Who is millionaire Trump supporter Grant Cardone – and is he friends with Ryan Reynolds? The finance guru hosted the actor at his 10X Growth Conference, and has a degree from his own university
Hollywood star Ryan Reynolds – who has been keeping a low profile amid his wife
Blake Lively 's legal feud with Justin Baldoni – made a rare appearance at finance guru Grant Cardone's last ever 10X Growth Conference in March. In Instagram posts shared by Cardone's daughter Scarlett, the Deadpool actor is seen posing with her and her sister Sabrina, as well as Cardone.
Ryan Reynolds recently attended Grant Cardone's 10X Growth Conference. He is here pictured with Grant Cardone, second left, Sabrina Cardone, left, and Scarlett Cardone, right. Photo: @scarlettcardone/Instagram
Grant Cardone, 67, is the author of The 10X Rule. He has a reputation for dishing out polarising financial advice and has courted his fair share of controversy. He once came under fire for saying he uses 'very street terms' with young African-American audiences rather than more technical business jargon, per Forbes, and was accused of defrauding his investors, as reported by the Huffington Post. So, Reynolds' association with Cardone received mixed reactions from fans.
Advertisement
What else do we know about Grant Cardone, who's also a proud Trump supporter and brags about it on his Instagram?
What is Grant Cardone's background?
Eric Trump (left) and Grant Cardone speak during the 10X Growth Conference on March 19, 2025 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Grant Cardone hails from Lake Charles, Louisiana, where he grew up with his parents and four siblings. He says his father had an annual income of US$50,000, but things got tough after Cardone Sr passed away at 52, he revealed on his YouTube channel. Cardone's mother was a homemaker and lacked proper education, so she ended up selling the family home to make ends meet. At the age of 15, Cardone says he began struggling with drug use, which continued for a decade. Although he studied accounting at McNeese State University, he couldn't get a job. After moving to Houston, Texas, he ventured into business.
What does Grant Cardone do?
Grant Cardone is a finance influencer and businessman. Photo: @grantcardone/Instagram
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
21 hours ago
- Asia Times
The power calculus driving Trump's tariffs
Despite dire predictions that US President Donald Trump's foreign policy, dominated by real and threatened manipulations of American tariffs and trade practices, US inflation rates and other measures of American economic vigor do not yet give cause for alarm. Indeed, at this writing US-China trade talks seem productive enough so that spokespersons for the European Union say they hope their trade talks take on a similar format. Trump's approach to tariffs has been anything but static—shifting abruptly like a spotlight sweeping across a stage. Yet beneath the political theater lies a calculated strategy with far-reaching implications. While critics assume tariffs invariably raise consumer prices, the reality is more nuanced. Trump's policies appear designed not just for economic leverage but as an extension of his foreign policy vision, particularly in Asia and the Western Hemisphere. Whether this constitutes strategic brilliance or overreach is debatable, but the mechanics of tariffs—and who ultimately bears their cost—demand closer scrutiny. The impact of a tariff hinges on market dynamics, competition and geopolitical leverage. Consider a US$100 product imported from Country X. If the US imposes a $25 tariff, the seller faces a choice: absorb the cost by cutting their price to $75 (keeping the consumer's total at $100) or pass the expense to buyers and risk losing market share. In competitive markets—like coffee from Colombia, Brazil, or Mexico—sellers often absorb tariffs to retain customers. But the calculus shifts when alternatives are scarce. A monopolist, such as OPEC in the oil markets, can dictate prices precisely because competitors lack the capacity to undercut them without facing ruin. This imbalance of power invites broader consequences: nations disadvantaged by such asymmetries may resort to political or even military retaliation, as nearly occurred during the 1970s oil crises. Tariffs also reshape local economies. A Mexican manufacturer facing US tariffs