E156: Ivy League antisemitism, macro, SaaS recovery, Gemini, Figma deal delay + big Friedberg update
发布时间 2023-12-08 00:24:57 来源
摘要
(0:00) Bestie intro! (3:12) Ivy League antisemitism hearings (21:55) State of the economy for consumers (34:55) Signs of life in ...
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
Saks, how are you doing with your Tucker afterglow? It was an amazing episode. The feedback's been great. It's the number one episode of the year after the wake, I think, and trending to be maybe a million views on YouTube. So how's the afterglow?
Saks，你在欣赏“Tucker余韵”后感觉如何？那一集真是太精彩了。反馈非常好。我认为那是今年除丧礼外最受欢迎的一集，而且在YouTube上可能还会有100万的观看次数。那么，你的感受如何呢？
Yeah, I did notice there's one particular clip that's going viral where he calls you stupid. Yes. Do you see that one?
是的，我注意到有一个特别的视频正在走红，他在其中称你为"愚蠢"。你看过那个视频吗？
I thought Tucker was incredible. I found him so intellectually interesting. And it's not always the case that great moderators and interviewers make great guests, but he is so intellectually curious and has unique points of view that you want to hear them out. And his style of talking, I find also like very easy to listen to. I thought he was really impressive, really, really impressive. You don't have to agree with everything he says, quite honestly. And some people probably won't, but I found him really compelling. I don't agree with half of stuff he said or maybe a third, but I too enjoyed it very much. I thought he was great sacks. I got, you know, as the person people believe has Trump derangement syndrome. Thank you for your tweet or the person people consider like the far left. They're like, why aren't you pushing back? Why aren't you pushing back? And this has become a maga takeover. You had Jared Kushner, he didn't get pushed back. You didn't get pushed back to Tucker.
我认为塔克真是令人难以置信。他的智力引人入胜。并不是所有杰出的主持人和采访者都会成为出色的嘉宾，但他对知识的渴望和独特的观点却让人想听听他的想法。而且他说话的方式，我发现也很容易听得进去。我真的觉得他非常令人印象深刻，真的真的令人印象深刻。坦白说，你不必同意他说的一切。可能有些人不会同意，但我觉得他真的很有说服力。我可能不同意他说的一半甚至三分之一，但我也非常喜欢听他说。我觉得他是个了不起的人物。有人认为我是“特朗普癫痫综合症”的患者。感谢你的推文，或者有人认为我是极左派。他们会说：“你为什么不反驳？为什么不反驳？”但这已经变成了一个“让特朗普再次当选”的占领。你没有让贾里德·库什纳反驳。你也没有让塔克反驳。
You know, one of the things we're trying to do here, I'm speaking for myself, is to let people talk, let them put out their position. And if you do that, and we did that with the presidential candidates exceptionally, I think, then you can decide for yourself. And yes, we'll ask a hard question here or there, or maybe, you know, push them a little bit, but we don't want to make it uncomfortable to come here and make it like they come here. And we take the 10 worst things about the person or the 10 criticisms and run through them. You can get that on cable news. You can get that on either side of the aisle. What I want to do is let them talk and then actually interesting things come up.
你知道，在这里我们正在努力做的一件事，我是代表自己说话，就是让人们说话，让他们表达自己的立场。如果你这样做了，就像我们对总统候选人所做的那样，我认为，你就可以自行决定。当然，我们会提出一两个难题，或者稍微追问一下，但我们不想让他们感到不舒服，也不想让他们觉得来这里就像是他们被展示出来一样。这种负面揭示的报道你可以在有线新闻上看到，无论是哪一方都有这样的报道。我想做的是让他们自由发言，然后会出现一些真正有趣的事情。
Why do you always get this feedback? Because people perceive me because you say I have Trump to range, but syndrome has the token left. That's well, and I'm a moderate and I try to keep saying that, but people keep wanting to say I'm like, for a left, I just want folks to realize that we're going to go and have more guests, especially if we can learn from those folks. And especially if hearing them out can expand how we think about what's going on in the world. So get over it. And it's about learning and being curious. Hard conversations will be the norm here on the pod. We're going to have any guests. We damn well, please. And some people will choose to not ask hard questions. I will choose to ask hard questions, but I won't hijack the show. And so please don't email me and tell me I didn't do my job fighting for the left or whatever. That's not my job. I'm going to ask a hard question when I want to on the show, but I'm not going to hijack the show with 20.
为什么你总是会得到这个反馈？因为人们认为我是因为你说我有特朗普的倾向，但是也有发展的综合症。那是可以的，我是一个温和派，我试图一直这样说，但是人们总是把我说成是左派，我只是希望大家能意识到我们将要有更多的嘉宾，尤其是如果我们可以从这些嘉宾那里学到东西。尤其是如果倾听他们可以扩大我们对世界发展的思考。所以请放下偏见吧。这是关于学习和好奇心的。在这个节目中，艰难的对话将成为常态。我们将有任何嘉宾。那些人选择不提出艰难的问题，而我选择提出艰难的问题，但我不会把节目扣押起来。所以请不要给我发邮件，告诉我我没有尽到为左派奋斗的职责之类的。那不是我的职责。在节目中，我想什么时候提出艰难的问题，我就会提。但是我不会把节目扣押起来。
Bravo to you. I suspect you're getting a lot of pressure from the private equity wives. Yes. I mean, what a great moment. What a great moment. People on SSR eyes, Jason, are blowing up your inbox.
