Speaker 1: Today we're joined by Vivett Ramaswami, a supporter of Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: a former Republican presidential candidate himself, someone that's been active
Speaker 1: not just on social media but on the ground. And
Speaker 1: welcome to the program, mister Ramaswami. A simple question to start,
Speaker 1: why is former President Trump the best candidate for the
Speaker 1: technology industry and the bench capital industry that supports it.
Speaker 2: Here, Look, I'll give you a simple answer to a
Speaker 2: straight question you asked, which is that he is the
Speaker 2: president in favor of mass deregulation and mass reform of
Speaker 2: the administrative state. I think the administrative state and the
Speaker 2: regulatory state is the single greatest impediment to innovation, to
Speaker 2: new business formation, to business growth in this country. The
Speaker 2: actions of the three letter agencies, who are never elected,
Speaker 2: by the way, from the EPA to the FTC, to
Speaker 2: the SEC to the FDA, you go straight down the list,
Speaker 2: those three letter agencies are making most rules that govern
Speaker 2: businesses in this country today. Those rules were never passed
Speaker 2: by Congress by democratic elected representatives. The current Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: which Donald Trump actually gave us much of the composition
Speaker 2: of that court, has declared.
Speaker 3: Many of those regulations unconstitutional.
Speaker 2: And Donald Trump has made clear that he wants to
Speaker 2: go in and not just incrementally tinker around the edges
Speaker 2: of that bureaucracy, but really to shake it down to
Speaker 2: its small core.
Speaker 3: That it should have been in the first place.
Speaker 2: And so I think that's the case I would make
Speaker 2: to technology investors, to entrepreneurs that Donald Trump is going
Speaker 2: to be the president who stands for taming in that
Speaker 2: regulatory state which currently acts as a wet blanket on
Speaker 2: the economy and innovation in particular.
Speaker 1: VIVET could I ask as an extension of that, is
Speaker 1: there a specific area, be it crypto, be electric vehicles,
Speaker 1: be it space that you feel former President Trump is
Speaker 1: most focused in the list of priorities.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that he's more focused on an overall
Speaker 2: American revival. All of those fit on the list. I
Speaker 2: think energy is big on the list for Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Reviving the production of American energy, all forms of energy
Speaker 2: where America can be the leader. Donald Trump favors it, drilling,
Speaker 2: fracking areas where America can actually establish energy abundance. Sets
Speaker 2: what Donald Trump favors, and especially in this era of
Speaker 2: AI and the increasing demands for electricity, for power, for
Speaker 2: energy that's particularly important for the United States to remain competitive.
Speaker 3: You think about baseload.
Speaker 2: Power generation for the electric grid, coal and natural gas
Speaker 2: are key inputs. A lot of democratic policy has been
Speaker 2: hostile to both of those, anti fracting policies, anti coal policies.
Speaker 2: By contrast, Donald Trump's pro energy policies are not just
Speaker 2: good for bringing down energy prices, so that's important, but
Speaker 2: also for powering and fueling the future generation of AI
Speaker 2: based technology revolutions that are going to require cheap and
Speaker 2: abundant energy inputs. So that's one example. But I could
Speaker 2: go into each of the areas you named and to be.
Speaker 3: Happy to do that.
Speaker 4: We had a venture capitalist, well known founder in the
Speaker 4: area of AI and social We had Read Hoffman on
Speaker 4: the show yesterday. Now, he of course favors the other
Speaker 4: side of the equation and Harris's run for the administration,
Speaker 4: wanting consistency, wanting steady hand, but also is worried about
Speaker 4: forms of retribution.
Speaker 5: Can you just take a listen to what he said yesterday?
Speaker 6: Sure, Trump and Trump presidency won. His early presidency has
Speaker 6: shown a certain amount of grifter capitalism. It's like trying
Speaker 6: to penalize his opponents using the instruments of state.
Speaker 4: Will that be any penalization of those who've voiced against
Speaker 4: him febec No.
Speaker 2: I think there's gonna be no little retribution under Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: But I do find that common a little bit rich
Speaker 2: coming from a Kamala Airas supporter. Where there's only one
Speaker 2: president and administration in US history that is prosecuted or
Speaker 2: attempt to prosecute their rival in the middle of a
Speaker 2: political election, and it wasn't Donald Trump. It's the party
Speaker 2: that Donald Trump is running against.
Speaker 3: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: So I think this idea of a steady hand.
Speaker 3: I also want to give some airtime to this.
Speaker 2: The idea of Kamala Harris is going to be some
Speaker 2: kind of steady hand when she has reversed her position
Speaker 2: in a matter of months on central questions, whether she
Speaker 2: favors bans on offshore drilling, whether she favors a ban
Speaker 2: on fracking, whether she favors universal healthcare. All of these
Speaker 2: are positions that she held very shortly before running for
Speaker 2: US president that in a matter of months foundational.
Speaker 3: Questions about energy policy.
