Big Fed rate cuts, AI killing call centers, $50B govt boondoggle, VC's rough years, Trump/Kamala
发布时间 2024-09-20 20:54:09 来源
摘要
(0:00) Bestie intros + All-In Summit recap (6:50) Fed cuts 50 bps: Economic tailwind, scary signal, or both? (17:35) AI is coming for ...
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
Right, everybody. Welcome back to the All In Podcast. The channel's been active. We're in the afterglow. We're in the All In Summit afterglow. It's so glowing that Freeburg couldn't make it. He has been riding a high. Nick told me that in the last week, we've only put out a half the clips and they've already gotten 20 million views. Oh my Lord. You know, I will be around 50 million, I think, when all the clips are released, then you let it bake for a couple of months. That is an astoundingly large amount of reach. Yeah. And that's just YouTube. We're not doing it on the podcast feed right now. YouTube and X. Well, hopefully we get it on the podcast feed. We get another 50 million. But Freeburg's in his afterglow couldn't make it, but he's very busy right now. Look how happy is the summit went well. Is that marijuana? I think he's making potatoes. I think that's his farm. But I mean, the smile is incredible. It's marijuana. It's super his version of founder mode. He's in fact, that's a favorite. It's always getting the bond. His founder mode gives us a bunch. He is he's in the afterglow. And he won't be with us this week. But he organized such a great conference. Don't you think? He did great. I mean, he really took charge of that. Just an amazing job. I'd like to give him his flowers. Absolutely. It is like at least a trillion times better than the first and at least 50% better than the second. I mean, that's how it should go. You know, when you create something in the world, Chamath, what you want to do is you want to hot you want to hand it off to professional management to then scale it, right? Not everybody can do the creative act of actually forming something. You need to have these operators to go and then execute your vision. And I just want to give free break his flowers for executing incredibly well. We all play a role, Chamath. Saks launched a killer company. I want to say thanks to Friedberg. He did all of these great speakers. Big thank you to our CEO, John, who put together all the operations, Nick did incredible, incredible, incredible job with those opening graphics. They went viral. Zach helped with the graphics. You had Young Spielberg chipping in, you had Laura did an amazing job with stage management. And of course, you know, I focused on the moderation. I got a lot of great things. So everybody plays a role. You got sacks with the tequila, Friedberg, Laura, Zach, Spielberg, Nick, John, everybody brought something to the table.
好的，大家。欢迎回到 All In 播客。这个频道最近非常活跃，我们正处在 All In 峰会后的余晖中。余晖如此强烈，以至于弗里伯格（Freeburg）没有赶上这一期。他一直处在兴奋的状态中。尼克告诉我，在过去的一周里，我们只发布了一半的片段，就已经获得了2000万的观看量。天哪。当所有片段发布完毕，并经过几个月的沉淀后，我想观看量会达到5000万。这是一个惊人的覆盖面。而且这只是 YouTube 上的数据，现在我们还没有在播客音频上发布。YouTube 和 X（指平台X）都有发布。希望我们能把这些内容也放到播客音频上，再增加5000万的观看量。不过弗里伯格因为余晖的影响这次没能参加，但他现在非常忙。看看他多开心，峰会办得很成功。这是大麻吗？我觉得他在制作土豆，这是他的农场。但不管怎么样，他笑得很开心。很可能是大麻。他现在进入了创始人模式。这是他的经典状态。他的创始人模式带给了我们很多。他沉浸在余晖中，这周不会和我们一起了。但是他组织了一个如此出色的会议，你不觉得吗？他做得很棒，真的主导了整个活动，非常出色。我想给他一点表扬。绝对的，这次峰会比第一次好至少一万倍，比第二次好至少50%。事情就应该这样，当你创造了某样东西时，Chamath，你希望能交给专业的管理团队进行扩展，并非每个人都能完成创意的初始创作。你需要有执行者来实现你的愿景。我只是想感谢弗里伯格，他执行得非常出色。我们每个人都发挥了自己的作用，Chamath。Saks推出了一家非常厉害的公司。我要感谢弗里伯格，他邀来了这么多优秀的演讲者。还要特别感谢我们的CEO John，他负责了所有的运营工作。尼克在开场动画上做得非常了不起，甚至一度成为病毒式传播的内容。Zach帮助制作了图像。还有Young Spielberg的额外贡献，Laura在舞台管理上做得很棒。当然，我本人也专注于主持，获得了不少好评。每个人都有贡献，Saks带来了龙舌兰酒，Friedberg、Laura、Zach、Spielberg、Nick、John，每个人都为这个活动贡献了自己的力量。
Are you fine? Congratulations to everybody. You scale through people. That's it. Scale through people. That's it. Did anybody really cut the joke? We Chamath, everybody contributed. You understand? Saks, new tequila company, John operations, you have free break content. Me with them. Me and the world's greatest moderator up there. Oh, well, it's Chamath's contribution. Oh, yeah, Chamath showed up. Chamath looked great. I showed up. That's just, he showed up and looked great. I brought my two votes and I brought my vision. Absolutely. I would also say fan favorite. What you really did, that was amazing. Well, as you took a lot of selfies, I was very proud of both of you with the fan's service. Fans were very pleased that you guys took so many selfies. You know, we got a lot of feedback, too, coming in. So it was a pretty, pretty great feedback. Do you think that you did better as moderator because you finally let go of just the conference organization? What do you think?
你还好吗？祝贺大家。你通过了人群。就是这样。通过人群。就是这样。有人真的开玩笑了吗？我们Chamath，大家都有贡献。你明白吗？Saks，新龙舌兰酒公司，John的运营，你有免费休息内容。我和他们一起。我和世界上最伟大的主持人在那里。哦，好吧，这是Chamath的贡献。哦，是的，Chamath出现了。Chamath看起来很棒。我出现了。他出现了，看起来很棒。我带来了我的两票和我的愿景。绝对的。我还要说，是粉丝的最爱。你所做的，真是太棒了。嗯，因为你拍了很多自拍，我为你们俩在粉丝服务方面感到非常自豪。粉丝们对你们拍了这么多自拍感到非常高兴。你知道，我们也收到了很多反馈。所以，反馈非常好。你觉得你作为主持人表现得更好，是因为你终于放手去组织会议了吗？你怎么看？
Yeah, I think that you were able to focus on your unique value added, instead of immersing yourself in a bunch of details that could be handled by the team. I agree. It was absolutely fantastic. It was a process to get you to let go. Well, you know, you have, it's a fair point. I did, people did say my moderation was dialed in, and I appreciate that positive feedback from everybody. And yeah, there is something to having people you've entrust with the content. I thought your moderation was excellent this time.
是的，我觉得你这次能够专注于你独特的价值，而不是沉浸在那些可以由团队处理的细节中。我同意，这真是太棒了。这是一个让你放手的过程。嗯，你知道，你说的有道理。确实，有人说我的主持调控得很好，我也很感激大家的正面反馈。是的，把内容交给你信任的人确实很重要。我认为你这次的主持非常出色。
It was better than before, because I think that you're actually exceptional as a moderator, and I think you're mostly average as a conference producer. But I do think as a moderator, you're excellent. I mean, like some of the most memorable moments were you basically drawing out contrasting opinions, and the way that the people engaged with them was so healthy and good. That was the, I think the recurring theme. So I gave you an enormous amount of, I think you did an exceptional job, but I also think it's because you were able to focus on what you're doing. I do agree with that.
以前相比更好了，因为我认为你作为主持人真的很出色，而作为会议制作人你大多表现平平。不过，作为主持人，你确实非常优秀。我是说，一些最难忘的时刻就是你引出不同意见的方式，而且参与者的互动也非常健康和积极。这是一个反复出现的主题。所以我认为你做得非常出色，但我也认为这得益于你专注于自己的工作。我对此非常认同。
I was talking to Jade about it, and she said, and Nick also pointed out, you were really dialed in, J.K.O. What's up? And I said, I'm not worrying about the party and the vendors and the front desk and the sponsors. And it is actually, you're able to focus. Did you have some favorite moments yourself there, Saks? Any favorite moments for you, or panels, or things, maybe that exceeded expectation for you? Well, I thought the Mirror Shimer, Jeffrey Sachs panel was great. I thought it would be, which is why I helped organize it. But I was just glad that the audience, so many people in the audience react and said that was the surprise hit at the conference. I would say that was my favorite of the event, one of the best panels. I think it's the most viewed. It's like slightly above Elon's one. Really? Oh, just behind you. Elon's slightly ahead, but yeah, it's still like growing. It's like finding an audience.
我和Jade谈过这件事，她说，还有Nick也指出，你真的全情投入了，J.K.O。怎么了？我说，我没有担心派对、供应商、前台和赞助商的事。实际上，这样就可以专心一些。Saks，你自己有最喜欢的时刻吗？有什么让你特别满意的瞬间或讨论？好吧，我觉得Mirror Shimer和Jeffrey Sachs的讨论非常棒。我觉得它会很不错，这也是我帮忙组织它的原因。不过让我高兴的是，观众们——有很多观众反馈说那是会议上的惊喜之作。我会说那是我最喜欢的部分之一，也是最好的讨论之一。我认为它是观看次数最多的，略高于Elon的那个。真的吗？哦，只是稍微落在你后面。Elon's的稍微领先，不过对，它的观看量还在增长，正在找到更多观众。
Well, I think that if you look at the one from last year, Graham Allison, where he got a standing ovation, the thing is there are these village elders where they are at a point in their life where they're willing to just be a truth teller. But oftentimes they're de-platformed, and we have the ability to actually bring some of the smartest of them on and give them a voice. And it's incredible how much they resonate, because what they say is so logical and sensible. That's a really important thing that we have now at our disposal. And I think that people have really appreciated it. So I think we're doing a really important job in doing that. And now the question is, what village elders do we get next year to keep being truth tellers? Well, give us your thoughts. There's an all-in Twitter handle, and he's Chamaath, David Sachs, and I'm at Jason and Freeburg. That Freeburg just tell us who you think would be great.
嗯，我觉得如果你看看去年的，那次是Graham Allison，他得到了热烈的掌声。事情是这样子的，有些“村里的长者”，到了人生的某个阶段，他们愿意说真话。但他们常常被“去平台化”，无法发声。我们实际上有能力把其中一些最聪明的请出来，让他们发声。而他们所说的内容简直令人难以置信，因为非常合乎逻辑和理性。这是我们现在掌握的一个非常重要的资源，我觉得大家真的很感激这一点。所以我认为我们正在做一件非常重要的工作。现在的问题是，明年我们应该请哪些“村里的长者”来继续说真话呢？请告诉我们你的想法。有一个“All-In”的推特账号，他是Chamaath，David Sachs，而我是Jason和Freeburg。那就让Freeburg告诉我们谁会是个好人选吧。
But Sachs, I know you're super excited and want to give Biden his flowers. The Fed just cut rates 50 bips, and the stock market is tearing it up right now. On Wednesday, Fed cut interest rates by a half a percentage point. Taking them down off of a 23-year high. We've been talking about this for two years here on this podcast, First Rate Cut, since March of 2020, which is about when we started this podcast. Jay Powell basically said, the Fed thinks inflation is coming down to around 2% nicely. And they don't want the job market to soften any further than it already has. He also mentioned immigration has helped soften the labor market as well, obviously, with all those new people looking for jobs.
但是萨克斯，我知道你超级兴奋，想要对拜登表示赞赏。美联储刚刚将利率下调了50个基点，股市现在表现非常好。周三，美联储将利率下调了0.5个百分点，降至23年来的最低水平。我们在这个播客中讨论这个话题已经两年了，这是自2020年3月以来的首次降息，那时也差不多是我们开始这个播客的时候。杰伊·鲍威尔基本上表示，美联储认为通胀正在顺利降至大约2%。他们不希望就业市场进一步疲软。他还提到，移民也有助于缓解劳动力市场的问题，显然，因为有大量新人在寻找工作。
So in the last two months, July and August, CPI has been at a two-handle. We talked about that 2.9% in July, 2.5% in August. Here's the CPI over the last decade. Obviously, massive boom in interest that you see there from 2021 to 2023. Many obviously think we're going to have more rate cuts, probably 25 every meeting for a little bit. And Dow is already at an all-time high, surged 300 points on the news. Here's some interesting data about the 50 basis point kickoff cuts.
在过去的两个月里，7月和8月，消费者物价指数（CPI）都在2点多的范围内。我们刚刚提到7月份是2.9%，8月份是2.5%。看看过去十年的CPI变化，显然，你会看到从2021年到2023年期间有一个巨大的增长。很多人认为，我们将会看到更多的降息，可能每次会议降25个基点。道琼斯指数已经创下历史新高，并在公布消息后飙升了300点。这里有一些关于50个基点初始降息的有趣数据。
So this is where it gets interesting. Chama FED only started publicizing their interest rate changes in 1994, since 1994. FED has initiated a cutting cycle six times. Here's the chart. Take a good look at that. 95, 98, 2019, they started with 25 BIPs, 01, and 07, after the great financial crisis, they started with a 50-BIP cut. So obviously, there was an emergency 50-BIP cut in March of 2020 when COVID hit 01, 07, 2020, in very severe situations.
这就是看点所在了。Chama（联邦储备委员会，FED）从1994年才开始公开宣传他们的利率调整情况。自那时以来，FED已经启动了六次降息周期。这里有一张图表。仔细看一下。1995年、1998年、2019年，他们首先降了25个基点（BIP）。在2001年和2007年，也就是在金融危机之后，他们首先降了50个基点。所以显然，在2020年3月COVID疫情爆发时，也有一次紧急的50个基点降息。在2001年、2007年和2020年的非常严峻的情况下采取了这些措施。
And what happened in the markets is what I want to discuss with both of you today. In 2001, market fell 31% in the two years after that rate cut in 2007, market fell 26% after two years. So, and 2020, despite all the fears, market ripped 44% over two years. What's the more likely scenario, Chama F? Is this similar to the dot com and great financial crisis or similar to 2020?
我今天想与两位讨论的是市场上发生的事情。2001年，在利率下调后的两年里，市场下跌了31%。2007年，在利率下调后的两年里，市场下跌了26%。但是到了2020年，尽管有各种担忧，市场在两年内反而上涨了44%。所以，Chama F，更可能发生的情景是什么？这是类似于互联网泡沫和金融危机，还是类似于2020年的情形？
Well, I think 2020, you have to put it at big asterisks because the question is, what would have happened had there not been COVID and had there not been an entire global shutdown? So, if you go back to that chart, you could probably just extrapolate and cut out that part that's flat because the part that's flat from 2020 to 2022 was largely artificially created because on top of that, we injected so much money into the economy.
好吧，我认为2020年需要特别注明，因为问题在于如果没有新冠病毒和全球停摆，会发生什么？所以，如果你回到那个图表，你大概可以把那段平坦的部分去掉，因为这段从2020到2022年的平坦期很大程度上是人为造成的，因为我们向经济注入了大量资金。
The reality is we probably would have raised at some rate of change that you could have predicted from 2016. So, what do you take away from that? I think that you have to like realize we're at a point in the economy where you cut rates because there's tension and there's tension between employment and unemployment. There's tension between earnings, growth and contraction. And so, it's a stimulatory move.
实际上，如果从2016年开始，你大概可以预测我们会上调一些幅度。所以，你能从中得出什么结论呢？我认为你应该意识到，我们现在的经济状况是：降息是因为存在种种紧张局面，比如就业与失业的紧张关系，收入增长与萎缩的紧张关系。因此，这是一种刺激经济的举措。
So, if you look through that stimulatory move, why is the Fed doing this and why will they cut probably all the way down to two or three percent by the end of 26? It's because we now need to stimulate the economy. So, the reason why markets tend to fall once the rate cut cycle starts is because the next couple of quarters sort of demonstrate what I think the Fed is expecting, which is that there's pressure in the economy.
