上更成为一个区域，以及这个区域外溢的地方。然后是中国周边的亚太国家和地区，以及那个区域内部的发展。而且我确实认为各方会避免那场危害极大的大战。
还有台湾问题这样的议题，但台湾问题最有可能的处理方式，在我看来，不是军事上的——也就是说不会爆发一场美中之间围绕它的大战——而是通过施加压力，最终实现统一（reunification）。
伊朗战争与美国全球影响力的流失
史蒂文·巴特利特：
你刚才提到了冲突。美国正在与伊朗交战，而且这似乎是一场他们脱不了身的战争。这大概会对你在这里描述的很多事情产生影响，也会影响国内民众的感受。我们正面临美国向伊朗派遣地面部队的前景，因为霍尔木兹海峡正在成为全球能源的咽喉要道，而他们将——那特朗普会怎么做？这就像越南。他不能撤，否则他会很难看；如果他留下来，他也很难看。中期选举又快到了。你对这场伊朗战争怎么看？你认为它是个坏主意还是好主意？它在这整盘棋里扮演什么角色？
瑞·达利欧：
是的。这场伊朗战争，我认为——国际上正在发生的事情是这样的。我有机会与各国领导人交谈，等等，尤其在亚洲，人们认识到美国不想打仗。所以试金石是：谁控制霍尔木兹海峡？而美国——因为美国民众担心油价、担心人员伤亡，想让这一切快点结束——你没法以这种方式打仗。所以你看到的是：美国将不会在亚洲现身。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
"在亚洲现身"是什么意思？
瑞·达利欧：
在亚洲，所有这些国家都相信美国会扮演重要角色，作为该地区力量平衡的制衡方，因为中国是主导性强权，其他国家要弱得多。所以美国待在那里是为了平衡这些力量。而且因为美国有军事存在，在他们的国家设立基地被认为有助于实现这一点。
现在人们认识到：他们不仅可能不会现身，而且也许这些基地会变成负担（liabilities），而在这种情况下中国拥有很大的影响力和实力。举个例子：芯片产自台湾。我们可以想象一下，如果他们封锁台湾芯片的出境会发生什么。你会看到全球股市崩盘，你会看到可怕的事情。这代表一种非军事力量——哪怕只是有能力威胁这么做。比如说，如果中国说：5 天之内我们不允许它（芯片出口）。美国实际上能做什么？
或者再看看菲律宾这样的国家，它和美国签有类似北约条约的条约。如果我们要派军用航母之类的力量去菲律宾，阻止菲律宾人被中国人欺负，美国公众会作何反应？
所以你看到的这种变化，与大英帝国变弱的过程非常相似。我记得就在不久以前，美国几乎只需向某个国家暗示一下：我们希望这件事是这样，或者我们希望它那样做，他们就会照办，因为美国的实力——不只是军事实力，还有经济实力等等。而现在你看到那种实力正在被侵蚀——比如说，中国与大多数国家的贸易额都比美国更大，或者资本、人员的流向。这些事情都很重要。所以你看到的是这样一种力量对比的转移。
我是一名全球宏观投资者，我的目标是尽可能做到准确。我不能让偏见妨碍我做到这一点。所以我看统计数据、度量和指标等等。所以我说的这些东西是清楚的。它是显而易见的，是机制性的。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
那么这对伊朗局势意味着什么？是不是意味着它——
瑞·达利欧：
嗯，这意味着这是一个非常非常困难的局面。纵观历史——中国人对此非常清楚，因为他们打仗的方式就写在《孙子兵法》里，也体现在他们所谓的朝贡体系中——你不可能轻易地进入并占领一个国家、长期控制它。伊朗有 9000 万人，无论发生什么，他们都会在那里。
现在的问题是：以霍尔木兹海峡为例，你有没有能力控制住它？换句话说，你是允许它留在伊朗人手里，还是不允许？你愿不愿意付出代价，让自己处于那个位置——这意味着承受巨大的痛苦，然后一直维持下去，我不知道，直到永远？因为这不只是今天控制住它，还意味着：好吧，接下来怎么办？这对其他地方意味着什么？美国会不会在亚洲对中国人做同样的事？他们大概会在到处都做同样的事。好吧，那意味着什么？好吧，世界秩序的更替。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
听起来像是个大错误。
瑞·达利欧：
哦，是的，这是个大错误。而且它所做的一切，是把脆弱性暴露在聚光灯下。以前，这种脆弱并不明显——美国在强制执行能力上的脆弱性。你知道，过去总有那种威慑："我们会出手，海峡必须保持开放，我们不吃这一套"，总有一种美国将保持控制的威慑。在亚洲和其他地方也是如此。现在，灯泡亮了。换句话说，就像当年苏伊士运河事件中的英国人一样——我们之前没有意识到。
结语与致谢
史蒂文·巴特利特：
现在我们意识到，威慑不再奏效，那种力量不复存在。我想，我们拭目以待吧。
瑞，非常感谢你把自己人生的这个阶段奉献出来，更多地做一名公众教育者。因为你的这些书，被数以百万计、数以百万计又数以百万计的人阅读，你制作的视频被数以千万计、上亿的人观看，对我们这么多人用简化的方式理解世界产生了深远的影响。
而我最欣赏你的工作的一点是：你用原则来解释世界，而不是用战术和策略——战术和策略比理解底层原则要短暂易逝得多。我认为这有两重作用。它帮助我们理解世界的方式，让我们能够看透当下所处的这个短期时刻。同时，它也帮助我们从更宏观的视角，总体地思考所有这些事物是如何联系在一起的。
而我认为这是普遍适用的。原则化思考的理念，普遍适用于生活的各个领域——无论是你的亲密关系、你的事业、你的健康，还是别的什么。你真的写出了这个主题的权威之作。我把它们都带来了。
我是说，《原则》（Principles）是我读的第一本，但之后我看了你 YouTube 频道上所有的视频，它们用动画的方式来讲解。那些视频绝对惊艳，简直令人难以置信地惊艳。有意思的是，我这辈子看过很多 YouTube 视频，但有些视频我就是永远忘不了。
你的那本书，以及你 YouTube 频道上关于那本书的视频——我会在下方附上链接——就是那个我永远忘不了的 YouTube 视频，因为它突然帮我理解了大图景，那种理解方式，我觉得换作其他任何途径我都无法获得。我在学校没上过历史课，也未必会去读历史书。所以你做的那个视频，以及那本书本身，真的帮我明白了：总有一个更大的图景。
说来也有趣，我会在生活和心理学的所有其他面向中去寻找那个大图景，或者说周期。因为当你和人打交道时，你就是在和周期打交道。这是我逐渐认识到的。你到处都能发现并识别它们，然后据此做好准备。
所以，感谢你在这方面所做的出色工作。我会把所有这些书的链接放在下面。强烈推荐大家读一读。而且它们不是写给学究或超级聪明人的，是写给每一个人的，写法也是如此。所以我很感激。
瑞·达利欧：
谢谢你这么说。我发现视频很容易消化。其中一个，《经济机器是怎样运行的》（How the Economic Machine Works）——我想它只有 30 分钟，已经有 1.4 亿人看过。而且人们能看懂。所以我认为，用清晰、简单、易消化的方式来传达，也是我的责任。所以我喜欢把书里的一个概念做成一个 30 分钟的视频——就是努力把可能对人们有用的东西传递出去。所以，谢谢你。
史蒂文·巴特利特：
感谢你把自己人生的这个阶段奉献给这件事。我真的非常感激，我的数以百万计的听众也是如此。所以，谢谢你。
Ray Dalio on The Diary Of A CEO — Full English Original (Reconstructed & Verified Edition)
复刻说明：本文件基于全网多源核实结果，完整复刻瑞·达利欧（Ray Dalio）2026年7月30日做客全球顶级商业播客 The Diary Of A CEO（主持人 Steven Bartlett）的英文原版全文（逐字稿，约 13,750 词，100% 覆盖，无缺失区间），并附中文编译稿与原版的逐条勘误对照。
核实日期：2026-08-04 复刻方法：官方元数据（Apple Podcasts / Audible / Spotify / YouTube 官方频道交叉确认）＋ 两个独立完整转写稿来源（SingJuPost 精校逐字版 × podcasttranscript.ai 时间戳机转版）交叉校验 ＋ HappyScribe 第三来源复核 ＋ Fortune/Bloomberg/CNBC 等权威媒体佐证。
The following is the full transcript of investor Ray Dalio’s interview on The Diary Of A CEO Podcast, July 30, 2026.
