Back in mid-January Bridgewater's Ray Dalio, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, offered up his first thoughts on the populist wave sweeping across the globe (we covered it here).

And, once you've recovered from the laughing fit inspired by the irony of a bunch of billionaires sitting around discussing their displeasure with the masses of the world voting to undo their decades of power consolidation, you can continue with the following summary of Dalio's comments from Bloomberg:

DALIO: POPULISM MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE GLOBALLY DALIO: CENTRAL BANKS DON’T MATTER AS MUCH DALIO: POPULISM IS BY DEFINITION NATIONALIST DALIO: POPULISM IS POLAR OPPOSITE OF DAVOS DALIO: POPULISM IS AN EXPRESSION OF `FED-UP-ISM’ DALIO: WE’LL SEE MORE PROTECTIONISM, REVERSAL OF GLOBALISM DALIO: WE MAY BE AT END OF GLOBALIZATION DALIO: `NATIONALIZATION, PROVINCIALIZATION MAY TAKE HOLD’ DALIO: GLOBALIZATION HELPED REDUCE WEALTH GAPS INTERNATIONALLY DALIO: DEREGULATION HAS CONS BUT ALSO PROS; GETS THINGS GOING DALIO: CAN MIDDLE BE COHESIVE ENOUGH TO CURB EXTREMISM? DALIO: TECHNOLOGY, GLOBALIZATION CAUSING INCOME DIFFERENCES DALIO: POPULISM SCARES ME DALIO: POPULISM WILL MORE LIKELY THAN NOT BECOME EXTREMISM

...suffice it to say that he's not a big fan of populism.

Therefore, it should probably come as little surprise that, as we noted a few weeks ago, after initially praising Trump's policies, Dalio turned sour on the new administration shortly after his trip to Davos...

“Nationalism, protectionism and militarism increase global tensions and the risks of conflict. For these reasons, while we remain open-minded, we are increasingly concerned about the emerging policies of the Trump administration.”

All of which culminated with a new, massive 60-page report from Dalio today, entitled "Populism: The Phenomenon", which, in addition to reviewing the history behind historical populist waves around the world, puts on full display Dalio's elitism and utter disdain for the "common man" who he arrogantly declares is "typically not well-educated."

Populism is not well understood because, over the past several decades, it has been infrequent in emerging countries (e.g., Chávez’s Venezuela, Duterte’s Philippines, etc.) and virtually nonexistent in developed countries. It is one of those phenomena that comes along in a big way about once a lifetime—li

ke pandemics, depressions, or wars. The last time that it existed as a major force in the world was in the 1930s, when most countries became populist. Over the last year, it has again emerged as a major force. To help get a sense of how the level of populist support today compares to populism in the past, we created an index of the share of votes received by populist/anti-establishment parties or candidates in national elections, for all the major developed countries (covering the US, UK, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain) all the way back to 1900. Given the extent of it now, over the next year populism will certainly play a greater role in shaping economic policies. In fact, we believe that populism’s role in shaping economic conditions will probably be more powerful than classic monetary and fiscal policies (as well as a big influence on fiscal policies). It will also be important in driving international relations. Exactly how important we can’t yet say. We will learn a lot more over the next year or so as those populists now in office will signal how classically populist they will be and a number of elections will determine how many more populists enter office. In any case, we think now is the time to brush up on our understandings of populism and what to watch out for. While we’re not experts in politics, we wanted to share our research to understand the phenomenon. In this report, we describe what we see as the “archetypical populist template,” which we built out through studying 14 past populist leaders in 10 different countries. In that way, we can show their similarities and differences. While no two cases are identical, most cases are similar—so much so that one might say that there is a “populist playbook.” By knowing these historical cases well, we will then be able to compare the developments of contemporary cases with those of the past, both to better understand the phenomenon and to better visualize how it might develop.

And for all of you moronic common men/women out there who don't even know why you just voted the way you did, Dalio provides the following summary of populism:

Populism is a political and social phenomenon that arises from the common man, typically not well-educated, being fed up with 1) wealth and opportunity gaps, 2) perceived cultural threats from those with different values in the country and from outsiders, 3) the “establishment elites” in positions of power, and 4) government not working effectively for them. These sentiments lead that constituency to put strong leaders in power. Populist leaders are typically confrontational rather than collaborative and exclusive rather than inclusive. As a result, conflicts typically occur between opposing factions (usually the economic and socially left versus the right), both within the country and between countries. These conflicts typically become progressively more forceful in self-reinforcing ways. In other words, populism is a rebellion of the common man against the elites to some extent, against the system. The rebellion and the conflict that comes with it occur in varying degrees. Sometimes the system bends with it and sometimes the system breaks. Whether it bends or breaks in response to this rebellion and conflict depends on how flexible and well established the system is. It also seems to depend on how reasonable and respectful of the system the populists who gain power are. Classic populist economic policies include protectionism, nationalism, increased infrastructure building, increased military spending, greater budget deficits, and, quite often, capital controls.

And, if you're still confused, here is a very basic summary...

In summary, populism is... Power to the common man...

...Through the tactic of attacking the establishment, the elites, and the powerful...

...Brought about by wealth and opportunity gaps, xenophobia, and people being fed up with government not working effectively, which leads to:

... The emergence of the strong leader to serve the common man and make the system run more efficiently...

...Protectionism...

..Nationalism...

...Militarism...

...Greater conflict, and...

...Greater attempts to influence or control the media.

...all of which sounds just downright awful, if, of course, you're the key beneficiary of a corrupt system that has for decades consolidated power and wealth into the hands of the few at the explicit detriment of the masses.