트럼프의 규제 완화 비전: 기술 및 혁신에 미치는 영향

### 트럼프 트럼프: 기술 및 벤처 캐피탈 혁신의 촉매제
* 🚀 트럼프 전 대통령은 혁신과 비즈니스 성장을 저해한다고 여겨지는 대규모 규제 완화와 행정 국가 개혁에 대한 강력한 입장으로 인해 **기술 및 벤처 캐피탈 부문에 가장 적합한 후보**로 여겨지고 있습니다.
* 📉 EPA와 FDA와 같은 선출되지 않은 기관이 지배하는 현재의 규제 환경은 기업가 정신을 가로막는 중요한 장벽으로 여겨지며, **"작은 핵심까지 흔들겠다"는 트럼프의 의도**는 관료적 간섭을 줄이자는 주장에 공감을 불러일으킵니다.
* ⚡ 에너지 생산은 트럼프의 최우선 과제이며, 특히 AI 시대에 증가하는 기술 수요를 뒷받침하기 위해 **미국이 시추 및 파쇄를 포함한 모든 형태의 에너지 분야를 선도**해야 한다고 강조합니다.
* 💰 특히 에너지와 세금에 관한 민주당의 대조적인 정책은 혁신에 해로운 것으로 여겨지며, **카말라 해리스가 지지하는 미실현 자본 이득에 대한 세금**은 기술 기업가들의 성장을 잠재적으로 억제할 수 있습니다.
* 🏭 반도체 산업의 혁신을 촉진하기 위한 방법으로 정부 보조금보다는 **대규모 규제 완화**가 필요하다는 주장과 함께 **CHIPS 법과 반도체 생산에 미치는 영향에 대한 우려**를 다룹니다.
* 🇨🇳 중국에 대한 트럼프의 접근 방식은 국가 안보에 대한 실용주의적 입장을 특징으로 하며, 특히 국방 분야에서 **핵심 기술 투입에 대한 적국에 대한 의존도를 낮춰야 한다**고 주장합니다.
* 📈 트럼프의 저명한 지지자인 비벡 라마스와미는 암호화폐 분야에서 규제의 명확성이 중요하다고 강조하며 **혁신을 장려하는 동시에 필요한 감독**을 제공하는 균형 잡힌 접근 방식을 옹호합니다.
* 💡 전반적으로 트럼프의 정책은 **미국의 혁신과 기업가 정신을 활성화**하는 통로로 자리매김하고 있으며, 보다 유리한 비즈니스 환경을 원하는 투자자와 기술 리더 모두에게 어필하고 있습니다.

도널드 트럼프는 규제 완화를 지지하며 기술 및 벤처 캐피탈 부문의 혁신과 에너지 자립을 촉진하겠다고 약속했습니다.

Why is former President Trump the best candidate for the technology industry and the venture capital industry that supports it? Yeah. Look, I'll give you a simple answer to a straight question you asked, which is that he is the president in favor of mass de-regulation and massive reform of the administrative state. I think the administrative state and the regulatory state is the single greatest impediment to innovation, to new business formation, to business growth in this country. The actions of three-letter agencies who are never elected, by the way, from the EPA to the FTC to the FCC, to the FDA, you go straight down the list. Those three-letter agencies are making most rules that govern businesses in this country today. Those rules were never passed by Congress, by democratically elected representatives. The current Supreme Court, which Donald Trump actually gave us, much of the composition of that court, has declared many of those regulations unconstitutional.

And Donald Trump has made it clear that he wants to go in and not just incrementally tinker around the edges of that bureaucracy, but really to shake it down to its small core that it should have been in the first place. And so I think that's the case I would make to technology investors, to entrepreneurs, that Donald Trump is going to be the president who stands for training in that regulatory state, which currently acts as a wet blanket on the economy and innovation in particular. Vivek, could I ask as an extension of that, is there a specific area, be it crypto, electric vehicles, be it space, that you feel former President Trump is most focused on in the list of priorities? Well, I think that he's more focused on an overall American revival. All of those fit on the list. I think energy is big on the list for Donald Trump, reviving the production of American energy, all forms of energy where America can be the leader.