太棒了，为你鼓掌。我猜你正承受着许多来自私募股权妻子的压力。是的，我的意思是，这是多么伟大的时刻啊。SSR眼中的人们，Jason，正在炸毁你的收件箱。
Well, the conversation that everybody's going well with. So let's just get into it. Is these college anti-Semitism hearings on Tuesday? The House Education Committee spoke with the presidents of Harvard, Penn, MIT. And they faced a lot of tough questions. Many of the videos went viral. And I guess the part that specifically went most viral was the presidents of these organizations refusing to specify whether or not the calls for mass murder of a particular group, genocide. Of students were or were not against the codes of contact against bullying and harassment at places like Harvard, Cloting Gay specifically was asked over and over again whether chance of intifada were violations of Harvard's code of conduct. She didn't give a great answer. I'm just curious, Saks, obviously you're Jewish. You went to the Ivy League, passionate about free speech. And you've talked about surplus immunity politics. He is what's your take here? Should students be allowed to march around campus, chanting from the river to the sea, intafada, et cetera, because of free speech? Or do these code of conduct come into play? And what was your reaction? We saw their answers because obviously it was a nuanced issue.
嗯，这个大家都很关注的对话。所以，我们就开始吧。这些大学反犹太主义的听证会是在星期二吗？教育委员会与哈佛、宾夕法尼亚大学和麻省理工学院的校长进行了交谈。他们面对了很多严厉的问题。许多视频在网络上广泛传播。而其中最广泛传播的部分是这些组织的校长拒绝明确回答是否大规模屠杀特定群体的呼声是或不是违反哈佛等地校规中有关欺凌和骚扰的条款。克罗威特·盖伊特在被反复问到巴勒斯坦抗议诗的吟唱是否违反了哈佛的行为守则时，未能给出一个合适的答案。我只是好奇，萨克斯，显然你是犹太人，曾在常春藤联盟求学，对言论自由充满热情。你谈过过剩免疫政治。那么在这里你有什么看法？学生是否应该被允许在校园里游行呼喊“从河流到海洋，起义”等口号，因为言论自由？或者这些行为守则是否有适用之处？以及当你看到他们的回答时，你有何反应？显然，这是一个复杂的问题。
Well, look, I mean, I have a very high bar for free speech. So I would allow, you know, almost everything. The problem that these university presidents have is that's not their position. They're trying to wrap themselves in the cloak of freedom of speech and academic freedom, but that has not been their practice on campus for many years.
嗯，听着，我是说，我对言论自由有很高的要求。所以我几乎允许一切。这些大学校长面临的问题是，他们没有这个职责。他们试图包裹自己在言论自由和学术自由的外衣下，但对校园内实际上已多年不是这么做的。
On a previous program, we talked about that fire survey, which pulled students about how free they feel to express opinions on campus. The results were dismal for the Ivy League. The Ivy League scored way worse than state schools. And in fact, remember that Harvard got the blue tarski as zero point zero. Yeah. They were last place. The students, they are reported that speakers were shouted down. They weren't even invited. They weren't allowed to to continue and finish their speeches. So Harvard has an abysmal record on freedom of speech. So it's hard to believe the president of Harvard when she claims that she's sustaining up for freedom of speech.
在之前的节目中，我们谈到了那个有关火灾调查的话题，调查了学生在校园表达观点时感到多么自由。结果对常春藤联盟大学来说是惨淡的，他们的分数远远低于州立学校。实际上，还记得哈佛得到了布鲁塔斯基的零点零分。是的，他们是垫底。学生们报告说，演讲者被高声呼喊打断，甚至没有被邀请，也没有被允许继续或完成他们的演讲。因此，哈佛在言论自由方面的记录糟糕透顶。所以很难相信哈佛的校长声称她在维护言论自由。
And in fact, if you were to apply that same standard to other groups, do you really believe? I mean, imagine if the representatives at that hearing had said to the president of Harvard, you know, are you allowed to advocate for genocide of black people or trans people? I mean, would the answer have been the same? I don't think so. I agree. I think absolutely not. So the question is, why are Jews being treated differently than these other groups?
实际上，如果把这个标准应用到其他群体，你真的相信会是这样吗？我的意思是，想象一下，如果在听证会上的代表对哈佛大学校长说，你是否允许支持种族屠杀黑人或跨性别者？我觉得答案肯定不会相同。我同意，绝对不会。所以问题是，为什么犹太人会受到与其他群体不同的对待？
And I think this all goes back to kind of woke identity politics where in the woke ideology, there are certain groups that are victim groups and there are certain groups that are oppressor groups. And if you're in a victim group, then you get special protections. And if you're in an oppressor group, then it's just assumed that you can't really suffer discrimination or, you know, injustice in that same way. And I think that Jews have basically been put in an oppressor group. They basically are being put in the same group as all white people.
我认为这一切都可以追溯到觉醒的身份政治，觉醒意识形态中存在一些被视为受害者群体的团体和被视为压迫者群体的团体。如果你处于受害者群体中，那么你会得到特殊的保护。而如果你处于压迫者群体中，人们就默认你不会面临歧视或者不公正待遇。我觉得犹太人基本上被归为压迫者群体。他们基本上与所有白人被归为同一群体。
And I think this has come as a great surprise to a lot of donors to these university campuses who I think were OK with woke identity politics to some degree when they believed that Jewish people were a potential victim group and that anti-Semitism was being treated as real. And lo and behold, they have found out that, no, they're in a presser group and they're not protected. And even very explicit cases of anti-Semitism are not being recognized by these universities because, again, it doesn't match up with this woke ideology.
我认为对于许多捐赠者来说，这个情况是一个巨大的惊讶。当他们认为犹太人是一个潜在的受害群体，反犹太主义得到了真正的对待时，他们在某种程度上认同觉醒式身份政治是可以接受的。然而，他们发现，事实并非如此，他们的地位并没有得到充分的袒护。即便是明显的反犹主义事件也没有得到这些大学的承认，因为它与觉醒意识形态不符。
I think it would have been a lot better for a lot of these donors to realize that woke identity politics was a cul-de-sac. It was something that they should not have wanted to participate in. But I think they're now waking up to the realization that in this, again, oppressor oppressed dichotomy, they're on the wrong side of that. I think you're exactly. And they don't like that realization.