所以，如果你仔细看看这个刺激措施，为什么美联储会这么做，并且可能在2026年底将利率降到2%或3%？这是因为我们现在需要刺激经济。因此，市场在降息周期开始后往往会下跌的原因是，接下来的几个季度会显示出我认为美联储所预期的情况，那就是经济存在压力。
We have not seen that flow through in earnings or in how companies describe markets on the field by and large, except for a few. So, I think this part of the cycle now will be about all of these companies telling us whether there's nothing to see here or whether there is actual real pressure. And if there is real pressure, it'll probably look like the several times before where you're just going to have to contract the value of financial assets because they're just not worth as much when they're earning less.
我们还没有看到这种变化反映在企业收益或者它们对市场的描述上，除了少数几个例外。所以，我认为这个周期的这一阶段将会是所有这些公司告诉我们是否真的没有问题，还是确实存在实际压力。如果确实存在实际压力，那可能会像以前几次一样，金融资产的价值就会缩水，因为当收益减少时，它们就不值那么多钱了。
Okay. Saxony thoughts here, just balls and trunks. I think a lot of people are commenting on the fact that the only other two times where we've had a 50 basis point rate cut in modern history, it has been just before a recession. So, I think this happened in 2001, 2007, right before the recession. And the Fed had to do a dramatic rate cut because they could see in the data that things were weakening.
好的，这里是萨克森的想法，就只是一些基本的看法。我认为很多人都在评论这样一个事实，即在现代历史上，我们仅有另外两次进行了50个基点的降息，而那正是在经济衰退之前。因此，我认为这是发生在2001年和2007年，就在衰退之前。美联储不得不进行大幅降息，因为他们从数据中看到经济状况正在恶化。
So, a lot of people are asking the question, well, is that what's going on here? Now, Powell's comments, though, are indicating that the economy is in good shape. He said that your economy is in very good shape, that basically indicating that they had tamed inflation and that they would look to cut another 50 basis points this year. So, Powell's rhetoric is in a way at odds with the magnitude of this cut.
很多人都在问，这是不是正在发生的事情。然而，鲍威尔的评论指出，经济状况良好。他说经济状况非常好，基本上暗示他们已经控制住了通胀，并且今年可能会再降低50个基点。因此，鲍威尔的言论在某种程度上与这一降息的幅度不一致。
So, why didn't they just cut 25 basis points? I think people are trying to figure that out. Reentee leaves in tiering the tea, why 50 because they could just do 25 a month for five months as opposed to 50 in hot. Yeah, if the economy is hot, why wouldn't you tiptoe into rate cuts and just do 25 now? That's the key thing. If you look at the dot plot, and if you look at where the smart financial actors are betting where rates end, so it's hard to sort of look at any point in time, 50 now, 25 later, what does it all mean? It's very hard to know.
那么，他们为什么不只降息25个基点？我觉得大家都在试图搞清楚这个问题。重新对比一下，为什么是50个基点，因为他们完全可以每个月降25个基点，持续五个月，而不是一次性降50个基点。是的，如果经济过热，为什么不慢慢降息，只降25个基点呢？这才是关键。如果你看看点阵图，再看看精明的金融人士对利率终点的预测，就会发现很难在某个时点判断现在降50个基点和以后降25个基点到底有什么区别。这真的很难知道。
But what is much clearer is where do we think terminal rates will be in even in the next 18 months, and it is dramatically lower for where they are now. And I think that supports SACS that argument that you just made, which is if you're going to basically cut this aggressively over the next year to year and a half by the estimates of very smart financial actors whose job it is to spend every day observing the Fed, then they must see something because otherwise, as you said, you could take a much more gradual approach.
但更为明显的是，我们认为未来18个月内终端利率会在哪里，这比目前的水平要低得多。我认为这支持了你刚才提到的那个观点，即如果根据那些每天研究美联储的聪明金融从业者的估计，接下来的一年到一年半会大幅度降息，那么他们一定是看到了什么，否则正如你所说，他们完全可以采取更加渐进的措施。
And so I think that the smart financial actors are guessing recession or guessing contraction. I think what they're also guessing is similar to non farm payrolls. We're going to go through a couple of difficult GDP revisions, probably downward. And I think that will have an impact to people's sense of how the economy is doing even more than what their sense is today, which is already teetering on its best, okay. And I think all of that has to play itself out. So it's going to be a very complicated and dynamic fall in that respect. Yeah. And I think so much of this has to do with unemployment.
所以我认为，聪明的金融人士预测经济衰退或收缩。我还认为，他们的预测类似于政府每月公布的非农就业数据。我们可能会经历几次困难的GDP修正，可能是向下调整。我认为这将比现在更影响人们对经济状况的看法，尽管人们目前的看法已经很不稳定了。我觉得这一切都需要时间来展现，所以在这方面，今年秋季会是非常复杂和动态的。我认为这一切与失业率有很大关系。
We had that period where so many jobs were available. Remember, we talked about it here 1112,000 jobs available at the peak. We can debate the numbers, of course, but we all saw it where you just couldn't hire talent in America. There was so few people available to take positions. And man, has that changed? And you get to see it on the ground in early stage startups where this whole narrative, I don't know if you started in your board meetings, but hey, we can't find a person. Hey, we're looking, hey, that search is still going. We're still looking for a director of sales.
曾经有一段时间，很多工作岗位都空缺着。记得我们在这里谈过，当时空缺的岗位数高达11万到12万个。当然，我们可以对具体数字进行争论，但大家都看到了当时在美国确实很难招聘到人才。适合这个岗位的人实在太少了。但这一切都改变了。你可以在初创公司中看到这种变化。这种局面，不知道你在董事会会议中有没有提到过，总是说找不到合适的人。我们还在寻找。我们的销售总监职位还在招聘中。
We're still looking for salespeople. We're still looking for developers. We're still looking for operations people. Now it's the opposite. It's like, I just, I'm hiring producers here in Austin because I'm building it in my in-person studio. We had like, I don't know, it does inviolable candidates for this position. And I had a hard time picking between the top three. Now that's distinctly different than my experience for the last five to 10 years where you were like, how do we fill this role?
我们仍在寻找销售人员。我们仍在寻找开发人员。我们仍在寻找运营人员。但现在情况正好相反。我正在奥斯汀招聘制作人，因为我在这里建立了一个线下工作室。我们有很多优秀的候选人，我很难从前三名中做出选择。这与我过去五到十年的经历截然不同，当时我们总在发愁如何填补这些职位。
So I think that employment has been broken. And that's the thing that has me concerned because with all these people who came in through the Southern border, and then you have people outsourcing to other countries, I wonder if Americans are going to lose so many of these mid paying jobs. And this will dovetail into our next story about Amazon making cuts. I'm very worried about the hollowing out of the upper middle class, that elite group of $150,000 jobs that then employ nannies and spend money in the economy.
所以我认为就业市场出现了问题。这让我非常担心，因为随着越来越多的人通过南部边境进入美国，再加上把工作外包到其他国家，我担心美国人会失去很多中等收入的工作。这也引出了我们下一个关于亚马逊裁员的故事。我非常担心美国上中产阶级的萎缩，这个群体拿着年薪15万美元的工作，他们雇用保姆，在经济中花钱。
I wonder, I don't know if you're seeing that in your company, Sacks. I'm not worried about the hollowing out of that class. You have to stay for them. But I mean, just in terms of the labor market, what do you see in companies right now, hiring the talent pool, etc? Well, I mean, in tech, things are pretty good. They're not as absurdly frothy as they were during the bubble of 2020 and 2021, but things are good. You have this huge AI tail with now, and there's just a ton of investment going into AI.
我想知道，Sacks，你们公司是否也有类似情况？我并不担心那一阶层的空心化。你得为他们留下来。但我是指劳动力市场，你现在在公司里看到的情况如何，招聘人才池等等？嗯，在科技行业，情况还不错。虽然不像2020年和2021年泡沫时期那么夸张，但情况还是不错的。现在有一个巨大的人工智能发展趋势，还有大量投资涌向人工智能领域。
There's a little bit of a tale of two cities going on. If you're in AI, things are really bubbly. And if you're outside AI, they've returned to much more normal levels in terms of valuation and company operations, all that kind of stuff. Just to go back to the state of the economy for a second, the reason why a lot of people were predicting a recession, including me for a while, is that the yield curve inverting has been an almost perfect gauge of whether a recession is coming. It's when basically the Fed raises short-term interest rates above long-term interest rates.
有点像《双城记》的情节。如果你在人工智能领域，一切都非常繁荣。但如果你在人工智能领域之外，估值和公司运营等各方面已经恢复到相对正常的水平。回到经济状况，很多人，包括我在内，之前预测经济衰退的原因是收益率曲线倒挂几乎是预测经济衰退的一个完美指标。收益率曲线倒挂是指美联储将短期利率提高到超过长期利率的情况。
Normally, long rates are the ones that should be higher because investors demand a higher rate of return to tie up their money for longer. So something is really off and kind of broken when short rates go above long rates, the yield curve inverts. And it's always been the prelude to a recession. But the recession doesn't come when the yield curve inverts. It usually comes when the yield curve de-inverts. And the reason for that is because the Fed now sees weakness and dramatically cuts the short rates.
通常情况下，长期利率应该更高，因为投资者要求更高的回报率来补偿他们长期占用资金的风险。所以当短期利率超过长期利率时，就说明某些地方出了问题，收益率曲线倒挂了。这种情况总是预示着经济衰退的到来。但经济衰退并不会在收益率曲线倒挂时立刻出现，它通常在收益率曲线恢复正常时才到来。原因是美联储此时察觉到经济疲软，急剧降低短期利率。
In other words, it jacks up the short rates to control inflation. That works. It trickles through the economy. The economy cools down. And then the Fed says, oh, maybe we've overcorrected. They slam on the brakes and then they cut rates to basically make up for the effect in the economy. So the yield curve has finally de-inverted. And the question is just, do we now get that recession? Or did the Fed manage this to a soft landing? I don't think we know. I'm not calling a recession, but this is the thing that people are concerned about.
换句话说，美联储通过提高短期利率来控制通货膨胀。这是有效的，它会逐渐影响整个经济。经济开始降温，然后美联储可能会觉得自己过度调整了，于是急刹车并降低利率来弥补对经济的影响。结果是收益率曲线终于恢复正常。问题是，现在我们会进入衰退吗？还是美联储成功实现了平稳着陆？我认为我们还不知道答案，我并不是在预测衰退，但这是人们担心的问题。
Yeah. Well, Sacks, we were talking about AI in the group chat, right? Yeah. I think it's now becoming really clear that call centers are going to be the first really big disruption caused by AI. I mean, all the level one customer support is going to get replaced by AI. I mean, LLM's plus voice because OpenAI just released their audio API. You saw that at the all-in summit, we released a Mir Shimer AI where we trained it on all of his work. And you can go to Mir Shimer.ai and ask questions.
是啊，Sacks，我们在群聊里谈论过人工智能，对吧？对。我现在觉得很清楚，呼叫中心将会是人工智能引发的第一个重大变革。我是说，所有的一线客户支持将被人工智能取代。比如，用大型语言模型结合语音技术，因为OpenAI刚刚发布了他们的音频API。你在all-in峰会上看到，我们发布了一个Mir Shimer AI，把他的所有工作训练成了AI。你可以去Mir Shimer.ai提出问题。
And it will tell you the answers in his voice because we cloned his voice using resemble AI. Anyway, so AI can do voice now. And it can be trained extremely well on large data sets to give you answers to questions, which is pretty much what customer support is. So I think it's now becoming clear that I think within the next two to three years, you're going to see a massive disruption in that industry. I agree with that massively. And I think there's another underreported story, which is people don't like to call and talk to a customer service agent like an actual human if they can avoid it. They would much rather go on YouTube and say, how do I fix this? Or, you know, ask chat should be T. How do I fix this?
并且它会用他的声音告诉你答案，因为我们用Resemble AI克隆了他的声音。总之，AI现在已经能够做语音了。它可以通过大数据集进行极好的训练，来回答你的问题，这在很大程度上就是客户支持的本质。所以我认为，现在很明显，在未来两到三年内，这个行业将会发生巨大的变革。我对此非常赞同。我认为还有一个被低估的事实，那就是人们如果可以避免的话，其实并不喜欢打电话和真人客服交流。他们更愿意去YouTube上搜索“我怎么修这个？”或者去问聊天机器人“我怎么修这个？”
It's like, I don't want to waste another person's time. Just give me the answer as quick as possible. And AI will give you the answer quicker. YouTube will give me the answer quicker. I've had so many times where I have people who work for me who are like, I don't know how to do that. And I literally would walk up to their computer and load YouTube and type in how do I blank? And there's a video there, watch it on two speed, you can do it. That's what's, you know, going to also kill this.
就像是，我不想浪费别人的时间。直接给我答案，越快越好。人工智能会更快地给你答案。YouTube 也能更快地给我答案。我有很多次碰到我的员工说 "我不知道怎么做"。我直接走到他们的电脑前，打开 YouTube，输入 "如何做某某"，然后就有视频了，调到两倍速观看，你就能学会。这也是为什么这（指人工智能等自动化工具）会淘汰一些工作的原因。
Like, I don't want to talk to a human. Just change my flight. Just, you know, yeah, I mean, you talk about disruption. Call centers are a very big part of the economy in certain geographies. Denver, Salt Lake, I mean, parts of Florida. Yeah, exactly. It's a really big deal. If like half the cost gets ripped out of those call centers, where would you move those people? If you had your choice, could they move to sales? Well, I think sales will be the one that's disrupted after customer support. But I don't know, I think it's going to be very disruptive.
就像，我不想跟人说话。只要改一下我的航班就好。你知道，我的意思是，你在说颠覆。呼叫中心在某些地区的经济中占很大比例。丹佛、盐湖城，还有佛罗里达的一些地方。对，确实如此。这是一个很重要的事情。如果那些呼叫中心的成本一下子减少了一半，那这些人该去哪里工作呢？如果可以选择，他们可以去做销售吗？不过我认为在客户支持之后，销售也会受到颠覆。我不知道，但我觉得这会非常具有颠覆性。
One of the reasons I think this is, you know, in the early days of LLM's, people were saying that legal services would be disrupted. And you saw some very highly valued startups rocketing up based on that. I think the problem with that is the error rate. So when you think about AI applications, you have to think about what is the tolerable error rate that the industry will allow, because we know that AI is getting things wrong, they can hallucinate, and you're never going to be able to make it perfect.
我认为这个观点的原因之一是，大家知道，在大型语言模型（LLM）刚出现的时候，人们说法律服务业会受到冲击。我们也看到了一些估值很高的初创公司因此迅速崛起。不过，我认为问题在于出错率。所以，当考虑人工智能应用时，你必须考虑行业能够容忍的出错率是多少，因为我们知道人工智能会犯错，它们有时还会产生虚假的信息，你永远不可能令其完美无缺。
I mean, you can improve the quality, but it's still going to have some errors. And when you're dealing with like legal services, for example, you just can't have mistakes. This is not tolerated. However, customer support is different. Customer support is already organized into levels level one level two level three, based on difficulty. And there's already in a sense, a mechanism for failover, if like the level on customer support person can't answer the question, they kick it up to level two. So there's a place for LLM's to start in customer support, which is replacing all the level one and then working their way up the chain to level two as they get better and better. And so what I'm saying is that the level of accuracy now, especially with the new PhD level reasoning models is good enough.
