BG2 Thanksgiving Roundtable: DOGE, EV Tax Credit, Tariffs, Conspiracy Theories, Invest America

I would much rather see us use a gas tax in an EV credit. An EV credit costs the government money. You just spoke about us not having a balanced budget. A increased gas tax would actually bring in income. And don't don't suggest that to governor Newsom. We already have the highest gas tax in the country. Hey, Bill. How you doing, sir? I'm doing great. So as you know, we were going to do a pod with Satcha this week, but we wanted to make sure that we got a full 90 minutes with him. So we bumped it back to December 10th. And so I thought we'd kick in and do something a little bit different here today. It's a holiday week. We got Thanksgiving on Thursday. So you came up with this idea, which I love. We're going to ping pong back and forth a few issues that are top of mind for us. Things we're thinking about as we head into Thanksgiving. It's less of a deep dive, I suppose, and more just our initial thoughts or additional thoughts about several ideas that you and I have discussed, which also reminded me, Bill, you know, we're almost to the end of our first year doing this together. I love it. You're always coming up with ideas. We want to keep BG2 fresh as we head into 2025. And so we're going to experiment with a few different modes. And I would welcome everybody's idea. Kick us your ideas. DM us, put them on YouTube. And we'll try to integrate them into the show in 2025. So Bill, why don't you kick us off with your first shot on goal? What's on your mind?

我更愿意我们通过增加汽油税来支持电动汽车的抵免政策。电动汽车抵免政策会花费政府资金，而你刚刚提到我们还没实现预算平衡。增加汽油税实际上会带来收入。不过不要建议加州州长纽森这样做，因为我们已经有全国最高的汽油税了。嘿，Bill，你好吗？我很好。你知道的，本周我们本来打算和Satcha录个播客，但我们想确保能有完整的90分钟时间，所以推迟到了12月10日。我想今天做点不同的，在这个节假周我们周四要过感恩节，你想出了一个很棒的主意。我们打算你一言我一语地讨论几个我们最近关注的问题，作为我们进入感恩节前的一点初步想法。这次不算是深入探讨，更像是你我之间对一些已经讨论过的话题的进一步想法。此外，Bill，提醒我一下，差不多我们一起做这节目已经快一年了，我喜欢这个。进入2025年，我们希望BG2节目保持新鲜感，所以会尝试几种不同的形式。欢迎大家提出建议，通过私信或者在YouTube上告诉我们，我们将在2025年尽力在节目中采纳。Bill，为什么不先说说你的想法呢？你有什么关注的话题吗？

I've been thinking thinking a lot about China and we've talked about it. Some on the podcast. There is a lot of articles out today about a big Huawei event. There's a FT one that we'll put in the notes, but, but there are others. You could just search, you know, and see. And Huawei has released a phone. They call the M870 and it's bigger and faster than everyone thought it would be. It doesn't use Android. So it's their first non Android mobile OS. And the part that everyone's really freaking out about and trying to understand is what chip technology is underneath it. The rumors and the articles suggest that they have accomplished fairly high end semiconductor manufacturing at SMIC in China. So this chip was not built at TSMC and they had this huge event in the stadium. And I would encourage people will post some Twitter feeds about this where you can see some of the photos.

我最近一直在思考很多关于中国的事情，我们在播客中也讨论过一些。今天有很多文章在谈论华为的一场大型发布会，其中《金融时报》有一篇文章，我们会在笔记中放上链接，但还有其他可供查阅的。如果你搜索一下，就能找到。华为发布了一款名为M870的手机，这款手机比大家预期的更大更快。它不再使用安卓系统，所以这是他们首次推出的非安卓操作系统。而大家最关心、试图了解的是手机使用了什么芯片技术。传言和文章都表明，他们在中国的中芯国际已经实现了相当高端的半导体制造。因此，这款芯片并不是在台积电制造的。他们在一个体育馆举办了这场大型活动。我建议大家查看一些关于此事的推特帖子，那里有一些照片可以看到。

But the thing that's just so striking to me is just how, you know, magnificently innovative they are in China. And I continue to read what I would call rhetoric from people on both sides of the island of America. And even some people in our own industry who suggest that we can, you know, cut China off from technology, block them that we're somehow ahead. I think American exceptionalism has gotten into our head. And my biggest fear is that pretending this isn't true isn't helpful to our own competitiveness. You know, and there's a great quote Steve Steve Sue pulled up a Lex interview with Elon from from about a year ago. And he says, look, United States has been the most powerful economic engine in the world longer than anyone's been alive and the foundation of war is economics. So we have a situation in the case of China where the air economy is likely to be two, perhaps three times larger than that of the US.

让我感到非常震撼的是，中国在创新方面表现得如此出色。我不断看到美国两派人士所谓的言辞，甚至我们行业中的一些人也在建议我们可以通过切断中国的技术来领先。我认为美国的例外主义已经影响了我们的思维。我最大的担忧是，假装这种情况不真实对我们的竞争力没有帮助。有一句名言，斯蒂夫·苏（Steve Su）在大约一年前的一次采访中引用了埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的观点，他说，美国一直是世界上最强大的经济引擎，而战争的基础是经济。所以，在中国的情况下，他们的经济可能是美国的两倍甚至三倍。

So imagine you've been the biggest kid on the block for as long as anyone can remember. And suddenly a kid comes along who's twice your size. And I just feel this, you know, so much, you know, and I, Elon goes on to talk about, you know, the work ethic of the people, the investment in STEM, you know, while while while we are like removing advanced STEM courses in California, the number of graduates in China's university system that are STEM is 35%. And that number is below 10 in the US. And so a combination of work ethic and technical skills. I personally think they have all the pieces they need to run as fast as they possibly can. And I don't think blocking ASML or blocking AI technology or blocking anything is working. It's just not working. And I think it would do everyone in the US a whole bunch of good to stand up.

想象一下，你一直是街区里最厉害的孩子，所有人都记得你的辉煌。但突然有一个比你大两倍的孩子出现。这个感觉就是这样，我能感受到，像是埃隆提到的，人们的工作态度，对STEM（科学、技术、工程、数学）的投入，而同时我们在加州却在取消高级STEM课程。在中国大学系统中，STEM毕业生占35%，而在美国，这个数字不到10%。所以这是工作态度和技术技能的结合。我个人认为，他们拥有所有需要的条件可以尽可能快地进步。我不认为阻止ASML或阻止AI技术或任何其他东西会奏效。这就是行不通的。我认为美国的每个人都应该挺身而出，这对所有人都会有很大的好处。

And there's videos all over YouTube. We'll put up some of these links and just pay attention to what's going on. We're falling behind. And tariffs and protectionism will only protect American industry for a very short window. It's actually going to deny them the competition they need to get their shit together. My one thought about that is we got to focus on our own race. We got to make ourselves as great as we can possibly be and run as fast as we possibly can. And, you know, while I don't think we ought to be naive as to the intentions of China.

在YouTube上有很多相关的视频。我们会提供一些链接，大家需要关注目前的情况。我们正在落后。关税和保护主义只能在短时间内保护美国工业。实际上，它会剥夺这些工业所需的竞争，以便激励它们自我提升。我的想法是，我们应该专注于自己的发展，把自己做到最好，尽可能努力前进。同时，我认为我们不能对中国的意图过于天真。

At the same time, I think an idea that we can totally decouple from the second largest economy in the world is one that's probably not wise. And I totally agree with you that we don't want to do anything that causes us to believe that we don't have to have our economic and innovative engine moving at the fastest rate possible. So that's a good one. All right. What's your first one?