Donald Trump favors drilling, fracking areas where America can actually establish energy abundance. That's what Donald Trump favors. And especially in this era of AI and the increasing demands for electricity, for power, for energy, that's particularly important for the United States to remain competitive. You think about baseload power generation for the electric grid. Coal and natural gas are key inputs. A lot of Democratic policy has been hostile to both of those anti-fracking policies. Anti-coal policies that contrast Donald Trump's pro-energy policies are not just good for bringing that energy prices that's important, but also for powering and fueling the future generation of air-based technology revolutions that are going to require cheap and abundant energy inputs. So that's one example. But I could go into each of the areas you named, and I'd be happy to do that. We had a venture capitalist, well-known founder in the area of AI and Social. We had Reid Hoffman on the show yesterday.

Now, he, of course, favors the other side of the equation. And Harris is running the administration, wanting consistency, wanting a steady hand, but also is worried about sort of forms of retribution. Can you just take a listen to what he said yesterday? Sure. Trump in Trump presidency won. You know, his early presidency has shown a certain amount of grifter capitalism. It's like trying to penalize his opponents using the instruments of state. Will there be any penalization of those who voiced against him? Vivek. No, I think there's going to be no political retribution under Donald Trump. But I do find that comment a little bit rich coming from a couple of areas supporter where there's only one president in administration in US history that is prosecuted or attempted to prosecute their rival in the middle of a political election. And it wasn't Donald Trump. It's the party that Donald Trump is

running against Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. So I think this idea of a steady hand, I also want to give some airtime to this, the idea that Kamala Harris is going to be some kind of steady hand when she has reversed her position in a matter of months on central questions, whether she favors bans on offshore drilling, whether she favors a ban on fracking, whether she favors universal health care. All of these are positions that she held very shortly before running for US president, that in a matter of months, foundational questions about energy policy, the health policy that have changed in a matter of months, I don't think is a strong case for a so-called steady hand. And one more point, investors, and particularly I know this is a technology-focused show, particularly to entrepreneurs who have founded successful tech companies that may still be privately held. Here's a big one that really matters. Kamala Harris stands by her support.

This is one area where she hasn't changed her stance. She stands by her support for a tax on unrealized capital gains. That means many entrepreneurs, technologists, biotech entrepreneurs who may have paper gains that a private company would actually have to pay taxes with cash they don't actually have. That would stifle innovation across Silicon Valley and across this country. And I think it could be the single greatest trigger for a stock market crash and a second Great Depression, especially for a technology-focused audience and a market-focused audience. That's a big difference between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. It could be a single-issue voter on that alone, I would argue. I think many would feel at the moment that the articulation around unrealized capital gains hasn't been made so substantively by a Harris campaign. And I'm just going to go back to the technology focus, and I'm glad that you went there for us, Vivek, because there is a technology focus that is chips in

particular. You are currently sat in Ohio. Ohio is going to be a beneficiary in many ways of the CHIPS Act, billions of dollars going to building fabrication manufacturing within that state. And there is a potential concern that Donald Trump is against the CHIP site. He voiced out vehemently against it on a podcast recently. Do you worry about that perhaps being overrun, changed in direction? No, I don't. In fact, the reason I was against the CHIPS Act is because there's a lot of other baggage in there that shouldn't have been there. Hiring impediments such as many of those companies, semiconductor companies are hiring people outside the United States because of the regulatory burdens of doing so right here. There was also extra baggage and changing the way the National Science Foundation, the NSF, makes grants on the basis of race and gender and other criteria that don't relate to merit. So that's the problem with Washington,