我的意思是，你可以提高质量，但它还是会有一些错误。而在处理像法律服务这样的事情时，你就是不能有任何错误，这一点是不能被容忍的。然而，客户支持就有所不同了。客户支持已经根据难度分为一级、二级和三级，并已经有了某种失效转移机制。如果一级客户支持人员无法回答问题，他们就会把问题升级到二级。因此，大型语言模型在客户支持中的应用具有潜力，首先可以替换所有一级客服，然后随着它们越来越好，再逐步扩展到二级客服。所以我的意思是，尤其是有了新的具备博士级推理能力的模型后，当前的准确度已经足够用了。
You don't need to wait for like some perfect LLM model. And I think this is why this is going to be a big, big disruption. Let me mention this. You're going to have their jobs disrupted or at least transformed. Well, it could be the end of the entire career as well, Chemaf. If you were to look at this four by four sort of quadrant chart that Sax is describing, which is the cost of an era, and the actual complexity of the job perhaps or the cost of the job, how do you look at this?
你不需要等到出现某种完美的LLM模型。我认为正因为如此，这将带来巨大的变革。让我提一下，这会导致一些人的工作被打乱，或者至少被转型。这也可能会结束整个职业生涯。如果你看一下Sax描述的这个四象限图表，一个是成本，另一个是工作的实际复杂性或工作成本，你怎么看这个问题？
I know you're working on software that kind of does this with your startup as well. I mean, I'll preview one use case from 8090, which is pretty stunning. You know, we work with a very large regulated, highly regulated company, public company. And they have a very complicated set of people and processes because of the field in which they're in. And David, your point is exactly right. It took us a fairly long time. But we're at a point now where we've been running AI powered software versus the old legacy deterministic solution. And we've been running it at 100% accuracy now for about 10 days.
我知道你们的创业公司也在开发类似的软件。让我预告一下其中一个来自8090的使用案例，这个案例非常惊人。我们与一家非常大型且受到高度监管的上市公司合作。由于他们所处的领域，他们的人和流程都非常复杂。David，你的观点完全正确。我们花了相当长的时间，但现在我们已经达到了一个里程碑。我们现在使用人工智能驱动的软件，与旧的传统确定性解决方案相比，已经连续10天保持100%的准确率。
So this is still very new. And it's an incredible thing, because to your point, our first version was like in the mid 80s, then we were in the mid 90s, then we were, you know, 97, 98%, but there was still errors. And it just took a lot of engineering to figure out how to get to 100. But now it's at 100 and it's been consistently at 100. And so we're all kind of like scratching our head because now the next step is well, what do we do to your point? What do we do? So we're figuring that out right now. But the art of the possible is that I think well crafted AI software is as good as deterministic software in the sense that the error rates will be equivalent in production. And at the level of a very highly regulated public company. And I think that's the gold standard because in those sectors, those companies have zero tolerance. It's not a toy. It's not even, you know, level one customer support. It's system of record type work. Yeah. But it shows what's possible. And to your point, Saks, we're doing that today, even though they're the best models, imagine how good those under the underlying models will get in a year from now. Yeah, right. And we'll be able to take on more and more work. It's very stunning, actually. It's really, have you guys worked with the 01 preview yet? I just literally have been using this new reasoning engine that OpenAI released and it is extraordinary. And it's kind of thinking about the next three or four prompts you would do. And I literally just got this while we're on the show. The thing that I've hit the I've hit the limit for my paid account because this thing is so intense on compute, I guess. Well, the thing with 01 is that I think it's starting to add reasoning. But the way that you do reasoning is sort of this idea that you have this chain of thought. And I think that that's a very powerful but early concept.
这还非常新。很了不起，因为正如你所说，我们最初的版本大概在80年代中期，然后到了90年代中期，再后来是97%、98%，但仍然有错误。花了很多工程努力才达到100%。现在已经稳定在100%了，所以我们都在挠头，接下来的步骤是什么？我们正在琢磨。不过我们认为，精心设计的AI软件可以和确定性软件一样好，错误率在生产中是等同的，尤其是在高度监管的上市公司里。这些公司对错误是零容忍的，这不是玩具，甚至连一级客户支持都不是，这是重要纪录系统级的工作。这展示了什么是可能的。正如你所说，Saks，即使今天我们使用的是最好的模型，可以想象明年这些基础模型会有多好。我们将能承担越来越多的工作。实际上这非常惊人。你们有没有用过01预览版？我刚刚在节目中使用了OpenAI发布的新推理引擎，真是非同凡响。它会考虑你接下来可能会用的三四个提示词。我刚才就在节目中达到了我的付费帐户上限，因为这个东西消耗的计算资源实在太大了。
关于01, 我认为它开始加入推理了。但推理的方法是通过“思维链”概念，我觉得这是一个非常强大但仍处于早期的概念。
And as we refine those ways in which these models get to better answers, the wonderful thing is that OpenAI will preview 01. And then they'll have the actual 01 production build probably in the next couple of months, which will be probably pretty spectacular. But then you'll see something from Claude, you'll see something from Lama. And the real art, I think, and this is where I do think it's a little bit of alchemy still, which I think is good because it keeps humans involved. All of us involved. Yes. Is how do you stitch all of those things together to get to a 0% error rate? What's accent? How do you minimize the blast radius? And how do you make sure these things are super high quality? Right. Well, and people don't, it's still a very hard technical problem. Go ahead, Saxon. And then I'll show you what. So, yeah, one of the reasons why I'm bullish on this customer support use case is because there's a very large dataset to train on. You've got all of the product documentation that companies very created. You've got all of the previous email support, you know, so, and calls. Yeah, the calls have been recorded so you can now train the AI on that. So there's a very large body of data to train the AI model on. And it's not necessarily the most proprietary. It's not like dealing with people's medical records or even conventional legal documents, something like that. So the data is readily available and then the foundation models are getting really good. I think there's a big question here about value capture, which is there's a number of startups now that are becoming very highly valued that are chasing this disruption, this sort of customer support agent disruption. And they're getting into very high valuations, even unicorn valuations already. And the question is, well, wait, if the foundation models are advancing at such a rate, like a year from now, why couldn't it like a developer just to start up a few guys take next year's model and train it and then commoditize the. Oh, you're making such a good point. This so when we were trying to figure out like what applications we would build and like which sectors of the economy we would go after, I was like, guys, we got to go after the hardest, most regulated places, because those are the things and places and people that have absolutely zero tolerance for error and where you're going to need to do some amount of customization and specialization to actually solve these problems. And Saks to your point, like when you see, and I said, we cannot touch customer service, we cannot touch it, because it's going to get commoditized and run over by these foundational models within a year. You'll be able to deploy these. It's just too easy. You'll be able to do it on a local computer. I mean, you'll just download the entire day basis and recall on a Mac book with an M3 and just build on that.
当我们不断改进这些模型以获得更好的答案时，令人振奋的一点是，OpenAI 将会预览 01 版本。然后他们可能会在未来几个月内推出正式的 01 生产版本，这可能会非常了不起。但随后你会见到 Claude 出现，Lama 也将推出新东西。而真正的艺术在于——这有点像炼金术，我认为这是一件好事，因为它让人类继续参与其中。我们所有人都参与了。关键在于如何将这些东西融合在一起，以达到零错误率？如何减少负面影响范围？如何确保这些东西的质量非常高？这仍然是一个非常难的技术问题。去吧，Saxon。然后我会展示给你看。是的，我看好这个客户支持用例的原因之一是它有一个非常大的数据集可以训练。你有公司创建的所有产品文档、以往的电子邮件支持，以及录音的电话交谈。因此，现在可以用这些数据训练 AI 模型。另外，这些数据并不是非常保密的，比如不像人们的医疗记录或传统法律文件那样。所以数据是容易获取的，而且基础模型也越来越好。我认为这里有一个关于价值把握的重要问题。现在有一些初创公司正在追逐这种客户支持代理的变革，它们的估值越来越高，甚至有些已经到了独角兽的地步。问题是，随着基础模型进步如此之快，一年以后，为什么一个开发人员不能组建一个团队，用明年的模型来训练，并将其商品化呢？
你提到了一个很好的观点。当我们在思考要构建哪些应用以及要进入哪些经济领域时，我说过: 伙计们，我们必须挑战最难、监管最严格的领域，因为这些地方和人对错误的容忍度为零，必须进行一定的定制和专业化才能解决这些问题。Sakso, 正如你所说的，我当时就说：我们不能涉及客户服务，因为它将会被这些基础模型在一年内商品化并吞噬。你可以在本地电脑上部署这些，因为它实在是太简单了。你可以在带有 M3 芯片的 Macbook 上下载整个数据库并进行调用构建。
The other thing that's now possible, and you saw this with Klarna, because Klarna put out this like cryptic tweet slash press release where I think maybe it was in their earnings, Nick, maybe you can find this where they're like, we've deprecated sales force and worked it. That was strange. How can a company that big deprecate those two systems of record? How is that even it's how is it? I think it means they're writing their own. Well, I'll tell you how it's possible. And so this is like this next crazy thing that's been happening. We've been doing a version of this to go after some other sources of software. We haven't had the balls to be honest to go ever since or workday. But here's how they do it. They write these agents and these agents can spawn other agents, right? So it's very classic kind of machine that builds the machine. And you start to observe the inputs and outputs of a system, right? I'm hyper simplifying, but it'll make the point.
另一件现在变得可能的事情，你在Klarna身上也看到了，因为Klarna发布了一条神秘的推文兼新闻稿，可能是在他们的财报里面提到的，Nick，也许你可以找到这一点，他们说我们弃用了Salesforce和Workday。这让人很奇怪。一个那么大的公司怎么可能弃用这两个系统？这怎么可能实现？我猜他们是自己在写软件。让我告诉你这是怎么实现的。这是接下来发生的一个疯狂的事情。我们一直在做类似的事情来取代一些其他的软件来源。老实说，我们没有胆量去取代Salesforce或者Workday。但他们是这样做的：他们编写这些代理程序，这些代理程序可以生成其他代理程序。这就是一种典型的机器制造机器的模式。然后你开始观察系统的输入和输出。我在极大地简化这个过程，但这样解释能让你理解。
And over time, what the agents start to do is by observing the inputs and the outputs, they start to guess on what the intervening code is, and the code paths must be in the middle to generate the outputs based on these inputs. And so over time, what happens is you develop a digital twin, and then you run that against that counterfactual against workday or sales force. And then at some point, you're like, it's the same. And you just turn it off. And you're saving yourself tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. So that's it's a version of what Klarna did. It takes an enormous amount of technical strength to do it. It also takes tremendous, I think, executive courage and leadership, because I think that's a very difficult decision to embark on.
随着时间的推移，代理通过观察输入和输出，开始猜测中间的代码是什么，哪些代码路径必须在中间以根据这些输入生成输出。因此，随着时间的推移，你开发出一个数字孪生体，然后将其与实际的工作日系统或销售力量系统进行对比运行。然后在某个时刻，你会发现两者是一样的，于是你就可以关闭原系统，从而省下数千万甚至上亿美元。因此，这是一种Klarna所采用的方案。这需要极高的技术能力，也需要巨大的执行勇气和领导力，因为做出这样的决策是非常困难的。
But if you're an engineer, that must be an unbelievably exciting technical challenge to be a part of. But that's the basic premise of what they were able to do. Hopefully they share more and maybe they even open source what they did, because I think it would just be an amazing thing for all of us to look at. Yeah, I mean, to restate it, watch people use a piece of software. And then based on what they do, you could write a code which you could take a video of a video game today, like Angry Birds, and somebody did this, you give the Angry Birds iPad game from 15 years ago to AI, it's going to back into the code just by watching it. So why not just watch people use Salesforce or Workday? And those are very expensive products, thousands of dollars per user, right? I want to get Saxis point of view.
但是，如果你是工程师，那一定是个令人难以置信的激动人心的技术挑战能参与其中。这就是他们所能做到的基本前提。希望他们能分享更多，甚至开源他们所做的事情，因为我觉得这对我们所有人来说都将是一个了不起的东西。是的，我的意思是，重申一下，通过观察人们使用一款软件，然后根据他们的操作，你可以写出一段代码。你可以拿今天的视频游戏视频，比如《愤怒的小鸟》，有人真的做了这件事，你把15年前的《愤怒的小鸟》iPad游戏交给AI，它会通过观看视频来推导出代码。那么，为什么不观察人们使用Salesforce或Workday呢？这些可是每个用户花费上千美元的昂贵产品，对吧？我想听听Saxis的观点。
The thing in enterprise software that we were always told is you cannot touch these systems of record. Don't ever start a systems of record company. Don't try to touch these systems of record companies. Don't try to disrupt them. It's an impossible task. But then the question is, if you have these things, why do you necessarily need a system of record in the way that you needed to before when you're writing all this clunky deterministic? What do you think? I don't know. Well, I saw the Korna story where they said they were going to rip out Salesforce and Workday, because they were able to write their own bespoke code using AI. I mean, I have to say I'm a little bit skeptical of that story for a couple of reasons. One is, if that's their goal, why wouldn't they have open source this these products they created?
我们在企业软件领域一直听到的一点就是，你绝对不能动这些记录系统。千万不要尝试建立一个记录系统公司。不要试图接触这些记录系统公司。不要试图颠覆它们。这是个不可能完成的任务。但是问题是，如果你拥有这些东西，为什么在你写着这些复杂的确定性代码时，还一定需要一个像以前那样的记录系统呢？你怎么看？我不知道。我看到Korna的故事，他们说要拆掉Salesforce和Workday，因为他们能够用AI编写自己定制的代码。说实话，我对此持怀疑态度，有几个原因。首先，如果这是他们的目标，为什么他们不把自己创建的这些产品开源？
You might as well get the whole ecosystem working on it because they're not trying to sell this product that they've internally created. They're just trying to rip out the cost. So why not let the whole ecosystem see it? The other thing is, if it's so easy to do, why hasn't the market or even flooded with new startups that are effectively able to reverse engineer? I don't think you're right. I don't think it's easy to do because I don't think there's a generalization here that's productizable. Do you know what I mean? I do think that these are very custom specific things. So maybe there's some scaffolding, but I don't think that that scaffolding has a ton of economic value. I think it's really good open source stuff. I think it's what you build on top of it.
你不妨让整个生态系统都参与进来，因为他们并不是想销售他们内部研发的这个产品，他们只是想降低成本。那么为什么不让整个生态系统都了解呢？另外，如果这件事真的那么容易，为什么市场上或者说新兴创业公司没有大批涌入，通过逆向工程来实现呢？我并不同意你的看法。我认为这并不容易，因为这里没有一个可以产品化的普遍性解决方案。你懂我的意思吗？我认为这些都是高度定制化的需求。所以也许有一些基础框架，但我不认为这些框架有很高的经济价值。我认为这种开放源码的东西很好，但真正有价值的是你在此基础上创造的内容。
And so that hasn't been figured out yet. For sure. Yeah, look, I think that if you're only using a few use cases of these big complicated software packages, then yeah, it's probably easier than ever to deprecate them, eliminate them from your stack and just have your own internal engineers build specifically what you need in a more tightly integrated way. I think that is possible. Nick, show this tweet to these guys. Here's the tweet. This is a crazy one. Yeah. So look at the code. Look at the actual product itself for a second. Yeah, but the price garbage. I mean, look how ridiculous this is. But that was 600 million dollars that. Here's the year since a public project paid Oracle 600 million to build our course management portal. It's built on top of Oracle's PeopleSoft Suite, which they refuse to customize without an extra 400 million to hit one billion New Yorkers got the image below and pay five million plus a year for hosting. Look, this is egregious government waste. I mean, that site looks like it's pathetic. I mean, honestly, this looks like it could have been done with a SharePoint site and you pay some consultant to stand it up for 1% of the cost. And there are more modern platforms than that. So this is just incredibly wasteful and inefficient government spending. They're going for a retro. They were going for a retro. They wanted to harken back to the 90s. The reason I wanted to show this to you is I think that these kinds of things will not be possible in the future. I just don't see how one could spend a billion dollars if one tried to to enable that feature. It will be impossible. Right. But that that's 600 million that was wasted on that crappy portal. That shouldn't have happened even without AI. Because there's like much better ways there. You could buy a much better product for 1% of the cost. So or 0.1% of the cost. There must be some regulatory capture going here where somebody's got a record. No, I think it's like a 10 year rips. That's a 10 year relationship with somebody in Albany that you know, it's way stronger than it used. It's way stronger than it used. It's the same thing that's happening with rural internet. Yeah, which is our next story. So let's go for it.
