Shiyan Koh: Logic thuế quan của Hoa Kỳ, sự sụp đổ của xuất khẩu Đông Nam Á và sự tiết kiệm của các công ty khởi nghiệp trong khủng hoảng – E561

“I think for young people, I generally tell them: you should go work in the US at some point in your life, because you should work in a big, deep market that's incredibly competitive. I think for people who are older—who have kids and families and aging parents and things like that—the calculus is a bit harder, because it isn't a purely professional calculation. And then everyone kind of has to weigh that themselves. I mean, I think on a personal level, even when you live in a blue sort of bubble like San Francisco, the sort of anti-immigrant rhetoric is quite tiring. And it sometimes makes you feel unsafe. Right? And then it raises questions around like: is that the environment you want your kids to grow up [in]?” - Shiyan Koh, Managing Partner at Hustle Fund

“But if you look at the actual math, they basically just looked at the trade balance, divided it in two, and declared that number to be the non-trade barrier amount imposed on the US. I feel like everyone who's done econ has studied comparative advantage—there are reasons why you produce chips, or the classic guns and butter: you produce guns, I produce butter, and we trade so both of us are better off. You can make more guns, I can make more butter, than if we both tried to do both ourselves. So I don't know, I find the whole thing just a little bit ludicrous.” - Shiyan Koh, Managing Partner at Hustle Fund

"They're like, 'Okay, well, let's tax the rest of the world,' which is really what the tariffs are, right? So that's one way to raise revenue. And you know, I guess you could sort of make the argument that over time, as the US dollar also— I guess—depreciates a little bit, that also makes US exports more competitive in the market, which should help trade balances and all that other stuff. So, I mean, you could tell yourself some version of that story. I think it assumes that the impact of the tariffs will not be outweighed by the decrease in demand as prices go up, right?" - Shiyan Koh, Managing Partner at Hustle Fund

Jeremy Au and Shiyan Koh unpack the April 2nd U.S. tariff hike and its sharp break from decades of free trade. They break down the Trump administration’s logic, the impact on emerging markets like Vietnam and Cambodia, and what it means for investor trust and supply chains. They also reflect on how Southeast Asian founders and families can stay resilient by building locally and reassessing long-held assumptions about the American dream.

1. A return to protectionism: The U.S. introduced sweeping tariffs 10% across the board and 145% for China reversing decades of free trade policy.

2. Political logic over economics: The administration framed the tariffs to raise revenue and fix deficits without raising domestic taxes.

3. Global trust gets shaken: Countries like Singapore and Japan, long-time U.S. allies, were blindsided, raising concerns about the reliability of U.S. policy commitments.

4. Southeast Asia bears the brunt: Export-driven economies like Cambodia and Vietnam are hit hardest, with little leverage to retaliate or adapt quickly.

5. Consumers lose either way: U.S. buyers in low-income zip codes especially of goods from Temu and SHEIN will pay more, even though they weren’t the target.

6. Digital escapes unscathed: Since the tariffs target only physical goods, software and streaming services like Netflix remain immune and poised to benefit.

7. Manufacturing dreams hit limits: The U.S. lacks skilled labor and infrastructure to bring jobs back at scale, making re-shoring more political theater than practical policy.

(00:00)when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold, right?  When you look at the economies, obviously they're saying that America's policy is, counterproductive or it's not gonna fulfill its policy goal. The other part that I think about is it's gonna be so much worse for Cambodia or Vietnam, right? Because these tariffists are really like, a very large chunk of the export sector. 

(00:19) Welcome to Brave Learn from Southeast Asia's Best tech leaders build the future. Learn from our past, and stay human in between LBS unsu success. I'm Jeremy Ow, venture capitalist Sarah, founder Harvard MBA science fiction nerd and dad of two daughters. Every week we debate startup news, interview change makers, answer listener questions, and share personal insights.

(00:48) Join our movement of over 40,000 members and get transcripts, resources, and community at www.bravesse.com. Stay well and stay (01:00) brave.

(01:01) Hey Shiyan, how are you? I mean, so many ways to answer that question. So pretty good, you know? Yeah. I went to a day of rugby. Yeah. How am I thinking about the world?