我认为对于很多捐助者来说，意识到唤醒的身份政治是一条死胡同，会更好很多。这是他们不应该想要参与的事情。但我觉得他们现在开始意识到，在这种再次出现的压迫者-被压迫者二元对立中，他们站在错误的一方。我认为你说得很准确。而他们并不喜欢这个意识。
Exactly correct. I don't know. Politics wrote to nowhere. Freeburg, who gave a passionate speech here about being forced to pick a side when we're talking about the conflict in the Middle East. And I guess there's underpinnings here of your discussion, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and where's the line between just caring about humans and children being killed versus maybe harassment, et cetera.
完全正确。我不知道。政治无法帮助解决问题。弗里伯格在这里热情地演讲，谈到当我们谈论中东冲突时被迫选择一方的问题。我猜您讨论的其中一个基础是反犹太复国主义、反犹太主义以及关于仅仅关心人类和儿童被杀害与可能存在骚扰等之间的界限在哪里。
I'm curious when you saw these answers, what was your reaction? And yeah, how do you feel about it?
当你看到这些答案时，我很好奇你有什么反应？而且，对此你有什么感觉？
I was surprised that the Congress people didn't ask the university presidents, what would your reaction be if they started to burn crosses and say something about white supremacy, black people don't belong in the US, immigrants don't belong in the US. If you picked another ethnic group and made statements that have traditionally been deemed threatening and harassing, would they have made a difference of judgment? And if so, what's the difference between what's gone on this week or in recent weeks? And what's gone on in other civil rights actions that have taken place in educational institutions? And I think that would have been a really telling understanding of the discernment that's being made on campus today versus in the past.
我对国会议员没有问大学校长“如果他们开始焚烧十字架并说一些关于白人至上主义、黑人不属于美国、移民不属于美国的话，你们的反应会是什么？”感到惊讶。如果他们选取了其他族裔群体并发表了被传统视为威胁和骚扰的言论，他们的判断会有所不同吗？如果有，这周或最近发生的事情与其他发生在教育机构的民权行动有何不同？我认为这将是对如今校园里所做选择与过去之间区别的真实理解。
It is interesting to see that there's clearly a sense of being torn with respect to allowing the freedom of expression about groups that feel oppressed to be allowed to happen on campus, because that is probably a majority opinion. And that's why I think this is particularly difficult for these presidents to handle the situation. And I'm not excusing their behavior or their actions or their comments yesterday. But there's clearly something underlying this that I think we need to just acknowledge, which is that there is a large number of people, perhaps the majority of people, that feel that there is some oppression going on and that that oppression has a right to be spoken for and that this behavior is the only way.
很有趣的是，明显可以感受到一种纠结的情绪，关于是否允许在校园内自由表达那些感到被压迫的群体的意见，因为这可能是大多数人的观点。这就是为什么我认为对于校长们来说，处理这种情况特别困难。我并不是为他们昨天的行为、行动或评论找借口。但显然有一些潜在因素，我认为我们需要承认，那就是有很多人，也许是大多数人，认为确实存在一些压迫，并且这种压迫有权被发声，而这种行为是唯一的途径。
The Boston Tea Party did not follow convention. The Boston Tea Party was a rebellion against an institution that was oppressive. And the Boston Tea Party was the only action that was going to make a change that could have driven a change. And rebellion against an institution or an establishment that causes a oppression isn't supposed to have rules. It isn't supposed to follow convention. It isn't supposed to be a discourse. And so I think that that sentiment is where a lot of this conflict is coming from for the presidents in making these decisions, that they see that the majority of people truly believe that there's oppression, that this is the course to speak up for that oppression, and that they can't step on that because if they did, they would be causing more disruption to more people than allowing it. And it's a very difficult situation that they find themselves in. So I'm not excusing it, but I'm trying to frame up why I think otherwise smart people might be acting this way.
波士顿茶党并没有遵循常规。波士顿茶党是对一种压迫性制度的反抗。而波士顿茶党是唯一能够带来改变、推动进程的行动。对于压迫性制度或机构的反叛本不应遵守规则，也不应遵循常规，也不应该是一个交流过程。因此，我认为这种观点是很多决策者面临冲突的原因之一，他们看到绝大多数人真正相信存在压迫，而这是表达对压迫的手段，他们不能阻止，因为如果他们这样做，就会给更多人带来更多的混乱。他们陷入了一个非常困难的境地。所以我并不是为此开脱，而是试图解释为什么我认为其他聪明人可能会采取这种行动。
Frankly, I think it's worth asking what would be the case if this were other ethnic groups or other people that were being kind of, you know, told, hey, we're going to have an intifada against x or y or z where the actions have been the same. Chabath, if they were asked that same question, is calling for the genocide of black Americans, Asian Americans, Indian Americans, trans Americans, harassment or bullying, what do you think their answers would have been? And then where do you think this is going? I don't know what their answers would have been, but obviously it's morally unacceptable.
坦白地说，我认为值得问一下，如果这种情况发生在其他族裔或其他人身上，对他们说，“嘿，我们将对x或y或z发动一次起义”，行为相同，那将是什么情况呢？如果他们问到夏巴特（Chabath）同样的问题，他们会呼吁灭绝美国黑人、亚裔美国人、印度裔美国人、跨性别美国人，对他们进行骚扰或欺凌，你认为他们的回答会是什么？然后你认为这会发展到什么地步？我不知道他们会作何回答，但很明显这在道义上是不可接受的。
As best as I can tell, they were coached by lawyers before they appeared in front of Congress. And they found some verbal gymnastics, maybe, to try to defend their point of view. And in it, they lost all moral clarity, because to your point, Jason, if, and to Friedberg's point, if you just replaced the Jewish people with any other cohort of people, maybe in this moment, it was harder to see, but it's like they should not be debatable, difficult moral questions. So how did we get here?