EDITOR’S NOTES: In this episode of The Diary Of A CEO, host Steven Bartlett sits down with Ray Dalio—the legendary investor and founder of Bridgewater Associates who famously predicted the 2008 financial crisis. Dalio shares his unfiltered insights on the AI bubble, the forces driving the “big cycle,” the decline of the US and UK, and what he believes is coming next for the global economy and society. From practical advice on protecting wealth and navigating job disruption to the geopolitical shifts reshaping the world order, this conversation delivers a powerful roadmap for the turbulent times ahead.
Ray Dalio on the AI Bubble: Is History Repeating Itself?
STEVEN BARTLETT: Ray, for people that might not know who you are, you founded Bridgewater Associates in a 2-bedroom apartment in 1975, and you grew it to the world’s largest hedge fund. What was the total amount of cumulative net gains that you delivered for those investors over that period?
RAY DALIO: I think it was something like $53 billion. We produced about a 12% return with no, never any significant losses, and it was uncorrelated with other investments.
STEVEN BARTLETT: And you were one of the few managers to foresee the great financial crisis, which allowed Bridgewater to post positive returns of 9.5% in 2008 while the S&P 500 plunged by almost 40%.
Let me start with the thing that I’m most curious about, because I sat here with an investor called Jeremy Grantham, who you might know. He told me that we’re staring in the face of an AI bubble and therefore an economic collapse, potentially.
Jeremy Grantham: If you look at the data, it would be compatible with history for the peak to be very soon. Everything is in line. This is, I think, the biggest investment bubble in American history.
STEVEN BARTLETT: What’s your perspective on that?
What Is a Bubble and Why Does It Collapse?
RAY DALIO: He’s right. I don’t want to jump to conclusions as much as I want to explain reasonings that lead up to conclusions. I’m at a stage in my life that I want to help people understand cause-effect relationships.
What they call a bubble is when the price goes up a lot and companies do very well, and then it collapses. And that has implications for the economy. That has implications for the markets like the 1929 bubble, or the 2000 bubble, which is the dot-com bubble.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Does it impact real people as well? Because you said the economy—
RAY DALIO: Did the 1929 bubble bursting impact real people? Yes. The Great Depression followed because what happens is there’s a new technology that comes along that is revolutionary.
The dot-com bubble, which was 2000 — all the stuff that we have that’s wonderful new technology — people get into that technology. They say, “That’s miraculous. I can bet on that. I’m sure it’s going to be successful.” And then they bet on it and sometimes they borrow money to bet on it and they lose sight that the price of it matters.
So it goes up and up and it’s everybody’s thing. Right now we’re very excited about AI and we should be very excited because it’s got to be revolutionary changes. And it did at the same time. So I want to buy some of that, and everybody wants to invest in some of that. And what they do is they don’t pay attention to the price.
And there’s a certain mechanics. People will borrow money. Wealth is not the same as money. So you see a lot of people getting wealthy, but you can’t spend the wealth. You have to sell the wealth to get money because you can only spend money. So what happens is when they need money for one reason or another — taxes change or interest rates go up — and so they have to pay their debt service and so on. There is a pricking of the bubble so that what happens is it falls.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Okay.
RAY DALIO: And when that happens, people lose money. And as they start to lose money, the process works in reverse because when they made a lot of money, they have a lot of collateral. They can go borrow money because they’re worth a lot and that compounds on its way up. And then when it comes down the other way, it works the other way. You’ve got to pay your debt. And so on. Then you have to start to sell assets and then there’s less demand for things. So there’s less demand because if you’re losing money because you put some money in the stock market and that company and so on, you’re going to spend less. And as you spend less, then somebody else’s income goes down. You don’t go to the restaurants.
The economic downturns that typically follow a bubble, like the Great Depression — the late ’20s was fantastic. If you talk about changes and experiencing change, this was the first time there was electricity in houses. So that was the first time you would have refrigeration and you would have lighting in houses. This was the first time that you had cars popular that you could get. First time airplanes, first time you had radio.
And so everybody knew that they were going to be great in the future, and they were great in the future. But at the same time, what happens is as they buy them and stocks go up and they borrow money to buy them and so on, and the profits don’t live up to the price, then that causes this other dynamic and it produced the Great Depression.
Breaking Down the Bubble Mechanic
STEVEN BARTLETT: So let’s say that I buy this and this is a unit of artificial intelligence. So let’s say I buy one share in one of the big AI companies right now.Because investors are so excited about AI, they value this at
I go to the bank because I have this net worth, this paper worth
And then something happens in the economy, which means that the investors who’ve invested in this, and investors generally now need money to pay off their other debts that they have. So this could be a war, it could be some kind of event that takes place, and suddenly everybody rushes to sell their assets like this one.
And so when I go to sell this, the price of it has now plummeted to say maybe
RAY DALIO: You got it.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Okay, good. All right, fine.
RAY DALIO: And it happens because it must happen. In these tremendous changes, there’s very little that’s known. So anybody who’s in the business of making AI can’t be precise. They don’t know exactly how much money is going to come in. So there’s either one of two things. You either don’t invest enough and then the competition runs away, or you invest a huge amount and you can’t be precise. And so when that dynamic happens, it’s a problem. So yes, you said it very well.
So I’m going to repeat one other thing to emphasize. What’s quite common now is you can issue stock for — let’s say you raise
1 billion. Nobody paid $1 billion or whatever it is. And now you own that stock, but that stock you can’t spend because you can’t spend wealth. In order to spend it, you have to sell some of that stock to get money.
And quite often there’s an interest rate rise because, let’s say there’s a fever and there’s inflation, then the central bank wants to try to put the brakes on that a bit. What does that mean? It means people who have debt, in a sense, have to come up with more money. Because when you hold the debt, you have to come up with money to pay the debt. So that dynamic works between us. We’ve said it clearly. I think we understand the dynamic.
The Big Cycle: Bubbles, Politics, and Geopolitics
RAY DALIO: So they have to exist. Now we have another problem that’s existing. We’re talking about the bubble. But we also have some other things that are going on that happen around the same time. A big gap between the rich and the poor. And which also means the left and the right, the politics of it. Just as we have now. When you have the downturn, then you have people at each other’s throats.
So if we take politics, what you see is this — that they don’t have enough money, that the governments don’t have enough money. We have big budget deficits. Where do you get the money from in order to pay those bills? The UK has had, I think, 6 out of the last 7 years there’s been a new prime minister. And because there’s not enough money for the government, what you start to see is people come in with their claims, but there’s this question of how do we get the money? And then people who have money run. They say, “I don’t want to be in this tax zone.” And then they leave.
And so there’s a domestic political problem that is not people compromising the same way they used to compromise. So now you have the politics which compounds this, and then you have a world — this is what I call the big cycle — you have a world in which also the geopolitics changes. By geopolitics, I mean country to country.
There’s a system under normal circumstances when there’s a more dominant power, they impose their order and that becomes more peaceful. But when you have arguments of how things should go, those arguments start to turn into conflicts. And so those things tend to happen together. That’s why I refer to that as the big cycle — that dynamic. Now, that is the confluence of the money, the internal conflict politically, and the external conflict, which is what we’re going through.
And the problem is, I think, that people don’t know the cycle. So every day we go to our sources of information and you see this latest news, but they don’t connect the dots in understanding that cycle.
What Pricks the Bubble?
STEVEN BARTLETT: Closing off on this point of the bubbles, what is it that makes bubbles pop? So if we are in an AI bubble at the moment and it is going to pop at some point, what is the — they call it a black swan event.
RAY DALIO: There are a few of them. There are bubbles and then the things that prick the bubbles. The things that prick the bubbles typically in the beginning are something that means that I have to sell some wealth to get money. And that’s usually a rise in interest rates. It could be something like wealth taxes, something that means I’m very wealthy, but typically the tightness of money — because during that spot there’s inflation pressures and central banks decide that they want to tighten monetary policy and so on.
It becomes that the amount of money that I can get by owning that debt at the higher interest rates is greater than the amount of money I could get on my equity investments. That’s part of it.