(01:12) I don't know. I watched the market go down 10% in two days. Liberation day, yeah. worldwide tariffs and, step back a couple hundred years. I don't know. How are you, Jeremy? How are you feeling? I definitely felt very glued to the internet for the past few days because, as somebody who studied economics and read a lot of economic history, really felt like this was, blast from the past? 

(01:33) But it's definitely an inflection point, and I think it's interesting cause you walk around every day, and I think people kind of know what's happening. They don't know what it really means. and I thought it was just interesting to see me process actually on one level, like the logical sequencing and consequence, which I think we discuss, but also from my perspective, a bit of an emotional set of feelings as well, actually.

(01:55) So, I thought it was interesting to unpack those , I don't know, self-reflection. Yeah, (02:00) I mean, the emotional thing is an interesting one. It's hard to articulate. I think it's sort of like we came of age during peak globalization, right? The border is flat, America... That was oh the end of history, like that kind of thing.

(02:10) And now it seems like we've gone like 180 from that, that we no longer believe in any of those things apparently. . Well, one administration does not believe in it to the same extent as you do. , of course. It's, I mean, it's interesting to have that sensation, right? And I think. Yeah, it's a dislocation feeling, I think.

(02:28) Yeah, I don't know. It feels just totally bonkers to me. Yeah. So, maybe I think for the benefit of like, everybody, we'll just do a very quick, recounting of what has happened, right? So, Trump has on Liberation Day, announced a set of right April 2nd, on April 2nd, so that it wasn't on April Fool's Day so no one would be confused 'cause it is not a joke.

(02:48) It is not a joke. It was on April 2nd, and he basically announced that, at minimum there is an import tariff, right? 10% across the board. and there is also going to be , (03:00) additional higher tariffs. So, for example, Singapore will be at the minimum, which is at 10%, and then Indonesia is around 30 plus percent, Vietnam's at 45%,

(03:10) and then China, the net tariff is about 60% right now. And now of course, if you look at, America as a whole, I think the average weighted average of all those tariffs used to be around, say 3%, right? For the past, couple hundred years, has now gone up to about 23%. Yes. base, which is the last time America was there, and it was in the 1800 under the Smooth Hawley Act.

(03:35) So, I think it's, obviously you can call it reversion to the tariff level or cyclical but definitely is a big change from an economic perspective. I mean, I think it's just bonkers, right? Yeah. Like, when the Smoot Hawley Act was in place, right? Think about the amount of global trade that actually happened that was impacted by that number versus like these interconnected supply chains and economies that we have today.

(03:58) Right. And so, (04:00) I think, prices are gonna go across. But you know who's interesting? Who was left out of the list of countries, Jeremy? Oh no. I don't know. Well, Mexico and Canada are left out. Yeah, because they have their own set of tariffs negotiations happening right now, yep. And Russia was left out.

(04:14) Oh. Huh.

(04:15) So, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I thought that was curious. Maybe, I think he's like holding it back for some sort of negotiation around Ukraine and— I don't know— all shakeouts. I don't know. But then, of course, he taxed the penguins on her island, which was very funny. 

(04:30) Yeah. Well, I think arguably every country had a 10% tax. I think that's part of me, which is like, okay, some of it makes a bit sense, which is like, I think if you put a global import terror of 10% yeah, it doesn't allow anybody to do some friend shipment—

(04:44) Yes. Like, moving your factory to Vietnam or stuff. Yeah, exactly, right? . And I think it's very interesting to think through, some of the logic of it, right? Which is, I think from their perspective the logic of what they're saying is, 'Hey, we are trying to account for tariffs on American imports, non-trade (05:00) tariffs, but restrictions on American imports.'

(05:03) Yeah, but if you look at the actual math of it, they basically just looked at what the trade balance was. And then they divided it into, yeah. And they declared that number to be the non-trade barrier amount that was being imposed on the US. Yeah. And so, I mean, I feel like everyone who's done econ has done comparative advantage and there's reasons why you produce chips or the classic guns and butter, right?