同时，我认为完全与世界第二大经济体脱钩的想法可能并不明智。我完全同意你的观点，我们不想做任何让我们认为不需要以最快速度推动经济和创新引擎运转的事情。好的。这是个不错的建议。那么，你的第一个建议是什么？

So in the spirit of Thanksgiving, Bill, I came up with five things that I'm thankful for. Number one, I'm thankful for Doge and the once in a generation opportunity to balance the budget. We've talked about this in our friend group for a long time. But a $38 trillion debt and a $2 trillion deficit, frankly, is just unconscionable as a burden to pass on to our kids. You know, the spirit of the 250 year history of America has really about making sacrifices today in order to create a better tomorrow for future generations. But today we're doing the exact opposite. We're levering up the Fed balance sheet.

在感恩节的精神中，比尔，我想出了五件让我感恩的事情。首先，我感恩于狗狗币和这一代人可以获得的机会来平衡预算。我们在朋友群里讨论过这件事很久了。但是，38万亿美元的债务和2万亿美元的赤字，坦白说，作为传递给我们孩子的负担，这是难以形容的不可接受。你知道，美国250年的历史精神实际上就是为了给未来几代人创造一个更美好的明天而在今天做出牺牲。但如今我们却在做着完全相反的事情，正在加大美联储资产负债表的负担。

We're borrowing on the credit card today and sticking future generations with the burden of repayment. It's profligate and frankly, it's unethical. But some people argue that it just can't be done, that Washington is this Leviathan that can't be slayed, that we simply have to cut too much, that we can't possibly balance the budget by 2029. So I did a little analysis with our team and asked, what would it take? What would it take for us to balance the budget by 2029?

我们今天在使用信用卡透支，把偿还的负担留给了未来的世代。这种做法是挥霍无度的，而且坦白说，是不道德的。但是有人认为，我们别无选择，华盛顿就像一头无法战胜的巨兽，我们必须大幅削减支出，无法在2029年之前平衡预算。所以我和团队做了一些分析，问了这样一个问题：我们需要做些什么才能在2029年前实现预算平衡？

So this first chart we're going to put up, if you look at it, simply shows the COVID bump in spending from $5 trillion to $7 trillion. Now, if you reduced spending for the next four years, bill at 3%, it simply gets us back to $6 trillion, which is exactly the trend line that government spending would be on, if it grew at the 15 year rate pre-COVID. So not draconian at all. If you look at chart two, it shows a base case for balancing the budget at $6 trillion in 2029. Now, you get there by simply reducing the size of government by about 3% a year for the next four years.

这第一张图表显示了由于新冠疫情导致的支出增长，从5万亿美元增加到7万亿美元。如果在未来四年中将支出削减3%，支出总额将回落到6万亿美元，这恰好符合疫情前政府支出15年增长率的趋势线，所以这并不是一个严苛的措施。再看看第二张图表，它展示了到2029年将预算平衡在6万亿美元的基本方案。要实现这个目标，只需在接下来的四年中每年将政府规模减少约3%。

Again, just still going from $5 trillion in 2019 to $6 trillion in 2029. So you're still growing at that 3% rate, but you have to reduce the size from the $7 trillion that we are today. And it assumes that revenues grow at 3.5%. And if we do that, then we balance the budget in 2029. And so that sounds good, but some people say, oh, that's impossible. Revenues can't possibly grow at 3.5% because Trump is proposing tax cuts. And we all know that tax cuts will make revenue go down. Correct? No, incorrect.

再来解释一下，从2019年的5万亿美元增长到2029年的6万亿美元。因此，你仍然在以3%的速度增长，但必须从我们目前的7万亿美元缩小规模。假设收入以3.5%的速度增长，如果这样的话，我们将在2029年实现预算平衡。这听起来不错，但有人说，这不可能。收入不可能以3.5%的速度增长，因为特朗普正在提出减税方案。我们都知道减税会使收入下降，对吗？不，对此说法不正确。

If you look at the chart three that we're showing up, Bill, we looked at three different growth scenarios. If we grew revenues at the same rate that we have for the last 20 years, right, starting next year, which is 4.9% per year, Kager, for 20 years, we would end up with a $450 billion surplus in 2029. Now, if you grew at the rate since the Trump tax cuts in 2017, which is faster than the 20 year rate. So since the tax cuts in 2017, we've grown our federal revenues at 5.8%. If you do that and simply reduce the size of government back to trend line, you end up with a $700 billion surplus.

根据我们提供的图表三，Bill，我们考察了三种不同的增长情景。如果从明年开始，我们按照过去20年的速度增长收入，即年均增长4.9%，经过20年，到2029年我们将拥有4500亿美元的盈余。现在，如果我们以自2017年特朗普减税以来的增长率——比过去20年的增长率更快——进行增长。自2017年减税以来，我们的联邦收入以5.8%的速度增长。如果你这样做，并且只是将政府规模缩减回到趋势线，那么将会有7000亿美元的盈余。

And then the third scenario, take a conservative case. Let's say that for some reason, we're going to grow a lot slower than we have in the last, you know, since the Trump tax cuts, or even slower than we have over the last 20 years. And we assumed a 3.5% growth in federal revenues, even at 3.5% growth for the next four years. You balance the budget in 2029 by simply reducing the size of government 3% a year back to trend line. I think Doge is even more ambitious, but it goes to prove that we can do this and we owe it to our kids. So I'm thankful that we have a once in a generation opportunity to balance the budget and deliver the future our kids deserve. One encouraging data point would would would just be the Argentina situation. So everybody's raving about the the Lex podcast with Malay, which I once again thought was amazing. But if you look at the Argentinian ETF ARGT, it's up 60% year to date, 65, which suggests the optimism around Argentinian's economy has reversed, you know, from where it was.

以下是中文翻译： 然后第三种情况，我们采取一个保守的例子。假设由于某种原因，我们的增长速度会比自特朗普减税以来的速度慢很多，甚至比过去20年还要慢。假设未来四年，联邦收入每年仅增长3.5%。只需每年将政府规模缩减3%回到趋势线，到2029年就可以实现预算平衡。我认为Doge的目标更有野心，但这证明了我们可以做到这一点，我们应该为我们的孩子努力。 所以我很感激，我们有一个千载难逢的机会来平衡预算，并为我们的孩子们创造一个他们应得的未来。一个令人鼓舞的数据点是阿根廷的情况。大家都在谈论和称赞与Malay的Lex播客，我也觉得很精彩。但如果你看看阿根廷的ETF ARGT，今年以来上涨了60%，甚至65%，这表明人们对阿根廷经济的乐观态度已经逆转。

And I, you know, that's fantastic. And I think it speaks to the dual ability of Doge. Yep. So, okay, give me your topic to, Bill. I was intrigued by an article that I saw on X that was about the service Titan IPO. And I think it came from Maritec Capital. I'll put the link in. But we haven't had a lot of IPOs. And so sometimes VCs, you know, will take an S one and break it down. And that's what Maritec did here. And they focused on one aspect of the certain service Titan capitalization chart, which is the last round or two that went into the company, which I think was either F or H or G. You get up in the higher letter counts had what they said is a compounding IPO ratchet.