还没弄清楚这件事，肯定的。是的，看，我觉得如果你只用几个这些大而复杂的软件包的用例，那么，是的，相比过去，现在可能更容易淘汰它们，从你的软件堆栈中删除它们，然后让你自己的内部工程师以更紧密集成的方式专门构建你所需要的功能。我认为这是有可能的。尼克，给这些家伙看这条推特。这是一条疯狂的推特。是的，看看代码，暂时看看实际产品。但价格真是垃圾。看看这多么荒唐。但那可是6亿美元。公共项目向甲骨文支付6亿美元来建造我们的课程管理门户。它是建立在甲骨文的PeopleSoft套件之上的，而他们拒绝不加额外支付4亿美元的情况下进行定制，从而达到10亿美元。纽约人看到了下图并且每年支付500多万美元用于托管。这是极其严重的政府浪费。这个网站看上去真的是糟透了。说实话，这看起来可以用SharePoint网站完成，然后花1%的费用请顾问来搭建。而且有比这现代得多的平台。所以这真的是政府支出的极大浪费和低效行为。他们追求复古。他们想让人回想起90年代。我想给你看这个是因为我认为将来这种事情是不可能发生的。我看不出怎么会有人花10亿美元来实现那个功能。这将是不可能的。对，但那6亿浪费在那个糟糕的门户网站上，即使没有AI也不该发生。因为有更好的方法。你可以以1%的成本购买一个更好的产品，甚至是0.1%的成本。这里肯定有某种监管俘获，有人有记录。不是，我认为这是10年的合作关系。有人与奥尔巴尼建立了10年的关系，比以往任何时候都强。这就像乡村互联网的问题一样，是我们的下一个故事。我们继续。
In related news of our government burning our money. We're all broadband rural brought and an EV charging 42 billion and 7.5 billion, almost $50 billion combined. Let's just go over these two programs real quickly here. Both were part of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill in 2021 42 billion carved out to provide high speed internet to people living on farms and rural occasions. 7.5 billion carved out to build 500,000 EV chargers over 10 years. It's been a thousand days since the bill was passed. So let's check on the progress. Zero people have been connected according to FCC commissioner Brendan Carr and eight 1234567 eight EV chargers have been built as of May, according to auto week magazine, what's even crazier private industry already solved these problems.
关于政府浪费我们钱的相关新闻。我们投入了几乎50亿美元在农村宽带和电动汽车充电站项目上，分别是42亿和7.5亿。这两个项目都包含在2021年的1.2万亿美元基础设施法案中，其中42亿用于提供高速互联网给农业和农村地区的居民，7.5亿用于在10年内建造50万个电动汽车充电站。自该法案通过以来已经过了一千天。让我们检查一下进展情况。根据联邦通信委员会委员Brendan Carr的说法，迄今为止没有任何人连接上互联网。而根据《Auto Week》杂志的报道，截至5月，只建成了8个电动汽车充电站。更疯狂的是，私人企业已经解决了这些问题。
United Airlines just announced they're putting Starlink on a thousand of their planes and they're going to offer for free. And Starlink now has 2500 planes under contract with a bunch of other airlines. And in the second half of 2023 alone, the private sector built over a thousand charging stations in the US. These are two problems that have already been solved. Sax, why are we burning $50 billion in the future with things that have already been solved? We've solved for this. I own electric cars. I have you know the answer. You know the answer. Say the answer, Jason. Corruption. No, come on, Jason. Incompetence. Really? Graph. Keep going. I mean, you tell me that corruption, graft, buying votes from your constituents.
美国联合航空公司刚刚宣布，他们将在一千架飞机上安装Starlink，并且将免费提供这一服务。现在，Starlink已经与多家航空公司签订了2500架飞机的合同。仅在2023年下半年，私人部门就在美国建造了超过一千个充电站。这两个问题实际上已经被解决了。Sax，为什么我们还要在未来花费500亿美元在已经解决的问题上？我们已经解决了这些问题。我有电动车。我知道答案。你也知道答案。说出来，Jason。腐败。不，Jason。无能。真的吗？贪污，继续。你告诉我，是腐败、贪污，还是向选民买票。
They haven't delivered any of it. Incompetence, yes. Well, there's a couple things going on here. So one is typical government waste fraud and abuse where they've allocated 42 billion for rural internet, haven't hooked anyone up and we could spend a fraction of that giving people Starlink and allowing the private sector to do its job. And why even pay for it, Sax, why are we paying for it? It's available. Of course. So that's the baseline. But it's worse than that because on top of the waste fraud and abuse and the fact that the government is grossly incompetent and efficient, you also have naked political retaliation going on here. That's the answer. Yeah, exactly. And Brendan Carr, who's an FCC commissioner pointed this out, he said that in 2023, the FCC canceled or revoked an $85 million contract with the company by claiming Starlink is not capable of providing high speed internet. Then a year later, of course, that was a lie. And then a year later, the FCC is not claiming that Starlink provides so much high speed internet that the word monopoly should be tossed out. Yeah. So look, this is just, it's pure naked retaliation. The Biden Harris administration doesn't want to admit that Elon has the best solution for rural internet, just like they couldn't admit, he made the best electric cars. Remember when they did that EV summit and they didn't invite him? That was just nakedly political because he's on their team.
他们什么都没交付。确实是无能。这里有几件事在发生。首先，是典型的政府浪费、欺诈和滥用，他们为农村互联网拨款了42亿美元，却没有连接任何人。而我们只需花一小部分费用就可以给人们提供Starlink，让私营部门来完成这项任务。为什么要为此买单，Sax？为什么我们要付钱？这服务是现成的、当然可以使用的。这是最基本的情况。但情况更糟，因为除了浪费、欺诈和滥用之外，政府的无能和效率低下，另有赤裸裸的政治报复在进行。这就是答案。对，确实如此。FCC的委员Brendan Carr指出，2023年，FCC取消或撤销了一项与某公司签订的8500万美元合同，声称Starlink无法提供高速互联网。然后一年后，事实证明这是一个谎言。再过一年，FCC又声称Starlink提供了太多高速互联网，以至于要用"垄断"这个词来形容。所以，这纯粹是赤裸裸的政治报复。拜登-哈里斯政府不愿承认Elon（马斯克）有解决农村互联网问题的最佳方案，就像他们不肯承认他制造了最好的电动汽车。当他们举办电动汽车峰会时，却没有邀请他，这也是赤裸裸的政治行为，因为他不在他们的队伍里。
Right. So look, I mean, the Biden Harris administration, look, it's blue no matter who. And Elon has drifted from being sort of independent and non-aligned to- He was blue. He was blue. Exactly. So now he's a lawyer. He's a voted for Hillary and Obama, he said. He's no longer team blue. And so they're punishing him for this. And it's costing taxpayers a huge amount of money. I think this is one of the worst decisions by the current administration. And if Trump gets in there, he should reverse it on day one. Well, I mean, need to investigate. I mean, I think how we got to the point of wasting $50 billion. That requires an investigation, I think. Chamath, your thoughts? One comment is, and this is so sad, but I'm so desensitized by the amount of waste that I don't know whether 50 billion is a lot or a little anymore when it comes to the United States government. Isn't that sad? Because now everything I hear is enormous. It's normal ones.
好的。听我说，我的意思是，拜登和哈里斯的政府，你知道，不管是谁，只要是蓝党（民主党）我都支持。之前埃隆（马斯克）是独立且未结盟的，但他以前是蓝党的支持者，没错。他投过票给希拉里和奥巴马。他现在不再支持蓝党了，所以他们在惩罚他。这让纳税人付出了巨额费用。我认为这是现任政府做的最差的决定之一。如果特朗普上台，他应该在第一天就推翻这个决定。不过我觉得需要调查一下，这怎么会导致浪费了500亿美元。我觉得这需要调查。Chamath, 你有什么想法？一个评论是，这真是太悲哀了，我对浪费已经如此麻木，以至于现在我都不知道500亿美元对于美国政府来说是多还是少了。这不是很悲哀吗？因为现在我听到的大数额都变成了正常数额。
Hundreds of billions and trillions, but 50 billion is an enormous amount of money. Well, that's a straight point. And I remember, you know, back in the day, 60 minutes used to do the segments on waste for audit and abuse at the Pentagon, different parts of the government, $42 billion just spent on something that really taxpayers could have for free or without the government getting involved. And you know, 42 billion that was lining someone's pocket when the service doesn't even work, that would have been a scandal. And the media would have covered it. But the media doesn't even cover it these days. And again, it's because the media has become so tribal that it's better, dead than red and blue no matter who. And so because the media would have to admit that Elon's already solved this problem, they just can't go there.
数千亿和万亿，五百亿已经是个非常巨大的金额了。说得很直接。我记得，以前《60分钟》节目会报道关于五角大楼以及政府各部门浪费、审计和滥用资源的情况，那时有420亿被花在一些纳税人可以免费得到的东西上，或是不需要政府介入。而且你知道，那420亿只是被填满了某些人的口袋，而那些服务甚至不起作用，那时候会是个大丑闻，媒体肯定会报道。但是时至今日，媒体却连报道都不报道了。这是因为媒体变得如此部落化，宁愿死也不认可对方。因此，因为媒体必须承认埃隆·马斯克已经解决了这个问题，他们根本无法走到这一步。
They won't even cover this. And so we have no accountability. There's no accountability on the government. If I had to just take a step back and just generalize going forward, do we want to live in the kind of administrative state where they will pick people that they dislike based on totally random criteria, a tweet, a meme, a post, and then all of a sudden punish a bunch of the rest of us because of that, they're punishing all of America because they collect our taxes to waste on it. And then they punish the people that they actually say they're going to uplift by not delivering what they promised. And if you take Elon out of it for a second, the problem was when we crossed the chasm and did it with the first guy, him.
他们甚至都不会报道这件事。所以我们没有任何问责制。政府也没有问责制。如果我稍微退一步，概括性地展望未来，我们是否想生活在这样一种行政体制中：他们会根据完全随机的标准（比如一条推文、一幅表情包、一个帖子）来挑选他们不喜欢的人，然后突然惩罚我们其他大多数人。他们在惩罚整个美国，因为他们收我们的税金却浪费在这些事情上。他们还惩罚那些他们声称要提升的人，因为他们没有兑现承诺。而且，即使不考虑埃隆的情况，问题在于，当我们跨过这条鸿沟，并在第一个人身上这样做时，问题就已经显现了。
But the reality is there's only one of him and then there's a lot of the rest of us. And what will happen is people just get added to this list of folks that certain nameless, faceless people in the administrative state dislike. And what happens is the country slows down. And the country wastes money and the country pilfers it away. And that has to stop. And so what really bothers me about these things is a, I don't know how to undecensitize myself to the fact that all of a sudden now, because of just all of this sloppy waste, I didn't react as much as I should have to just $50 billion being flushed down the toilet on these two projects. And then two, Jason, your point, it is a solved problem that you can give incredibly cheaply. And the fact that it's not left to private enterprise to solve this. And instead, it's just brazen partisanship combined with retaliation combined with incompetence.
但事实是，他只有一个，而我们有很多。而会发生的情况是，人们只是被加入了那些行政系统中某些匿名且没有面目的人士不喜欢的名单中。结果是国家发展变慢了，国家浪费了资金，国力被蚕食掉。这必须停止。所以让我真正困扰的是，我不知道该如何让自己不麻木于突然发生的这些浪费现象，以至于对于这两个项目上糟蹋掉的500亿美元，我没有像应有的那样反应强烈。其次，杰森，你说得对，这是一个已经有廉价解决方案的问题。事实上，这不应该交给私人企业去解决，而如今却被无耻的党派斗争、报复和无能所取代。
And finally, that's by giving this money to other vendors who are giving them donations. And just to give the Democrats there do what happens if then Trump does the same thing for solution that you support and you need and you think should be everywhere. The point is we don't want any of this stuff under any administration. And the minute that one administration breaks the seal and makes it acceptable, it becomes part of the water table. And that's the real problem. We broke the seal on this crazy multi multi trillion dollar spending and it has just never stopped since then. And you know, the incentives really matter.
最后，他们把这些钱给了那些给他们捐款的其他供应商。而且，假设特朗普也做了同样的事，支持你所支持的解决方案，并且你认为这个方案应该推广至所有地方，这就给民主党提供了借口。关键是，我们不希望任何政府都这样做。一旦有一个政府打破这个禁忌并让它变得可以接受，它就会成为一种常态。而这才是真正的问题。我们已经在这个疯狂的数万亿支出上打破了禁忌，从那时起就一直不停。你知道，激励机制真的很重要。
If you look at a private company, if you were at Klorna to our previous story and you go to the boss and say, I know how to get rid of these, this wasteful spending we're doing here, we can get rid of all tier one calls with AI and save that money, you get a promotion. If you're in the government, you can't if you're a politician and you cut this program, your constituents get upset, you don't have that stuff being built in your district. There's a perverse incentive that you can't buy the votes, which is why these folks are constantly trying to buy votes. And then the good news is the good news is, I really applaud the people that have the courage to show this stuff on X to tweet this through so that the rest of us know about it and the person that talked about the NYC thing.
如果你看一家私营公司，比如之前的故事提到的Klarna，如果你去找老板说，我知道如何消除我们这里的浪费性开支，我们可以用人工智能处理所有一级客服电话并节省这些钱，你会得到晋升。但如果你在政府部门就不行了，如果你是个政治家并且砍掉了这个项目，你的选民会感到不满，因为你的选区没有这些项目的建设存在了。这就造成了一种不良激励机制，你不能用这种方式获取选票，这也正是为什么这些人总是想办法通过各种手段获得选票。好消息是，我非常钦佩那些有勇气在X（Twitter）上分享这些事情的人，这样我们其他人才能知道这些情况，还有那个提到纽约市事情的人。
But then the next step has to happen, which is that we all need to decide that this stuff needs to stop otherwise it's going to bankrupt our country. And we have to celebrate it. That's the key. If we can celebrate people saving money again, like Malay is getting a lot of credit. And that's up to us, leadership in podcasting or the media or influential people have followings. If you point out, hey, this is a waste, go save this money and somebody does save the money, well, why don't we start celebrating people saving the money and doing the right thing here because this is our children's future.
但接下来必须发生的一步是，我们都需要决定停止这些行为，否则我们的国家将破产。我们必须对此加以提倡。这是关键。如果我们能够再次庆祝人们节省开支，比如现在马来西亚受到很多赞誉。这取决于我们，作为播客或媒体、或有影响力的人物。如果你指出，"嘿，这是浪费，快去省下这些钱"，而某人确实省下了钱，那么为什么我们不开始庆祝这些人，表扬他们省钱并做了正确的事情呢，因为这是为了我们孩子的未来。
Is it true that Kamala was the broadband czar that was responsible for this thing? I mean, it's who knows? It's just no because I saw it. I saw that a bunch of senators wrote a letter to her and they claim that she was the broadband czar, but I don't know if that's true or not true. And whether she was, I mean, we just remember she was the AISR. I mean, the administration did put her nominally in charge of various technology initiatives. Here's an idea. Save money, get the best solution at the lowest price and then reevaluate that as you go.