D.C. is every time they pass one of these laws, the Inflation Reduction Act or the CHIPS Act, there's so much other baggage they sneak into there that it dilutes the original vision or purpose of the act in the first place. You want to foster semiconductor production in the United States, as I do. Here's how we do it. Mass deregulation that lifts those regulatory constraints in the United States. And I'll tell you, the reason video has become a multitrillion-dollar company is not because of the CHIPS Act. It's because of booming demand for chips led by the advent of AI and the recent revolution in the AI boom that we've seen. And that lowering of the cost of capital is far more valuable for semiconductor companies than the incremental money in the pocket of the largesse that came from the CHIPS Act. That's my view on the matter. Vivek, may I just jump in on that point on a video in video, not in isolation,

but many of the chip companies have had their access to the China markets impacted by those export controls. And simply put, China is the biggest end market for consumer electronics, but critically important for cloud. Are you able to explain to our audience President former President Trump's position vis a vis China on key American companies being able to do business in that market? Well, I'll give you a basic principle that I hope people can agree with, regardless of partisanship. We should not depend on our adversary for our own national security. You know, talk about chips. 40% of the semiconductors feeding our Department of Defense, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, actually come from China. That doesn't make any sense for our own military industrial base, our military stockpiles to depend on our adversary to provide, God forbid, were in a conflict scenario. And that's something that nobody wants for sure.

But God forbid we are in a conflict scenario with an adversary. They're not going to keep supplying those inputs. And so I think it is sensible policy. And I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat for the United States to say in sectors critical to our national security, at least for our military industrial base, we should not be dependent on our chief adversary. And I think that's sensible policy. Donald Trump I think above all, one of the things I like about him, he's a businessman, but also a pragmatist when it comes to these foreign policy dealings. He was respected. And I think that put the US in a stronger position in a lot of those negotiations. Mr. Ramaswamy, there was some interest in you when I said on social media you were coming on the show. We got a number of questions from the audience, but I'm going to put one to you if that's okay.

One user says, Please ask him how much of his own money was spent on his campaign. I think a reference to your early run as a candidate. Has it given you an acceptable ROI, and what was the exposure and network effect for you in doing this? Supporting former President Trump? Yes. So the answer of this all public record, I believe round numbers was a little over $30 million of my own hard-earned money. By the way, I didn't inherit money. My parents came to this country with no money. But I'm a self-made entrepreneur who founded multibillion-dollar companies. And the other line that I measure is not related to me. It's related to the impact we have on our country. I was the youngest person ever to run for US president as a Republican. And one of the things I was proud we were able to do was to bring nontraditional, disengaged citizens back into politics to actually caring about our country, especially young people.

I showed up on a college campus in Pennsylvania yesterday. There were 2000 plus young people that showed up just to hear the conversations. We were having one on one at a time. That gave me a sense of inspiration. It gave me a sense of deep gratification and satisfaction to say that this journey that I began in February of last year where nobody knew my name, let alone could pronounce that I was at 0.0% in the polls. And by the end of the race, less than a year later had beaten the vice president and multiple governors and a former senator. It proves what's possible in the United States of America. So was it worth it? Absolutely. And I hope that our best days as a as a country and my own ability to have an impact on that is still ahead of some of those young people. Perhaps you're talking to care about crypto. One of those companies that you formed, Thrive Asset Management $1.7 billion in assets under management is going to be

going and buying in on Bitcoin for the first time. Can you just articulate for us what you think the crypto policies will be under Trump? Yeah. First of all, I'm incredibly proud of Strive as a business I co-founded. I stepped down as chairman before I ran for president, but I'm so proud of the team and what they've accomplished. Matt Cole, he's the CEO who was formerly a successful bond portfolio manager at CalPERS, is really leading stride with a vision for financial freedom, which I'm so proud of what they've done. My own view on the future of crypto policy is it's less related to helping one sector and more related to just reviving the principles the country was founded on in the first place. Unbridled innovation. Competition as the answer. But there should be some regulation. It shouldn't totally be unbridled. Well, the first thing I would say is unbridled innovation. What we really need is regulatory