(05:26) Like you produce guns, and I produce butter, and then we trade and everyone is better off because. You can make more guns and I can make more butter than if we both try to make guns and butter ourselves. Yeah. And so, I don't know, I find the whole thing just a little bit ludicrous. Yeah. And I think it's tricky, right?

(05:40) Because a country like Cambodia, which is very small, relatively rich compared to America. Economy has very much been focused on servicing textiles and half of the economy's textiles and most of it from America. 

(05:52) Yes, because Cambodians don't have that much money to buy US imports. Exactly. So, it's not really a tariff. They don't have any barriers on American imports. It's just (06:00) more function that they don't have money, unfortunately. Yeah, exactly. So, I don't know. I find the whole thing just a little bit ridiculous, but I mean, I think all that to say there are real problems in the US, right?

(06:10) Is this the most efficient way to address them? I think that's a conversation that we can have. But I mean, I think there's a definite chilling effect on global trade. We talked a little bit about this, right? The reaction is gonna be, 'okay, well how do we trade with everyone else that is not the US', right?

(06:26) How do we create more corridors for that to happen? I think it accelerates the move to the multipolar world. So, I don't know, is that the outcome that the US is trying to drive alongside this sort of onshoring of manufacturing and things like that? And who is rushing to make huge manufacturing investments when you feel like the person making the rules is a little bit mercurial?

(06:47) Mm-hmm. And you might not wanna make big commitments if everything is gonna change— Right. —overnight. Yeah. So, I don't know. It's just,

(06:57) it just feels bananas. Yeah. I mean, I (07:00) think we should, I think, unpack that, right? Because I think there's two parts, right? Which is, well, three parts. I think the first part is what's the logic behind this for the American's perspective? 

(07:08) I think there's one side. And then the second part is what is the world's reaction? Yep. To that. Yep. And the third of course is just a little bit of evaluation of the execution of how has it been done, right? Yeah. So maybe we'll start with the first part is like, let's unpack adding the logic from the American administration because they have a strong economic and leadership team, right?

(07:29) There's Scott Essence, there's Latkin, so, I think there's a really strong, I'll say bench of financial leadership, I would say. so how would you think about it from your explanation of the logic from the administration perspective?

(07:44) One version of a story you might tell yourself Yeah. Is, well, we have a big sort of debt problem. Mm. We need to get that under control. So, either we need to like raise revenue or decrease costs, or preferably both, right? Yeah. That's sort (08:00) of like, so how can we do that? Right? So, I think on the cost side, you sort of had Elon and Doge kind of running around trying to like cut costs.

(08:07) Yeah. And I think we talked a little bit about this before, which is like, the biggest costs in the US budget really are debt servicing, , entitlements, and the military, right? Yeah. And so, all this other stuff like U-S-A-I-D and all these other things, like those are like for show, but like if you really wanna move the needle on the budget like costs, you actually need to

(08:25) deal with one of those things, right? Mm-hmm. So, the debt, cause you're paying a lot in interest entitlements, which so far, most people treat as a third rail, like Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and then this, the military. so then we come to the revenue side, right? Which is like, how do we raise revenue?

(08:40) Republicans are, historically allergic to raising taxes. So, what do they do? They're like, okay, well, let's tax the rest of the world, which is really what the tariffs are, right? Mm-hmm. so that's one way to raise revenue. Mm-hmm. and

(08:52) I guess you can sort of make the argument that, over time mm-hmm. Right. As the US dollar also, I (09:00) guess, depreciates a little bit. Mm-hmm. as a stated goal of administration. Yeah. Then that also makes like US exports, like more competitive in the market. Mm-hmm. Which, should help trade balances and all that other stuff.

(09:12) So, I mean, yeah, you could tell yourself some version of that story. I think it assumes that the impact of the tariffs will not be outweighed by the decrease in demand as prices go up, right? That there's some inelasticity to demand and that, I suppose if you were really cynical, you could say that, the majority of this would be borne by people who consume the most anyway, and those are rich people.