据我所知，他们在出现在国会之前受到了律师的指导。他们可能使用了一些巧妙的辩词来捍卫他们的观点。但在这个过程中，他们失去了所有的道义清晰度，因为正如Jason所说，正如Friedberg所指出的，如果你只是把犹太人换成其他一群人，也许在这个时刻更难辨别，但这类似于他们不应该成为具有争议的、困难的道德问题。那么我们是怎么到达这里的呢？
I think that over the last 40 years, and to be honest, it started when the US News and World Report started to rank universities. They gamified the desire for these universities to get at the top of the list, which allowed them to theoretically get better recruits, but really what it did was allow them to build massive asset management businesses that ultimately consumed these schools. And now what you find is that the learning process has gotten totally perverted, because it became a second order priority to being able to raise money and to manage assets. I think Harvard Management Company, at one point, was one of the largest owners of forestry in America. The other large owner was John Malone, a rapacious capitalist. So what this shows you is that the mission of these universities, which is to actually celebrate Free Speech and to teach kids to think critically has been lost.
我认为，在过去的40年里，说实话，事情开始于《美国新闻与世界报道》开始对大学进行排名。他们使得这些大学渴望跻身榜首成为一种游戏，这使得他们理论上可以获得更好的招生，并且真正的结果是他们建立了庞大的资产管理业务，最终吞噬了这些学校。现在你会发现学习过程已经完全变味，因为它成为了筹集资金和管理资产的次要优先事项。我认为哈佛管理公司曾经是美国最大的林业所有者之一。另一位大股东是狼贪的资本家约翰·马隆。所以，这说明了这些大学的使命，即实际上庆祝言论自由并教导学生批判性思维的使命已经迷失。
And I think that this was a very simple way of seeing it. And it should be disturbing to people that this happened, that the places where you send our 18 and 19 and 20 year old kids cannot at a very simple level teach the moral clarity to say teaching or supporting even the concept of genocide is wrong. Can you teach it in a historical context? Obviously, but that's not what they even said there, right? So they got into a level of verbal gymnastics, which I think is really it should be viewed by everybody is pretty morally unacceptable.
我认为这是一种非常简单的看法。这应该令人不安，这些地方派驻我们的18、19和20岁的孩子，连在非常简单的层面上都不能教授道德明晰，不能教育他们说教或支持种族灭绝的概念是错误的。你可以在历史背景下教授它吗？显然可以，但这不是他们所说的，对吧？所以他们陷入了一种口头上的花言巧语，我认为这真的应该被每个人视为非常不道德的。
I think it's well said and it's clearly bullying or harassment. If you're going to chase Jewish students around campus, and I think that's what we saw. Now, if you were to Chama or Sax, or maybe Sax best, since you're super, you have a super high benchmark for freedom of speech. If these were students in a debate club or in a lecture hall, giving their position, taking hard questions, people opting into it, wouldn't feel like bullying or harassment. Yet, the hypocrisy is so thick that they, you know, they chased people like Ben Shapiro off campus, etc. When they had something controversial to say at many of these schools. But I think we can all agree chanting about genocide and chasing students around campus and disrupting the campus, that feels like bullying or harassment.
我认为这样说得很好，很明显是在欺凌或骚扰。如果你要在校园里追逐犹太学生，我认为这就是我们看到的情况。现在，如果这些人是Chama或者Sax，或者说Sax最好，因为你对言论自由有一个超高的标准。如果这些人是辩论社团的学生，或是在讲堂上表达自己的观点，接受困难的问题，那么这些行为就不会让人感到欺凌或骚扰。然而，这种虚伪的行为非常严重，他们把像本·夏皮罗这样的人从校园里赶走，等等。当他们在这些学校发表有争议的言论时。但我认为我们都可以认同，高喊种族灭绝口号、在校园中追逐学生、干扰校园秩序，这样的行为就像是在欺凌或骚扰。
I don't know that and I agree with you, Chama, this mental gymnastics that they went through. But the statements, it's just very easy to say, yes, that's harassment. Yes, that's bullying. Now, if you did it in a lecture hall or you wrote a paper, Sax, maybe doesn't feel like bullying, harassment feels like freedom of speech. Yeah, look, I mean, we can, you can always debate the hard cases in free speech and where the line should be. And again, I would draw the lines in a way that makes most speech permissible. But when you're talking about chasing students around campus to yell in their face, that clearly is bullying or harassment and there's no reason to ever allow something like that.
我不了解这件事情，但我同意你的观点，Chama，他们真的绞尽脑汁。但从声明来看，很容易说，是的，那就是骚扰。是的，那是欺凌。如果你在讲堂里这样做，或者写论文，萨克斯可能觉得不是欺凌，而是言论自由。是的，我是说，我们总可以就言论自由和界限进行争论。再说一遍，我会划定一个能让大多数言论被允许的界限。但当你谈论在校园里追着学生大声喊叫时，那明显是欺凌或骚扰，无论如何都没有理由允许这样的事情发生。
But again, the point I would make is that what you're going to see in the wake of this is that a lot of Jewish people are realizing that they don't have a home on the left anymore. And I expect that many Jews are going to start shifting right and enter their Republican party to a place where I've been for a while.
但是我要再次强调的是，随着这一事件的发生，许多犹太人开始意识到他们在左派已经没有家了。我预计很多犹太人将开始向右转移，并加入他们的共和党。而我自己则在那里待了一段时间。
And I think this goes back a long way. So if you go all the way back to the original civil rights movement in the 1960s, I think that many Jews were an integral part of that movement and they felt a great solidarity with the original civil rights movement, civil rights leaders, because they felt like they had a shared history of persecution that blacks in America had suffered from racism, Jews around the world felt like they had suffered anti-Semitism.
