GSI Banner
  • Free Access
  • Contributors
  • Membership Levels
  • Video
  • Origins
  • Sponsors
  • My Account
  • Sign In
  • Join Now

  • Free Access
  • Contributors
  • Membership Levels
  • Video
  • Origins
  • Sponsors
  • Contact

© 2025 Grey Swan Investment Fraternity

  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
  • Whitelist Us
Daily Missive

The Next Empire Will Be Coded

Loading ...Addison Wiggin

April 9, 2025 • 6 minute, 23 second read


AIChinatariffsTrade war

The Next Empire Will Be Coded

“Artificial intelligence is the future, but we must ensure it is a future that we want.”

– Tim Cook

 

April 9, 2025 — In the late 1970s, the United States opened its doors to China. It was a grand bargain rooted in pragmatism: the West wanted cheap labor, and China wanted access to global markets.

The bet? That economic integration would naturally lead to shared prosperity — and maybe even political liberalization.

For a time, it worked. Factories boomed. American consumers got their $4 toasters. China lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Wall Street cheered as Beijing’s coastal cities turned into glittering hubs of production and profit.

But beneath that golden surface, cracks were forming. America offshored its industrial base. Fat cats on Wall Street got cheap labor. Today’s “Panicans” got cheap stuff by the container load. Rural towns got fentanyl.

China’s President Xi capitalized and declared to the people, “Getting rich is glorious.” The Communist Party held tight control over its markets — even as it tapped big into Western capital.

Fast forward to 2018. President Donald Trump, channeling decades of pent-up frustration from hollowed-out towns and shuttered plants, declared economic war — not with tanks, but with tariffs. His message was simple: “We’ve been taken advantage of.”

Across the Pacific, President Xi Jinping was navigating a different kind of populism — one built on historical memory and national pride. His “China Dream” wasn’t about appeasing foreign investors. It was about returning China to its rightful place as a global leader — on its own terms.

Thus began the great decoupling.

We’re seeing the setup today, as President Trump raises tariffs on China to 125%, but gives other countries who haven’t announced retaliatory tariffs a reprieve (and as markets get a much-needed oversold bounce, including an unheard-of 10% rally in the Nasdaq this afternoon).

Trump isn’t just resetting the world order, he’s doing so in a way that pits everyone against China, the poster child for getting rich off of globalization while other nations struggle.

Stephen Roach, former Morgan Stanley Asia Chair and one of the few Western economists fluent in both the language and nuance of Chinese policymaking, calls this moment a “clash of saving-impoverished populisms.”

Neither country is in a position of financial strength. America’s household savings rate is near historic lows. We’ve written more than enough about the rising national debt than any child would aspire to in a vision of his future self. The end of the Empire of Debt appears to be nigh. Trump’s trying to negotiate to its peaceful resolution, says he.

At the same time, China is fighting its own debt demons, from real estate busts to youth unemployment, not to mention a declining population, one of the first signs of a long-term decline ahead for a nation.

Rhetoric on both sides? Still chest-thumping. Still full-speed ahead.

And the stakes? Much bigger than iPhone tariffs and electric vehicle parts.

At the center of it all, we’re now watching a high-stakes sprint for control of the 21st century’s most transformative technology: artificial intelligence. AI.

In the U.S., private capital has fueled a surge of innovation. Silicon Valley leads in AI models, chips, and data infrastructure.

But China is catching up fast — armed with centralized planning, enormous data sets, and a population largely comfortable with tech-driven surveillance. And if you listen to the breathless Thomas Friedman in The New York Times, they’re already lightyears ahead.

Trump sees the tariffs as a way to cut China off from the Western capital spigot.

In simplistic terms, the future is not just about who builds the best version of ChatGPT or TikTok.

It’s far more than that. The trade war is about who sets the rules, who owns the supply chains, who trains the engineers, who owns your data, and who controls the values coded into machines that will shape everything from health care to war.

If the 20th century was defined by oil, the 21st will be defined by algorithms.

And yet, both the U.S. and China are fighting this war with one eye on each other, and the other on their domestic audiences.

Trump’s America is about economic revival through repatriation: bring the jobs back, punish the cheaters, strengthen the base. Xi’s China is about stability through strength: contain volatility, project confidence, tighten control.

What gets lost in the middle is cooperation, coordination, and any shared framework for managing the fallout from a fracturing global economy.

Roach says he isn’t a “panda hugger,” per se. We can only take him at his word. We’ve trusted his analysis of the U.S. markets in the past during several of our lengthier research projects.