(09:36) Mm-hmm. Yeah. And I love the response to that, which is, I think that first of all, the Republican Party has been focused on the deficit and focusing on the, but then what are the cutting taxes? Well, they haven't cut Texas yet. No, he's been, he cut Texas against food to the administration, but not in the second administration yet.

(09:53) So, we'll see how much retained in the seat for like two months or three months or whatever, right? But like, yeah. So, we'll find out soon. So how much (10:00) of the, how much of the tax cuts are retained? but yeah, I agree that, but I would say that the Republican party has said that this

(10:06) is a policy platform for them, right? Which is that, they wanna make sure that the books are more balanced and government debt should keep going up, and they're willing to do a government shutdown, right? To make sure that, the creditworthiness of America as a state, right? Is true.

(10:21) And I think there's a lot of people who are very much, focused on this topic. Right. I think Ray Dalio obviously has been predicting a debt crisis, yes, for America. If America doesn't either cut spending or increase taxation enough to there, I think Mary also wrote a report. Yeah. And updated a report

(10:39) recently, she looked at America as a corporation and said, "Hey, if this was a corporation, how does the assets versus interest?" And I think what the key insights was that, America has benefited from very low interest rates, but because of so much spending that's happened over the past decade, especially over multiple administrations. then basically like if interest rates were to go up a little (11:00) bit, then government spending will balloon a lot because of interest repayment. So basically, I think there is, I think, a credible argument from my perspective. I think problem identification is not wrong. Yeah. Which is that they spend too much money and, yeah,

(11:16) they don't spend it productively. So, what we're saying is, I agree with that, you gotta balance the books more because we don't want to have a heart attack, right? And a heart attack is, at some point in time everybody gets spooked, interest rates go up, then people find the debt can't be serviced

(11:29) well, yeah, because it just went up and the interest rates go up even higher and then the, you know. Yeah. So, there's a, there's been a heart attack scenario that people are worried about from a financial system perspective. So, I do think that's fair. So that's one. And then two is, I guess if you look at the pillars, it,

(11:45) from an effect basis, I'm not talking about the media, not about how it's executed, but there is cost cutting on the government side and then there is, tariffs, which is a form of tax on both external producers and internal consumers, obviously tax cuts. We, the action is (12:00) still, about, half a year to a year away.

(12:02) So, I guess you could look at that and say like, it's coherent perhaps, on a, on a net basis versus that problem identification. How do you feel about that?

(12:10) Yeah, I guess though, to me it feels like, like when someone is in debt and you're like, stop drinking that latte. Actually, your bigger problem is that the house you live in is too expensive. Mm-hmm. Like, that's like, like 30% of your budget is your housing. Yeah. And 30% of your budget is like your car loan or whatever it is.

(12:26) Right. And then you fixate on this thing, which is like, oh, is that latte you drink every day? Right. Right. That's kind of what it feels like on the cost cutting side. Yeah. It is like there's actually big boulders to move. Yeah. And instead of having a serious discussion about those things, you're going through all this stuff.

(12:39) Yeah. Sort of unnecessarily and cruelly, but not actually achieving your goal. Mm-hmm. So, I think there's that one thing. And then on the revenue side,

(12:47) I mean, I'm interested to see like what happens, right? Mm-hmm. But I think that in general, markets don't like uncertainty. Right. predictability and in general, markets want to know and have confidence that they can invest behind a (13:00) specific set of policies. And I think, so far, I'm not sure this administration has given people that kind of confidence.

(13:05) Yeah. Which I think goes back to the execution and messaging side, which Is half the work, right? it's all great to have great plan, but if you don't execute the plan properly, then the plan is worthless, right? And then I think the second piece is on the spending stuff, how do you think, like, let's imagine this magical world where everyone starts building plants in America. Who's gonna work in those plants? Like, literally. Who wants those jobs? And are they educated enough for the jobs? Because at the type of labor rates that Americans expect, these are pretty High skilled jobs. This isn't a pure manual labor job. And the US has systematically underinvested in public education. So, cutting spending is one thing, but then of the spending you're doing, are you actually investing in both your human capital and your physical infrastructural things to enable you to generate that GDP,

(13:56) right? And it's the same thing the US has underinvested (14:00) in roads and bridges and trains. all the sort of stuff that, you think about as how do you grow the productivity of your, base? Yeah. I think it's tricky, right? And I understand that and also you can make an argument that that pain is what's needed to raise wages to the point where it becomes okay for, Midwestern America, Rust Belt America, for example.