Also, what you see is a lot more production of stock. And what I mean by that — issuance of stock — is think of the supply and the demand. There’s demand, and we’ve been talking about the demand that makes stocks go up, how we create this wealth. But there’s also supply. So you can issue stock. It’s very easy. There’s almost nothing that’s easier to produce than stock.
STEVEN BARTLETT: So if I own a company, I can just print more equity.
RAY DALIO: Yes. Today you could probably go out and say, “I’m going to make a company and I’m going to take it public.” And you go to your audience and your crowd and you can say, “I’m going to make stock.” So it becomes, when there’s a market that wants stock, there’s a production of stock. And that supply of stock together with the other that I’m mentioning — the need for getting money and so on — causes the bubble to pop.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Are you seeing signs that we’re in a bubble?
Signs We Are in a Bubble
RAY DALIO: Yeah, yeah, yeah. The classic signs that we’re in a bubble. And the bubble, I should emphasize, it’s not a you’re in a bubble or you’re not in a bubble. It’s a degree thing.
There is also that it’s in weak hands. I can look at now who is in these companies, and is it in strong hands or weak hands? Classic strong hands is that when weak investors — not knowledgeable investors — then put a lot of money into it, particularly if that’s in a leveraged way. Another way with debt, or they can buy options, a leveraged version of like — there are ETFs now that are leveraged versions of the stock market and so on. And so they get into that. It’s more like they’re crapshooting. And then that’s a sign of a bubble.
So I’ve listed a few of those signs. Those are the major signs of those bubbles. And so that when it goes down, then you get the fear, then you get the need to raise cash. And that dynamic works its way out in the form of then the reverse happening. In other words, everything becomes cheap and everybody has the spending and the things you mentioned.
Preparing for an AI Bubble Burst
STEVEN BARTLETT: If we are in an AI bubble and it is going to burst, I had a friend of mine contact me and he said, “Steven, I think we’re in this, an AI bubble,” and he’s running an AI company. He said to me, “I’m going to raise lots of money now so that when the markets come down and investors are fearful, they don’t want to invest in companies. People stop spending as much. They start thinking about their subscriptions and start canceling subscriptions. We’re going to be good. And we’re going to be able to buy up some of our competitors who are going to be struggling.” So he’s just raised hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars for his AI company.
RAY DALIO: Right. And it’s probably like that easy.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Yeah, it was easy now.
RAY DALIO: Right.
STEVEN BARTLETT: The question here is, what should, at different levels — so the average Joe on the street up to entrepreneurs that are running companies — how do they all prepare for an economic bubble that might burst?
RAY DALIO: He’s such a good example. And what that does, and just following up on what we were saying a minute ago, is that increases the supply of AI stock.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Okay. Yeah. Because he sold stock.
RAY DALIO: Because he’s going to sell more.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Yeah.
RAY DALIO: Right. And so as he and others do that more, this greater supply of stock comes in and so he wants to get ahead of it in that dynamic. And then that contributes to the bubble. But how do they prepare?
STEVEN BARTLETT: How does the average person prepare?
The Basics of Money Management
RAY DALIO: I would also say something. The future is very unknown and people should not be timing. Sophisticated investors have a real challenge even in timing a bubble. So the important thing always is to diversify. Now we’re going to go back to money, the basics of money management.
I personally have gone through the cycle because I didn’t have any money and then I did, then I had a lot of money. And I remember the cycle very well. What happens is, as you start off, I used to count how many months I would be okay. I have a certain amount of money, how much money I would be okay if no more money came in. If I lost my job or whatever I did, I’d mostly never — I worked 2 years for somebody. But in other words, if money didn’t come in, it would be months and then years and so on to build that security, because I had to take care of my family and so on.
And so as we’re looking at these things, these are the choices that you have in order to be able to say, do I buy my house or apartment? Do I put my money into cash? And what happens to money is you have to put it into something because they’ll pay you interest on it. So that’s your cash deposit and so on. And people think that that’s the safest. It’s not. It’s the worst investment over a long period of time because inflation will eat it away.
STEVEN BARTLETT: You mean putting it in a bank, just leaving it in a bank?
RAY DALIO: In whatever form, a money market fund, whatever it is that is that short-term, I’ll deposit it and it’ll give me an interest rate.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Okay. Okay.
RAY DALIO: And that’s what they think about as cash. Nobody leaves it literally in cash because if it’s literally in cash, it doesn’t earn interest. So why shouldn’t I put it there and get some interest on it? And so that’s cash. And people think that that’s the safest and has the lowest return, guaranteed almost to have the worst return over the longer period of time.
STEVEN BARTLETT: People keep cash because it feels safer.
RAY DALIO: That’s right. And I’m saying it’s not safer because of inflation.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Explain that to me in simple terms.
RAY DALIO: Okay. Well, if I got no interest rate, then what I would do is I’d lose to the inflation rate.
STEVEN BARTLETT: And what’s the inflation rate?
RAY DALIO: Well, 3.5% or 4% happens to be about where it is now.
STEVEN BARTLETT: A year? Yeah, a year. So I lose $3.50 a year.
RAY DALIO: That’s right.
STEVEN BARTLETT: If I just leave it in cash.
RAY DALIO: That’s okay. Now I’ll get an interest rate on it if I put it someplace and it’ll give me maybe an interest rate that’s somewhere in that vicinity, similar to that.
STEVEN BARTLETT: 3, 4, 5, 4%.
RAY DALIO: And then I have to pay taxes on it.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Oh, you have to pay taxes on the gain?
RAY DALIO: Yeah.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Okay, fine.
RAY DALIO: Right. Even though you really didn’t gain relative to inflation, you still have to pay the taxes on whatever you’ve earned or something anyway. Over the long term, it’s a lousy return. Because also think about returns — they also come from productivity. And over a period of time, people learn how to do things better and so on.
Diversifying Your Portfolio
RAY DALIO: So then you can invest in, let’s call this stocks. That we’ll call that the stock market. This is cash. And then you think on the stocks, and then the stocks can go up or down. And then they have this dynamic that we’re talking about that creates these big cycles and the busts. And those cycles, when they go down, go down 60, 70%. That’s what a bear market looks like. ALSO READ: FULL TRANSCRIPT: Fireside Chat Between Mukesh Ambani and Jensen Huang
This is gold. And these are bonds and this is your house and that’s Bitcoin. So these are the choices. They each change for certain reasons. But what happens is they go like this. When gold goes up, it tends to be that the bonds will go down in value or your house. And these change in a certain way. And so the best thing to do is to have a diversified portfolio of that. When you have that rather than any one, you won’t reduce your return, but you will reduce your risk.
STEVEN BARTLETT: And diversified means having a little bit of each, right?
RAY DALIO: A certain amount. And you have to know how to balance them because of their volatility. This one, stocks, is more volatile than this one.
My own recommendations are you start first of all with what you need. Should I buy a place or should I use that money and I could travel more and so on? One of the advantages of the house, the apartment and whatever, is it’s your environment. Your environment is important. It produces forced savings. Sometimes that forced savings is good. It is typically taxed better. It’s a better vehicle for tax over a period of time.
But I’m not arguing for this alone. I’m saying when I’m looking at this, I think gold is very interesting because when all of these tend to do badly, this tends to do well. So it’s a very effective diversifier because this was money not until 1971, and it’s still the second largest reserve currency. Central banks hold reserve currencies. So it has qualities that are different from this, and this has qualities like when the value of money goes down because of inflation. This — bonds.
STEVEN BARTLETT: And bonds are basically lending the government money.
RAY DALIO: That’s right. If you lend the money at a certain interest rate and then inflation and interest rates rise, you’re kind of locked into that interest rate. And so it has its own problems.
The more important thing I would say is, you save up and you say, how many years can I live if money doesn’t come in? And then you take that and you say, how could I be secure? So I don’t want to put it into one thing that can go down 70%. So how do I diversify that? That’s my main headline.
Advice for Those Starting With Little
STEVEN BARTLETT: A lot of people in the comments of our last episode, they were asking this — how does this apply for someone who doesn’t have much money, maybe doesn’t have any assets? Say they’re 30 years old. They have $100 disposable income and they’re thinking about how to sort of secure their future. What is the advice for someone in that situation?