我认为这源远流长。如果回顾到20世纪60年代的最初民权运动，我认为许多犹太人是该运动不可或缺的一部分，他们与最初的民权领袖们感到极大的团结，因为他们觉得自己与美国的黑人共同承受了种族主义带来的迫害，而世界各地的犹太人则感受到了反犹太主义的伤害。
And they basically believed that all people should be treated equally, that we should have individual rights. And basically, they were advocating for a colorblind standard, right, a colorblind treatment of all people. And so I think that Jews historically have wanted to be on the left for that reason.
他们基本上相信所有人应该被平等对待，我们应该拥有个人权利。基本上，他们主张一种无视肤色的标准，以平等的方式对待所有人。所以我认为犹太人在历史上因为这个原因希望站在左派。
But I think what's happened over the last few decades is that the civil rights movement in particular and the left have moved to this woke ideology where it's no longer about colorblindness, it's more about identity groups. And instead of trying to get past racial differences, it's been about accentuating them. And so we've had this whole equity agenda, which is really defined as redistribution from one racial group to another racial group.
我认为过去几十年发生的事情是，尤其是民权运动和左派已经转变为一种觉醒意识形态，不再注重色盲，而更注重身份群体。与其试图超越种族差异，他们更强调这些差异。因此，我们出现了整个公平议程，其真正定义为从一个种族群体向另一个种族群体的重新分配。
I think that for whatever reason, a lot of Jews just hadn't confronted the reality that the left had really changed in this way. And again, I think it goes back to the fact that they thought that, oh, well, if we're going to be defining identity groups in this, you know, woke way, you know, Jews obviously should be one of these victim groups, but they're waking up to the fact that Jews are not, you know, Jews are just in the minds of kind of woke ideology, Jews are just white people.
我认为，不论出于何种原因，许多犹太人并没有面对左派确实以这种方式发生变化的现实。再说一遍，我认为这归结于他们认为，哦，如果我们要以这种唤醒的方式定义身份群体，那么犹太人显然应该是其中的受害者群体之一，但他们正在醒悟到，在唤醒意识形态的思维中，犹太人只是白人。
Okay, successful white people with too much power. People with a Jewish background. And as a result, they're part of an oppressor class. And I think that for a lot of Jewish people who are waking up to this or realizing, wait a second, this is actually a very destructive ideology. And it makes us the bad guys. And so I would expect that again, a lot of Jewish people are waking up to the ways in which the left has changed. And they're realizing that that is not a hospitable place in the political spectrum for them to be. And I would expect there to be kind of a pilgrimage now of more Jews in America towards the right, as opposed to remaining on the left where they've always been.
好的，成功的有太多权力的白人。有犹太背景的人。因此，他们是压迫阶级的一部分。我认为，对于很多醒悟或者意识到这一点的犹太人来说，等等，这实际上是一种非常具有破坏性的意识形态。它让我们成为坏人。因此，我预计很多犹太人正在醒悟到左派的变化方式，并且意识到对于他们来说，那并不是一个适合他们的政治空间。我预计现在会有更多的美国犹太人会向右转，而不是继续留在一直以来的左派阵营中。
Yeah, the left needs to remember people should be judged not by the color of their skin or their ethnicity, but the content of their character. It's a quoting MLK. You can get you canceled right now, I think, to actually say that people should be judged by their colorblindness is considered, a lot of people call that racism now. That's like, by the way, that that is the mainstream conservative view on civil rights-related issues is that colorblindness should be the standard right? Want to treat everyone used to be the same as individuals? Yes, exactly. But it was the liberal point of view. This was the civil rights movements, basic tenant. Yeah, we've lost it all.
是的，左派需要记住，人们应该根据其品格的内涵而非肤色或种族来判断。这是引用马丁·路德·金的话。现在，如果你真的说人们应该以其色盲程度来判断，你可能会被取消，很多人现在把这称为种族主义。顺便说一下，保守派在涉及民权问题上的主流观点是以色盲为准则，希望以个体为单位对待每个人，对吗？是的，完全正确。但这本来是自由派的观点，这是民权运动的基本原则。是的，我们已经失去了这一切。
By the way, I think there is just one other caveat we have to say about this whole issue, which is that it should be possible to criticize the state of Israel or Netanyahu's government or the bombing campaign they're conducting in Gaza or the actions that led up to this event. There should be room to criticize Israel without being called an anti-Semite. I want to be really clear about that. And there needs to be a pretty wide latitude to have that conversation. And I do think that one of the mistakes that's happened for a while now is that Jewish groups have been a little too quick on the trigger to call people anti-Semites for criticizing the policies of the Israeli government. And again, I think there needs to be wide latitude to do that. However, I don't think that's the type of speech that we're talking about here, Jason. I think you framed it up pretty well. This is people who have veered off of legitimate criticism, whether you agree with or not, the legitimate criticism about the Israeli government's action into this sort of genocidal rhetoric. And that's what we're talking about here.
顺便说一下，关于这整个问题，我认为还有一个要注意的地方，也就是应该有可能批评以色列或内塔尼亚胡政府或他们在加沙进行的轰炸行动或导致这次事件的行为。批评以色列而不被称为反犹太主义者应该是可以接受的。我想明确表达这一点。在这方面，我们需要有相当大的宽容度来进行这种对话。同时，我认为一直以来犹太团体有一种过于迅速地将批评以色列政府政策的人称为反犹太主义者的错误做法。而且，我认为需要广泛的容忍度来处理这个问题。然而，我不认为我们在这里讨论的就是这种言论，Jason。我认为你对此做了很好的界定。我们所说的是那些偏离合理批评的人，无论你赞同与否，他们对以色列政府行动的合理批评已经变成了种族灭绝的言论。这就是我们在这里讨论的。
Absolutely.