(14:21) But I think there are places where, I think you made an argument, and I think this argument that is also being made is that, okay, like you said, tariffs are attacks on domestic consumers wanna buy imports, and that burden is shared with external producers, right? So that raises prices and those imports are, a lot of them are going to

(14:43) people on the course, right? So I mean, yes and no, right? So, like SHEIN and Temu, they did a study Right. And looked at all the zip codes of the buyers, the consumers, those people are in low-income zip codes. Yeah. right. So, like I think consumers benefit from having cheaper (15:00) goods. Yeah.

(15:00) Inflation, it's a function of crisis and Chinese goods, , like, I think we do know that TVs, for example, and PlayStations and electronics, yeah, have gotten cheaper, there's been a deflation of those prices over the past 30 years because of, Asian manufacturing, making it cheap and cheaper for Americans to buy, TVs,

(15:18) right? Yeah. Yeah. I think Nintendo, like their new generation switch, they put a hold on pre-orders. Yeah. I mean, yeah. We know, they need to reprice the console, right? They need to reprice the device, before they start selling it in the US given the relatively high tariff that was imposed on Japan, which is, a US ally.

(15:35) Yeah. Very high. I think about, 20, 30%. Yeah. high in Singapore. So, yeah, it's gonna be tricky for them to manufacture. I think Apple as well. I think there was very much an article where it is like, every Apple device is at least several hundred dollars' worth of, tax, on just the raw components.

(15:51) So, if you have an iPhone for a thousand US dollars. effectively the tariff will raise that price to $1,400 if all of it was given to and passed on to the consumer. (16:00) But also, like you think about it, right? Like if I'm Apple, am I only gonna raise prices in the US? No. Right? I'm gonna raise prices everywhere else to try to make up my margin.

(16:08) Yeah, I mean, I think also the supply chain obviously is, everybody's reconfiguring their factories. but where are you gonna reconfigure it to? Well, I mean, the automobile factories have been switching off factories in Canada and Mexico, because, you know,

(16:21) it doesn't make sense for the component to travel from America to the factory and from the factory back into America, 'cause you get tariff twice, you know effectively. Yeah. But I think once again, this is like, are you achieving your goal? Yeah. Right? Like it's like trump already negotiated the free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada in the first administration,

(16:39) right? He renegotiated NAFTA to get to that agreement. Yeah. People made decisions; their supply chain exists across this free trade zone. And then you come back and you're like, ah, just kidding. Yeah. Like, is that actually gonna increase the amount of manufacturing in the US when you do that?

(16:54) Because then people are like, how can I rely on what you say? So, I don't know. I think it's just gonna be really (17:00) messy. And Singapore has a free trade agreement with America that's persevered true of Republican and democratic administrations. And now there's a US 10% tariff, which is, not in coherence with the free trade agreement bilateral between Singapore America.

(17:16) Yeah. Yeah. Tricky. So, and despite that, I feel like the big strength of the US has always been that people want. They wanna live there. People wanna move there, right? I mean, if you had the green card, now that's the Trump Gold card for $5 million to buy opportunity to move to America,

(17:34) the truth is, I think Trump has identified, a viable point, which is if there was legal immigration, which I think the Gold Card represents. they always had the EB-5 program anyway. there was always the investor route. 

(17:45) Right to do it. so I think the difference is that the quantum of going and being invested in America and businesses and stock market now just goes to the US government as a quantum. the old program is you had to invest in a US business, and you had to say that you (18:00) were able to like hire how many Americans.

(18:01) Exactly. That's a function of your thing, which eventually trickles through to paid, but yeah, sure. I mean, you can sell citizenships and things like that. But I think even more like the bigger idea that like it's the biggest, deepest market there is, and so if you're an entrepreneur, you're someone who wants to

(18:16) have access to that— you wanna bet on yourself, you wanna build a business, then, you still wanna go to the US. You still are willing to make that bet. , but I don't know. I mean, I lived in the US during the first Trump administration, and I found it to be incredibly weird.