RAY DALIO: Your only asset is yourself. And I guess what you’re going to get from the government. How do you sell yourself at getting a better income? How are you getting money from the government? Selling yourself is the main thing.
This is one of the big problems now. With artificial intelligence and other machines replacing people in different types of jobs, it becomes more difficult. It produces that big wealth gap while you’re having more productivity. Everybody wants more productivity because it means how do you produce things more efficiently? But that contributes to the income gap because your productivity equals your income to a large extent. And then you have the political dynamic.
It’s tough to get yourself out of this position that you mentioned. I’m imagining that person. It’s not easy. There is this giant polarity. If you are in the top 10% of talent, the world’s your oyster. But nowadays, in order to be there, that’s difficult.
Find something that gives you the ability to sell your time for good money. Is that going to be that you’re driving an Uber? Is that going to be that you have the talent and you’re going to be able to understand AI and contribute that understanding to a company that values that? Or what is your skill?
You found this, and you found the way. But you need money. And the thing that you want to do, what you’re doing, and I’m lucky enough to do, is to make your work and your passion the same thing. And don’t forget about the money part.
Valuing Your Skills in the Right Context
STEVEN BARTLETT: Yeah. One of the things that I think I didn’t realize earlier in my career is that whatever skills you have will be valued differently in different contexts or industries, should I say. So for example, say that my skill here — and I’m not trying to flatter myself — but say my skill here is having conversations. There’s lots of places I could have conversations, and those places would value my ability to have conversations wildly differently per hour.
So I often think this and speak to my friends about this. When they tell me their skills, I say, “Let’s look at the different industries and how they would value the skills you currently have differently.” A good example — you could be an Uber driver or you could chauffeur Ray Dalio. Now, I imagine those 2 things pay wildly differently. But the same skill of driving a car, broadly speaking.
RAY DALIO: I agree with all that.
STEVEN BARTLETT: And so I think that’s one way. The other way is you go ask your current boss for a promotion. But again, they’re going to value you in the context of their other employees, the market in that industry, et cetera. So you might get 10%, but you’re not going to see a step change necessarily. So that’s something that I always say to people.
RAY DALIO: Absolutely right. And another law of something — and I think it’s almost a law of everything, it’s a law if you buy almost anything — is those at the top, whatever the thing you’re buying, if you’re buying a painting, a piece of furniture, a piece of clothing, a person’s time or whatever, command premiums that are many multiples of the average.
It’s almost like if you could invest 10% more of your time, your effort, your skill to go up, you will get twice as much for 10% better, something like that. So that’s part of the formula of life and a formula of employment. And so I think if you keep what you brought up and what I’m bringing up in mind, that helps you position yourself and know what to do.
Bitcoin as Part of a Diversified Portfolio
STEVEN BARTLETT: We didn’t mention Bitcoin actually, so I probably should talk about it because people are talking about it a lot right now. What’s your perspective on Bitcoin? I know the market in Bitcoin is down at the moment.
RAY DALIO: I have about 1% of my portfolio in Bitcoin because there’s different kinds of money. The money that you can’t print — that’s one kind. This is the other kind of money that you can’t print.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Gold.
Gold vs. Bitcoin, AI’s Impact on Jobs, and Economic Cycles
RAY DALIO: Yeah. You cannot crack it with technology. You can hold it, you own it. There’s a saying that it’s the only financial asset that is not somebody else’s liability. Somebody has to give you something for it. It has that. So in my category of wanting to make sure that I have some hard money, which for most people should be between 5 and 15% of their portfolio, I prefer that — I’m pointing to the gold bars here — rather than the Bitcoin.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Is it still, in your view, a gold-like asset?
RAY DALIO: Yes, it’s a type of money that can’t be printed, but there are technologies that can hurt it. In other words, if there’s quantum computing and it can be monitored by governments and so on, it could be taxed. And digital currencies are somewhat similar.
STEVEN BARTLETT: But you don’t like Bitcoin as much as gold because of privacy reasons as well.
RAY DALIO: And when the governments say, “I don’t want it,” they have the power therefore to do whatever they want with it. And central banks will not own any significant amount of that because of the reason I said. They want their transactions to be private and in their control. Think about how different it would be for Russia. They confiscated these kind of other assets. They didn’t get these.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Gold.
RAY DALIO: Okay.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Gold.
RAY DALIO: And so what you’re seeing, even particularly in this time of conflict, is that there’s a sense that if I’m holding this, others won’t get it.
AI, Automation, and the Future of Work
STEVEN BARTLETT: You mentioned a second ago the impact you think AI is going to have on the economy broadly, but also again to real people’s lives. There’s lots of debate. There’s been a debate over the last 10 years or so within the world of AI. You had the big AI CEOs originally saying that AI would cause job disruption. And you’ve even had some of the CEOs more recently saying work will become optional in a world of superintelligence. At the same time, we have robotics coming over the horizon. So you’ve got this sort of convergence of intelligence and then, physical muscles or ability. At the same time, we’re seeing AI accelerate and its capabilities. What does this mean for the average person and their job, and who’s going to benefit from this AI revolution in your point of view?
RAY DALIO: It means that you will either be cutting edge and capable and among that top fraction of a percent down to 10% of the population who is cutting edge and using it and accelerating, or you will — if you’re in a thinking job — be at risk of being replaced.
We’re coming into a world where we can automate everything. The evolution of man was we had the agricultural era and there was no real inventiveness. And then man invented the machine. And what the machine did is it replaced man’s physical necessity. So men used to be like oxen in the agricultural field and so on, and they were replaced by tractors. And then we entered the industrial age. First you had the printing press that allowed people to learn, and then you had these inventions, the industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution. And what you had is the replacing of the physical that man would do in factories and so on.
So the way I look at it is I look at the human body and I see it’s replacing the body and so on, and it’s coming up higher and higher. And then it replaces some aspects of the mind that you can computerize. And it’s coming up and up and it’s replacing higher and higher levels of thinking and reasoning. So that path is part of the evolutionary path that is happening.
So then you start to say, “What do I have to offer?” And so in answer to who benefits from it, those who benefit from it are those who are the capitalists with the ideas that replace the workers. And so if you look at the revenue for businesses when you buy something in a store, there’s revenue. And if you look at the share that is going to workers, you see that share going down. And if you look at the share that’s going to those who own that business, that share is going up. That’s how they share that revenue in terms of the cost, and you see that that’s rising.
And so this is an evolutionary process, and it’s true that what happens is you get more free time. So now the society has to think, “How do I deal with this?” So for example, the work week, which used to be a 60 or 70-hour work week, goes down to less than a 40-hour work week and there’s more time, but there needs to be, how do you create a bottom?
And so we’re going through this phase in which there is this upper end that is making incredible amounts of wealth as we describe, and then this lower end that is then having these challenges. We have a relatively good economy and the difficulty of college graduates to get employment has increased significantly. And I can tell you that in many businesses, it becomes more of a pain in the neck to have a college graduate do it. They have to train them. And many of those tasks, many of that thing can be done very quickly with the AI and with computerization. And as you get into robotics, you’re going to have that happen, right?
STEVEN BARTLETT: The speed of the disruption that we’re seeing because of the amount of capital that’s flowing into these AI frontier models like the Anthropics and OpenAIs, et cetera, is quite different from anything else, sort of the historical precedents as we’ve seen through the Industrial Revolution where it took time to build the tractors.
RAY DALIO: There’s an element of speed. What happens usually is the bubble bursts and now you have the cyclical dynamic of that while the technology evolves, but the supply demand and the debt problem that we just talked about then come. And so unemployment is due to typically some sort of a combination of a financial crisis — like we talked about, the debt and stocks going down and people not having collateral and then therefore not buying assets — and that dynamic that causes the unemployment rate, that factor.
STEVEN BARTLETT: That’s the sort of economic reasons. But in terms of the AI agents, robotics being able to replace you, I’ve sat with Dara from Uber, and Dara said that he imagines in the future, the 9 million riders that they have around the world doing deliveries will be replaced by autonomous vehicles, autonomous robots. Those 9 million drivers’ careers will be out of work, conceivably — talking about being honest about the situation.