Speaker 2: To help policy that have changed in a matter of months,
Speaker 2: I don't think is a strong case for a.
Speaker 3: So called steady hand.
Speaker 2: And one more point, investors, and particularly I know there's
Speaker 2: a technology focused show, particularly to entrepreneurs who have founded
Speaker 2: successful tech companies that may still be privately held. Here's
Speaker 2: a big one that really matters. Kamala Harris stands by
Speaker 2: her support and this is one area where she hasn't
Speaker 2: changed her stance. She stands by her support for a
Speaker 2: tax on unrealized capital gains. That means many entrepreneurs, technologists,
Speaker 2: biotech entrepreneurs who may have paper gains in a private
Speaker 2: company would actually have to pay taxes with cash they
Speaker 2: don't actually have. That would stifle innovation across Silicon Valley
Speaker 2: and across this country. And I think it could be
Speaker 2: the single greatest tricker for stock market crash and a
Speaker 2: second great depression. So, especially for a technology focused audience
Speaker 2: and a market focused audience, that's a big difference between
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. You could be a single
Speaker 2: issue voter on that alone, I would argue.
Speaker 4: I think many would feel at the moment that the
Speaker 4: articulation around unrealized capital gains hasn't been made so substantively
Speaker 4: by a Harris campaign. And I'm just going to go
Speaker 4: back to the technology focus, and I'm glad that you
Speaker 4: went there for US Vivic because there is a technology
Speaker 4: focus that is chips in particular.
Speaker 5: You are currently sat in Ohio.
Speaker 4: Ohio is going to be a beneficiary in many ways
Speaker 4: of the chip sacked, billions of dollars going to building
Speaker 4: fabrication manufacturing within that state. And there is a potential
Speaker 4: concern that Donald Trump is against the chip sacked. He
Speaker 4: voiced out vehemently against it on a podcast recently.
Speaker 5: Do you worry about.
Speaker 4: That perhaps being overrun changed in direction?
Speaker 3: No, I don't.
Speaker 2: In fact, the reason I was against the chipsacked is
Speaker 2: because there's a lot of other baggage in there that
Speaker 2: shouldn't have been there, hiring impediments such as many of
Speaker 2: those companies semiconductorc companies are hiring people outside of the
Speaker 2: United States because of the regulatory burdens of doing so
Speaker 2: right here. There's also extra baggage and changing the way
Speaker 2: the National Science Foundation, the NSF makes grants on the
Speaker 2: basis of race and other criteria that don't relate to merit.
Speaker 2: So that's the problem with Washington, DC is every time
Speaker 2: they pass one of these laws, the inflation Reduction Act
Speaker 2: or the Chips Act. There's so much other baggage they
Speaker 2: sneak into there that it dilutes the original vision or
Speaker 2: purpose of the Act in the first place. You want
Speaker 2: to foster semiconductor production in the United States, as I do.
Speaker 2: Here's how we do it, mass deregulation that lifts those
Speaker 2: regulatory constraints in the United States. And I will tell
Speaker 2: you the reason in Video has become a multi trillion
Speaker 2: dollar company is not because of the Chips Act. It's
Speaker 2: because of booming demand for chips led by the advent
Speaker 2: of AI and the recent revolution and the AI boom
Speaker 2: that we've seen, and that lowering of the cost of
Speaker 2: capital is far more valuable for semiconductor companies than the
Speaker 2: incremental money in the pocket of the large that came
Speaker 2: from the CHIPSAC.
Speaker 3: That's my view on the matter.
Speaker 1: Vivic, may I just jump in on that point on Nvidia.
Speaker 1: In Video is not in isolation, but many of the
Speaker 1: chip companies have had their access to the China market
Speaker 1: impacted by those export controls. And simply put, China is
Speaker 1: the bigg end market for consumer electronics but critically important
Speaker 1: for cloud. Are you able to explain to our audience
Speaker 1: President former President Trump's position Visa e China on key
Speaker 1: American companies being able to do business in that market.
Speaker 2: Well, I'll give you a base principle that I hope
Speaker 2: people can agree with, regardless of partisanship. We should not
Speaker 2: depend on our adversary for our own national security. You
Speaker 2: want to talk about chips, forty percent of the semiconductors
Speaker 2: feeding our Department of Defense, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, actually.
Speaker 3: Come from China.
Speaker 2: That doesn't make any sense for our own military industrial base,
Speaker 2: our own military stockpiles to depend on our adversary to
Speaker 2: provide them. God forbid, We're in a conflict scenario, and
Speaker 2: that's something that nobody wants for sure, but God forbid,
Speaker 2: we are in a conflict scenario with an adversary. They're
Speaker 2: not going to keep supplying those inputs. And so I
Speaker 2: think it is sensible policy. And I don't care if
Speaker 2: you're a Republican or a Democrat for the United States
Speaker 2: to say, in sectors critical to our national security, at
Speaker 2: least for ourn military industrial base, we should not be
Speaker 2: dependent on our chief adversary.