might offset losses by raising prices for domestic consumers or slashing wages. A Canadian auto supplier could lobby for government subsidies to preserve jobs while lowering export prices. Meanwhile, China's state-influenced exporters might reduce prices to maintain access to the elastic US market, repurposing tariff revenue for Chinese domestic projects. Trump's tariffs align with a modern revival of the Monroe Doctrine, which asserts US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Recent maneuvers, such as discouraging Chinese influence over the Panama Canal, signal that the administration views tariffs as both economic tools and geopolitical signals. The message is clear: the US will enforce its sphere of influence, and trade policy is one lever to do so. It is possible to imagine Trump's 'super big picture' plan as a compressed version (spanning three years) of the 150-year evolution of the British Empire, beginning with Mercantilism and culminating in free trade. At first, Trump treats the rest of the world as composed of client states, whose economies are tied tightly together with the 'mother ship', the dependent states all at first directed by force majeure to contribute to the greatness of the Metropolitan Authority. Later on, when the dependencies have grown to maturity, a managed form of free trade emerges, and wealth becomes more widely shared. Ultimately, outcomes will be determined by raw power—economic, military and diplomatic. While Trump's aggressive posture may yield short-term gains, inconsistency risks undermining his objectives. China, the primary challenger to this strategy, may currently perceive his actions as domestically focused rather than existential. But if tariffs become an erratic flicker rather than a steady beam, the US could squander its leverage. In an era where trade is war by other means, Trump's tariffs are less about economics than they are about reasserting American primacy. The question isn't whether the world will adapt—it's who will blink first.
HKFP
4 days ago
- HKFP
Two Chinese aircraft carriers seen in Pacific for first time, Japan says
Japan said Tuesday that two Chinese aircraft carriers had been seen operating in the Pacific for the first time as Beijing boosts its military capability in far-flung areas. On Monday, China's Shandong carrier and four other vessels, including a missile destroyer, sailed inside the Japanese economic waters surrounding the remote Pacific atoll of Okinotori, Tokyo's defence ministry said. Its fighter jets and helicopters conducted take-offs and landings there, the ministry said. The fleet of five warships was also seen sailing on Saturday 550 kilometres (340 miles) southeast of Miyako Island near Taiwan, it added. China's other operational aircraft carrier Liaoning and its fleet entered Japan's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Pacific over the weekend, before exiting to conduct drills involving fighter jets, Tokyo previously said. 'This is the first time two Chinese aircraft carriers were spotted operating in the Pacific at the same time,' a defence ministry spokesman told AFP on Tuesday. 'We believe the Chinese military's purpose is to improve its operational capability and ability to conduct operations in distant areas,' he said. China's use of naval and air assets to press its territorial claims has rattled the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Japanese and US defence officials say China wants to push the American military out of the so-called 'first island chain' from Japan down through the Philippines. Eventually, its strategy is to dominate areas west of the 'second island chain' in the Pacific between Japan's remote Ogasawara Islands and the US territory of Guam, they say. The Liaoning's recent cruise eastwards marked the first time the Japanese defence ministry has said a Chinese aircraft carrier had crossed the second island chain. In September, the warship sailed between two Japanese islands near Taiwan and entered Japan's contiguous waters, an area up to 24 nautical miles from its coast. At the time, Tokyo called that move 'unacceptable' and expressed 'serious concerns' to Beijing. Under international law, a state has rights to the management of natural resources and other economic activities within its EEZ, which is within 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) of its coastline.