(18:32) Yeah. I was in, of studying and working, during the Obama election, and the transition and also the great financial recession in 2008, which was I think a big, interesting, thing to observe that. And at that time, I kind of knew it was a big deal, but I didn't realize why it was a big deal.

(18:50) Yeah. , and obviously I also saw, I was there during the first Trump administration as well. Yeah. I think it is a very big reordering, right? Because, I think, prior (19:00) guests on the Brave Podcast have shared that, they feel that, historically the Southeast Asia, like for example, Vietnam, has been adjusting its currency, right? To devalue the currency to basically subsidize the exporting industries.

(19:14) So, they do feel like, hey, the Vietnam tariff is higher than expected, but not unexpected versus this policy goal. And of course, the argument is that this is also a negotiation starting point to anchor the conversation and then eventually be negotiated down from, 45% down to, I don't know what the final number is gonna be.

(19:35) So, I think that it goes by the second bucket that we talked about, right? Which is how is the world gonna react? So, I think some countries are going to, accept this. I think Singapore said that they're not going to retaliate, they're going to negotiate. I think that's what Singapore said. I mean, what leverage does Singapore have

(19:50) really? Yeah. That's, it's like, yeah, I agree. and then I think China has done a tit for tat. So, they've applied the same amount, which 34% of additional tariffs on (20:00) American goods. So, I think there's a signaling for tit for tat. I guess game theory is, yeah, whatever you do, I mirror.

(20:06) So, I think that's one. And of course, in the EU right now, they're working on their package. And I think they will deliver counter tariffs so it's gonna be interesting to see how that plays out.

(20:15) Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I think I'm like a big, "let's grow the pie" sort of person. Yeah. Right. Like the sum is, the hole is greater than of the parts or whatever. And this is like a very naked like, no, there's a fixed pie. Yeah. We're the big guy, we're the bully and we're gonna go just get as much of it as we can.

(20:34) And if you don't like it, like, so be it. And I think that is the prerogative of large countries. But it makes me a little bit sad, right? Because I think the US was instrumental in building this global order post-World War II that sort of promoted this idea of like, 'Hey, we can have more peace and more prosperity if we all trade with each other.'

(20:53) Mm-hmm. , right. And now I feel like, because they did not address issues in their own house around, retraining (21:00) and, education and some of these other , topics now they're just like, okay. Yeah. Flipping the board.

(21:06) Yeah, I know, I think it's true, right? In that the, the tariffs are all on goods, right? And it's not on services. And services are where the American economy has really become, number one. I mean, the technology companies, yeah, would be included under the services bucket because they don't transact physical goods,

(21:21) they're doing digital services, , in, and then obviously you have your big four, your consultancy. So, I think America has really become like that global services piece and this tariff, I think I underappreciated this, but it only applies to goods, right? And so, I think it's a way to move manufacturing back to America anyway.

(21:40) So, I just think it's an interesting bifurcation and in my head I'm obviously, if you take it out ways, it's like, you take that, proverb of like, "in every crisis there's opportunity." so what's the opportunity in this, inflection point, right? I mean, I guess all the domestically based industries, right?

(21:56) Mm-hmm. So, if you're like a US based, yeah, companies serving US (22:00) customers, we have a portfolio company that does, , like refurbishment of high-end brand clothes. Mm. So it's actually a tailwind for them. Yeah. Right? Because, yeah, the goods are already in the US Yeah. And there's no additional tariff and they're like fixing them and selling them on again.

(22:16) Right. Yeah. and so yeah, there's curious things like that. I mean, I think with all the hawkishness as well, I think defense, anything that's defense facing, right? Like after all the saber rattling and everything, right? Like, what is it? Germany said they raised their debt ceiling, their debt cap, and now they're like, okay, we're gonna commit, was it 50 billion?