当然。
Any final thoughts from the rest of the panelists before we move on to business? Do you guys think that they're going to get fired? Or what do you think is the right consequence for this? I think they're getting fired. I think the money, as you pointed out in your tweetstorm is going to cause that. They're going to lose a lot of donations. What do you think, Free Group? I'm not tied into these like donor groups. It's the donor groups that are going to drive the decision because they're going to call the boards. And so I think it's really board dependent. Obviously, Ackman is a big donor at Harvard, and he's been very vocal about what he wants to see Harvard's board do. I think this is going to drive a big change whether individuals get fired. I really don't know. I think of the four, if I were to just have to make a bet, I'd say probably at least one of them is getting fired. It's like, but it's certainly going to change a lot.
在我们进入下一项议题之前，其他小组成员有什么最后的看法吗？你们认为他们会被解雇吗？或者你们认为对他们来说应该有什么正确的后果？我认为他们会被解雇。正如你在推特上指出的那样，资金将导致这一结果。他们将失去许多捐款。自由团队，你们认为呢？我与这些捐赠团体没有联系。决定将由捐赠团体驱动，因为他们将联系董事会。所以我认为这真的取决于董事会。显然，阿克曼是哈佛大学的一位重要捐赠者，他对哈佛大学董事会的期望非常明确。我认为这将导致重大变革，无论是否有人被解雇。我真的不知道。如果我必须打赌的话，我会说至少其中一个人会被解雇。这将产生很大变化。
Jumaath, you think they're going to get fired? What do you think as you wrap? Final alert, Juma? Yeah, I think Free Burger is right. You have to follow the money, and I think the money's been very clear that this can't stand. And I think that that's good because I think the people who have been donating have enough moral clarity on these kinds of topics to say this is unacceptable. So how long will it take to filter through the decision-making? I don't know because I also don't know how this machinery works. But I think what people have to decide immediately right now is all the kids that are applying for early access and early decision, do you really want to go to these schools and the parents? Do you want your kids to be going to these schools? So I think that's a decision that can probably happen right now or needs to happen right now. While all of this other kind of donation-driven, asset-manager-driven decision-making take shape.
朱玛斯，你觉得他们会被解雇吗？作为你结束的时候，你有什么看法？最后的警告，朱马？是的，我认为费尔伯格说得对。你必须追踪资金流向，而我觉得资金的流向非常明确，这是不能容忍的。我认为这是好事，因为我认为那些捐赠者在这些问题上具有足够的道德清晰度，可以说这是不可接受的。那么决策需要多长时间才能通过？我不知道，因为我也不了解这个机制的运作方式。但是我认为人们现在必须立即决定的是，所有正在申请提前接收和提前决策的孩子们，你真的想去这些学校吗？父母们，你们想让你们的孩子去这些学校吗？所以我认为这是一个现在能够或需要立即发生的决定，而所有这些其他的捐赠驱动、资产管理驱动的决策正在形成中。
All right, let's get into the state of the economy. It's a really interesting story. I sent to the group chat from the Financial Times about tribalism now impacting how people view the economy. It's called expressive responding. Basically, how you feel about the economy is based on which tribe you're in. Here's a quick snapshot of what's going on. If you're a Republican and you were doing really well under Biden, you're going to say things are terrible in the economy. During Trump, Dems were doing awesome, like everybody else, but because they hit a Trump, they said the economy was trash. Here's the chart that explains that. And then I'll give you a couple quick bullet points of where the economy is. But you see the divergent there in the charts based on the different administrations being in power. And if you look at the second chart, it's pretty telling, this isn't happening. This tribalism is not happening in other countries. You can see France, Germany, UK. People feel about the economy, how the economy is actually doing pretty wild data. And I'll let you respond to that in just a second.
好的，让我们来谈谈经济状况。这是一个非常有趣的故事。我在《金融时报》上看到了一篇文章，说现在部落主义影响了人们对经济的看法。这被称为情感回应。基本上，你对经济的感觉取决于你所属的部落。以下是当前情况的简要概述。如果你是共和党人，并且在拜登执政期间表现得很棒，你会说经济状况很糟糕。在特朗普执政期间，民主党人表现得很出色，像其他人一样，但因为他们看不惯特朗普，他们说经济状况很糟糕。这里有一张图表解释了这一现象。然后我会简要列出经济状况的几个要点。但你可以看到图表中不同政府执政的分歧。如果你看看第二张图表，就会发现这种部落主义在其他国家并没有发生。你可以看到法国、德国和英国的情况。人们对经济的感觉，实际经济状况相当具有代表性的数据。我稍后请你对此进行回应。
I'm just going to give you eight quick hits on what's going on in the economy. Credit card debt is reaching all-time highs. We surpassed one trillion back in July. Keeps rising. People are taking money out of 401ks. Our chip distributions increased 13% between Q2 and Q3. Super spending just collapsed in October growing only 0.2% last month versus 7% in September. But November year over year increases in Black Friday and Cyber Monday spending. So maybe that's a head fake. I don't know. Maybe people bargain hunting.
我打算简单地告诉你八个有关经济状况的要点。信用卡债务正达到历史新高，我们在七月份就已经超过了1万亿。这个数字还在不断增长。人们正从401k账户中取钱。我们的芯片分发量在第二季度和第三季度之间增加了13%。超级消费在十月份遭受了崩溃，与九月份相比，上个月仅增长了0.2%，而九月份的增长率是7%。然而，黑色星期五和网购星期一的消费金额在去年同期有所增加。或许这是个假象，我不确定。可能是人们在物色便宜货。
Consumer prices rose just 3.2% year over year in October versus 9.1% in June of 2022. Home sell, 13 year low in October. Most folks are betting interest rate increases are over. And summer betting interest rate cuts will start as early as Q1. Colshy's fork essay, we should expect to see. And that's a prediction market. Two quarter point cuts by July sacks. We've been bearish on consumers. And all this crazy debt is this the beginning of the end? Is this the end? Where are we at in the consumer spending cycle? It's hard to know because there's so many mixed signals. Kobayisi letter had a great tweet on this. There's a lot of mixed economic data right now.