RAY DALIO: Yeah, I think, again, it goes to physical AI as well, right? So I think 20 years from now, you can imagine that those 9 million will be 20 million AVs maybe. But we have time between now and then, partially because we don’t operate in the virtual world, right? We operate in the physical world. You have to get the regulations up, you have to build the cars, you have to build the sensor stacks, the models have to get there. So there is time between now and then, but you can imagine the majority of our trips being fulfilled by robots of some kind.
The unemployment rate gets very influenced by the bubble bursting and the economy going down. You see that spike. You certainly have the evolutionary change that you’re referring to.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Okay. So it’s both. Okay.
RAY DALIO: In other words, there’s this evolutionary thing in which, like he says, the tractor replaces the laborer or the assembly line worker as technology is replaced. And that is an evolutionary thing that goes continuously for many years in the way that you’re describing. Because you asked about the unemployment rate, I just wanted to emphasize that the unemployment rate is very heavily affected by that bubble bursting.
STEVEN BARTLETT: So you’ve got 2 forces at once then. You’ve got when the bubble bursts, everybody, as we said, needs cash, so they start cutting their costs. So that’s when they start laying people off.
RAY DALIO: Yeah.
STEVEN BARTLETT: And they start looking around their company and go, “Forget growth, we just need to survive.” So we’re going to lay off that team and that team and that team. And you see unemployment going up. And then you’ve got this sort of underlying shift happening at the same time, which is workers are replacing their team members with AI agents or robotics, or in the factories, they’re now using robots to do factory work, et cetera. And that’s the sort of current slow march forward.
The Big Cycle: Debt, Wealth Gaps, and the Changing World Order
RAY DALIO: Right. So I have this chart. What this represents — this line is the evolution of technologies. In other words, we have greater and greater learning and doing things better. And that’s the evolution that we’re talking about, that also machines replace people or replace their tasks over that period of time. Then you have this big cycle, which typically lasts for about a lifetime on average, about 80 years. We went through that the last time in 1945. There are orders. There’s a monetary order, there’s a domestic political order, there’s a geopolitical order.
You have the bubble bursting. This is what we’re talking about, that dive. And then when you go through that, you break down these orders. And when they break down, then you would get rid of the debt burden. So you get rid of the monetary system as you’re used to it. You may get rid of the domestic order. Many countries’ orders, their systems end — they all end at some point. And so they can break down quite often in a time of great internal conflict. Does the system last? And that happens at that time.
And so that’s that big breakdown. But still what you’re talking about — and I agree with you — this keeps going up. Because learning, you don’t unlearn what you’ve learned. So as this goes up, you still keep this thing going up. But you have the big cycle, the debt, the conflict type of movement. And these little cycles are the cycles that we see in this roughly on average, let’s call it an 80-year period.
You see the recession, and recession has higher unemployment and so on. Then they stimulate monetary policy, they make money looser. Then the economy goes up and you have prosperity. Then you go into a bubble, and you run lower on capacity because you’re using up the capacity. Inflation rises, they tighten monetary policy. And then you have the recession that follows. So these movements from one recession to the next recession — that cycle that I’ve just described — on average has lasted about 6 years, give or take about 3. So that’s the way it looks.
STEVEN BARTLETT: So I’ll play this back to you to make sure I understand it. There is a sort of bigger macro bubble, which is over 80 years, which is the changing of the world order. Yeah.
RAY DALIO: Yep. You get deeper and deeper and deeper in debt over a lifetime. So let’s say your debt capacity — you have a certain amount. So the government’s debt capacity, for example, it can borrow. When you wipe it out here, then you can build it up and build it up until it starts to squeeze. Debt service starts to squeeze out.
STEVEN BARTLETT: And that’s a changing of the world order.
RAY DALIO: That is one of the ingredients, right? So we have too much debt. At the same time, what you’re building up is you’re building up great wealth gaps because capitalism — and I love capitalism — but here’s the reality, it creates big differences in income and wealth. And when it does that, that also creates differences in people’s opportunities because the rich people can educate their children well and they can give them all the benefits. Education is a big benefit. And that’s why there should be broad-based, excellent education. But all of that happens.
And so you see wealth gaps build up. So like the Industrial Revolution leads into the Gilded Age. The Gilded Age looks a lot like now, people buying expensive things and looking very gilded. And then it leads to the robber barons. And the robber barons are people who are considered to be taking advantage — the billionaire class — and it becomes that cycle. So that’s the way it works.
STEVEN BARTLETT: So you’ve got this 80-year sort of boom, and then there’s a collapse which sort of ends in conflict and the changing of the new world order. And then within there you have these little bubbles, which are really economic bubbles that go up and down — recession, people get very excited, they contract, they get excited, they contract. And then you have the straight line here, which is the sort of technological improvement across the spectrum of ideas and technologies and all these things. ALSO READ: Medtronic CEO Omar Ishrak Discusses Q4 2014 Earnings Results
RAY DALIO: And it keeps going.
STEVEN BARTLETT: And it keeps going regardless of this boom and bust, because as you say, people never forget. So a couple of questions on this then. I don’t even know which one to dive into first, but let’s go for — I guess, just closing off on the last point that I was getting at — is there’s this narrative that there’ll be new jobs created because of AI and robotics and everyone will be fine. A lot of this narrative comes from Silicon Valley.
The Future of Work and Human Value in the Age of AI
RAY DALIO: Who is producing the technology that doesn’t want to be attacked because they’re making a lot of money. They may have an act and they’re in the guild of desire to have a certain perspective. I think objective people in Silicon Valley, and there are a number of them, would say it’s going to have a big employment impact.
But you can see it in the wealth. Who owns stocks and who doesn’t own stocks? Now if you own stocks, you’re very happy now. And if you don’t own stocks, you’re not getting that benefit of owning stocks. So that in and of itself creates a greater wealth gap, even aside from employment. So there are these forces to create the greater wealth gaps.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Roughly 61% of US adults own stock in some form, and most of them hold it indirectly through their retirement plan. Only 20% of Americans directly own individual stocks or shares through a brokerage account. While over half of Americans own stocks, ownership is heavily concentrated. The top 10% of households hold almost 90% of the stock.
How do you feel about this narrative coming from predominantly Silicon Valley that there’ll be new jobs created that we can’t yet forecast and everyone will be fine? They point to the Industrial Revolution. They say, look, when the tractors came, we thought everyone was finished. When factories came, we thought everyone was finished. But look, we figured some other stuff out.
RAY DALIO: Because if you look at that, this is the thing I’m saying — as your body is more and more replaced with your mind, then you can do that. But when your mind is replaced and your body is replaced, what is it that you have to sell?
STEVEN BARTLETT: What is it that we have to sell as humans once our body and our minds are replaced?
RAY DALIO: What man has is emotions and intuitions. There are certain things that artificial intelligence doesn’t have. And so if you have to get down to what those things are — does the robot give a good massage? What is it that is left? And so we will wrestle with what it is that is left.
But I think that for the foreseeable future, those who can work very well where they have an exceptional human intelligence and work in partnership with the artificial intelligence, they are going to be at the cutting edge of all of this.
Advice for the Next Generation
STEVEN BARTLETT: So if you had kids that were 16 years old now, and they said, “Dad, what do you think based on everything you know about the future? What should I be doing?”
RAY DALIO: First of all, there’s the question of what matters most in your lifestyle. So I’m going to get philosophical, not assuming that the highest income is the best. Because happiness — you want happiness and health. And there’s very little correlation between the amount of money you have and the level of happiness that you have past a basic level.
I could answer your question the obvious way, which is to say to earn the most amount of money. But I want to start off by saying that my experiences are like — I love being in nature and it doesn’t cost me hardly anything. It depends where your pull is. So don’t lose sight of your pull and what it’s about.
What you want to do is you want to get above the level that you don’t have to panic — just how many months can I live — and to be able to secure that and to be excited and have that passion, or whatever it is, the life that I want to have. So I just want to emphasize, keep that in mind.
But then also, my principle is make your work and your passion the same thing, and don’t forget about the money part. So know your nature. This is what I tell my grandkids — you have a feel and you also have a nature. It’s not just your preferences. People think differently. Some are more adventurous, some are less adventurous, some are more conceptual or artistic and can think with imagination, and they love doing that. Some people don’t like that. Some people want to make life more concrete and more certain. That’s your nature. You’re a lot born with that nature and you also learn it in your earlier years. We know this of how neuroplasticity works.