卡玛拉曾负责这件事，担任宽带主管，这是真的吗？我的意思是，谁知道呢？并不是因为我亲眼看到。我看到有一群参议员给她写了一封信，声称她是宽带主管，但我不知道这是否是真的。不管她是不是，我们只记得她曾是AISR。我的意思是，政府确实在名义上让她负责过各种技术项目。这里有个建议：省钱，以最低价格获取最好的解决方案，然后在过程中重新评估。
And it's what I point out with the, it's a, this is a subtle point, but Elon also open sourced his patents for the superchargers and let anybody do them. And he opened up the superchargers to other vehicles, which he didn't have to do. And when they gave him a loan back in the cylindra days and the fisker days, remember they gave these incentives in the form of loans, he's the only guy who paid it back. Everybody else failed. So now you're punishing the guy who actually built the infrastructure for both of these projects. So the reward for actually doing the right thing, which Starlink did, SpaceX did and Tesla did, is to be punished. And then you're giving a leg up to somebody else who's building these charts. Who's more qualified to build these charges at scale or a satellite network at scale? The person who's already done it, he's already done it.
这是一个微妙的点，但我要指出的是，埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）还开源了他的超级充电站的专利，并允许任何人使用它们。他还开放了超级充电站，允许其他车辆使用，而他本可以不这么做。在“塞林德拉”（Solyndra）和“菲斯克”（Fisker）时代，他获得了一笔贷款，要记住，那时的这些激励措施是通过贷款形式发放的，而他是唯一一个偿还了贷款的人，其他人都失败了。所以现在你正在惩罚那个为这两个项目实际建立基础设施的人。其实，SpaceX、Starlink和特斯拉都做了正确的事，但却因此受到惩罚，反而给了其他人一个机会，去建立这些充电网络或卫星网络。谁更有资格大规模建造这些充电网络或卫星网络呢？显然是那个已经做成了这些事情的人。
I do worry that there's a growing version of the Elon derangement syndrome that's also kind of like festering. Yeah, for sure. Which just, it just stops people from thinking rationally. Of course. I mean, we're talking about laying fiber lines, cable modems to people who are hundreds of miles into the countryside. That makes no sense when you can just beep, put a satellite dish up today. What are we even talking about? I mean, government has never been particularly efficient, but there was a period of time where people would at least care about wanting to make it more efficient. And it would be a scandal if there was political corruption to try and bias the result in a way that actually deprived the intended recipients of the program from getting the services they're supposed to get and cost the government way more money than it needed to.
我确实担心越来越多人患上了所谓的"埃隆狂热症"，这有点像是一种正在滋生的病症。没错。这让人们无法理性地思考。我们在谈论将光纤线路和有线调制解调器铺设到远离城市几百英里的乡村。这在今天可以通过装卫星天线来解决的情况下，完全没有意义。我们到底在讨论什么？政府从来都不是特别高效，但曾经有一段时间，人们至少关心如何让它更高效。如果有政治腐败试图扭曲结果，导致计划的预期受益人无法获得他们应得的服务，并让政府浪费比需要的多得多的钱，那会成为一个丑闻。
We're so far beyond being that country anymore, where we actually debate the best policy. We're now, it's just like we're wearing political tribes. And the objective of the party is to punish its political opponents to engage in retaliation and to basically loot the public coffers as much as possible on behalf of their constituents. And that's what's basically happening. You know, it's completely dysfunctional. Well, let's use this podcast. If you see government waste, tell us. And no one who cares because the media doesn't really shine a light on it, because they're completely tribalized as well. I agree with everything you're saying except the last part. I don't think it's on behalf of their constituents. I don't think any of us see any benefit from any of this spend. No, no, I meant they're donors that don't know constituents. There's just not not the citizens like country. Yeah. But who but who's winning in this? It's not like this 42 is 42 billion lining the pockets of, I don't know, name for sure. How do you think these contracts get awarded? All those fiber companies that are going to lay that fiber are going to get that money. And then they're going to get that 40,000 contributions.
我们已经远离曾经那个理性辩论最佳政策的国家了。现在，我们就像在穿着政治部落的服装。政党的目标是惩罚政治对手，进行报复，并且在为其利益集团掠夺公共资金。这基本上就是现在的情况，完全是不可行的。让我们利用这个播客。如果你看到政府浪费，告诉我们。但是没有人关心，因为媒体也完全被部落化了。我同意你说的一切，除了最后一点。我不认为这些是为了他们的选民利益。我认为我们任何人都没有从这些支出中获益。不不不，我说的是他们的捐助者，而不是选民，不是普通公民。那谁在从中获益呢？比如，这420亿美元填满的是谁的口袋？你知道这些合同是怎么被授予的吗？那些光纤公司会拿到钱，然后他们会得到4万美元的捐助。
It's been three or four years, they they haven't done a single thing. I mean, I still think they're cash to checks. It seems like we're at the stage of just pure incompetence and retaliation. We're not even at the stage of actually then giving it to anybody else. I mean, that would be stick. So they're giving the money away and some confidence. They're not getting the political benefit from it. They're sort of confident they can't get out of their own way. But somebody's getting that call it 50 billion that we don't need to spend. And the way that money is awarded is going to be political. We're going to do our. You don't think that they're going to turn around and get big political contributions? Of course.
已经三四年了，他们什么都没做。我是说，我还是觉得他们把钱白白拿走了。这种情况感觉就是纯粹的无能和报复。我们甚至还没到把钱交给其他人的阶段。这会很荒唐。所以他们把钱乱花出去却显得自信满满。他们没能从中获得政治利益，反而陷入了困境。但是，总有一些人得到那我们根本不需要花费的500亿。而且，钱的分配方式肯定是政治性的。你不觉得他们会因此获得巨额政治捐款吗？当然会的。
Well, I think that I think the good news is that the more of these things we shine a light on, the harder it'll be to hide when these grants are actually given or what the execution is and to a running list. Let's start a running list. No, to your point, Saks, maybe like, you know, we need a revival of the 60 minutes, you know, we're here on this program. We'll do it at the end of the show every time we'll have a running list at all in calm of just every of one of these scandals and we'll feature it. So leak it to us first, send it to us. My DMS are open.
好吧，我认为好消息是，随着我们对这些事情越来越多地揭露，当真正发放这些拨款或执行的时候，隐藏它们将变得更加困难。让我们开始一个持续更新的名单。萨克斯，说得对，或许我们需要复兴“60分钟”这样的节目。我们可以在这个节目中，每次在结束时都更新一次这个列表，把所有这些丑闻都列出来并加以报道。所以，先向我们透露，发给我们。我的私信是开放的。
Alright. Listen, early stage investing has always been hard. There was a tweet storm this week that Y Combinator might be having a hard time replicating their early success. We'll discuss it now. A thread this week from ex user Molson Hart caught a couple people's eyes. He made the case that it's been a rough decade for YC based on the accelerator's top companies page. YC lists as top companies by 2023 revenue there. And you'll notice there's not a lot of companies from the recent cohorts out of the 50 companies featured. Only three are from the classes after 2020. Most of them being from the early 2010s. Obviously, that's because they've been around longer, but it sparked a big discussion that there were so many winners from the 2009 to 2016 era. And that maybe the class size that YC has expanded a whole bunch. And maybe that's part of the problem. But there's a bigger problem in VC that we've talked about here. Here's a chart from CARTA that just shows the percentage of VC funds that have made a distribution since 2017. Over 40% of 2018 vintage funds have not made a single distribution yet. And it's getting to the point year five, six or seven where you probably should have had some distributions occur. Obviously, a lot of this has to do with maybe M and A and those early winds being taken off the table. We've talked about that a whole bunch. But here's the chart that kind of gets really interesting. And explosion in fund managers occurred, as we all know, and this chart shows from PitchBook, the first time VC managers that raised a second VC fund as a share of all first-time VC managers, and it's now down from above 50% to below, gosh, 15%. So what are your thoughts here, Chima?
好的，听我说，早期阶段的投资一直都很困难。本周有一篇推文提到Y Combinator可能难以复制早期的成功。我们现在来讨论一下。 前用户Molson Hart在本周发布的一篇帖子引起了几个人的注意。他声称，根据Y Combinator加速器的顶级公司页面，YC在过去十年里的表现并不理想。在这份按2023年收入排名的顶级公司列表中，你会发现最近几批的公司并不多。在列出的50家公司中，只有三个是2020年之后的批次。大多数都来自2010年代初期。显然，这是因为那些公司成立时间更长，但这引发了一个大讨论，为什么在2009到2016年间有那么多赢家。而且，YC的班级规模扩展了许多，可能这也是个问题的一部分。不过，风险投资界存在更大的问题，我们也谈过很多。这里有一张来自CARTA的图表，显示了自2017年以来，风投基金产生分配的比例。2018年份的基金中有超过40%还没有产生任何分配。而现在已经到第五、第六或第七年了，应该已经出现一些分配才对。显然，这与并购（M&A）和那些早期收益被移出市场有关，我们讨论过很多次。但是这里有一张非常有趣的图表。这张来自PitchBook的图表显示了首次募集到第二只风投基金的风投经理比例，从最初的超过50%下降到现在不到15%。那么，你怎么看，Chima？
My gosh, ventures are really, really tough business. Every year for the last seven, six years, seven years, I have published my returns, which most VCs don't want to do. I do it because I go back and I look at it and I think having public accountability actually drives some good decisions. They may seem sub-optimal in the moment, but they in the long run turn out to be good decisions. And the biggest one has been generating liquidity. So Nick, you can throw up this thing, but I'm sure there are funds in each of these vintages that have done way better than me. So I'm not saying it is what it is, but what I want to point out is if I go and look inside of these funds and tell you how hard it has been to generate this DPI, it's like dragging an entire just sack of potatoes over the finish line. It's like a truck of dead bodies over a finish line. It is super, super hard. And the things that we have fought are two. One is that the gestation of companies has totally blown out. We used to be in a world where by year five, six or seven, you could return money. You just can't do that anymore unless you get extraordinarily lucky, which by the way, I got when Sax is running yammer. It was an enormous win for all of us, but that is just exceptionally rare. And that was M&A in year one, five or six. Yeah, but there's so few entrepreneurs capable of that. He's one of maybe five or 10.
天哪，创业真是太难了。这七、六、七年来，我每年都会公布我的投资回报，而大多数风险投资公司是不愿意这么做的。我之所以这样做，是因为我认为有公众的监督会促使我们做出一些好的决策。虽然在当下这些决策看起来可能并不理想，但从长远来看，它们往往证明是正确的。而其中最重要的一个决策就是提高流动性。Nick，你可以展示这个数据，但我确信在每一个投资周期中，都有基金的表现比我好得多。所以我并不是说我的表现就是最好的，但我想说明的是，如果我去查看这些基金的内部，并告诉你们为了实现这些收益率有多难，那就像是拖着一整袋土豆越过终点线，或者像拖着一车尸体越过终点线。这真的是非常非常困难。我们遇到的两个主要挑战是：首先，公司成长的时间大大延长了。过去，我们生活在一个五、六、七年后就能开始回报的世界。但现在除非你非常非常幸运，否则你根本做不到。而顺便说一句，我当年在Sax管理Yammer时确实非常幸运，那次投资对我们所有人都是一个巨大的成功，但那真是极其罕见的情况，并且那还是在五、六年的一次并购。现在能够做到这种程度的创业者少之又少，他可能是其中一位，数量也就在五到十个人之间。
So other than that, I've never really had a company that has generated liquidity in year five, six or seven. They've always generated, if they generated it at all, in years 11, 12 and 13. And so the problem with that is that at some point, you have these paper marks that say you're winning and things are working, but there's no path to liquidity. So then what I did was I stepped in to the secondary markets and I would sell. And it would really upset certain founders. But I was very clear that when I was running outside capital, and I was running outside capital on behalf of really organizations that I believed in, the Broad Foundation, the Mayo clinics, Memorial Sloan Kettering, my job was to get them money back. These were their pension funds. These were the things that they used to build facilities. Cancer research. Cancer research. I didn't have the ability to just sit on my hands and say, Oh, you know what, year 15, don't worry. So it's just meant to say that the tactics of generating liquidity and venture are very misunderstood and very under appreciated. And even then, you sell some things that are just absolute winners that had you waited another five or six years, would have turned another one or two turns. But that's not the job. The job is not to maximize absolute every single win. The job is to return capital in a reasonable time period so that your investors don't run out of money to get.
因此，除了那次之外，我从未真正拥有过在第五、第六或第七年就能产生流动资金的公司。如果它们能够产生流动资金的话，通常是在第11、第12或第13年。所以问题是，有时你会有这些表面上的收益，显示你在赢但实际上并没有实现流动性。因此，我选择介入二级市场并进行出售，这会让某些创始人非常不满。但我很明确地说明，当我管理外部资金时，我是代表一些我非常信任的机构，比如布罗德基金会、梅奥诊所、纪念斯隆凯特琳癌症中心，我的工作就是为他们收回资金。这些是他们的养老金，也是他们用于建造设施的资金，比如癌症研究。我不能只是坐等第15年再说。所以这说明，产生流动资金的策略在风险投资中经常被误解和低估。即使这样，你可能还是会卖掉一些如果再等五六年会更值钱的绝对赢家。但这不是工作的核心。工作的核心是在合理的时间内返还资本，以确保投资者不会耗尽资金。
Yeah, it's so it's a tough game, man. It is really, really, really tough. Yeah. And the and the inside and sorry, by the way, and I feel this now because the last five or six years has been entirely my own capital. And my gosh, it's hard. Yeah, managing liquidity is impossible, especially when you can't rely on anybody else. So, well, thank God for the secondary markets, even emerging because at the same time that the secondary markets emerged and people were willing to buy venture assets, you know, going into their second decade, I would have been in real trouble without the without reasonably liquid. My self included.
是的，这真的很难，兄弟。真的非常非常难。是的。还有，顺便说一下，我现在特别有感触，因为过去五六年一直都是我自己的资金投入。天啊，这真是太难了。管理流动性几乎是不可能的，尤其是当你不能依赖任何其他人的时候。幸好有了二级市场的出现，即使是刚刚崭露头角的时候，因为当二级市场刚刚兴起并且人们愿意购买已经运营了十年的风险资产时，我要是没有这些相对流动性强的资产，真会遇到大麻烦。我也是这样觉得。
I mean, my numbers, my numbers would be a quarter of what they are. Yeah. And I took advantage of almost every time I had one of those opportunities to sell some shares, pair some positions. And that's how we got our DPI as well, because let's face it, Cleanacon and the anti tech sentiment has led to these large companies not buying startups. And instead, they compete with them. They just say, we'll build it in house because you're not letting us buy it. And it's broken the entire ecosystem now. That's broken.
我的意思是，如果没有这些机会，我的业绩可能只有现在的四分之一。是的。我几乎每次有机会卖掉一些股票或减少一些持仓时都抓住了。而这也是我们能有现在DPI（分配倍数）的原因。因为坦率地说，清洁协议和反科技情绪导致这些大公司不再收购初创公司，而是选择与它们竞争。他们会说，既然你们不让我们收购，那我们自己内部开发。这彻底打乱了整个生态系统。现在这个系统已经被破坏了。
The IPO process is broken. I tried to flip that on its head with SPACs. You know, some work some didn't many didn't in the end. Many of mine didn't work out at the end. There was a period where it looked like it was working. But these are all attempts at changing the liquidity cycle of these companies, because the way that things stand today, we are not in a sustainable industry. It is if you raise funds and think about fee generation, but it is not if you think about returning money to founders, LPs, getting employees compensated for many years of oil that they put in. It's a very tough game right now.
IPO（首次公开募股）流程是有问题的。我尝试通过SPAC（特殊目的收购公司）来颠覆这一点。你知道，有些成功了，有些没成功，实际上很多最后没成功。我自己的很多SPAC最终也没起效。有一段时间看起来是有效的，但这些都是尝试改变这些公司流动资金周期的手段。因为按照现在的情况来看，我们并不是一个可持续的行业。如果你只考虑筹集资金和费用生成，可能感觉还行，但如果你考虑向创始人、有限合伙人返还资金，以及让员工获得多年的辛勤工作报酬，那就很不乐观了。现在的这个游戏非常艰难。
Well, SACs right now, we're seeing people do things like selling their early SpaceX or their early Stripe, whatever it is, to other VCs, to later stage funds, a lot of ways to try to secure DPI. What's your thoughts on the state of venture today, given all this data that we're looking at today? Well, two points. So first, I agree with Chamath that the amount of time it takes to generate an outcome for, I'd say most startups is longer than the 10 year period of these funds. And these funds can be extended up to 12 years usually. But then what do you do after that?