(22:33) Yeah, yeah. And all around everyone is gonna do that, right? Mm-hmm. So, I think all the defense people are gonna benefit. and then I guess, yeah, anyone who sells digital services. I mean, 'cause physical stuff is becoming more, the physical world becomes more expensive. Yeah. But the digital world is just as good, right? Yeah. Like if I bought a computer game on Steam, it's the same price. It doesn't impact it by tariffs.

(22:57) Yeah. But if I buy a CD-ROM, that is taxed, (23:00) right? So, there's an interesting piece where, I think to some extent may even accelerate the digitalization of, I would say definitely the American consumer but also, the whole world, right? Because yeah, buy less champagne, buy more movies, right? Because, you're like, I mean you're, you're numbing yourself to life with alcohol, which is expensive.

(23:18) And then now you can numb yourself with Netflix, which does not taxed, you know? . Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I think the economics, obviously this is the focus of the conversation, but like, I think there's also just like the cultural aspect of it, which makes me like a little bit sad, right? Mm-hmm. Which is like the attacking of immigrants, the deportations,

(23:36) the random, searches of people entering the country and looking at their social media records and things like that. It's hard to square that with previously stated American ideals of freedom of speech and human rights and democracy, right? I think it just sort of exposes the hypocrisy of all that prior rhetoric.

(23:54) I mean, I think Lee Kuan Yew was very much on the record for never having believed that in the first (24:00) place especially in the context of the Cold War, where I think there was a lot of those ideals being stated, but it was very much a brutal power struggle on a global stage, right? I mean, you saw that in the Vietnam War, the Korean War, where I think obviously both sides were claiming high ideals, but how to translate into the messiness of conflict was very disappointing for so many people.

(24:20) And so, I think the interesting part is like post-Cold War . And today, I think there was this summer, right? Where it felt like all this was set at face value and accepted at face value, I feel. And I think we're just kind of reverting back to that piece where like, oh no, it's just, multipolar world.

(24:36) that is, and I think it was interesting where I was like, this is the first US administration that's publicly stated that there is a multipolar world, right? so I think it's an interesting dynamic, whereas past US administrations never ever used the phrase "multipolar world" as part of their policy statements.

(24:52) I mean, I guess it's reality, right? Mm-hmm. But I mean, I think this is the same thing, right? Where, there's this dislocation feeling, right? Mm-hmm. Because you sort of, we came of age (25:00) in a moment where globalization was at its peak, right? Idealism. Yeah. And I think, I don't know, and maybe this is like completely naive of me, right?

(25:08) Which is like growing up in the 80's and 90's there, you watch American television, you listen to American music, you imbibe some notions of these things. Whether it's freedom of speech or protest or whatever it is. Yeah. And then, . I dunno what the scales fall off your eyes and you're like, just kidding.

(25:25) That was the marketing message, but the actual product a bit different, huh. Yeah. I mean, I always remember watching Independence Day. I don't remember like Will Smith, and then as the American president and then, America rallies the whole world to do a simultaneous attack on all these alien sources.

(25:41) And then I think there's this wonderful montage at the end of the scene where he's like, 'on my signal, let's go.' And then I think that this shows like the Chinese also blowing up their saucer at the same time, and the Russians, and everybody's all like doing this like global coordinated defense of earth,

(25:56) yeah, against the aliens. Yeah, not gonna happen though. It is like, it, it is an (26:00) interesting piece, right? Yeah. So, I think there's an aspect of it. It's just like, hey, everyone is a, their own just trying to make it in the world. They're trying to survive. They're trying to get the best deal for their country or whatever it is.

(26:11) And you don't have any friends. You just have people whose interests are temporarily aligned with yours. You should behave accordingly. I mean, there's the real politic, Kissinger, that would be, mere, at University of Chicago, that would be politics, which is, the strong do what they want and then we can do what they must, like it's a, yes,

(26:32) I think that's, and maybe that's a good right. We should all like live in this reality. Yeah. So, what do you think, to wrap things up, is there any advice that you have, so why the place here, right? So, one is like, building America whilst, is it move to America?