clarity. So I think it is a sad state of affairs where you see a paradigm of regulation by enforcement, where many participants in the industry don't know what the rules are in the first place. So we could debate what the rules are, what they should be. I think that's a reasonable debate to have. But what we can't have is a situation where people are guessing at what those rules are. I'll give you one example of that. When the head and lead commissioner of the SEC could not answer before Congress whether Ethereum was even a security. Maybe it is, and maybe it shouldn't be. But either way, at least the industry deserves to know. And so I think regulation is the first principle. Whether you're on the left or right should be clarity. And I think that's missing in this sector, as in so many others today.

Ramaswamy: Need Regulatory Clarity in Crypto

Welcome to the Bloomberg Technology YouTube channel. Subscribe for original series and mini-docs on game-changing technologies, profiles on innovators, live conversations with experts, and breaking technology news & analysis from Bloomberg TV.

Bloomberg Technology

트럼프가 기술 및 벤처 캐피탈 산업에 미치는 영향

트럼프 전 대통령은 혁신과 비즈니스 성장의 주요 장애물로 여겨지는 대규모 규제 완화와 행정부 개혁에 중점을 두어 기술 및 벤처 캐피탈 업계에 가장 적합한 후보로 여겨지고 있습니다.

규제 기관을 흔들려는 그의 노력과 많은 규제를 위헌으로 선언한 현 대법원에 대한 그의 영향력은 보다 기업 친화적인 환경을 조성하는 데 핵심적인 요소로 여겨집니다.

시추와 프래킹을 포함한 미국의 에너지 생산에 대한 트럼프의 강조는 미래 세대의 기술 혁명을 촉진하는 데 중요한 역할을 하는 것으로도 강조되고 있습니다.

카말라 해리스와 도널드 트럼프의 대조적인 접근 방식

카말라 해리스는 일관성에 중점을 두고 행정부를 운영하고 있지만, 그녀의 급격한 정책 전환은 그녀의 안정된 손에 의문을 제기합니다.

트럼프가 아닌 조 바이든 행정부가 정치적 라이벌을 기소한 전력이 있다는 주장도 제기되고 있습니다.

해리스가 미실현 자본 이득에 대한 세금을 지지하면 혁신을 저해하고 주식 시장 폭락으로 이어질 수 있으며, 이는 잠재적으로 유권자들의 단일 이슈가 될 수 있습니다.

CHIPS 법이 오하이오와 반도체 생산에 미치는 영향

오하이오주는 제조 제조에 수십억 달러를 투자하는 칩스 법의 혜택을 받을 예정입니다.

이 법은 고용 장애와 관련 없는 규제 변경으로 인해 비판에 직면해 있습니다.

연설자는 대규모 규제 완화를 옹호하고 법의 재정적 지원보다 AI가 주도하는 칩 수요의 중요성을 강조합니다.

라마스와미의 캠페인 영향력과 철학

라마스와미는 국가 안보, 특히 군사 산업 기반에서 적국에 대한 의존도를 낮추는 것이 중요하다고 강조합니다.

그는 전통적이지 않고 정치에 무관심한 시민들, 특히 젊은이들을 정치에 참여시키기 위해 3천만 달러 이상의 사비를 선거 운동에 사용했습니다.

여론조사에서 빠르게 상승하고 젊은 유권자들과 소통하는 그의 능력은 그에게 영감과 만족의 원천이 되었습니다.

트럼프는 암호화폐 부문에서 자유로운 혁신과 경쟁의 중요성을 강조합니다.

그는 현재의 집행에 의한 규제 패러다임을 비판하며 규제의 명확성을 옹호합니다.

트럼프는 업계에 명확한 규칙이 필요하다고 생각하며, 더 나은 규제의 필요성을 보여주는 예로 이더리움의 지위에 대한 SEC의 불확실성을 들었습니다.