好的，我知道，那太棒了。我认为这也展现了Doge的双重能力。是的。那么，好吧，Bill，你想讨论什么话题？我对X上看到的一篇关于Service Titan上市的文章很感兴趣，我觉得这篇文章来自Maritec Capital。我会把链接放上去。最近我们看到的IPO并不多。因此，有时候风投公司会拆解S-1文件进行分析，Maritec就是这样做的。他们集中于Service Titan资本化图表的某个方面，即公司最近一两轮融资，这应该是F轮、H轮或G轮融资。在这些高阶段的融资中，他们提到了一种复合IPO回扣机制。

Now, a years ago, I wrote a blog post called on the road to recap, which was went into detail about why I don't like these things. But in essence, it allows a company to pretend that the cover price on a term sheet is whatever they want it to be. But the returns to the investor that write these things, and I love to refer to them as dirty term sheets, are embedded in the IPO clause and not in the price clause. And in this particular case, what it says is that the investors guaranteed a certain return into the IPO, which means their share count will be adjusted on the IPO and the trigger and the calculator for how many shares they get is the IPO price itself.

现在，大约一年前，我写了一篇名为《在重述路上》的博客文章，详细讨论了我为什么不喜欢这些东西。简单来说，这种方式让公司可以随意设定条件清单上的标价。而对于撰写这些文件的投资者来说，我喜欢称之为“肮脏的条件清单”，其收益嵌在IPO条款中，而不是价格条款中。在这种情况下，条款的意思是确保投资者在IPO时获得一定的收益，也就是说，他们的持股数量将在IPO时进行调整，而决定他们可获得股票数量的关键因素是IPO价格本身。

Now, the reason I hate these things is they create misalignment. So you have a bunch of investors on a cap chart, and now they have differing incentives. The later stage investors that wrote this compounding ratchet term actually want the IPO to be as low as possible, because they'll get more shares. And those shares will come out of the employees and the founders and the investors earlier investors that didn't participate in that particular round. I have spoken over and over again about IPO underpricing. This one, you know, there already are massive incentives for IPO underpricing.

现在，我讨厌这些东西的原因是它们会导致利益不一致。所以你的股权表上有一堆投资者，而他们的动机可能不同。那些后期投资者在协议中加入了这种复合递增条款，他们实际上希望IPO价格尽可能低，因为这样他们会得到更多的股票。而这些股票将会从员工、创始人和没有参加这一轮融资的早期投资者手中分出。我一次又一次地谈论IPO定价过低的问题，其实已经存在相当大的动机导致IPO定价过低了。

In this case, I suspect these late stage investors are going to be tugging on the ear of the bankers, rooting for an even lower price, which once again will come out of the hide of the employees and management. So there's no one to blame here because obviously the company approved this round. And I think the thing that causes people to approve these type rounds is this pretending that the valuation, they don't want to downround, so they do these to avoid it. But it comes home to roost and you concentrate risk. And when you concentrate risk, you can have some really, you know, negative outcomes. So there's, you know, there's probably a blame to go around.

在这种情况下，我怀疑这些后期阶段的投资者会向银行家施压，希望价格能更低，而这最终会影响到员工和管理层的利益。因此，这里没有人可以被责备，因为很明显公司批准了这次融资。我认为促使人们批准此类融资的原因之一是他们假装看不见估值问题，他们不想要降价，所以通过这种方式来避免降价。但最终问题还是会显现，你加大了风险集中度。而当风险集中时，可能会带来非常负面的后果。所以在这里，或许每个人都有一定责任。

I personally hate doing business with people that write these kind of terms. And I would encourage investors and founders to stay away from any investor that would write a term like this. But once again, you know, the founders and management like Ali took this round, you know, somewhat knowingly in an effort to not do it down round and now they're going to pay for it. Well, you know, we're not investors in a bill and, and, you know, I know from my team that the company is doing great. So I'm not exactly sure where it's going to price relative to those ratchets. But I would say this, you and I have been consistent advocates for 24 years, 25 years now that companies should just go. Public, right? And there is nothing, there is nothing wrong with a down round IPO. It's simply a price at a moment in time.

我个人非常讨厌与那些制定这种条款的人做生意。我会建议投资者和创始人远离那些会写出这种条款的投资者。但再说一次，你知道的，像Ali这样的创始人和管理层在一定程度上明知故犯地接受了这一轮投资，以避免公司估值下降，而现在他们要为此付出代价。不过，我们并没有投资该公司，我知道我的团队表示公司发展得不错。所以我不太确定公司相对于那些保护性条款的定价在哪里。但我想说的是，你我一直以来坚持了24年、25年倡导的观点是，企业应该直接公开上市。实际上，进行一次估值下降的首次公开募股并没有什么问题，那只是一个时间点的价格而已。

And if the market in 2021 was overheated and prices were really high in the private markets, that's just a fact of life. That's a fact of ZERP. That's a fact of zero percent interest rates. And so, you know, I think from my perspective, I agree with you these situations, which are not, I don't think inherently bad, but they can lead to this misalignment, particularly around the time of going public. And I would just encourage entrepreneurs out there, founders out there, simply take the bid on offer, take your company public when it's time to take your company public. And don't worry about the opening bid because you're building a company for a generation. There is one irony, which is the presence of this of this dirty term may actually be what's creating the incentive to go public because it has an annual crank on it. And so, the only way to make it go away is to actually jump through the hoop. And that was there was a similar situation at Square way back when. All right, let's move to your number two.

如果2021年的市场过热，私有市场的价格很高，那就是一种现实。这是零利率政策（ZERP）的结果。这是零利率的结果。因此，从我的角度来看，我同意你的看法，这些情况本身并不一定是不好的，但可能导致一些错位，特别是在公司上市的时候。我建议企业家和创始人们，在时机成熟时抓住机会让公司上市，不要过于担心发行价，因为你是在为未来一代打造公司。有一个讽刺的是，某些不受欢迎的因素实际上可能激励公司上市，因为它每年都会增加压力，而唯一能让它消失的方法就是踏上上市这条路。类似的情况曾经在Square 公司发生过。好了，我们来看你的第二点。

Topic two, another reason I'm thankful, it might not be apparent with the topic headline, but, you know, Governor Newsom is rebooting his attack on Elon Musk and capitalism. But I'm thankful for the fact that a great congressman from California, Democrat, Ro Khanna has said enough of the stupidity. So what's the background here? Well, Newsom has proposed an EV tax credit revival. If Trump cuts the federal EV tax credit, which many, many observers say we should cut at this point in time, it's no longer needed. But the government and all of his wisdom said we, he's going to revive the EV tax credit in a way that excludes Tesla despite the fact that Tesla is a huge manufacturer in the state of California. So Tesla, of course, produces cars over in Fremont just across the Bay from here, employs 20,000 people produced over 550,000 Teslas in the Fremont factory. You know, this is about as stupid bill is Biden excluding Elon from the White House EV Summit simply because he wanted to curry favor with the unions. But the reason I'm hopeful and the reason I'm thankful is that, you know, Ro Khanna said it's enough enough is enough. He said, this is my district. Tesla makes 550,000 cards there. Let's not play politics with keeping manufacturing in California. It would be foolish to exclude Tesla. Have we learned anything or nothing from snubbing Elon at the Biden EV Summit? Right? I'm thankful that we're turning against this stupidity and politics as usual. Calling out your own party when they're wrong is a sign that we're healing. So way to go, Ro, and happy Thanksgiving. I agree with everything you said.