好的，目前我们看到的情况是，有些人在出售他们早期投资的SpaceX或Stripe股票，出售给其他风投机构，或者转售给后期阶段的基金，还有很多其他方式来确保DPI（已实现投资回报）。鉴于我们今天看到的这些数据，你如何看待当今的风投现状呢？我的看法有两点。首先，我同意Chamath的观点，大多数创业公司从成立到取得成果所需的时间要比这些基金的10年周期更长，而这些基金通常可以延长到12年。但是之后该怎么办呢？
I think this takes a lot longer than that. In a lot of cases, generated meaningful outcome. I just had two companies that I invested in in my second fund. So in 2019 and 2020, so four years ago and five years ago, just got marked up. And it was a big markup of the companies doing well, I call them Lake Bloomers. It took four to five years for them to accomplish what they wanted to in terms of building out the tech. I mean, I invested it like the earliest stage. So that's all I'm going to talk. And now they just to growth rounds and they're off to the races. But I could easily be 10 years from here to get to a liquidity event. So you're talking about more like 15 year funds.
我认为这比想象的要花更长时间。在很多情况下，这些投资产生了有意义的结果。我刚刚投资的两家公司是通过我的第二支基金进行的，分别在2019年和2020年投资的，所以是四年前和五年前，现在这些公司的估值刚刚大幅提高，说明它们发展得很好。我称它们为“晚开花的公司”。它们花了四到五年的时间才在技术方面取得预期的成果。我的投资是在它们最早期的时候进场的，所以我可以谈谈这个。现在这些公司正处于增长阶段，进展很顺利。然而，从现在起可能还需要十年才能到达一个流动性事件（例如上市或被收购）。因此，你可能需要考虑的是更像十五年的基金周期。
So I agree with that point. The second thing, though, is that the big thing that's happened in our industry is we had a bubble in 2020 and especially 2021. And we just had a ton of capital come into the industry because the Fed and the federal government, airdrop $10 trillion liquidity onto the economy in reaction to COVID. And not all that money went into VC, it went into a lot of places. But the VC industry was flooded with cash. And you see this in the deployments. I mean, in those bubble years, there was something like 200 billion a year of capital deployment when normally it's 60 to 100 billion.
所以我同意这个观点。不过，第二件事是，我们行业发生了一件大事，那就是我们在2020年，尤其是2021年出现了一个泡沫。当时，由于美联储和联邦政府为了应对COVID危机，向经济注入了10万亿美元的流动性，大量的资本涌入了市场，虽然不是全部资金都流向了风险投资（VC）行业，但VC行业确实被大量现金所充斥。你可以从资金部署的情况看出来。通常每年的资本部署在600亿到1000亿美元，而在那些泡沫年份，每年的资本部署达到大约2000亿美元。
So if twice the amount of money is going into the industry and is being deployed, and rounds are now twice as big and valuations are twice as big, that has a huge outcome, a huge effect on returns. So for example, the average venture fund is like a two X return. But if the entry prices were artificially double, then there goes your return right there. You get to one X. So I think we're just in the hangover of this massive liquidity bubble that didn't originate in the venture capital industry. It came from frankly, the federal government, but we're just downstream of that.
所以，如果流入行业的钱增加了两倍，并且这些钱被投入使用，那么融资轮次的规模和估值也会增加两倍，这对回报会有巨大的影响。例如，平均的风险投资基金通常有两倍的回报率。但如果进入的价格被人为地提高了两倍，那么回报率也会受到影响，可能只剩下一倍的回报。我认为我们现在正处在这个巨大的流动性泡沫的后遗症中，这个泡沫并非起源于风险投资行业，而是来自于联邦政府，我们只是受其影响而已。
Now, what I would say is I do think we're at the tail end of working that out. And the good news is that we now have maybe the most exciting tech wave ever, which is AI, definitely the most exciting tech wave since the internet came along in the mid to late 90s. So the hope is we're finally going to have like really exciting things to invest in again.
现在，我想说的是，我们确实已经快要解决这个问题了。好消息是，我们现在可能迎来了史上最令人兴奋的科技浪潮——人工智能。这绝对是自上世纪九十年代中后期互联网出现以来最令人激动的科技浪潮。因此，我们希望终于又有非常值得投资的激动人心的事物出现了。
But yeah, look, I think we're at the tail end of the last cycle and the beginning of a new cycle. And vintage distortion is so real. It's very hard to understand how each of these vintage is with your late bloomers or overpriced things, companies getting $100 million rounds at a billion dollar valuation before they have product market fit.
但是，是的，你看，我认为我们正处于上一个周期的尾声，同时也是一个新周期的开始。怀旧情绪是真实存在的。很难理解每一个这样的怀旧情绪，特别是那些发展较晚或者价格过高的东西，比如一些公司在市场需求尚未明确之前就已经获得了10亿美元估值的1亿美元融资。
And those distortions were just so pronounced the last five to 10 years that we're now sorting them out like a house of mirrors where you don't know who's tall, who's fat, who's skinny, what the reality is here. And the other big thing is this peanut butter effect that I tweeted about today.
这些扭曲在过去五到十年间已经变得非常明显，如今我们就像在整理一个镜子的迷宫一样，不知道谁高、谁胖、谁瘦，真实情况究竟是什么。而另一个大问题就是我今天在推特上提到的“花生酱效应”。
During peak zerp, you had all these exceptional team members, the number two, three, four, five person at a company that was doing great, they would leave to start their own company. So the talent got spread. Then you had so many of these founders rushing into the same vertical.
在巅峰时期，你会看到很多优秀的团队成员，比如一个公司里排名第二、第三、第四、第五的人，他们会离职去创办自己的公司。所以人才被分散了。然后你就会发现有很多这样的创始人涌入同一个领域。
So you'd have 20 startups because there was too much capital pursuing the same opportunity. You pursue the same opportunity. What happens to earnings? They get spread then. What happens to customers? They get spread across 20 different products competing for the same customer. And then what happens with ownership stakes for us as GPs and LPs, Tamarth, the ownership stakes because the valuations went up so much, they got spread like peanut butter. And instead of a series A getting you 20% of a company, you got your 10 instead of a C check getting you 5% it got you one, there's no DPI possible. You nailed it and SACs nailed it.
因此，你会看到有20家初创公司，因为有太多的资本在追逐同一个机会。大家都在追逐同一个机会，收益会怎么样？它们被分散了。客户会怎样？他们被分散在20个不同的产品中，这些产品在争夺同一个客户。而我们作为普通合伙人（GP）和有限合伙人（LP）的股权会怎样呢？因为估值大幅上升，股权像花生酱一样被摊薄了。以前A轮融资能让你获得公司20%的股份，现在只能获得10%；以前一笔C轮融资能让你获得5%的股份，现在只能获得1%。这样就不可能实现分配收益（DPI）。你说得对，SACs也说对了。
But and the thing to remember is both of those two things now work together to erode the return stream for the general partner, but really most importantly for the limited partner. So I do think that we are in a situation where the average returns are going to decay by 50 to 100% because of what SAC said and because of what you said on top of that, I don't think we know what the actual cap structure needs to be for a successful AI company.
但是需要记住的是，这两件事情现在共同作用，侵蚀了普通合伙人的收益，更重要的是对有限合伙人的收益产生了影响。因此，我认为我们现在处于一个平均回报率将下降50%到100%的情况，这是因为SAC所说的原因，再加上你刚才说的那些原因，还有一个不确定因素是，我们还不知道一个成功的AI公司所需的真正资本结构是什么。
Is it 20 people that does the work of 2000 now because they have all of these agents and systems that work on their behalf? If that's true, giving that company hundreds of millions of dollars is actually the opposite of what you want to do. You want to give that company 10 or 15 and then let them cook. And so we have a we have a right sizing of capital problem that needs to happen.
是不是现在只需要20个人就能完成原本需要2000人才能干完的工作，因为他们有了各种代理和系统替他们工作？如果是这样，给那家公司几亿美元实际上是反效果的。你应该给他们1000万或1500万美元，然后让他们慢慢发展。我们需要解决一个资本配置正确化的问题。
The data would tell you though that the industry understands that. So the fact that we've gone from 50% of people being able to raise a fund to 12% means that a lot of people will get washed out of the industry, less capital being raised, which probably is foreshadowing the fact that these companies will need a lot less capital. But you know, that has a lot of implications as it ripples through our economy.
数据表明，行业已经意识到了这一点。所以从50%的人能够筹集到资金下降到12%这一事实表明，很多人将被淘汰出这个行业，筹集的资本也会减少，这可能预示着这些公司需要的资本会大幅减少。不过你知道，这会对我们的经济产生很多连锁反应。
It has, I think it's very good for the early stage. I think, you guys are very good there. You've talked about how it's good for you. It's very complicated, I think, for the expansion and growth stage capital. And then I think it's going to be there's going to be another turn on what happens on the IPO markets because you can't have so many companies waiting with very, very few ways of accessing public market capital and exposure.
我觉得，这在初期阶段非常好。你们在那里做得很好。你们也提到过这对你们是有利的。对于扩展和增长阶段的资金来说，我觉得这很复杂。而且我认为，IPO市场也会发生变化，因为那么多公司在等待，但进入公开市场筹资和获得曝光的途径却非常有限。
I just think this is that is fundamentally broken and we're going to have to reinvent. We tried once with SPACS, we're going to have to go back to the drawing board and try again. I don't think secondary markets that are more fluid. I don't know what it is, but we need to do something because the status code doesn't work.
我只是觉得这个根本上就是有问题，我们必须重新思考和改革。我们曾经尝试过用SPACs（特殊目的收购公司），但现在需要重新回到起点再来试一次。我不认为流动性更强的二级市场是解决办法。我不知道具体是什么，但我们确实需要做点什么，因为现状并不好用。
I think there's a lot so many good points that we're hitting here. I'll just say the other thing to build on your point about, hey, these take less capital, you have to look at what does your ownership after you've been diluted half by 50% as a seed or series of investors?
我觉得我们这里提到了很多很好的观点。我只是想补充一点，关于你提到的这些需要更少的资金，你还要看一下，在经历了种子轮或系列投资之后，当你的股份被稀释了一半（50%）后，你的所有权情况会是什么样的。
You're going to be down to half. So if you own 10% you own five, if you own seven like YC or we do in a company, you're going to own three. You're going to really have to model out is the valuation you're looking at, what does it pencil out to for an outcome?
你将只剩下一半股份。因此，如果你拥有10%的股份，现在只剩下5%；如果你像 YC 或我们在一家公司拥有7%的股份，现在只剩下3%。你需要认真计算这样得出的估值是否符合你预期的结果。
And when I did this with our investments, I saw a leak in my game, which was, hey, I'm putting 100k into a $25 million round or a $50 million round as a follow on investment to support the founder. Okay, what does that do for my LPs?
当我对我们的投资进行分析时，我发现了一个问题：我投入了10万美元到一个2500万美元或5000万美元的融资轮中，作为对创始人的后续投资。那么，这对我的有限合伙人（LP）有什么影响呢？
Well, that 100k would need to hit some extraordinary outcome, five, 10, 20, 40 billion dollars in order for us to return the fund. So now my team understands, hey, take that 125k, that 250k, that 500k, do more for do four more accelerator companies with it, because those could return the fund. And that's that fun to math. People stop doing I think all these fund managers who are getting wiped out, they never penciled out. What does this company I'm giving a million dollars need to hit in order for me to return my fund? And now they're finding out that that doesn't work tweeted. Everybody's course correcting. I mean, it's basically the capital deployments gone back to where it was in 2019, let's call it.
好吧，那10万美元需要取得一些非凡的成果，比如5亿、10亿、20亿、40亿美元，才能让我们回本。因此，现在我的团队理解了，看，把那12万5千美元、25万美元、50万美元，用在更多的孵化器公司上，因为那些可能会带来回报。这就是资金数学。很多基金经理之所以被淘汰，是因为他们从未计算过，我给某家公司投资100万美元，这家公司需要达到什么样的结果才能让我回本。而现在他们发现这行不通了，大家都在调整策略。可以说，资本部署已基本回到2019年的水平。
So again, we had this bubble, the foam started building in 2020, but you had COVID people didn't know what to think. So there was some restraint, I guess. And then 2021, it just went wild. That was nuts. Man, the question is, the question is, vintage is are just going to be garbanzo beans, 21, 20, well, you know, that's an interesting point. You could return capital, you're going to look like a euro. Also, Chamof, I remember, I don't know if it was Michael Moretz or or Doug Leone, but I was talking to Sequoia about the time dispersion of your fund, like over what period time are you deploying a fund? And man, people started deploying funds in 18 months because they could raise the next fund so quick.
所以，我们之前经历了一次泡沫，2020年泡沫开始形成，但由于当时有新冠疫情，人们不确定如何应对。因此，有一些克制。我想到了2021年，这个泡沫就彻底失控了，简直疯狂。问题是，未来的一些投资组合是不是会变得一文不值，类似于21年和20年的情况呢？你知道，这是一个有趣的问题。你可以选择返还资本，这样你看起来就像是欧洲人。此外，我还记得，当时和Sequoia讨论基金的时间分布，不确定是和Michael Moretz还是Doug Leone谈的。那时，人们在18个月内就开始部署资金，因为他们可以很快筹集到下一轮基金。
So like, screw it, I'm going to deploy this fund in 18 months, 24 months, and LPs were saying to me, like, what period are you going to deploy this? And I said, well, you know, I was taught by Fred Wilson. And this person, 36 months, 48 months would be a good window to deploy capital because, you know, it's easy to get out. I think you're seeing the dirty little secret of the venture business, which is at some point, people get to a fork in the road. If they hyper optimized for returns, I'll put benchmark, I'll put Fred Wilson in USB, I'll put Sequoia's early stage fund. They have to introduce time diversity. They keep the funds small, and they look to hit grandslamps. But there are many other people, and I would say the most of the set outside of that, take the road more traveled, which is then you optimize for size, which then becomes a fee game. And so you optimize for velocity, get the funds out as quick as possible, raise a new fund.
所以，我心一横，决定在18个月、24个月内部署这笔资金。有限合伙人（LPs）们问我，说你打算在什么期限内部署这笔资金？我说，嗯，你知道，我是跟Fred Wilson学的。还有一些人认为，36个月或48个月是部署资本的好窗口，因为这样比较容易退出市场。我认为你会看到风险投资业务中的一个鲜为人知的秘密，那就是到了某个阶段，人们会遇到一个十字路口。如果他们超级优化回报率，比如Benchmark、Fred Wilson的USB、Sequoia的早期阶段基金，他们需要引入时间的多样性。他们保持基金规模小，并且力争打出全垒打。然而，还有许多人，我会说大多数人，选择了更加常见的道路，那就是去优化基金的规模，这样它就变成了一个管理费的游戏。因此，他们优化资金的周转速度，尽快把基金投出去，然后再筹集一只新基金。
They have no intention of generating returns, because they have no ability to when you have absolutely no time diversity in this business in a pool of capital, you're giving away one of your best edges. David just talked about it as a smart practitioner. He was able to nurture these companies that all of a sudden they struck the lid. If you've all of a sudden flushed all your money and fund one, then you go to fund two, fund three by the time something and fund one hits. What are you going to do? You're going to cross the funds, or you're going to justify taking money from the left hand to pay the right hand, or you're just going to let your ownership wane because you frid it all the money away. These are all the problems that most of these folks have encumbered themselves with.