十月份，消费者物价同比仅上涨3.2%，而2022年6月份上涨了9.1%。房屋销售降至13年低点。大多数人预测利率上涨的趋势已经结束。夏季下调利率的预测有可能在第一季度提前开始。根据Colshy的预测市场，我们应该预计到会有两次每季度下调25个基点的利率削减。我们一直对消费者持悲观态度。所有这些疯狂的债务是不是末日的开始？这是结束了吗？我们在消费者支出周期中处于何种状态？很难确定，因为有太多的混合信号。Kobayisi的举报中对此有一条很好的推文。目前经济数据大都混合不一。
But I mean, the economy seems to be doing fairly well, but the electorate doesn't feel it. And you're seeing in recent weeks, you're seeing a lot of commentary by pundits trying to convince the American people that the economy is better than the people evidently feel that it is. And I think that one of the big reasons for this gap is that over the last few years, we've had a lot of inflation. And the rise in price levels has not been matched by the rise in people's incomes. So people simply feel worse off because their spending power's diminished. Now, it's true that the current inflation rate is going down. But all that means is that the price level now is growing at, call it 3% issue year. It's still growing. It's not like prices have come down. They're just rising at a slower rate. So, you know, last year, we had a 9% inflation. And inflation has been high the last couple of years. The rate of increase is slowing down. But people's wages, if you're working class, have simply not kept up with the price of goods and services. And so I think people feel worse off than they did a few years ago. And you can try to convince them to, you're blue in the face that actually the economic data is great. But if you're somebody whose wages have not kept pace with price levels, you're not going to feel better off.
但是我想说，虽然经济似乎发展得相当不错，但选民却不这么感觉。最近几周，你可以看到很多专家试图说服美国人民经济比他们实际感受到的要好。我认为造成这种差距的一个重要原因是过去几年我们经历了很高的通货膨胀。物价上涨的幅度没有被人们的收入提高所匹配。因此，人们的消费能力减弱了，所以他们感觉变得更糟。现在，现行的通货膨胀率确实在下降。但这只意味着物价水平以每年3%的速度增长。它仍在增长，并不是价格下降了，只是增长速度变慢了。所以，你知道，去年我们有9%的通货膨胀。通货膨胀在过去几年一直很高，增长的速度正在放缓。但如果你是工薪阶层，你的工资根本没有跟得上物价的上涨速度。所以我认为人们感觉比几年前更糟。你可以试图用尽一切办法说服他们，告诉他们实际上经济数据很好。但如果你是那些收入没有跟上物价水平的人，你不会感觉变得更好。
Jamal, on your first point, I think that there is this thing that we've grown accustomed to, which is how you feel about what's happening versus what the data may say. And I think that the press and journalists in a pretty untrustworthy way amplify this separation. So we hear about the economy doing well. Maybe it's not doing well. We hear how the economy is not doing well, and it actually is doing well. Nobody wants to write about the data. People want to write about their feelings and their feelings largely are mortifying by the people around them and what they feel. So simple example, Nick, if you just want to throw this up, this is the federal reserves data. This is not anybody else's data. But you would think that the wealth gap is being exacerbated, and you would think that wealth gains are going to a few. And again, without having an opinion, the data shows something truly incredible, which is that the American dream is not hanging on by a lifeline. But more and more American families are achieving it. 12% of American families are now considered millionaire households. 8% are considered multi-millionaire households. That's incredible. But what's even more impressive is that even as they do well, the cohort underneath them, the folks that make 150 to 250k a year are the ones that are absolutely crushing. And they're making more than the top 10% of all families.
杰马尔，在你提到的第一点上，我觉得我们习惯了一种感觉，即你对正在发生的事情的感受与数据可能表达的内容之间的差异。我认为媒体和记者以一种相当不可信赖的方式放大了这种分歧。我们听到经济好转的报道，也许经济并没有好转。我们听到经济不好的报道，而实际上经济却很好。没有人想写关于数据的文章。人们更想写的是他们的感受，而他们的感受很大程度上被他们身边的人和他们的感受所左右。就拿一个简单的例子来说，尼克，如果你可以展示一下这个，这是联邦储备数据，不是其他人的数据。但你可能会认为财富差距正在加剧，财富增长只有少数人得益。而不偏袒某一种观点的数据表明了一些真正不可思议的事实，那就是美国梦并没有岌岌可危。相反，越来越多的美国家庭正在实现这个梦想。12%的美国家庭现在被认为是百万富翁家庭，8%被认为是千万富翁家庭。这真是令人难以置信。但更令人印象深刻的是，即使在他们过得很好的情况下，年收入在15万到25万美元之间的那一群人表现得更加出色。他们的收入超过了所有家庭中排在前10%的人。
So I think, Jason, the broader economic takeaway I have is unless you're willing to look at the raw data, the risk is high that you will be fed an emotional perspective that amplifies your bias or causes you to reject that view because it just seems so untrustworthy and it doesn't map to what you're seeing. It's very, very hard to tell the truth. That is federal reserve data that tells the truth about the US economy. And it turns out that the economy is pretty good and doing a lot for a lot of people.
我认为，杰森，我在经济上的更深层次的观点是，除非你愿意看到原始数据，否则你很有可能被灌输一种情感化的观点，这会放大你的偏见，或者导致你拒绝这种观点，因为它似乎不可信，与你所看到的情况不一致。很难说出真相。而美联储的数据恰恰揭示了关于美国经济的真相。事实证明，经济状况相当不错，为很多人做了很多事情。
Freiburg, where do you set you brought up the issue of credit card debt as a leading indicator? It continues to surge, but there is some inkling that consumers may be tapped out, i.e. tapping their 401ks. So what's your take on the consumer and this tribalism that we're seeing in the interpretation of data and how people feel about the economy?