主题二，我感谢的另一个原因，可能从标题看不出来，但你知道，加州州长纽森正在重新发起对埃隆·马斯克和资本主义的攻击。但我很感激加州的一位优秀国会议员，民主党人罗·卡纳说够了，不该再这样做了。那么背景是什么呢？嗯，纽森提议重新启动电动车税收抵免。如果特朗普削减联邦电动车税收抵免，很多观察家说在这个时间点我们应该削减税收抵免，因为它已经不再需要了。但政府出于他们的英明决定，说要在一种将特斯拉排除在外的方式下重启电动车税收抵免，尽管特斯拉是在加州的大型制造商。特斯拉在弗里蒙特的工厂生产汽车，距离这里仅隔一个海湾，雇佣了2万人，在弗里蒙特工厂生产了超过55万台特斯拉。这就像拜登为了讨好工会将埃隆排除在白宫电动车峰会之外一样愚蠢。但让我感到有希望和感激的原因是，罗·卡纳说够了够了。他说，这是我的选区。特斯拉在那里生产了55万辆汽车。我们不能用政治来影响加州的制造业，把特斯拉排除在外是愚蠢的。我们从拜登电动车峰会上冷落埃隆中得到了教训吗？对吧？我很感激我们正在反对这种愚蠢和一贯的政治。指出自己政党错误的时候，表明我们正在痊愈。所以，做得好，罗，感恩节快乐。我同意你所说的一切。

I would add one thing just for the record. I would much rather see us use a gas tax in an EV credit. An EV credit costs the government money. You just spoke about us not having a balanced budget. A increased gas tax would actually bring in income. And don't don't suggest that to governor Newsome. We already have the highest gas tax in the country. Well, look, when gas prices spiked in 2009, big SUV sales went in the tank. And there's a reason there's little bitty cars all over Europe, you know? And so if you if you wanted and sent moving to electric and getting rid of big gas guzzlers, you know, text what's negative rather than trying to pay people for what you think they want. It just creates more perverse behavior. Anyway, enough of my rant. Rogue Kana and that type of behavior that is bipartisan, that is looking out for free enterprise and capitalism, that's the road to the White House. This stuff that Newsome's doing is just the same, same stuff that shrunk the party and cost Democrats future elections. Okay, Bill.

我想补充一点，仅供记录。我更希望我们通过增加燃油税来支持电动车（EV）补贴。EV补贴需要政府出资，而我们刚刚谈到预算不平衡的问题。增加燃油税反而可以为政府带来收入。但千万别和州长纽森提这个建议，因为我们这里已经是全国燃油税最高的地方了。你看，2009年油价飙升时，大型SUV的销量就大幅下滑了。而你会发现，欧洲到处都是小型车，这就是原因之一。所以，如果你想推动电动车的发展，并减少大油耗车的使用，那就应该对负面因素征税，而不是付钱给人们去做你认为他们想做的事情。这样做只会让行为更不理性。好了，我的抱怨就到此为止。Rogue Kana这种关注自由企业和资本主义的跨党派行为，才是通往白宫的正确之路。而纽森正在做的这些事情，只不过是重复那些导致党派萎缩并让民主党在未来选举中失利的老路而已。好了，Bill。

Topic number three, what do you have for us? So I saw a post online that really caught my eye about something called PICS, PIX, and put the chart up right now. So PIX is a government run payment system in Brazil. Now, I, you know, I don't think anyone would argue that Brazil is is, you know, one of the top five functioning economies in the world. And I don't think anyone would say that they're, you know, more savvy or technically innovative than America. But, but this payment system, which is digital and immediate, and which mirrors what has happened in the UK, India, China, Australia, all these other countries have done this, is already up to, I think, 43% of all payments in Brazil. From mid 2020. And they started this thing. It became a concept in Brazil after we started talking about an equivalent thing in the U in the US called FedNow.

第三个话题，你有什么可以分享的吗？我在网上看到了一篇帖子，让我对一个叫做PICS或PIX的东西产生了兴趣，现在就来看看这个图表。PIX是巴西的一个政府运营的支付系统。虽然我并不认为有人会把巴西列为世界上功能最强的五大经济体之一，也不认为他们在技术创新方面比美国更有优势，但这个数字化和即时支付系统，与英国、印度、中国、澳大利亚等国家的类似系统相似，已经在巴西占到了大约43%的支付份额。这个系统于2020年中期开始推行，最初是在我们在美国开始讨论一个类似的系统“FedNow”之后，才在巴西形成了概念。

Now, for anyone who doesn't know what, I'm sure everyone's aware that the digital transfer system in the US is pathetic. This thing called ACH takes three days to settle. It's not immediate. It's reversible. It makes no sense whatsoever in 2024. And there's another fact that you should know in North America, which is V said MasterCard have the two highest operating margin percentages in our markets. Total, like they're over 60%. And something's not right. And all these other countries have figured out, you know, the government is somewhat the, we are somewhat dependent on the government for payment. If they don't stand behind payment, you don't have anything. And all these other governments have realized that oligopolies like V said MasterCard aren't working in their best interest. And they've all built these systems. And the one that's super easy to read about is the one in UK. It's called faster payments. I'll put the Wikipedia link up. But now there's picks in Brazil. There's UPI in India. And we haven't done it in the US. I think it's because of regulatory capture. The banks don't want it. Visa and MasterCard don't want it. But guess what? Fed now is underway. It's in process. It's been executing. It's mostly been doing B2B payments. They haven't switched over to consumer, but it's coming. And I couldn't be a bigger proponent. The markets had forever to try and solve this problem and they don't. We have a broken payment system in the US. It's clear in these other countries that letting the government do this one part and getting it right leads to all kinds of fintech innovation because you can transfer money quickly.

现在，对于那些不了解的人，我相信大家都知道美国的数字支付系统非常糟糕。这个叫做ACH的系统需要三天才能完成结算。它不是即时的，而且是可逆的。在2024年，这样的系统显得完全没有意义。还有一个事实需要了解，在北美，Visa和MasterCard在我们的市场上拥有最高的营业利润率，超过60%。这显然不正常。其他国家已经意识到，政府在支付方面有一定责任。如果政府不支持支付系统，那你就没办法使用。而且这些国家也发现像Visa和MasterCard这样的寡头对国家利益并没有好处。因此，他们建立了自己的系统。最容易了解的是英国的系统，叫做“快速支付”（Faster Payments）系统。我可以给大家提供维基百科的链接。此外，巴西有Pix，印度有UPI，而我们美国却没有采取类似措施。我认为这是因为监管垄断的缘故。银行不希望有这样的系统，Visa和MasterCard也不希望有。但好消息是，美联储现在有一个项目正在进行，叫做FedNow，主要用于企业对企业的支付，虽然还没有转向消费者，但这一天会到来。我对此非常支持。市场已经有足够的时间来解决这个问题，但没有成功。美国的支付系统已经出了问题。其他国家的情况表明，让政府做好这一部分工作，可以带来各种金融科技的创新，因为你可以快速转账。

Now, here's my concern, which is I've learned something over the past, I'd say six weeks, which is innovators hate innovation. I learned it in a clean tech space when you and I went and studied nuclear. No one hates nuclear more than like the person that's got the big wind investment or the person that's really all in on nuclear and they should just all hate oil. They should like they should root for each other, but they don't. And I with the administration change, I just kind of got my eyes open. I hope that Fed now gets to continue on its pace and will continue to chase. And then hopefully succeed just like picks and UPI and and and faster payments. Okay. But I do worry. I, you know, I think the crypto people will say, Oh, we can do it in crypto. And you don't need the government to do it. And Visa and Mass Card and the banks will lean on every one of their representatives in Washington and fight it all the way. But but but I'm hopeful that it'll work. And I feel super strongly that the innovation that will be possible for crypto for all the fintech startups, it would be better if we can move money fast.