(26:46) Is it built for domestic? I mean, how would you say as some of your? Oh, man. Yeah. I think it kind of it just depends on who you are, right? Yeah. With all the turmoil, right? And the uncertainty, I think that people are mostly like more risk off than before, right? Yeah. So, I think that (27:00) makes commensurately, it makes fundraising harder,

(27:01) All these things become harder. So, like, I think if you're a founder, you wanna, stay lean, stay frugal, yeah, don't count on, yeah, copious amounts of VC money. , and I mean, I don't know. It's, it's interesting, right? I mean, I think for young people, I generally tell them like, you should go work in the US at some point in your life because you should work in a big deep market that's incredibly competitive. Right.

(27:22) I think for people who are older who have kids and families and aging parents and things like that, I think the calculus is a bit harder, right? Because it isn't a purely professional calculation. Yeah. And then everyone kind of has to like, weigh that themselves. Right. I mean, I think on a personal level, like, even when you live in a blue sort of bubble-like San Francisco, the sort of anti-immigrant rhetoric is like quite tiring. , and it sometimes makes you feel unsafe. Right. And then it is, raises questions around like, is that the environment you want your kids to? grow up in, right, 'cause they're sort of being othered, continually. I don't know, maybe it's like one of those character-building experiences or something, but, I think that's like, open question in my mind. Yeah. I (28:00) think that's like, sort of like a, you can't stop the US from being the biggest, deepest market, right?

(28:05) And it's just like the s and p is like. Like if you even, you're gonna reallocate, like where would you reallocate away from? Right? Like, those are still like the biggest, most well-run companies in the world. So, you're still gonna have an allocation there. so I, I think it's like a very personal question.

(28:19) Yeah. And I think one thing I think about is like, you know, , when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold, right? So, I think when you look at the economies, obviously they're saying that America's policy is, you know, , counterproductive or it's not gonna fulfill its policy goal.

(28:34) But even so, it just means, and I think this is where some projections by financial times or like this will cause a recession in America. , or you'll slow down the growth rate, , is just that the other part that I think about is it's gonna be so much worse for Cambodia or Vietnam, right?

(28:49) Because these tariffists are really like, a very large chunk of the export sector. Yeah. I do think that in Southeast Asia, one part that I think about is that it can (29:00) really be quite problematic. So, assuming, let's just say the tariffists don't get negotiated down, yeah, then, this is bad for Indonesia, for Vietnam, obviously Chinese exports, and then, all these shrinks, and then Singapore is a hub for Asia.

(29:14) It's also a shipment hub for these products. And Singapore itself, even though it is a relative winner by having less tariffs on its exports to America, it still has a net shrinkage, because it's no longer shipping and financial hub for the region, right? So, I do think there's a lot of pain there. Well, anything that was being shipped by Singapore to the US. But to the extent that people will try to do more regionally, Singapore still benefits from that. Yeah. And the Indonesian economy is relatively less exposed to exports than the Vietnamese one,

(29:43) right? For sure. So, I think that's the worse, like you're doubling down on your domestic capacity. Yeah. And you should use the time to make investments in things that will pay off domestically, so that you can have a more balanced economy. Right. and then maybe that's like we're gonna figure out ways to trade with LATAM.

(29:59) We're gonna figure out ways to (30:00) trade with Africa. Right. And we're gonna find ways to do things that are not just purely exporting to the US. Yeah. We less an issue for Singapore where we don't wanna actually manufacture that much stuff. Yeah. But I think for the other countries, right? Is just trying to, because Singapore's a lot of services as well.

(30:15) Yeah. , on that note, let's tie things off. I think the two big takeaways of governance conversations. One is, thinking through what the tariffs are from a US Trump administration perspective. That would be number one. I think number two is us to gain true what the rest of the world consequences are in their counteract actions mean.

(30:34) And then lastly of course, is, advice to folks about, what to work up for and perhaps what the opportunities are as well. Yeah. On note, thank you so much! Thanks, Jeremy.

(30:44) Thank you for listening to Brave. If you enjoyed this episode, please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. We would also appreciate you leaving a rating or review. Head over to (31:00) www.bravese.com for member content, resources, and community. Stay well and stay brave.