Why Ray Dalio and Trump See Subsidies and Investment as a Strategy, Not a Risk

Ray Dalio has recently gone beyond merely aligning with Trump’s policy direction; he appears, in effect, to be participating in the construction of that vision. This is not simply a political choice. It becomes understandable once we grasp where the United States is ultimately heading.

The area on which the U.S. is now staking its future is AI. It sees artificial intelligence as the core instrument for maintaining global dominance and is prepared to deploy resources on an unprecedented scale to secure that position. At the center of this effort, as always, lies liquidity. The more money that flows into the system, the stronger the willingness to take risk becomes—and risk-taking is what generates innovation. By combining overwhelming capital strength with leadership in the AI industry, the United States aims to create a gap so wide that no other nation can realistically close it.

But this inevitably raises a fundamental question:Where does that money come from, and what costs must be borne in return?

To answer this, we must separate the past from the present.

In the past, liquidity was created organically through industrial growth. This period can be described as the era of industrial capitalism. Roughly speaking, the United States up until the 1990s—or even the early 2000s—fit this model. However, the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis fundamentally altered the structure of the system.

After that point, the U.S. transitioned into a system where liquidity was generated not by industry, but by finance. This was the era of financial capitalism.

Governments relied on fiscal policy, while the Federal Reserve deployed monetary policy, and the coordination between these two forces did produce a certain level of growth. At the same time, however, government debt expanded rapidly beyond what could be comfortably controlled. The ability to replicate past growth using fiscal and monetary policy alone has now reached its limits.

This is where a new solution emerged: state capitalism.

Under state capitalism, the government directly controls the flow of capital and concentrates it in sectors with the highest growth potential. That sector is AI. This is precisely why, since 2022, the AI industry has grown faster than any other sector.

Yet even this approach has proven insufficient.

AI requires a scale of capital that is incomparable to traditional industries. Even when the state channels capital aggressively into AI, it is still not enough. This shortage lies at the heart of today’s AI bubble debate.

But bubbles only burst when capital dries up. If capital flows become even more abundant than before, the logic of a bubble collapses. For the United States—locked in an intense competition for global dominance—allowing the AI bubble to burst is not an option. This is why it has introduced an entirely new concept of money: stablecoins.

The essence of stablecoins is clear.

They are backed by U.S. Treasuries, and their primary users are private actors. In the past, the main buyers of U.S. government debt were states and large institutions. With the rise of stablecoins, individuals and corporations are now emerging as core retail buyers of Treasuries. In effect, government debt is being shifted from the public balance sheet to the private sector. And the United States is actively leveraging this structure.

At this point, Ray Dalio’s thinking becomes easier to understand.

The U.S. is attempting to replace the message “buy Treasuries” with “invest in stablecoins.” As stablecoins gain more real-world use cases, individuals and corporations will naturally hold them. Through this process, liquidity on a scale previously unimaginable can flow into the system.

But is that enough?

No. That is why both Trump and Ray Dalio are now speaking openly about subsidies. The objective is clear: to encourage stock ownership. Those stocks will be tokenized as real-world assets (RWA), and the tokens will be purchased using stablecoins. In effect, the United States is building a system in which the entire population participates in capital formation through stablecoins.

Viewed positively, this structure can be a win-win.

Approximately 40% of Americans do not invest in stocks. Given that asset ownership lies at the core of wealth inequality in the U.S., encouraging equity investment through subsidies could help narrow that gap. Increased demand for stocks drives prices higher, and the government can then reinvest that liquidity into AI. AI growth, in turn, pushes equity valuations even higher. This creates a virtuous cycle that benefits both individuals and the state.

In this context, Ray Dalio’s actions and Trump’s tax cuts are aligned along the same strategic axis. Of course, if massive liquidity expansion fails to produce real growth, the consequences could be severe. But from the current U.S. perspective, this is the most realistic option available.

Ultimately, what we must do is clear.

The focus should not be on whether markets rise tomorrow, but on where they are heading over the coming years. If that direction aligns with the path the United States has chosen, there is no reason to be shaken by short-term volatility. What is required now is simply investment—and patience.