现在，这里是我的担忧，我在过去大约六周中学到了一些东西，那就是创新者讨厌创新。我是在清洁技术领域学到这点的，当我们去研究核能的时候。没有人比那些大力投资风能的人或者完全投入核能的人更讨厌核能了，他们本应该都一齐反对石油。他们应该支持彼此，但他们却没有。而随着政府的更迭，我逐渐看清了这一点。我希望“Fed Now”能够继续保持其进度，并持续追赶，然后希望能像“Picks”和“UPI”以及更快速的支付方式那样获得成功。但是我确实感到担忧。我认为加密货币领域的人会声称，哦，我们可以通过加密货币来实现，不需要政府介入。而Visa、万事达卡以及各大银行将会通过他们在华盛顿的代表竭力反对这一点。但我仍然对其成功抱有希望。我坚信，如果我们能快速转移资金，将会为所有金融科技初创公司和加密货币带来更多可能的创新。

No doubt about it. The penetration of these nationally supervised kind of identity and payment systems in India and Brazil is extraordinary. Fed now has been pathetic for one of the greatest innovating economies on the planet. It would be great to see this administration really, you know, catch up with the rest of the world around that. And by the way, I'm a capitalist and people jump down my throat when I promote Fed now. But look, it's just not working like Visa and Mass cards operating margins are proof that it's just not working. And the is that the result of some regulatory capture bill? I suspect so. And just an oligopoly. I mean, there are certain things that kind of work better with a single player, right? We all want to connect and move money fast, right? It works better if it's a single provider, which, you know, and if you let a company do it, they create excessive operating margins and which is what these two have done. And the but the but the number one thing is every other country did it. And it's working fabulously and no one died. Like we should just do it here here.

毫无疑问，印度和巴西在国家监管的身份识别和支付系统方面取得的进展是非常出色的。相比之下，作为全球最具创新能力的经济体之一，美国的Fed Now表现却十分乏力。如果本届政府能够在这方面赶上全球的步伐，那就太好了。顺便说一句，我是个资本主义者，但每次我支持Fed Now，大家都指责我。不过你看，Fed Now的效果的确不如Visa和万事达卡，这两家公司的运营利润率证明了这一点。是不是因为某些监管被操控了呢？我怀疑是这样，而且这显然是一种寡头垄断。有些事情由单一主体来做的确更好——我们都希望能够快速连接和转账，对吧？一个单一的提供商往往能更好地实现这一点。如果你让某个公司来做，他们就会创造过高的利润，这正是这两家公司所做的。然而最重要的是，其他国家都已经这样做了，并且成效显著，没有出什么大问题。我们也应该在这里尽快实施。

So I'm going to jump to number three for me. The third reason that I'm thankful is what I believe to be our strategy around tariffs. So again, this is contrary to what I think the consensus view is. So of course, Trump has announced that one of his first acts will be to initiate a 25% tariff on products coming from Canada and Mexico unless they get serious about stopping illegal immigrants and drugs from crossing the border. He said in his in his release about this, we hereby demand that they use their powers to stop this trafficking or it's time for them to pay a big price. His nominee to be Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said, quote, the tariff gun will be loaded but rarely discharged, end quote. But I saw a lot of debate on on X about this bill. In fact, our good buddy, Jay Cal, said, don't don't take Trump seriously. These are just literary flourishes. And I responded that I disagree and I think you should treat them as effective negotiating tactics, not as literary flourishes. What I mean by that, you know, I jumped online here. And I asked our good friend at chat GPT, you know, the art of negotiation, particularly when it comes to anchoring.

所以我要跳到我认为的第三点感激之处。让我感到感激的第三个原因是我认为我们在关税策略上的做法。因此，这和我认为的大众观点是相反的。当然，特朗普已经宣布，他的首批行为之一将是对来自加拿大和墨西哥的产品征收25%的关税，除非他们认真对待阻止非法移民和毒品越境的问题。在他发布的声明中，他说，我们在此要求他们利用他们的权力来阻止这种贩运，否则就该让他们付出高昂的代价。他提名的财政部长斯科特·贝森特曾说，“关税武器将会被加载，但很少开火。”但我在X上看到很多关于这项法案的争论。事实上，我们的好朋友Jay Cal说，不要把特朗普的话当真，这些只是文字上的修饰。我回应说我不同意，我认为应该把它们视为有效的谈判策略，而不是文字修饰。我的意思是，我上网问了我们的好朋友Chat GPT，特别是关于谈判艺术中的“锚定”策略。

So anchoring is this, this behavioral thing when you set the terms of the negotiation, so it describes it in three ways. Number one, the psychological influence. The initial offer acts as a mental anchor. Even if the other party tries to adjust away from it. Number two, defining the range. It sets the boundaries of the negotiation. Making subsequent offers seem more or less reasonable in comparison. So then I asked chat GPT in the art of the deal by Donald Trump, you know, did he did he explicitly refer to anchoring, right? Or did he advise anchoring in a negotiation? And it says, while he didn't technically use the term anchoring, the principles aligned with Trump's negotiating style that he advocates for in the book. Trump frequently emphasized number one, starting big. He advocates aiming high in negotiations, a form of anchoring that sets ambitious targets, confidence and boldness.

所以“锚定”是指在谈判中设定条件的一种行为习惯，这可以通过三种方式来描述。第一，心理影响。初始报价会成为一种心理锚，即使对方试图偏离这个初始点。第二，定义范围。它设定了谈判的界限，使得后续的报价在比较中显得合理或不合理。然后我问了ChatGPT在唐纳德·特朗普的《交易的艺术》这本书中，他是否明确提到过锚定，或者是否建议在谈判中使用锚定。ChatGPT回答说，虽然他并没有技术上使用“锚定”这个词，但其原则与特朗普在书中倡导的谈判风格是一致的。特朗普经常强调首先要“出手大”。他主张在谈判中抱有很高的目标，这是一种锚定形式，反映了自信与大胆。

He stresses the importance of framing negotiations to one's own advantage, et cetera. And so I think the right way to look at this tariffs debate is that, you know, it is a starting point. He's going to raise these tariffs in order to achieve national objectives. And then he's going to be willing to negotiate away from them, but only if he achieves the national objectives. I'm not a big fan of tariffs from an economic perspective, but I think as a negotiating tactic, it could make a lot of sense. So I'm grateful for a fully capable present team that understand how to negotiate to, to achieve these objectives. I'm equally hopeful that we use the same type of negotiating tactics, frankly, to end some of this global conflict in Ukraine in the Middle East.

他强调了在谈判中为自己争取优势的重要性等等。因此，我认为正确看待这个关税辩论的方式，就是将其视为一个起点。他计划提高这些关税以实现国家目标，然后他会愿意在实现这些国家目标的前提下进行谈判撤销。我从经济角度并不十分支持关税政策，但我认为作为一种谈判策略，它可能非常有意义。所以，我很感激现有的团队在谈判方面的全能能力，以实现这些目标。我同样希望我们能坦率地使用相同的谈判策略，来结束乌克兰和中东的一些全球冲突。

It's not clear to me that that having a constant conversation about negotiating tactics is helpful. But here's the thing, observer, observer effect issue. As you and I know around the poker table, you can talk about it, but the question is, are they willing to call us bluff? The thing about Trump is I don't think it's a bluff. Right. Right. Well, I mean, the one that I read about today, look, Fenton, all precursors have definitely been going from China to Mexico and then across our border. So they should be able to stop those from leaving their shipyards. And that's a reasonable ask from the United States. So Bill, talk, walk us into number four. What do you got for number four?