Speaker 3: And I think that sensible policy.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, I think above all, one of the things
Speaker 2: I like about him is a businessman but also a pragmatist.
Speaker 2: When it comes to these foreign policy dealings, he was
Speaker 2: respected and I think that put the US in a
Speaker 2: stronger position in a lot of those negotiations.
Speaker 1: Mister Ramaswami, there was some interest in you when I
Speaker 1: said on social media you were coming on the show.
Speaker 1: We got a number of questions from the audience, But
Speaker 1: I'm going to put one to you, if that's okay.
Speaker 1: One user says, please ask him how much of his
Speaker 1: own money was spent on his campaign. I think a
Speaker 1: reference to your early run as a candidate. Has it
Speaker 1: given you an acceptable ROI? And what was the exposure
Speaker 1: and network effect for you in doing this supporting former
Speaker 1: President Trump?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so the answer visual public record. I'm going to
Speaker 3: give you round nubers.
Speaker 2: It was a little over thirty million dollars of my
Speaker 2: own hard earned money. By the way, I didn't inherit money.
Speaker 2: My parents came to this country with no money. But
Speaker 2: I'm a self made entrepreneur who's found in multi billion
Speaker 2: dollar companies, and the ROI on that I measure is
Speaker 2: not related to me. It's related to the impact we
Speaker 2: have on our country. I was the youngest person ever
Speaker 2: to run for US president as a Republican, and one
Speaker 2: of the things I was proud we were able to
Speaker 2: do was to bring non traditional, disengaged citizens back into
Speaker 2: politics actually caring about our country, especially young people. I
Speaker 2: showed up on a college campus in Pennsylvania yesterday. There
Speaker 2: were two thousand plus young people that showed up just
Speaker 2: to hear the conversations we were having, one on one
Speaker 2: at a time.
Speaker 3: That gave me a sense of inspiration.
Speaker 2: It gave me a sense of deep gratification and satisfaction
Speaker 2: to say that this journey that I began in February
Speaker 2: of last year, where nobody knew my name, let alone
Speaker 2: could pronounce it, I was at zero point zero percent
Speaker 2: in the polls, and by the end of the race
Speaker 2: less than a year later, had beaten a vice president,
Speaker 2: multiple governors, and a former senator. It proves what's possible
Speaker 2: in the United States of America, and so was it
Speaker 2: worth it. Absolutely, And I hope that our best days
Speaker 2: as a country, and my own ability to have an
Speaker 2: impact on it, is.
Speaker 3: Still ahead of us.
Speaker 4: Some of those young people perhaps you're talking to, care
Speaker 4: about Crypto, one of those companies that you formed, Strive
Speaker 4: asset management one point seven billion dollars in assets on
Speaker 4: a management is going to be going and buying in
Speaker 4: on bitcoin for the first time. Can you just articulate
Speaker 4: for us what you think the crypto policies will be
Speaker 4: under Trump.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: First of all, I'm incredibly proud of Strive as a
Speaker 2: business I co founded. I stepped down as chairman before
Speaker 2: I ran for president, but I'm so proud of the
Speaker 2: team and what they've accomplished. Matt Cole, he's the CEO
Speaker 2: who was formerly a successful bond portfolio manager at CalPERS,
Speaker 2: is really leading stride with the vision for financial freedom,
Speaker 2: which I'm so proud of.
Speaker 3: What they've done.
Speaker 2: I'm going to view on the future of crypto policy
Speaker 2: is it's less related to helping one sector and more
Speaker 2: related to just reviving the principles the country was founded on.
Speaker 3: In the first place.
Speaker 2: Unbridled innovation competition as the answer, but there should be
Speaker 2: some regulation.
Speaker 5: It should totally be unbridled.
Speaker 2: Well, the first thing I would say is unbridled innovation.
Speaker 2: What we really need is regulatory clarity. So I think
Speaker 2: it is a sad state of affairs where you see
Speaker 2: a paradigm of regulation by enforcement, where many participants in
Speaker 2: the industry don't know what the rules are in the
Speaker 2: first place. So we can debate what the rules are,
Speaker 2: what they should be. I think that's a reasonable debate
Speaker 2: to have. But what we can't have is a situation
Speaker 2: where people are guessing at what those rules are. I'll
Speaker 2: give you one example of that when the head when
Speaker 2: Lead Commissioner of the SEC could not answer before Congress
Speaker 2: whether ethereum was even a security.
Speaker 3: Maybe it is and maybe it shouldn't be. But either way,
Speaker 3: at least the industry deserves to know.
Speaker 2: And so I think regulation in the first principle, whether
Speaker 2: you're on the left or right, should be clarity, and
Speaker 2: I think that's missing in this sector, as in so
Speaker 2: many others today.
Speaker 1: Vivet Ramaswami, thank you for coming back on Bloomberg Technology.
Speaker 3: We appreciate your time.