他们无意产生回报，因为在这个行业中，你没有时间多样性，也就没有能力做到。当你在资金池中完全放弃时间多样性时，你放弃了一个最大的优势。大卫刚刚作为一位聪明的从业者谈到了这一点。他能够培育这些公司，有些公司突然就成功了。如果你突然把所有的钱都投入到第一个基金中，然后再启动第二个、第三个基金，那么当第一个基金中的某个项目取得成功时，你会怎么做？你会在基金之间调拨资金，还是会为拿左手的钱去支付右手的钱找理由，或者你只是眼看着你的持股比例逐渐减少，因为你已经把所有的钱都花光了。这些都是大多数人自己给自己招致的麻烦。
It's very difficult to get out of. It's going to take a look in fairness to them. They probably, you know, got good while the getting's good, so they'll make a ton of money in fees, but they will not be able to raise funds. And those fees are not clawed back, folks, for those of you playing along at home. Just by the way, I feel better about those late bloomers in my portfolio because I know the marks are real because if they're getting marked up now, then it's very, very solid. Compared to frankly, some of those marks that we got in the bubble year, like 2021, I call them Tiger Marks, whether it was Tiger or not, it's just less real, quite frankly. And a lot of those companies are retrenching and have issues.
这真的很难摆脱。为了公平起见，我们要去看看。他们可能是在机会好的时候做得不错，所以会赚很多费用，但他们将无法筹集资金。而这些费用是不会被追回的，各位将他们情况玩得很清楚的朋友们，顺便说一下，因为我知道这些估值是真的，所以我对投资组合中那些后起之秀感觉更好了。如果现在估值已经上升，那就非常稳固了。与一些在泡沫年（比如2021年）得到的估值相比，我称之为“老虎估值”，无论是不是老虎基金，它们实际上都不那么真实。实际上，其中很多公司正在收缩并面临问题。
So a mark now, it just means something different than a mark then. But look, I want to, you know, just so we're not like totally beating up on VC, there was you remember that in this bubble period of September 2021, everybody thought that this party would just continue forever. And this is a good example from the Wall Street Journal, where I was talking about how university endowments were minting billions in golden era venture capital. So the bubble wasn't just in VC, it was in the public markets too, because we had zero, right, like interest rates were zero, liquidity was just flowing. And so it was very easy for companies to get liquid, a IPO, and then the valuations were stratospheric.
所以，一个标记现在，它的意义和以前不同了。不过，我想澄清一下，我们不应该完全否定风险投资。你还记得2021年9月的那个泡沫期吗？那时候大家都以为这种好日子会永远持续下去。这是一个来自《华尔街日报》的很好的例子，讲的是大学捐赠基金在黄金时代的风险投资中赚了数十亿。泡沫不仅仅存在于风险投资领域，在公共市场也是这样，因为当时利率为零，市场上的流动性非常充裕。所以公司很容易通过IPO来获得流动资金，然后估值就飞涨到天上去了。
So the distributions to LPs were massive in 2021. And then that led to, again, more funds be able to raise bigger funds. Everyone was just kind of paying it forward and thought the party would just keep going. So this is what happens in a bubble is everybody thinks that this is going to go ahead like that. This is why it's so important as a fund manager or an entrepreneur for you to get great advice from people who've been at this for a long time and focus on the process. You cannot control all these outcomes, you cannot control all these meta events. What you can control is your relationship with your customers, building a team, making great bets, supporting late bloomers. That's the critical part of all this is the process. And you can make your process better.
2021年，向有限合伙人的分配非常丰厚。然后，这又使得更多的基金能够筹集更大的资金。每个人都在以此类推，认为好景会一直持续下去。那么，这就是泡沫中发生的事情，每个人都认为这种情况会一直继续下去。这就是为什么作为基金经理或企业家，从那些在这个领域有长期经验的人那里获得优秀的建议并专注于过程是如此重要。你无法控制所有的结果，无法控制所有的宏观事件。你能控制的是你和客户的关系，建立团队，做出正确的押注，支持后起之秀。这一切的关键在于过程。而且你可以改进你的过程。
And so with my team internally, I'm constantly talking to them about our selection of companies, how we help companies get pulled through and get downstream funding, how we literally our big effort this year is how do we introduce our companies to the top VC firms? And we've been working on that as a internal project, right, of just getting our great breakout companies to the best investors to increase our pull through. It is a process and you have to trust and focus on the process. Yeah. Well, look, ironically, just I mean, just an on sort of a positive note, if these interest rate cuts are real, like if we just got 50, if we get another 50 this year, if inflation is really tamed and it's never going to go to zero. But if they go down substantially, and we have this new AI disruption, this new AI tailwind, we could be back in another golden era.
所以，我在内部团队中一直在谈论我们选择合作公司的过程，以及如何帮助这些公司获得后续的资金支持。我们今年的重要任务之一是如何将我们的公司介绍给顶级风投公司。我们一直在作为一个内部项目来推进这一点，旨在让我们的优秀公司能接触到最好的投资者，从而增加我们的成功率。这是一个过程，你必须信任并专注于这个过程。
从积极的角度看，如果利率真的下降，比如今年我们已经看到50个基点的降幅，如果再降50个基点，以及如果通胀真的得到控制（尽管不可能降到零），再加上新的AI技术带来的变革，我们可能会迎来一个新的黄金时代。
It's not going to be a bubble, but it could be another golden era. So we'll see. Start companies from your lips to God's ears. Love you guys. I got to go. Love you. All right, Shmoop had to go do work, apparently, starting this new concept sacks, which Moth is actually going to work and at a company. We never got to talk about the debate, because we were busy doing the summit and we took the week off from a new episode. People wanted to hear your take. What did you think of Kamala and Trump, the one and only debate we're going to hear apparently? Any thoughts?
这不会是一个泡沫，但可能会是另一个黄金时代。所以我们拭目以待吧。从你的嘴到上帝的耳朵，开始公司吧。爱你们，我得走了，爱你们。好了，Shmoop显然得去工作了，开始了这个新概念“sacks”，Moth 也要在一家公司里工作。我们一直忙着开峰会，没能录制新的一集，所以没机会谈论这次辩论。大家都想听听你的看法。你对卡玛拉和特朗普之间的辩论有何看法，毕竟这是唯一的一场辩论。有什么想法吗？
I think that Kamala Harris performed better than expected. She did that, I think, mostly through having canned answers to topics. And she was able to kind of memorize those answers and say them. She was never knocked out of her preparation. She was well prepared. Yeah. I think she was well prepared. However, we now know that these were canned answers, because in subsequent press interviews, she gives the exact same thing. It's like a jukebox where you just push the button to get the same answer exactly. So she's memorized a certain number of talking points.
我认为卡玛拉·哈里斯的表现比预期要好。她主要是通过准备好的答案来实现这一点的。我觉得她能够记住这些答案并复述出来。她的准备没有被打乱，她确实准备得很充分。是的，我认为她准备得很充分。不过，我们现在知道这些都是准备好的答案，因为在后续的新闻采访中，她给出的答案一模一样。就像点唱机一样，你按下按钮，就能得到相同的答案。所以，她只是记住了一些固定的论点。
And that's all she's going to give you, no matter what the question is. And if you saw that, it's become a meme now where you saw that question when she was asked about inflation, there's a pause when she's figuring out which greatest hit she's going to play. And then she pushes B26 in her head and then it begins. So I was born in the middle class. And it's working apparently, right? It seems like it's helping her. I think what you saw is that she got a bounce out of the debate. But now it's sort of like a lot of these bounces. There's been kind of effervescence to it. And then it kind of settles down back to the recurring pattern. And so I think the election is extremely close, but I don't think.
无论你问什么问题，她都会给出同样的回答。如果你看到这一幕，它已经成为一个网络迷因了。你可以看到当她被问到关于通货膨胀的问题时，她会停顿一下，像是在想该从她的“最佳答案”中选择哪一个。然后她在脑海中按下“B26”，接着就开始了：“所以，我出生在中产阶级。” 这似乎确实在起作用，对她有所帮助。我认为你会发现，她在辩论后得到了一个反弹效应。但很多时候，这种反弹效应只是暂时的泡沫，随后又回到了原来的模式。因此，我认为选举形势非常接近，但我并不认为...
Oh, yeah. I mean, every day, it's like a poll going one way or the other. And this is the closest of our lifetime, maybe, or that I can remember. I mean, it's nuts how this thing has flipped over and over again. What did you think of Trump's performance? Where you disappointed? There were some rumors, people were a little upset that he doesn't prep as much as he should. What's your advice there? You know, well, I mean, I think that he was in a very difficult situation. You basically had a three on one situation where he was up against not just Kamala Harris, but the two debate moderators. It turns out that Lindsey Davis is a Kamala sorority sister. David Muir was fact checking him constantly. And some of those fact checks weren't even correct.
哦，是啊。我的意思是，每天的民调结果总是在变动。而这次可能是我们一生中，或者至少在我的记忆中，最接近的一次选举。这事反复变化，简直是让人觉得疯狂。你怎么看特朗普的表现？你觉得失望吗？有些传言说，有些人有点不满，说他准备得不够充分。你对此有什么建议吗？你知道，我觉得他处在一个非常艰难的情况。他基本上是以一敌三，不仅要对阵卡玛拉·哈里斯，还要应对两位辩论主持人。原来林赛·戴维斯（Lindsey Davis）是卡玛拉的姐妹会成员，而大卫·缪尔（David Muir）一直在核实他的发言，其中有些核实结果甚至是不正确的。
For example, we now know that the Springfield City manager has acknowledged complaints about pets being eaten. Oh, here we go. We were going to get through it. Yeah. It says far as far back as March, there are videos of him talking about the complaints that they cancel. Now, you can you can say that you don't believe those stories or whatever, but those reports were real. But David Muir fact checked in real time saying that Trump was wrong. And there was like this effort to kind of gaslight and make him sound crazy during the debate when there are in fact sources for what he was saying.
例如，我们现在知道斯普林菲尔德市的经理已经承认了关于宠物被吃掉的投诉。哦，到这里我们就说到点上了。是这样的，早在三月份，就有视频显示他在谈论这些投诉，并声称他们已经取消了这些投诉。你可以说你不相信这些故事或其他什么，但那些报道是真实的。不过，大卫·缪尔在事实核查时指出特朗普说错了。当时有一种努力尝试让他在辩论中显得很疯狂，尽管实际上他所说的确实有依据。
And it might have thrown him off a little bit. I noticed like it was like he I agree. They going into it. I think they need to negotiate in the future. You know how they're negotiating the microphones on or off audience on or off. I think they should negotiate. Are we fact checking in real time or are we not fact checking in? Who's doing that? They only fact check one candidate. For example, when Kamala Harris repeated numerous hoaxes like the very fine people hoax, the bloodbath hoax, the suckers and losers hoax. I mean, these are things that were already addressed in the last debate.
这可能让他有点措手不及。我注意到，他好像在同意。他们需要在未来对此进行协商，比如如何安排麦克风的开关、听众的有无。我觉得他们应该协商一下，是否在实时核查事实，以及谁负责核查事实。比如说，上次辩论中他们只核查了一位候选人的事实。卡马拉·哈里斯重复了许多已经被揭穿的谣言，比如“非常好的人”的谣言、“血腥的屠杀”的谣言以及“懦夫和失败者”的谣言。这些都在上次辩论中已经被讨论过了。
And you know, even left-wing Snopes have said the whole very fine people think is. Yes, for people who don't know that they there's been selective edits and I mean, there's been selective edits forever, but that one is particularly egregious. It's really egregious. The bloodbath one is really egregious too, because we're talking about the bloodbath in the street. Yeah, just make it into a January 6th extension, which it's not. Right. So she was able to say these things and never got fact checked once, which meant she never got knocked out of the preparation. And let's also be honest, like Trump is hyperbolic.
你知道的，就连左翼的Snopes网站也说过关于“非常好的人”的事情。是的，对于那些不知道的人来说，这个事件曾经被选择性剪辑过。其实，一直都有选择性剪辑的存在，但这个事件特别离谱。还有关于“血腥屠杀”的事情也很离谱，因为我们在谈论的是街头的血腥屠杀的事情。这些被改编成了1月6日的延续，而事实并非如此。是的，所以她能够发表这些言论，而且从未被核实过，这意味着她在准备过程中从未被打断。我们必须诚实地说，特朗普是夸大的。
So if you are going to say, you know, oh, we're going to fact check Trump, like there's a lot of material there. And he's just he's a hyperbolic guy. That's kind of his shtick, right? I mean, but here's the thing is that in the wake of that debate, look, I think a lot of people scoring the debate on like technical debaters points would award her the win for that night. I don't clearly. Yeah, I don't deny that. However, what I think has been surprising is that in the wake of the debate, you're seeing her support sort of return more to its previous level.
所以，如果你要说，我们要核查特朗普的事实，材料确实很多。毕竟他是个喜欢夸张的人，这算是他的风格吧。不过，关键是，在辩论之后，我觉得很多人在按技术性的辩论得分来评判时，会认为她那晚赢了。我不否认这一点。然而，令我感到意外的是，在辩论之后，她的支持率似乎又回到了之前的水平。
And so what I'm saying is the effect of that's wearing off. And I think one of the reasons why that's wearing off is because Trump still has the killer issues in this election. He's got the border, and he's got inflation and the economy. And Harris may have done well again on debaters points. But what substantive answer did she give in that debate except to say I'm not Joe Biden, which is, I guess, true. However, what you're basically saying is you won't defend your own administration's record. You are the incumbent. You're not the change candidate.
我的意思是，这种效果正在消退。我认为原因之一是，特朗普在这次选举中仍然掌握着关键问题。他有边境问题，以及通货膨胀和经济问题。而哈里斯在辩论中或许在论点上表现不错，但她有什么实质性的回答呢？除了说“我不是拜登”，这大概是事实。不过，你基本上是在说你不会为自己政府的记录辩护。你是现任政府，而不是变革候选人。
And you're saying that people should vote for you because you're not Joe Biden. Well, what is it about Joe Biden's record that what is it about Joe Biden's policies that you don't agree with? I mean, after all, you cast the tie-breaking vote for the inflation reduction act, you cast it for the two trillion American rescue plan that set off the inflation. So the debate matter is never asked, Harris, well, what is it about you that is different than Joe Biden on a policy level, other than the fact that you're a good one. I thought that was like a great moment for her. Objectively, I think, you know, and I've said this forever here on this show, putting our feelings aside about the candidates. I think whoever comes across as the most normal or the most moderate is going to win. And I think she's done a great job of like, convincing those moderates that she's not crazy and he is.
你说人们应该投票给你，因为你不是乔·拜登。那么，乔·拜登的记录和政策中有哪些你不认同的？毕竟，你投了决定性的一票支持《降低通胀法案》，你也投票支持了引发通货膨胀的两万亿《美国救援计划》。辩论中从来没有人问过哈里斯，究竟在政策层面上，你和乔·拜登有什么不同，除了你是女性这一点。我觉得那是她的一个精彩时刻。客观来讲，我一直在这个节目中说，抛开我们对候选人的个人感情，我认为看起来最正常或者最温和的人会赢。而且我觉得她做得很好，成功说服了那些温和派，她不是疯狂的，而他是。
What do you, what are your thoughts on that? Because people looked at this very podcast and they've said to me, my God, that's the Trump I want to vote for, that Trump 2.0, the all-in Trump. And then people are like, ah, he's going back to the insult comic Trump, but I don't want the chaos. What are your thoughts on moderates specifically in the swing states and this sort of strategy? Well, let's talk about, let's talk about the Teamsters. So Biden, when he was still in the race, was plus eight among the Teamsters rank and file. And now that Harris is the candidate, Trump has up something like plus 26 with the Teamsters. Yeah, why is that? Because she's, isn't she pro union as well? He was union Joe. So I mean, it was like in the name, I understand why they loved him. There's something about her policies. And I think her, look, I think within the Democratic Party, I think it's partly personality, but I also think it's policies and cultural issues. So within the Democratic Party, there've always been two tracks. There's the beer track and there's the wine track. And so, you know, Bill Clinton was classic beer track guy, right? Yeah, your summit with Obama. Right. And I think Joe Biden was, was beer track. Then there's kind of the wine track, which is the more it's the part of the party that cares about these boutique cultural issues, starting with DEI and equity and trans and things like that. Limousie liberals is what they used to be called. But I like yours. Wine liberals were, yeah, the woke wine. Basically, the entire California Democratic Party is very wine track. I mean, Gavin is very wine track. Comillaries is very one track. You can understand why a blue collar worker, it doesn't appeal to that. They want more of that lunch pail traditional Democrat. But that Democratic Party doesn't really exist anymore. I mean, the Democratic Party has evolved to be the party of the professional class, whereas the Republicans are more of the party of the working class. And you're now starting to see it. I think Biden was the Democrats last vestige of this working class party. He really worked at being appealing to those voters, the whole Scran-Joe image. Yeah, exactly. Whereas Kamala, when you get her talking in an unguarded moment and is not a canned answer, she's going to talk about diversity, equity, and inclusion. And that's not what your typical teamster wants to hear.