对我来说，不断讨论谈判策略是否有帮助还不太明确。但有一个问题，观察者效应。就像你我在扑克桌上知道的一样，可以讨论，但问题是，他们是否愿意应对我们的虚张声势。关于特朗普，我不认为他是在虚张声势。对，我今天读到的一个消息，芬太尼的前体确实一直从中国运往墨西哥，然后越过我们的边界。所以他们应该能阻止这些物品从他们的船厂离开。这是美国一个合理的要求。那么，Bill，谈谈第四个问题吧。你有什么想法？

So I saw something this week that made me happy, which is an anthropic released a new data connection tool. We'll put a link in here so everybody can see it. You've probably already heard about it called the MCP and it is going to make their models better and easier to integrate with different data sources. They released several integrations already in the initial pack with good GitHub and Slack and a few others so that you can start having your agents interact with these things. But my favorite part of it all was they decided to open source it. Now, I would love maybe one day for us to just do a whole episode on open source because I I'm such a huge fan and I see it being used in so many different ways.

这周我看到了一件让我开心的事情，就是Anthropic发布了一个新的数据连接工具。我们会在这里放一个链接，大家都可以查看。你可能已经听说过这个工具，叫做MCP，它将使他们的模型更好，更容易与不同的数据源集成。他们在初始包中已经发布了几个整合，包括GitHub、Slack和其他一些工具，这样你的代理就可以开始与这些工具进行互动了。但我最喜欢的部分是，他们决定将其开源。我非常希望有一天我们能专门做一期关于开源的节目，因为我非常支持开源，并且看到它在许多不同的方式中被利用。

But it has definitely become a strategic tool for everyone out there. Metis got really good at it. They have this project called the Open Compute Project that basically opensource their entire data center design. And so no one has IP control over them. And then obviously we know about what they've done with their LLM model. Now, based on what I've heard and seen and read and listened to on podcast, anthropic and their investors like Eric Schmidt have been some of the people that have been encouraging, you know, more and more AI oversight and AI regulation and trying to make it such that open source AI would not be legal. And I think them doing this is going to create a bit of confusion amongst the people they're calling on in Washington because they're going to say, oh, you don't need open source and then they're going to say, but you just release something in open source.

但这无疑已经成为每个人手中的战略工具。Metis在这方面表现得非常出色。他们有一个项目叫做开放计算项目，基本上是开源了他们整个数据中心的设计，所以没有人对其拥有知识产权的控制。显然，我们知道他们在LLM模型方面的成就。根据我听到、看到、读到和在播客中了解到的事情，Anthropic及其投资人如埃里克·施密特一直在鼓励加强对人工智能的监督和监管，试图让开源AI变为非法。我认为他们这么做会在他们呼吁的华盛顿人群中制造一些混乱，因为他们一方面会说不需要开源，然后又自己发布了一些开源的东西。

And I think I think everything is kind of muddy and nuanced. And maybe they've reached a new place where they're not going to they're going to stop fighting that and I hope so. But but I'm thrilled that they did it. I'm thrilled that they're using that type of technique. I think it is one of the most savvy competitive weapons you can bring to the field. I'm sure they were worried that open AI would create proprietary data connectors and they want everyone to use this one very similar to what Google did with Kubernetes. And so anyway, it's I think it's super interesting and I hope it just means more and more innovation and competition in the AI market.

我觉得一切都有点模糊和复杂化。也许他们已经达到了一个新的阶段，不再抗拒这种情况，我希望如此。不过我为他们的努力感到激动。我为他们使用这种技术感到高兴。我认为这是你能在竞争中使用的最聪明的武器之一。我相信他们担心OpenAI会创造专有的数据连接器，而他们希望每个人都使用这种方法，这与谷歌在Kubernetes上的做法非常相似。总之，我觉得这非常有趣，并且希望这意味着在AI市场上会有更多的创新和竞争。

Bill, this just made me think about I was watching CNBC this week and I hear David Fabers say, you know, they have a chart of Nvidia up Nvidia is going down on this particular day. And he said, I was listening to, you know, Bill Gurley on my favorite new pod, BG2. And Bill is talking a lot about the deceleration and the rate of pre scaling or pre training scaling. So shout out to you for helping to put us on the radar screen of Faber. So number four, here's my number four reason for giving thanks. And it's for Warren Buffett's leather updating his giving plans. So this week, he wrote a letter to kind of update in a very open and transparent way.

比尔，这让我想起我这周在看CNBC时，听到戴维·法伯说，他们有一张关于英伟达的图表。那天英伟达的股价下跌。他提到，他在收听他最喜欢的新播客BG2时听到了比尔·格利的谈话。比尔在谈论关于预扩展或预训练规模增速的减缓。感谢你让我们进入法伯的视野。接下来是我感恩的第四个理由，那就是沃伦·巴菲特关于更新捐赠计划的信函。本周他写了一封信，以非常开放和透明的方式更新了他的计划。

His plans on giving away the rest of his wealth. He has over a hundred billion dollars despite giving a lot of his wealth all already away through the Gates Foundation. I think he's six or seven still on on the Forbes list. And so a couple of blurbs from the letter that really struck me. The first he said, I have never wished to create a dynasty or pursue any scheme that extended beyond the children. He then went on to say, Bill, I'm grateful for this country. Things didn't look good when I arrived in 1930 at the beginning of the Great Depression, but the real action from compounding takes place in the final 20 years of a lifetime. He talks about his family.

他的计划是捐出剩余的财富。尽管通过盖茨基金会已经捐出了很多钱，他仍然拥有逾千亿美元的财富。我想他在福布斯榜单上仍然排在第六或第七。他的信中有几句话让我印象深刻。首先他说：我从未希望创建一个王朝或追求超出子女的计划。他接着说：比尔，我对这个国家充满感激。我是在1930年大萧条初期来的，那时候形势不太好，但复利效果的真正显现通常发生在生命最后20年。他还谈到了他的家人。

He said this, which really hit me. He said, instead we shared this view that equal opportunity should begin at birth. An extreme look at me styles of living should be legal, but not admirable. Um, as a family, we have had everything we needed or simply liked, but have not sought enjoyment from the fact that others craved what we had. And it just got me thinking about this whole country, people I've talked to, you know, many friends of ours who've ended up with wealth that frankly, compared to the Rockefeller's or the Carnegie's would dwarf them by comparison.

他说这番话真正触动了我。他说，我们都认同，公平的机会应该从出生开始。那些极端的炫富生活方式应该是合法的，但不应该被推崇。作为一个家庭，我们拥有了我们需要或喜欢的一切，但并没有因为别人羡慕我们而感到快乐。这让我开始思考整个国家，我所聊过的人，包括我们许多朋友，他们拥有的财富与洛克菲勒或卡内基相比，甚至显得更加庞大。

But almost everybody I know intends to give away the vast majority of their wealth while they're alive. I don't have the hard information to prove this, but we may be the first nation in history where the majority of the wealth of those in, let's call it the top one or two percent will be given away. Versus preserved for building dynasties. Right. I mean, it was Europe that invented the generation skipping trust, this whole idea of working around the system in order to preserve dynastic wealth. And what I love about this fact in the United States and, you know, is that people are doing it through their own free will, right?

我认识的几乎所有人都打算在活着的时候捐出他们大部分的财富。我没有确凿的证据来证明这一点，但我们可能是历史上第一个这样做的国家：最富有的人群中，大多数将把他们的财富捐赠出去，而不是保存下来用于建立家族产业。对吧？你知道，欧洲发明了"代代相传的信托基金"，这个概念就是通过规避系统来保存家族财富。而我喜欢美国这种现象的原因是，人们都是出于自己的意愿来这么做的。

This is not being coerced by the government. This is not, you know, we're going to take everything away. It's allowing people to innovate, allowing people to build the country, but also trusting that part of this national experiment is time and time again. Those people take that and pour it back into consumer surplus. Thank you to Warren Buffett on this Thanksgiving for once again, showing us the way that this freedom, the freedom to choose to give away your money, you know, is the right way. And I think I certainly know that my family, but lots of others will work hard to emulate that. One thing that spurs in my brain that maybe could be something we do at some episode in the future is just it'd be great to create.