But Stephen’s issuing a warning based on data — and decades of watching both countries slip further into inward-looking economic nationalism.

Neither side wins if they both continue down this path. And neither side can afford to lose.

All “trade wars are political wars,” Roach warns. “Politicians want you to think otherwise, attempting to rationalize trade aggression through economic arguments.”

On the surface, these arguments are seductive, promising spoils to the winners of trade conflicts through a zero-sum resolution of deeply ingrained economic grievances, But in the end, trade wars are a race to the bottom, with no winners. That is the lesson of the 1930s, and a worrisome portent of what may lie ahead.

So, who writes the rules of AI? Who leads the next era of global trade? Who shapes the narrative of power in a multipolar world?

Unfortunately, the answer might not come from a handshake. At this early stage, it may come from who survives the long-term cost of their populist ambitions.

Stay tuned. The world economy is watching.

Addison Wiggin
Grey Swan

P.S. “We should have delisted Chinese stocks when the Communist Party of China refused to allow Western audits. Can you imagine how much fraud is hiding under those Chinese-reported numbers? The Chinese listed entities in the U.S. are fantasy football shares.”

Kyle Bass is the founder of Hayman Capital and one of the few investors who made a fortune betting against the U.S. housing market before it collapsed in 2008. He’s Grey Swan adjacent, a friend of the network we rely on for our insights.

Today, Bass is laser-focused on transparency in global markets — especially where Western capital meets closed systems. His views on China may be sharp, but they come from a place of fiduciary caution, not ideology. His views will definitely play a significant role in understanding who’s going to blink first among the people’s presidents, Xi or Trump.

As always, send your views to: addison@greyswanfraternity.com. We read them all, and often find them more insightful than the pontificating bigwigs on Wall Street.

P.P.S.:  If you’re a paid-up member of the Grey Swan Investment Fraternity, please join us for a live Zoom call tomorrow, Thursday, April 10, at 11 a.m. Eastern Time.

This week, we’ll take a deeper dive into our model portfolio and how those positions have fared during the global sell-off. (Quick spoiler alert: 15 of 20 positions are up, including all five of our Aggressive Portfolio positions.)

Fraternity members will get the link and password on Thursday morning. Seats are limited. Risk isn’t.

We’re also asking for your best trading ideas. You read that right: we’re throwing the gates wide open and “crowd-sourcing” new trades with you! Bring ‘em on… no ideas are too small.

If you have any suggestions on  new trades or macro ideas we’re missing, please share them here: addison@greyswanfraternity.com.


Gold’s $4,000 Moment

October 8, 2025 • Addison Wiggin

There’s something about big, round numbers that draws investors like moths to a flame.

In the stock market, every 1,000 points in the Dow or 100 points in the S&P 500 tends to act like a magnet.

Now, after consolidating for five months, gold has broken higher to $4,000.

Gold’s $4,000 Moment
The 45% Club

October 8, 2025 • Addison Wiggin

AI stocks are running hot. They’re not the only game in town… but they’re about half of it.

JPMorgan just reviewed all of the 500 companies in the S&P 500. A full 41 of them are AI-related. While that’s less than 10% of the index by total, it is over 45% of the index by market cap.

The 45% Club
George Gilder: Morgan Stanley’s Memory Problem

October 7, 2025 • Addison Wiggin

Overspending during periods of rising ASPs is self-destructive. For most products, today’s ASP increases result less from natural demand pull and more from supplier-enforced discipline. If memory makers treat them as justification for a capex binge, they will repeat past mistakes and trigger another collapse.

The $50 billion bull case for WFE in 2026 rests on a faulty assumption. Lam and AMAT may benefit from selective investments, but the cycle-defining upturn Morgan Stanley describes is unlikely.

Investors should temper expectations. If history repeats — and memory markets have a way of doing so — the companies that preserve pricing power will outperform, while equipment suppliers may find that the promised order boom never fully materializes.

George Gilder: Morgan Stanley’s Memory Problem
Europe’s Increasing Irrelevancy

October 7, 2025 • Addison Wiggin

Europe’s GDP has flatlined over the past 15 years, against a doubling in GDP for the U.S. and even bigger GDP gains in China.

While the U.S. leads the world in AI spending, and China leads in technology like drones, what does Europe lead the world in? Regulation.

They spend more time penalizing U.S. tech firms for regulatory violations than encouraging their own tech ecosystem.

Europe’s Increasing Irrelevancy