Asia Times
4 days ago
- Asia Times
US-China: what's really at stake in London
A high-stakes showdown is unfolding this week in London—far from the manufacturing plants of Shenzhen or the trading floors of Wall Street, yet central to the global economic order. Senior US and Chinese officials will hold a second day of talks today (Tuesday) aimed at de-escalating the most consequential economic rivalry of our time. After Monday's first day of talks, US President Donald Trump said, 'We are doing well with China. China's not easy…I'm only getting good reports.' China is negotiating for looser US tech controls while the US wants China to ease limits on rare earth mineral exports. But for investors watching from Singapore to Silicon Valley, these meetings aren't just about tariffs. They're about who writes the rules of the 21st-century global economy. Both sides are seeking to revive the Geneva framework established last month—an agreement that temporarily eased a volatile tariff standoff by rolling back US import duties on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%, and slashing Chinese tariffs from 125% to 10%. The compromise was a ceasefire, not a peace treaty. Since then, fiery accusations of non-compliance have resumed. Washington says Beijing is dragging its feet on critical mineral exports. Beijing accuses the US of doubling down on tech restrictions, particularly on semiconductors and AI. The talks in London are significant because the stakes have never been higher. China and the US are no longer just competing powers—they are operating two fundamentally divergent systems, each trying to shape the global economic architecture in its own image. This is a full-spectrum competition that spans data flows, digital currencies, energy policy, national security, and ideology. Investors ignore this at their peril. To understand the gravity of this week's negotiations, you have to look beyond the tariff tables and see the wider trajectory. Under Trump, the US is doubling down on strategic protectionism. The re-imposition of sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April was not an isolated action—it was the next phase in a broader effort to reshape American economic exposure. China, under President Xi Jinping, is responding in kind by accelerating self-reliance campaigns, boosting its military-industrial complex and tightening control over capital flows and foreign technology. The two economic giants are hurtling toward a split system of parallel supply chains, competing standards, rival digital currencies and mutually exclusive rules for artificial intelligence. The old model—interdependence through globalization—is unraveling in real time. From a market perspective, this fracturing introduces volatility but also extraordinary opportunity. Strategic sectors are being rapidly repriced. Defense tech, AI, cybersecurity, semiconductor manufacturing and rare earths have all emerged as proxies in this economic power contest. Recent capital flows tell the story: US and European investors are ramping up exposure to domestic chip production, while China is injecting vast state funding into its own tech champions and weaponizing industrial policy. Just last week, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announced a new 500 billion yuan (US$69 billion) investment initiative focused on dual-use technologies—those with both civilian and military applications. Simultaneously, the US Commerce Department expanded its export restrictions to cover quantum computing components and AI training data sets. The message from both sides is unmistakable: dominance in tomorrow's tech is national security today. The London talks, then, a theater where the future is being negotiated—or not. With US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer facing off against China's Vice Premier He Lifeng, these are the most senior discussions since the Geneva reset. Both capitals know what's at stake, and neither wants to look like it's blinking. Investors are caught in a strange double bind: exposed to the risks of fragmentation, but positioned to benefit from the rush to secure the commanding heights of the future economy. That's why the London talks are being watched as closely in corporate boardrooms as in diplomatic circles. If the talks succeed in holding the Geneva line, it could stabilize sentiment and breathe life into cross-border dealmaking that's been paralyzed by policy uncertainty. If they fail—and signs point to fundamental misalignments in trust and expectation—then the decoupling will accelerate. Supply chains shift faster, capital reallocates at scale and inflation risks in key inputs like semiconductors and rare earths will spike again. Investors will need to think in terms of dual portfolios: one optimized for the Western bloc, the other for the Chinese sphere of influence. However, there is another, deeper implication that should not be overlooked. The current rivalry is not just about GDP or tech leadership; it's about two economic visions vying for legitimacy. One is anchored in democratic capitalism, now reasserting control over trade and industrial policy after decades of liberalization. The other is a centralized, state-driven model that promises order, speed and resilience. This isn't the Cold War redux, it's something newer, more fluid—and potentially longer-lasting. That's why framing these talks purely as tariff negotiations misses the point. This is about system design and every conversation about chips, data or critical minerals is, in reality, a conversation about who gets to define economic power in the coming decades. Some investors have already begun adjusting to this reality. Sovereign wealth funds are shifting long-term allocations away from passive indices and toward strategic sectors. Venture capital is increasingly split along ideological lines. Private equity is retreating from cross-border deals in politically sensitive industries. The smart capital knows this is the macro megatrend. What London offers this week is a readout not just of policy positions but of political will. Are the world's two largest economies capable of coexisting with guardrails, or are we headed toward a fully bipolar economic order? Markets have always priced in risk. But this is something more fundamental. This is about pricing in rival worldviews. And the London talks are where the next chapter begins.