这不是政府的强制要求。这并不是说，政府要剥夺我们的一切。而是让人们能够创新、建设国家，同时相信在这个国家实验的一次次过程中，这些人会把成果回馈给消费者。感谢沃伦·巴菲特在这个感恩节再次向我们展示了，自由——选择把钱捐赠出去的自由——才是正确的道路。我知道我的家庭以及许多其他人都会努力去效仿这种做法。有件事让我想到了，也许我们可以在未来的某个节目中实现，就是创造一些有益的东西。

You know how Doge wants to create a list of ineffective government spending. It'd be great to have a list of of effective donations, you know, where can wealth be donated that has the biggest impact? Because it's hard. That's very hard to do. It's very hard to give it away in a way that's effective. No doubt about it. And many of these people who've created this wealth, they're entrepreneurs. You know, I remember having this conversation with Michael Dall. You work really hard. You get lucky. You end up with, you know, in this situation and they care just as deeply about seeing that effectiveness in giving, right? In terms of, you know, working hard to make sure that it has the impact that they desire and I agree with you, particularly doing that at scale, very difficult to do.

你知道，Doge 想要创建一个低效政府开支的清单。同样，也能有一个有效捐赠的清单就太好了，你知道，就是说财富可以捐赠到哪里才能产生最大的影响？因为这样做确实很难。毫无疑问，要以有效的方式捐赠是非常困难的。创造这些财富的人中，很多都是企业家。我记得我曾和迈克尔·戴尔讨论过这个问题。你努力工作、运气好，最终处于这样的境地，他们同样也很在意捐赠的效果，对吧？他们同样努力工作以确保捐赠能够产生他们希望的影响。我同意你的看法，尤其是要大规模做到这一点，确实非常困难。

So Bill, talk to us about your last and final, your fifth. I wish mine. I wish mine were as altruistic as yours, but but say, La Vee, I wanted to just speak out and this one will be super short on the word conspiracy theory, because I think it's really been weaponized. And as we maybe move in a new direction, I would just encourage everyone to stop using this phrase. The situation that really got me a couple of years ago, actually, maybe three or four years ago, I started going really deep on the origin of COVID. And I still believe that we have to figure this out. If we want to stop a pandemic from happening again, you have to do root cause analysis. If you're going to do root cause analysis, you got to know what happened. Or you have to treat, since we seem to think they're one of two possibilities, you got to treat them both as if they did happen because this was the worst catastrophic event since World War II.

所以，比尔，和我们谈谈你的最后一次，也是第五次。我真希望我的想法能像你的一样无私，但这种事就是这样。我想简单地谈谈“阴谋论”这个词，因为我觉得它真的被滥用了。随着我们可能走向一个新的方向，我希望大家能停止使用这个词。让我开始深思的情况其实是在三四年前，当时我深入研究了新冠病毒的起源。我仍然相信，如果我们想阻止大流行再次发生，就必须进行根本原因分析。如果你要进行根本原因分析，就必须了解事情的真相。或者，因为我们似乎认为只有两种可能性，所以需要把两种情况都当作可能发生的来看待，因为这是自二战以来最严重的灾难性事件。

Now, it turns out that both Francis Collins and Dr. Fauci, Collins in two different emails and Fauci in his book called the lab leak theory of conspiracy theory. They have both been pulled in front of, in front of Congress and now suggests that it's not a conspiracy theory. But they said that back then. And I remember at the time when I would find something or read something and I'd mentioned to somebody and they go, Oh, you're a conspiracy theorist. And I was like, what? No, I'm just reading and trying to understand what's happening. And the word really got weaponized. It's interesting. The people that say they're worried about misinformation are the ones that are quick to use this word.

现在，事实证明，Francis Collins 和 Dr. Fauci 曾在两封不同的邮件中（Collins）以及在 Fauci 的书中称实验室泄漏理论为阴谋论。他们两个都被传唤到国会面前，现在表示这不是阴谋论。但他们当时却是这么说的。我记得那时，当我发现或读到一些东西并提到某人时，他们就会说：“哦，你是个阴谋论者。” 我当时心想，什么？不，我只是阅读并试图理解发生了什么。这个词真的被武器化了。有趣的是，那些说担心错误信息的人往往是最喜欢使用这个词的人。

And I think Fauci and Collins and everyone that said that the lab leak theory was conspiracy theory were actually, you know, waiting around and misinformation themselves. That's what they were doing and trying to prevent us from getting to the real answer. So if you disagree with something, someone says, say what you believe and the contrary opinion, but labeling something of conspiracy theory, I think we really need to get away from that. I think it is peddling and misinformation. I think it's really well said.

我认为，福奇和柯林斯以及其他那些把实验室泄漏理论称为阴谋论的人，实际上是在拖延并传播误导信息。他们试图阻止我们找到真实的答案。所以，如果你不同意某人的观点，说出你自己的看法和相反的意见，而不是给某件事情贴上阴谋论的标签。我认为我们真的需要摒弃这种做法，因为这实际上是在散播错误信息。我觉得这样说得非常到位。

Plain English is important. And we've just lived through, I think, a devastating period of time where not only words were weaponized bill, but they were used to ostracize. They were used to shut down the conversation, you know, shout out to our friend Joe Lonsdale, Barry Weiss, Neil Ferguson and others, the 60 minute piece on on the University of Austin at Texas. UATX this week was fantastic. I'm lucky to have been an advisor on that since the beginning. And it was really exciting. I'm watching the piece.

使用简单的中文表达意思：简单明了的语言很重要。我们刚刚经历了一段艰难的时期，在这段时间里，不仅仅是语言被用作了武器，还被用来排斥他人，关闭对话。像我们的朋友Joe Lonsdale、Barry Weiss、Neil Ferguson和其他人，他们做得很好。本周，《60分钟》对德克萨斯州奥斯汀大学（UATX）的报道非常出色。我很幸运从一开始就以顾问身份参与其中。看到这个报道，我感到非常兴奋。

I realized one of the students they're featuring is a great family friend of ours had no idea that he went. He went to school there. And so I texted his dad. I said, what's the experience been like? He said, he said fabulous, creating venues and opportunity on X and other places where we don't savage each other for openness, but we really encourage the debate, the dialogue. And I think you point in this out. The fact of the matter is we had people in positions of high authority that simply shut down the debate and conversation early on in a way that we now know. Was had devastating consequences by labeling people and ideas as a conspiracy. It was shameful.

我意识到他们展示的学生之一是我们家的一位好朋友，我完全不知道他去了那所学校。于是我给他爸爸发了短信，问他的经历如何。他说，太棒了，学校在X平台和其他地方创造了一个不互相攻击开放性，而是鼓励辩论和对话的环境。我认为你指出的这个事实是非常重要的。事实上，我们有些身居高位的人在早期就简单粗暴地关闭了辩论和对话，这种方式带来了我们现在所知道的灾难性后果，他们把一些人和想法贴上阴谋论的标签，这是可耻的。

And I think you're right for calling it out. And by the way, I would a few pods back. I mentioned this great interview between Dr. J. Bottacharia and Rick Rubin. And he his name is now being floated as a potential head of the NIH. And I couldn't. I can't think of a better candidate. And I'm so hopeful that that he ends up in that role here here. So maybe I'm going to wrap it. Topic number five, take us home. The fifth thing that I'm thankful for heading into Thanksgiving is invest America. Bill, you know, invest America is a project that I've been and now a piece of legislation that I've been working on for three years. And it's truly gaining a ton of traction.