So we are all on a journey to find the match between our nature and our path. And you find that path, but you can’t forget about the money part while you’re pursuing that.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Don’t forget about the money. So if your grandkids came to you and they said, “I want to become a lawyer,” would you say, “Listen, that’s forgetting about the money because I think AI might take that job?” Or would you say yes? Would you, if they said, “I want to be—”
RAY DALIO: I think you—
STEVEN BARTLETT: I want to do a thinking job.
RAY DALIO: Let me say that history has shown that it’s not the most intelligent people or the most intelligent species that are the most successful. And it’s not necessarily those that work the hardest, although these things are very important. It is those species and people who are also most adaptable.
And so there’s going to be great change in your lifetime. Yes, today it’s artificial intelligence. But if you went back not long ago, we didn’t even know artificial intelligence would exist the way it today exists. And the future will be like that. So when you’re nailing it down — it used to be, make sure that you know how to code. And then Claude Code comes along and all of those who are coding are worried about their jobs. So what is it that matters?
It is the approach to life in a sense that produces the general understanding and also the adaptability. I think a lot has to do with knowing yourself. That’s why in building Bridgewater, the personalities of the person were very important in what suited their jobs. And then I built this personality profile test. I made it online for anybody to go take. It’s about 30 minutes. It’s free online. It’s called Principles You. That’ll tell you a lot about your nature.
But your goal is to find that nature and what are the paths. And there are several paths and they’re constantly changing. You experiment, you learn. But you probably were pulled into this job by your nature, right? And you made it work. And here it is. It works in all of those dimensions, and it’s like that for everybody.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Yeah, it’s interesting because you look forward to the future and I think if I was a young person at this stage and I was trying to set out where to aim my career, I would be more confused now than ever before, especially because they’re also contending with this unemployability crisis amongst engineers.
RAY DALIO: But if you’re talking about being confused because you can’t anticipate the future, that’s right. That’s just the way it is. And if you say, what is it that I need given that reality? I need to learn. I need to know how to maximize the use of tools like AI to be able to increase what I know, and how do I use that to the best of my ability to be as useful as possible doing things that fulfill me?
So that’s what you need to do. Just get over the fact that you don’t know what the future’s going to be like. So if you’re looking for an answer — is it going to be a computer programmer, is it going to be this or that — no. Just maximize your ability to know, which is so easy to do nowadays. Maximize that and then use that to maximize your usefulness in jobs that make you happy.
That’s the best I can give in terms of advice to my 16-year-old, because I don’t want to mislead them that it’s the particular job. That’ll mislead them.
Wealth Inequality and the Limits of Capitalism
STEVEN BARTLETT: You talked about this 80-year cycle which results in this new world order, and it sounded like you were saying that near the end of the cycle you see wealth inequality and you see the Gilded Age where some people have lots of nice things and other people at the other end are struggling. And this is a function of capitalism.
RAY DALIO: First of all, it’s a reality that it’s not only just a wealth gap difference — if the majority system is not working for the majority well, you’re going to have a problem. And yes, it contributes to these things where one wants to create more opportunity through education and through other basics, that there’s a certain level, a floor, that nobody should go underneath, because it’s bad for them and it’s bad for the society.
And just to embellish on that point, my wife and I live in Connecticut. On a per capita income basis, I think it’s the second richest state, but 22% of the high school students have either dropped out of high school or are failing with absentee rates of greater than 25%. And as a result, a lot of it is gangs, shootings, drugs, and so on, that leads to a lot of incarcerations. And the bill for incarcerations has become larger than the education budget.
When you have that kind of cycle, the system has to work for most of the people. And it all comes down to productivity. The way I look at it is the government, run by almost anybody, can’t make these things run well. Governments do not make things run well. So what is it like to give them the money and expect that they’re going to make things work well?
And so you look at this set of circumstances and you say, who is going to make it work well? And I don’t know the answer. These are budget considerations and so on. You have to prioritize the things that make it work well. And you know what that is? That is educating people to be productive and civil. We don’t talk enough about civility — how we work together to be able to achieve a productive result.
And the way these cycles go, it’s more likely that they’re going to have a big fight and we’re going to have a debt problem and those kinds of things, than that we’re going to come together and work out how to achieve this environment which takes care of wonderful education and productivity of people and all of that, to make the society work better for most people. And that’s the way it looks, and that’s what’s happened.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Capitalism leads to inequality, it seems.
The UK’s Economic Crisis and Wealth Taxes
RAY DALIO: Yeah, that doesn’t have to. There are some societies like in Singapore, some of the Scandinavian countries, some societies, there is a floor that everybody can have good education, adequate housing, and adequate healthcare, the foundations.
Because if you go below those levels, the society will pay terribly for it because those people will become liabilities, not assets of the society. They’ll be disruptive.
STEVEN BARTLETT: So what about wealth taxes? Because this is the big debate now. The big debate in the UK at the moment is tax the rich. It’s been all over our news over the last couple of weeks. The big debate in New York and LA is wealth taxes and tax the rich. Good idea, bad idea?
RAY DALIO: It’s a very difficult idea in the following ways. I’m just talking about the mechanics. They have to sell the wealth and that contributes to get the money to pay the taxes. That’s one of those things that can cause the bubble to burst as we’re talking about.
And then operationally, it’s very difficult, unlike if they did it as stepped-up tax basis. In other words, right now when you die, your capital gains gets put aside and you don’t have to pay capital gains taxes. You pay inheritance taxes. And there are ways that you can raise taxes and not hurt the economy.
But we do have to realize that it will lessen investment because what wealth is mostly used for is to put it into investment. So you have to do this with, at the same time, the improvements in those that are going to improve productivity, like education and so on.
If you’re just making transfer payments, wealth payments, and you undermine the productivity of the society by doing that, in other words, you’re just giving it for consumption and so on, and the money’s going from what was capital expenditures and those kinds of investments that make a better, more productive society to go to, in a sense, consumption and so on that doesn’t produce that productivity, that’s going to be a problem.
So you have to think, how do you make people productive and how do you make your society productive for most people? Or you’re going to have to find a way where you say that other group of people who is not productive, productive. The overall society can have a higher level of productivity, but we’re going to still establish this bottom that I’m talking about, the bottom in education, the bottom in conditions. And then you have to say, who is capable of doing it, building a society that will be productive?
STEVEN BARTLETT: And who is that?
RAY DALIO: Well, as I say, you have this dynamic problem that typically a privately owned capitalist-owned business will do better than their government counterparty.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Okay. So business is more productive typically than a government entity.
RAY DALIO: That system.
STEVEN BARTLETT: So entrepreneurship, you need entrepreneurship. Yeah.
RAY DALIO: And capitalists. In other words, people who are capable of making the thing they’re responsible for productive, run efficiently. So you need those indisputably. And if you’re doing that in government, you need that in government in order to be able to do it.
And government has its own— first of all, it doesn’t attract many of those people. And then it also has by its nature, knowing many people have gone into it, it is almost dysfunctional as it causes all of this arguing and problems. So those who want to be most productive tend not to go there. And also it doesn’t distribute well. These people do not, they’re not on the ground. They don’t have the direct contact. They don’t know what it’s like. And as I’m describing, I see this—
STEVEN BARTLETT: Politicians.
RAY DALIO: Yeah, the politician who says, I’m going to— So you still have to come back to the question, who’s going to make it run efficiently?
The UK as a Cautionary Tale
STEVEN BARTLETT: What is the UK currently a cautionary tale of?
RAY DALIO: It’s the classic cycle. They have gotten overindebted, underproductive, and they’ve run out of choices. In other words, there’s not enough money.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Okay?
RAY DALIO: And because there’s not enough money to do all the things, then they’ve gotten this internal political conflict going. And you’ve had 6 out of the last 7 years, you’ve had a new prime minister because somebody else comes in and they got their promise. And the promise doesn’t pan out and it doesn’t take long to be that, “I don’t believe your promise anymore.” So you bring the people in and then you throw them out.
STEVEN BARTLETT: We just had a new prime minister yesterday.
RAY DALIO: Yeah, I know. It’s all part of this cycle. And so what happens is they don’t have the financial and the people move. It’s just logical, right? It’s just when you are heavily indebted, and you’re not as productive and you’ve got large wealth gaps, what are you going to do?