你对此有什么看法？因为有些人看了这个播客后对我说，这就是他们想投票的特朗普，2.0版的全力以赴的特朗普。但也有人说他又回到了喜欢侮辱人的老路上，他们不希望再有那种混乱。你对中间派，尤其是摇摆州的选民和这种策略有什么看法？
我们来谈谈工会会员吧。拜登还在参选时，在工会成员中有8个百分点的领先优势。现在哈里斯成为候选人后，特朗普在工会中的支持率上升了26个百分点。为什么会这样？毕竟哈里斯也是支持工会的啊，而拜登以前被称为"工会乔"，他们爱戴他是有原因的。
我认为这部分是由于她的政策，也部分是她的个人性格。在民主党内一直有两种路线：一种是“啤酒路线”，另一种是“葡萄酒路线”。比如比尔·克林顿就是典型的“啤酒路线”代表，奥巴马也是这种路线。而乔·拜登也是“啤酒路线”的。
然后还有另一种“葡萄酒路线”，这是更关注特定文化议题的那部分人，比如多样性、公平和包容（DEI）、跨性别等问题。之前称他们为“豪华车自由派”，但我更喜欢称他们为“葡萄酒自由派”。
整个加州民主党走的就是“葡萄酒路线”，加文·纽森是这样，卡玛拉·哈里斯也是如此。所以你可以理解为什么蓝领工人不喜欢这一套，他们更喜欢那种带午餐盒的传统民主党人。但这种民主党其实已经很少见了。现在的民主党变成了专业阶层的党，而共和党反倒成为了工人阶级的党派，你可以看到这种变化。我认为拜登是民主党最后一个努力吸引工人阶级选民的代表，而他也确实花了很多精力去塑造自己的“蓝领乔”形象。
但哈里斯在不受控的场合下谈话，她往往会提到多样性、公平和包容，这并不是典型的工会成员想听的内容。
Let me ask you a challenge a question, because what it's like when I ask you to challenge a bit. If Trump loses, what do you think will be the cause of the loss? If he loses, strategically, when we look back on the last six months, what do you think you would change? What would cause him? Well, look, I mean, the great asset that Kamala Harris has is not her likability. It's not her track record. It's not her policies. It's the fact that she's got the media behind her. And if you look at, like, for example, ABC News, 100% of the coverage by ABC News is positive. Whereas something like 93% of their coverage on Trump is negative. And you saw this that before Harris replaced Biden's The nominee, she had very low favorability ratings.
让我问你一个有挑战性的问题，因为这好像是我在挑战你一下。如果特朗普输了，你认为会是什么原因导致他的失败？从战略上看，回顾过去六个月，你觉得会有什么需要改变的？ 导致他失败的原因是什么？ 好吧，我的意思是，卡玛拉·哈里斯的最大优势不是她的亲和力，不是她的履历，不是她的政策。而是她有媒体的支持。如果你看一下，比如说，ABC新闻，对哈里斯的报道100%是正面的，而对特朗普的报道中93%是负面的。你也看到了，在哈里斯取代拜登成为候选人之前，她的支持率非常低。
And then the media basically reinvented her as this transformative candidate. So look, when you've got the media willing to operate as de facto members of your campaign, that's tremendously powerful. If we had a fair media, this election wouldn't be close. So that is the advantage the Democrats had. Now, look, should Trump have done the debate with ABC News? No, I think he should have chosen more fair moderators. I mean, to their credit, I think CNN played the Biden Trump debate pretty fair and down the middle.
然后媒体基本上把她重新塑造成了一个变革性的候选人。所以你看，当媒体愿意充当你竞选的实际成员时，那是非常强大的。如果我们有一个公平的媒体，这次选举根本不会如此接近。这就是民主党所拥有的优势。现在，看看，特朗普应该和ABC新闻进行辩论吗？不，我认为他应该选择更公平的主持人。说真的，我觉得CNN主持的拜登特朗普辩论还是相对公平和中立的。
But ABC, I mean, it was predictable that, like I said, I mean, one of the hosts was her sorority sister, their friends. So, you know, I think that if Trump loses, you could say that his willingness to walk into the lion's den, take on all comers, do every interview, you could say maybe that wasn't a strategic as what she did. But at the end of the day, I think that voters will appreciate that both Trump and JD are willing to do basically every podcast, every interview, they're not afraid to answer questions.
但关于ABC，我的意思是，这件事是可以预见的。就像我说的，其中一个主持人是她的姐妹会成员，她们是朋友。所以，你知道，如果特朗普输了，可以说他愿意走入“狮子窝”，迎接所有挑战，接受每一个采访，这可能不如她的策略性强。但归根结底，我认为选民会欣赏特朗普和JD愿意参加每一个播客和采访，他们不怕回答问题。
And when they do answer questions, you can see them thinking and they don't give you the same can to answer they've given 10 times before, including at the debate. So yeah, I mean, that's my take. What's yours, JKell? Oh, on which aspect? Give me a specific question. What do you think? What do you think? If she ends up winning, what do you think the reason will be? Yeah, that's a good question. If she ends up winning, I think it will be that people believe that they, I think it will be that moderates in those swing states and women believe that it's too much chaos and that Trump will be too much.
当他们回答问题时，你能看到他们在思考，而不是每次都给你同样的官方答案，哪怕是在辩论中。所以，我的看法就是这样。你怎么看，JKell？
哦，你是指哪个方面？给我一个具体的问题。
你怎么看？如果她最终赢了，你认为原因是什么？
嗯，这是个好问题。如果她最终赢了，我认为原因可能是人们觉得，中间派选民和女性选民认为目前的混乱已经太多了，而特朗普带来的会更多混乱。
They want a calmer. Same thing, reason, Biden one, right? Like that there's this like concept that the adults are in the room and it will be calm and it won't be chaotic. And I think people just still see Trump as a bit chaotic. And I think that's the big fear. And I think they've played the abortion card and the right to choose really well, even though Trump said it here, I'm not going to sign the abortion ban on pro IVF.
他们想要一个更冷静的人。就像拜登一样，对吧？有一种说法是成年人在场，情况会变得冷静，不会那么混乱。我觉得人们仍然认为特朗普有点混乱，这是真正的担忧所在。我认为他们在堕胎权和选择权的问题上做得很好，尽管特朗普说过了，他不会签署禁止堕胎的法案，并且支持试管婴儿技术。
I think they have that really great win of saying, hey, you bragged about overturning Roe v. Wade probably wasn't smart to brag about that. And they have that clip that they can keep reinforcing. So he does lose. And I don't know that he's going to lose. I think there's a lot of people who are going to go in there and vote for him, but not say it to pollsters and not say it to their family and friends because they're embarrassed because of the pressure against Orange Hitler. Oh, you know, this whole rhetoric that he's going to, you know, overturn democracy.
我觉得他们有一个非常有力的胜利点，就是可以说，“嘿，你吹嘘推翻了罗诉韦德案，这可能不是个明智的选择”。他们可以不断重复这一点。因此，他确实输掉了一些支持。我不确定他是否真的会输掉选举，我认为有很多人会去投票给他，但不会告诉调查人员，也不会告诉家人和朋友，因为他们感到尴尬，尤其是在整体氛围都在反对“橙色希特勒”的压力下哦，还有那种关于他要推翻民主的言论。
So I think it's a pretty good chance that he's going to win, actually. I don't think that this in a close race, right? And say the statistics in a close race favor him. Yeah, look, I mean, maybe we're asking the wrong question here, which is why would he lose? I mean, I think maybe the real question is why is he favored to win? Because I think the polls, including Nate Silver's still show him favor to win.
所以我认为他很有可能会赢，其实。我不认为这是个势均力敌的比赛，对吧？比如说，即使在竞争激烈的情况下，统计数据也倾向于他。对，我的意思是，也许我们问错问题了，应该问为什么他会输？我觉得真正的问题是为什么他被看好能赢？因为我认为民调，包括Nate Silver的分析，仍然显示他更有可能获胜。
And I think that when you look at what the big issues are in this campaign and what has people agitated and upset why they think the country is on the wrong track, so we like 65%. It has to do with the economy, has to do with inflation, has to do with the border. I think that on the cultural issues, the trans stuff drives parents crazy. They don't want the government telling them what to do with their kids. So it's hard to think of a killer issue other than maybe abortion that Harris has on her side. It feels like all the issues cut Trump's way.
我认为，当你看这次竞选的重大问题，以及为什么人们感到激动和不安，他们为什么认为国家走在错误的道路上时，可以看到65%的原因与经济有关，包括通货膨胀和边境问题。我认为在文化问题上，跨性别议题让家长们很抓狂，他们不希望政府插手他们如何教育孩子。因此，除了可能堕胎这一问题外，很难想到哈里斯阵营有其他有力的议题。感觉所有的议题都对特朗普有利。
But again, the thing that Trump doesn't have, and there's no way to him to fix this is the media is just so in the tank for for Harris. Now you raise a good point. Look, could Trump be more disciplined? Yeah, absolutely. However, you know, I think that what amplifies that is the fact that the media is quick to jump on every little thing he says and distorts it.
再说一次，特朗普所没有的一点，也是他无法解决的问题，这就是媒体对哈里斯的偏袒。这是很关键的一点。你说的没错，特朗普确实可以更加自律一些，毫无疑问。但是，事情的放大在于媒体总是迅速抓住他所说的每一句话并进行曲解。
And he sets himself up for it. You know, like part of what makes him activate the base is that erratic behavior, his schtick, you know, the comedy. And then I do believe that it gets weaponized by the press because it's like such so easy for them. I agree with you that Trump could be more disciplined. However, I don't think it's as bad as what you're saying because if it were, there'd be no need to make up these obvious hoaxes. There'd be no need to, you know, lie about the very fine people or what he said about bloodbath. So if he was really saying that many outrageous things, why would you need to keep inventing things that he didn't say? And if you're just stacking them, yeah, the answer to that question is just throw everything you got in him. Yeah, that's everything in him.
他自己把自己置于这种境地。你知道的，他的行为古怪，还有他的那一套表演，比如喜剧，这些其实激活了他的基本盘。我确实认为媒体利用了这些，因为对他们来说实在是太容易了。我同意你说的特朗普可以更自律一些。不过，我认为情况没有你说的那么糟，因为如果真的那么糟糕，就不需要编造那些明显的骗局，也不需要歪曲他说过的"非常好的人"或"血洗"的话。所以，如果他说了那么多过分的话，他们还需要不断捏造他没说过的话吗？如果你把这些都堆叠起来，答案只能是对他扔出所有的东西，没错，就是所有的东西。
But look at look at Kamala's interviews. I mean, she hasn't given very many. But I mean, her answers are just I mean, just watch him. I'm not going to characterize him, but just just watch her actually. Kelly said it. I mean, Megan Kelly, I think she's stupid and not bright. I mean, she's not the most dynamic speaker. That's for sure. And she doesn't seem to be able to have a dynamic debate with intelligent people who are experts in their field, let's say, you know, she can't hold her own in the way you can see JD can right and Trump can. So here we go.
看看卡马拉的采访吧。我是说，她的采访并不多。但她的回答简直是——你自己看看吧。我不想做评价，但你真的可以看看她的表现。梅根·凯利说了，我觉得梅根·凯利认为她不聪明，也不是很机智。另外，卡马拉显然不是一个最有活力的演说家，这点毋庸置疑。而且她似乎没办法与那些在其领域里是专家的聪明人进行有活力的辩论。你懂的，她无法像JD和特朗普那样能自如应对。所以，我们看看吧。
And just on the on the second assassination attempt, I don't know if you even want to go there, but I mean, gosh, I'm so glad he gets shot at it again. This is scary stuff, folks. This rhetoric's got to come down. I keep saying it. Nobody wants to listen to me, but man, be well, let's look at the rhetoric that Ryan Ruth was literally quoting on his Twitter was saying that Trump is basically an existential threat to democracy. He was quoting what Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the mainstream media have been saying chapter in verse.
关于第二次暗杀企图，我不知道你是否想了解这个，但天啊，我真的很高兴他再次中枪。这真是可怕的事情，各位。这种言论必须降温。我一直在说，但没有人愿意听我说。看看Ryan Ruth在他的推特上引用的内容吧，他说特朗普基本上是对民主的生存威胁。他引用了拜登、哈里斯和主流媒体一直在说的内容。
So I think that, you know, if you want to ascribe motivation there, where did Ruth get these ideas? They've been endlessly amplified by the mainstream media. And it's not like a one off comment. It's been the central narrative for the last several years is that somehow Trump represents this existential threat to democracy. And one way or another, that threat must be eliminated. And I think Ryan Ruth simply took literally what the mainstream media has been saying. 1% of your followers is what I tell everybody. High profile people you and I both know is 1% of people in your following, and we all have large followings here. And there's certainly people who have extremely large followings. 1% are mentally ill.
所以，我认为，如果你想找动机的话，Ruth是从哪里得到这些想法的？这些想法已经被主流媒体无限放大了。而且这不是一个单独的评论，而是多年来的核心叙事，即特朗普以某种方式代表了对民主的生存威胁，不管怎么样，这个威胁必须消除。我认为，Ryan Ruth只是字面地接受了主流媒体一直在说的事情。我告诉所有人的一个观点是，你追随者中的1%，高知名度的人你我都知道，这1%的人是精神不稳定的。而我们在这里都有很多追随者，有些人的追随者数量非常庞大，其中的1%是精神上不稳定的。
Like when I say mentally ill, I mean, severely mentally ill. And if it's but 1% of your following, if it's 0.1%, this could be thousands of people. And this is what happened to John Lennon and other famous people who've been killed tragically is those mentally ill people interpret things in a very different way. And when you say, you know, a phrase that has triggers in it, threat to democracy, fight like how whatever it is, they interpret it differently. And so just please follow and call the guy Hitler for years. And again, you create millions or billions of impressions around that. And it's not like a one off statement.
就像我说的，精神病患者，我的意思是严重的精神病患者。即使他们只占你的追随者的1%，甚至是0.1%，这也可能是成千上万的人。这就是约翰·列侬和其他一些被悲惨杀害的名人的遭遇，因为那些精神病患者会以不同的方式解读事物。当你说出带有触发性词汇的短语，比如“对民主的威胁”“像这样去战斗”等等，他们会有不同的理解。所以如果你长期称某人是希特勒，并制造数百万甚至数十亿次的印象，这不仅仅是一次性的言论。
But it's something that's drummed into the public over and over again. It seems to me you're asking for trouble. Stay safe. Please turn down the rhetoric everybody. And we will see you next time in the hall in podcast. Bye bye. I'm going home.
但这件事一再被灌输给公众。我觉得，你这是在自找麻烦。大家注意安全。请大家平息一下言辞。下次播客再见。再见，我要回家了。