我觉得你指出这个问题是对的。顺便提一下，我几期节目之前提到过一个很棒的采访，是Dr. J. Bottacharia与Rick Rubin的对话。现在，他的名字被提出来作为国家卫生研究院（NIH）可能的负责人候选人。我想不出比他更合适的人选了，我非常希望他最终能担任这个角色。在这里，我总结一下，第五个话题：带我们回家（笑）。在感恩节到来之际，我感激不已的第五件事是"投资美国"。比尔，你知道，“投资美国”是我花了三年时间一直在推进的一个项目，现在已经成为立法提案，并且正迅速获得支持。

Tell people rest restate what it is because not everyone. So the idea is that the federal government would cause to be created 3.7 million investment accounts a year for every child that's born in America. They would seat it with a very small amount of money that would be a rounding air to the federal government, but really be a 401k from birth where companies have already raised their hands from Uber to Dell oracle to Nvidia and said they would contribute to the accounts of the kids of their employees. Parents could add money to this account. It really is, you know, that 401k from birth.

向人们解释这个想法，因为并不是所有人都了解。其想法是，联邦政府每年为美国出生的每个孩子创建370万个投资账户。他们会向这些账户中注入非常少量的资金，对于联邦政府来说这几乎可以忽略不计，但实际上相当于是从出生就开始的401k计划（类似退休储蓄账户）。像Uber、Dell、Oracle、Nvidia等公司已经表示，他们愿意为员工孩子的账户进行捐助。父母也可以向这个账户存钱。它实际上就是一种从出生就开始的401k计划。

But here's, here's the thing, Bill. This is the perfect compliment to doge. You know, think about what we're attacking with doge. We're attacking, we're cutting wasteful and ineffective government programs that don't even help the people they're intended to help. Right. So instead of doing that, we ought to set up this investment account for each of these children and let the power of private markets work their magic.

但是，比尔，这里有个关键点。这是对狗狗币的完美补充。想想我们用狗狗币在做什么。我们正在减少那些浪费且无效的政府项目，那些项目甚至无法帮助它们旨在帮助的人。对吧。所以，与其这样，我们应该为每个孩子设立一个投资账户，让私人市场的力量发挥其魔力。

Right. We've done the research now in partnership with the Milken Institute led by Kevin Hasett and Rob Shapiro. We know if we give these kids these accounts, they're more likely to graduate from high school, more likely to graduate from college, more likely to buy a home, more likely to start a business. They have vastly higher levels of financial literacy.

好的，我们现在已经与由凯文·哈塞特和罗伯·沙皮罗领导的米尔肯研究所合作完成了这项研究。我们了解到，如果我们为这些孩子提供这些账户，他们更有可能高中毕业，更有可能大学毕业，更有可能买房和创业。此外，他们的金融知识水平也大幅提高。

They're more likely to become a taxpayer and they're less likely end up in jail. It has a massive ROI and we can achieve it while having less government, not more government. In fact, I look at this as a structural rebalancing from the state to the individual title rests with the family and the individuals and the kids who will be able to open up on their phone, see that they have a lot of money.

他们更有可能成为纳税人，而不太可能最终进监狱。这有巨大的投资回报率，我们可以在减少政府干预的情况下实现这些目标，而不是增加政府干预。事实上，我把这看作是一种从国家向个人的结构性再平衡，责任落在家庭、个人和孩子身上，他们能够在手机上看到自己有很多资金可用。

They too own a little bit of Berkshire Hathaway of Apple of United healthcare and can ask the questions about compounding. What does it mean to be an owner? They feel like they're in the game. We're going to unlock massive amounts of human potential by doing this. And it's not been from handouts, ineffective handouts from the state.

他们也拥有一点伯克希尔哈撒韦、苹果和联合健康公司的股份，并能够提出有关复利的问题。身为所有者意味着什么？他们觉得自己参与其中。通过这样做，我们将释放大量人类潜力。这并不是通过来自政府的无效施舍实现的。

This is about turning these kids into capitalists from day one. And I couldn't be more thrilled to see the momentum that it's gained. Another incredible thing about this bill. If we set up this infrastructure at a national basis, I've heard, you know, we were just talking about the challenge of giving away large sums of money. I've heard from several of these folks who have upwards of $100 billion that they could take $10 billion, put it in a drawdown trust in their state, for example, invested in the S&P 500 and match for all the kids of the families who earn, let's call it under $150,000.

这是关于从第一天起就让这些孩子成为资本主义者。我对这个计划获得的动力感到无比兴奋。这个法案还有一个令人惊叹的地方。如果我们在全国范围内建立这个基础设施，我们刚才讨论的是如何分配大量资金的挑战。我听说有几位拥有超过1000亿美元的人可以拿出100亿美元，在他们的州建立一个提取信托基金，例如，投资于标准普尔500指数，并为所有家庭收入低于15万美元的孩子提供匹配基金。

So think of those kickers going in there. Now they have trouble moving that money effectively. That's a lot of gross tonnage to give away. It would be for the interview. Kind of a private public partnership. Exactly. And beyond that, I've heard, you know, there are states like the state of Maine, you know, the state of Texas and Florida and other places that already have some local programs like this, some state programs.

所以，想象一下那些即将进入其中的推动者。现在，他们在有效管理这些资金方面遇到困难。要放弃这么多资金是很不容易的。这就像是一次面试，有点类似于公私合作的性质。没错。此外，我还听说，有些州，例如缅因州、德克萨斯州和佛罗里达州等地方，已经有了一些类似的地方项目和州项目。

But instead of everybody recreating the wheel, we just create a national infrastructure so that now those states can compete and ask them to do that. And you know, in a way that makes the most sense to them. So I think this is a way to unlock incredible resource in a very efficient way that again is compounding in the private markets in a way that is great for our economy drives the future, long term growth of the economy and gets government out of the equation.

与其让每个人都从头开始，不如我们创建一个国家基础设施，这样各州就可以在此基础上竞争，并要求他们以适合自己的方式运作。我认为这种方式能够非常高效地释放出巨大的资源，并在私营市场中产生良性循环，这对于我们的经济来说是非常有利的，能够推动未来长期的经济增长，并使政府不再插手其中。

So couldn't be more happy about that. What can people do if they want to get behind this movement, Brian? How can they help? Thanks for asking. Number one thing I would say to do is follow it and support it. We have the resources that we need and we're building a big bipartisan tent. So let your voice be heard, but we're moving and with any luck, we can have this put into the reconciliation process in the spring and achieve something that would, I think, would be profoundly important and worthy of a big presidential legacy, particularly as we approach next year.

对此我们感到非常开心。如果人们想支持这个运动，他们可以怎么做呢，布莱恩？感谢你的提问。我建议的首要事情是关注并支持这个运动。我们有所需的资源，正在搭建一个大型的跨党派联盟。所以，请让你的声音被听见。我们正在行动，如果运气好的话，我们可以在春季将其纳入和解进程，并实现一项我认为具有深远意义的目标，并为明年的总统留下重要的政治遗产。

In 2026, the 250th anniversary of America. So Bill, I think this was a really fun, uh, fun way to do it on, on, on this Thanksgiving week. Good suggestion. Let's wrap it there. All right, man. Have a great holiday and we'll see you on the other side. Sounds great. Bye. As a reminder to everybody, just our opinions, not investment advice.

在2026年，将迎来美国建国250周年。所以，比尔，我认为在感恩节这周用这种方式来做真的很有趣。这个建议不错。我们就到此为止吧。好的，祝你节日愉快，我们下次见。听起来很不错，再见。提醒大家，这只是我们的个人观点，不是投资建议。