It’s politics. You’re going to say, “I can’t raise taxes because if I raise taxes, besides having great conflict, people are going to leave.” Okay, so I can’t cut benefits because those who are receiving whatever those benefits are, are the ones are suffering. I mean, what am I going to do, cut those benefits?
So now, okay, but wait a second, I’m running a big deficit or I don’t have enough money. So where does the money come from? How do I get out of not getting more in debt? And then what does that mean for the person who’s lending to you? They don’t want to lend to you, right? So you’re not going to get the money to finance the deficits.
STEVEN BARTLETT: So what is it they have to do to get out of that situation?
RAY DALIO: They’re going to have to have a major restructuring. You’re going to have to go bankrupt like that. Well, the way the central banks work now is they do a mixture of printing money, which produces inflation, and then restructuring the debt in some way, by maybe changing the maturity.
And in these cycles, quite often they put in capital controls because they think people are leaving, so they don’t want them to leave and take their money with them. So they put in capital controls that says you can’t leave with your money. And they’ll have exit taxes. And that’s the type of thing that happens until there’s a period of great turbulence. You go through a combination of restructuring the debt. Restructuring the debt means like quite often you lengthen the maturity of the debt.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Okay.
RAY DALIO: I think what’s needed is a strong middle.
STEVEN BARTLETT: What does that mean?
RAY DALIO: Right now there’s a left and right and they’re extreme, and as long as they’re at war with each other, that’s going to make things worse.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Yeah.
RAY DALIO: If you can find that middle course, so that those at most extreme are more alienated than those who say, “We’re going to have to figure this out together.” And then what I would do, that leadership, that core, I would have something like a bipartisan commission in which smart people, meaning who understand how economics and these things work, both parties work together to come up with a small and difficult plan. In other words, you’re going to have to make difficult changes in order to make that work well.
But if you can achieve that, sometimes in history, great leaders of opposing sides have been able to come up with a plan. I mean, that’s how the Constitution was made. You come up with a plan for operating that way, and then you impose those difficult changes. And when I say this, I say that that’s very difficult and very long shot. But unless you have bipartisan support, unless you do it in a way where the pain is shared and there’s a sense that we’re doing the right thing, as well as not a sense, just a reality of doing the right thing to make most people productive. That is the best path forward.
Advice for Young Entrepreneurs: Where to Build
STEVEN BARTLETT: If you were a young entrepreneur, 21 years old, would you build a company in the UK now if you had a choice? And if not, why not? And if so, why? ALSO READ: Transcript: Carmine Gallo Discusses Three Secrets All Inspiring Messages Share at Stanford
RAY DALIO: I would exist without and try to exist without borders.
STEVEN BARTLETT: What does that mean practically?
RAY DALIO: In other words, put aside all of these things that we’re talking about to a large extent and say, where are the places in the world that have the vibrancy, that have the capital, that have the elements that are needed. There are bright spots in the world, and I’d want to be around the most intelligence doing the most cutting-edge, terrific things and be global. In other words, don’t be just stuck in a provincial place.
Go to these places that are what I might call almost Renaissance states where good things are happening. And these qualities exist, not only good education, the civility, the vibrancy, be in those places, but be able not just in one. There’s a Hong Kong expression, I think, that “a smart rabbit has 3 holes.” And what it means is like if the one place that you go to, it may not be the place that remains the best place. There are riskier places. The riskier places are those that don’t have the elements I mentioned, the education, the civility, the productivity, all of those things.
STEVEN BARTLETT: So would one of those places for you be the United Kingdom? Because me and my friends talk about this sometimes. I’ve invested in lots of companies there and the founders come to me and ask me these kinds of questions, which is based on everything that’s going on with this turmoil and the big cycle, what’s going to happen if I continue to build my company here in the United Kingdom?
RAY DALIO: I think the United Kingdom, as it goes through these difficulties, is as a whole a more difficult place. And then there are pockets of it that when they’re operating are in their pockets, very stimulative having those elements, just like in the United States, there are places and pockets that have those. However, they’re within a system and a place that is not healthy.
The Wealth Tax Debate
STEVEN BARTLETT: The real dominant narrative we’re seeing, as I said this week, is that because there’s this problem, you said there’s not enough money. The most popular narrative, which I think is supported by about 70% of people, is that people over $10 million net worth — this is something proposed by one of my former guests, Gary Stevens — so he did a documentary last week, should have a 2% wealth tax.
My preferred way is to stop people from hoarding enormous amounts of wealth for enormous amounts of time. That’s basically my preferred method. There’s also the wealth tax method. There’s also capital gains as a method. There’s a lot of different ways here.
But you have to deal with the problem of if you do not tax very wealthy individuals and very wealthy families, their share of the pie will obviously grow over time. And they will, and they are, as we are watching, squeezing out ordinary families. And this is kind of, it would raise, I think they said $20 billion or something like that, but it would raise some money.
So the big debate in the country at the moment is, do we — one way to raise money would be this wealth tax. Proponents of that, or I should say people that are against that, say people will leave.
The Decline of American Power and the Changing World Order
RAY DALIO: If you took all of the money of people in the top, not, in other words, taxed at 100%, you’re not going to come up with enough money because it’s such a small percentage of the population. And, but, and that, but in addition, yes, the people will leave. Then you change the laws so that you make them retroactive. In other words, you say the law means you’re going to be taxed as of a past date so that if you leave, we’re going to get your money. Or then you put in capital controls. All of this has happened before.
Wealth taxes would be new. Wealth taxes are administratively difficult because how do you value all this wealth that is not easily valued and such things? But yes, what you’ve just said is well recognized.
STEVEN BARTLETT: You mentioned earlier that this big cycle takes place, this one here on the front of your book, The Changing World Order, happens roughly every 80 years.
RAY DALIO: Yes, it’s like health. What I mean is it varies on average. Let’s say, what is the life expectancy of a person? But life expectancies are how long people live vary. I wouldn’t emphasize too much the amount of time exactly as much as I would look at your condition.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Where are we in this at the moment in terms of the symptoms or markers of the next big collapse?
RAY DALIO: Well, we’re over in this vicinity over here. We’re on the, when we say that the US, the UK, a number of other countries, are later in that cycle when there’s the loss of the things that we’ve been talking about. Overindebtedness, more overindebtedness, the loss of power.
STEVEN BARTLETT: So we’re in the collapse period of the decline.
RAY DALIO: Yeah, the decline. I’ll call that the decline.
STEVEN BARTLETT: And you’ve studied this for how long in terms of, oh, 500 years.
RAY DALIO: The cycles for 500 years and in a number of countries that’s in that book. These are objective measures. This is not subjectivity. You can measure these things. You can measure the level of indebtedness, you can measure the education levels and the competitiveness. You can measure all these things in clearly measurable numbers that show the health, just like a physical exam.
One Dominant Power or Two? The Future of Global Superpowers
STEVEN BARTLETT: When there’s a new world order because of this decline through history over the last 500 years, has there ever been 2 superpowers that emerged as the dominant superpowers? Or does it just tend to be one?
RAY DALIO: In the past, prior to World War I, there was no— World War I happened and then World War II happened because the world came together and there was one world essentially. Before that, there were regions and they would have the different powers and you could have a powerful China or India could be very powerful at the same time as the UK or the Dutch and whatever would be powerful, and they weren’t in that one world.
And the basic issue is when you have one world and you have disagreements, you’re always going to have disagreements. How do you resolve those disagreements?
STEVEN BARTLETT: War.
RAY DALIO: War. Okay. Maybe it’s not physical war, maybe it’s whatever it is, but there’s a disagreement. Where does the borderline? Where does this— Okay. The rules-based order is a theoretical conception of the United States coming out of World War II because there’s the idea of how do you govern and you have representatives and you have them in the United Nations and so on. And that’s a nice theory, but the reality is when that comes in and is inconsistent with power, which wins? Power or that rules-based system?
So by nature, to answer your question, it tends to be a dominant power. We will see China and I think the United States. I think the most likely beneficial outcome is that it becomes more regional. Okay? China has no desire to occupy or control other countries for various cultural reasons and things that I can go into. And their basic objective is to not be cut off, not be harmed, and then also be as good as they can be and be competitive following their approach to a system, which is very much a top-down controlled system. That’s an extension of Confucianism, which is like the family, family, and that’s what they want to do.
You can possibly have this regional thing, but you’re not going to have the dominant world power if that’s the case. You have some chance that there’s a great conflict, but I think that there’s enough wisdom in a sense to not want to go there.
STEVEN BARTLETT: So there’s pretty much always been a superpower through different cycles. There’s been one dominant power through these historical cycles. You are saying that you believe in the next decline there won’t be one dominant power, which has been the US for the last 80-odd years. There will be 2 because you can’t foresee there being a conflict at the scale that would result in one dominant power.
RAY DALIO: The strength of each country will be how they take care of themselves. Are they going to be strong or are they going to be weak based on how they educate their population, how they spend their money, how they manage themselves. Those will determine the relative powers of those countries, right? And so that’ll be true certainly for the United States and China.
And so as we go forward, how will those systems deal with those issues in the best possible way? And that I would say, as long as the United States remains a power, but it has a risk of having a very bad set of circumstances through debt and conflict and these things that erode it, it’ll be from within that those things particularly could change that relative balance of power. And similarly, if China managed itself badly, that could change that.
Given that if they both remain powerful entities, then what you’re going to see is, I believe, more the recognition that there are regions, okay? Just like there’s the Americas, okay? And that becomes heavily much more the region and where that spills over. And then there’s the region around China, the APAC countries and that region, and that there would be the development within those regions. And I do see the avoidance of the big war that would be very detrimental.
There are issues like the Taiwan issue, but the Taiwan issue will be handled by, in my opinion, most likely not militarily in the sense that there will be a great war between the United States and China over it, but in the pressures that are going to be created so that there is a reunification.
The Iran War and America’s Eroding Global Influence
STEVEN BARTLETT: You mentioned conflict there. The United States are at war with Iran, and it seems to be a war that they can’t seem to get out of. This is going to have an impact, presumably, on lots of things you’ve described here, but also the feelings of people at home. As we face the prospect of the United States sending troops on the ground into Iran because the Strait of Hormuz is going to become this chokepoint to global energy, and they’re going to— and what does Trump do about that? It’s like Vietnam. He can’t leave, or else he is going to look bad. If he stays, he looks bad. Midterms coming up. What’s your thoughts on this war in Iran? Do you think it was a bad idea? Do you think it was a good idea? Do you think it plays a role in all of this stuff here?
RAY DALIO: Yeah. This war in Iran, I think, here’s what’s happening internationally. I get to speak to world leaders and so on, and particularly in Asia, there’s a recognition that the United States doesn’t want to fight a war. So the litmus test is, who controls the Strait of Hormuz? And the United States, because the population in the United States is worried about gas prices and losing people and they want it to be all over fast, you can’t fight a war that way. And so what you have is the United States will not show up in Asia.
STEVEN BARTLETT: What does that mean, show up in Asia?
RAY DALIO: In Asia, there are all these countries who believe that the United States was going to play an important role as a counterbalancing influence for power in the region because China’s the dominant power and the others are much less powerful. And so the United States being in there was going to balance those powers. And because they have a military presence, the idea of having bases in their countries was believed to be that that will help make that happen.
Now there’s a recognition that not only might they not show up, but maybe these bases can become liabilities and that the Chinese have a lot of influence and power under that set of circumstances. For example, chips come out of Taiwan. We could imagine what would happen if they blockaded chips leaving Taiwan. You’d see the world stock markets crash. You would see terrible things. That represents a non-military power, just even the ability to threaten that. Say the Chinese say for 5 days, we’re not going to allow it. What will the United States literally do?
Or if you go to countries like the Philippines, which has a treaty with the United States that’s like a NATO treaty, how would the American public react that we’re going to send military aircraft carriers and so on into the Philippines to stop the Filipinos from being picked on by the Chinese.
So what you’re seeing is a change that is very similar to the British Empire in terms of being weaker. I remember a time not long ago that the United States would just have to almost hint to a country that we would like this thing to be this way, or we would like it to do that, and they would do it because of the American power, not just military power, but economic power and so on. Well, as you’re seeing that power being eroded, for example, China is a larger trading partner with most countries than the United States is, or capital people turning up. So these things matter. So you’re seeing that kind of a shift in power.
I’m a global macro investor and my goal is to be as accurate as I possibly can. I can’t let biases stand in my way of doing that. So I look at statistics and measures and indicators and so on. So what I’m saying is clear. It is apparent, it’s mechanical.
STEVEN BARTLETT: So what does that mean for the Iran situation then? Does it mean that it—
RAY DALIO: Well, it means that it’s a very, very difficult situation. All through history, and the Chinese know this very well because their way of having a war is conveyed in The Art of War and also the tribute system as they call it, you cannot easily go in and control a country for a long period of time by occupying. There are 90 million Iranians and they will be there no matter what happens.
Now the question is, do you have what it takes to take control of the Strait of Hormuz by way of example, and in other words, do you allow that to be in the hands of the Iranians or do you not? And are you willing to pay the price to be able to put yourself in that position, which means take a lot of pain and then enforce that for, I don’t know, forever and ever into the future? Because it’s not just take control today. It means, okay, how is that going to go on? And what does that mean in these other locations? Is the United States going to do the same thing with the Chinese in Asia? They’re going to do the same thing all around, probably. Okay, so what does that mean? Okay, a change in the world order.
STEVEN BARTLETT: It sounds like a big mistake.
RAY DALIO: Oh yeah, it was a big mistake. And also what it did is it shone a light on the vulnerability. Before, it wasn’t apparent. The vulnerability of the United States in being able to enforce. You know, when there’s always the threat, “We’ll come in there, the strait is open, we’re not dealing with this,” and there’s always the threat that the United States will remain in control. And that would be true in Asia and other places. Now a light bulb goes off. In other words, like the British in the Suez Canal, we didn’t realize.
Closing Thoughts and Appreciation
STEVEN BARTLETT: Now we realize that threats no longer work, that that power no longer exists. I guess we shall see.
Ray, thank you so much for committing this season of your life to being more of a public educator because your books here that have been read by millions, millions, and millions of people, and the videos that you’ve produced that have been watched by tens and tens, hundreds of millions of people, have been so formative for so many of us understanding the world in simplified ways.
And what I love about the work that you do is you explain the world through principles versus tactics and strategies, which are a little bit more ephemeral than understanding the underlying principles. And I think it does 2 things. It helps us understand the world in ways that allow us to see past the current short-term moment that we’re in. But it also helps us think generally from a more macro perspective about how all these things connect together.
And I think that’s broadly applicable. The idea of principled thinking is broadly applicable to all areas of life, whether it’s your relationships or your business or your health or whatever it might be. You’ve really written the definitive books on this subject matter. I’ve got all of them here.
I mean, Principles is the first one that I ever read, but then I watched all of your videos on your YouTube channel, which explain it in animated ways. Those are absolutely stunning videos. They’re unbelievably stunning videos. And it’s funny because I’ve watched a lot of YouTube videos in my life, but there’s some that I have just never forgotten.
And your book and your video about the book on your YouTube channel, which I’ll link to below, a video on YouTube that I’ve just never forgotten because it suddenly helped me understand the bigger picture in a way that I don’t think I would have ever understood otherwise. I didn’t go to my history classes in school. I’m never going to read history books necessarily. So that video you made, but also the book itself really helped me understand there’s always a bigger picture.
And funnily enough, I go looking for the bigger picture and the cycles, should I say, in all other facets of life and psychology. Because when you’re dealing with humans, you are dealing with cycles. That’s what I’ve come to realize. And you can find them and spot them everywhere and then prepare for them accordingly.
So thank you for the wonderful work that you do in this regard. I’ll link all of these books below. Highly recommend reading them. And they’re not for boffins or super smart people. They’re for everybody. And they’re written in such a way. So I appreciate that.
RAY DALIO: Thank you for saying that. I find the videos are very digestible. One, How the Economic Machine Works — I think it’s in 30 minutes and it’s been watched by 140 million people. And people get it. So I think it’s my responsibility to try to communicate also in a clear, simple, digestible way. So I like to take a concept that’s in a book and make it into a 30, which is to try to pass along what might be helpful to people. So thank you.
STEVEN BARTLETT: Thank you for committing this season of your life to that. I really appreciate it. And so do many millions of my listeners. So thank you.