弗莱堡，你提出信用卡债务作为领先指标的问题是在哪里？这个问题一直在持续增加，但有一些迹象表明消费者可能已经没有余地了，即他们开始动用自己的401k计划。那么你对消费者以及在对待数据解读和对经济感受方面出现的派系主义有什么看法呢？
No, I mean, I think if people don't feel like they're progressing on the order of 10% a year in terms of income adjusted for purchasing power, they're generally going to be unhappy and they're going to project that as a general statement about, quote, the economy. And so the more people that that's the case, the more you see that happening. And so while there may be, you know, a minority of people that are seeing great economic mobility, if a large enough percentage of people I don't see it roughly call it 10% increase in lifestyle ability year to year, that's going to, you know, catch up to these overall scores of consumer sentiment.
不，我的意思是，我认为如果人们觉得他们的收入（根据购买力调整）在一年内没有增长大约10％，他们通常会感到不满，并将其作为关于“经济”的一般陈述进行投射。因此，如果有更多的人处于这种情况，你就会看到这种情况发生。虽然可能有少数人经历了巨大的经济流动性，但如果足够大比例的人（我称之为大约10%的生活能力年度增加）没有看到这种情况，那么这将会对整体消费者情绪评分产生影响。
I think the way that economists measure the economy is a lot different than the average person measures the economy, which is really their own purchasing power and income. Sacks, you're that's look at the end of the day, the question that people ask themselves, which is the question that Ronald Reagan as voters in 1980 is are you better off than you were four years ago? And I think that a lot of people, particularly working class people don't feel better off, because mainly their wages have not kept pace with the overall inflation level, not just measured on a one year basis, but over a four year basis. And I do think this could explain some of the tribalism, Jason, is that we've talked about this before that the biggest gap in the electorate is between professional class and working class. If you're a professional class, meaning you have a at least one college degree, by more than 30 points, you're likely to be a Democrat. And if you're a working class, which just means, you know, no college degree, let's say high school educated, you're much more likely to be a Republican. The parties have sort of flipped the Republican Party is now a working class party. I think a lot of people find that very surprising. It's not the party of, you know, fat cat bankers anymore. And you know, the fortune 500. So the parties have really flipped. And I do think that working class people are most impacted by inflation. If you're kind of in lower to mid income, and your wages, the wages of a labor of knock on up and prices have, then you're going to be worse off. I do think that is a big part of it. And I think the media is sort of working on overdrive right now to convince people that they should think that their circumstances are better than they actually are. And and maybe look, maybe the overall economic data right now is mixed to positive. I'll certainly concede that. But I think for the average person, what they care about their pocketbook and it's far from clear that they're better off now than they were four years ago.
我认为经济学家衡量经济的方式与普通人衡量经济的方式有很大的不同，普通人主要关注自己的购买能力和收入。最后的问题是，人们问自己的问题是：你比四年前过得更好吗？我认为很多人，特别是工人阶级，感觉并不比以前过得更好，因为他们的工资与总体通胀水平没有保持同步，不仅仅是根据一年的统计数据，而是根据四年的统计数据。我认为这可能解释了部分部族主义。杰森，我们之前谈到过选民中最大的分歧是专业阶级和工人阶级之间的差距。如果你是专业阶级，意味着至少拥有学士学位，你更可能是民主党人。如果你是工人阶级，只有中学学历，那么你更可能是共和党人。两党已经发生了变化，共和党现在成为了工人阶级的党派。我认为很多人对此感到非常惊讶，它不再是富翁银行家的政党，也不再是财富500强的代表。所以两党确实发生了变化。我确实认为工人阶级受通胀影响最大。如果你处于低收入或中等收入水平，而你的工资没有增长，物价却上涨了，那么你的境况就会更糟。我认为这是其中一个重要原因。我还认为媒体现在正在加班加点地努力说服人们，让他们认为自己的处境比实际情况要好。也许整体经济数据现在是褒贬不一的，我当然承认这一点。但我认为对于普通人来说，他们关心的是自己的腰包，远远没有明确他们现在比四年前过得更好。
Jason, what do you think? I think it's a very important segment, because your correct sacks in a very nuanced point, multiple things true at once here. There is still sticker shock from inflation. I went to birthday cake $47 for a cake. I was shocked. How does it make it go $47? Is it made of cocaine? Well, no, no, I just put the cocaine all over the top. But yeah, that's, you know, I got truffle shaved on it. I really felt like it was a white truffle cake. And this was a small cake. It was nuts. Anyway, there is sticker shock. The truth is though, wages are very strong right now and wages are slightly outpacing inflation, but that is a new phenomenon, correct sacks that is a new phenomenon. So people are still feeling the sticker shock. But at the same time, unemployment and wages drive how people feel. And people are feeling obviously very confident as you see in the credit card debt, when you're confident to Tremont's point about just follow the money and look at the actual numbers, people would not be taking out credit card debt. They wouldn't tap the 401k if they felt they've got great job prospects. They have options for jobs. It's a 50 year low in unemployment, which is unbelievable that that's continued. And wages are increasing. Uber drivers are now making $34, $36. And listen, I've been tracking how much they think from the beginning, it was $15, then $20 and $25. So wages are increasing massively. The GDP is 5% or something like that. And unemployment is low. So the economy is actually doing extraordinary. That's just the fact. But the sticker shock is very, very real.
杰森，你怎么想？我认为这是一个非常重要的部分，因为你的观点非常细致，有多个事情同时正确。通胀导致人们仍然感到价格震惊。我买了一个生日蛋糕，价格是47美元。我非常震惊。为什么会这么贵？里面有可卡因吗？呃，不不，只是在上面撒了些可卡因。但是，对，你知道的，我还在上面撒了白松露。我真的觉得它是一个白松露蛋糕。而且这只是一个小蛋糕。太疯狂了。总之，人们仍然感到价格震惊。但事实是，目前工资水平非常高，且略高于通胀，但这是一个新的现象，正确的堆叠。所以人们仍然感到价格震惊。但与此同时，失业和工资决定了人们的感受。而且显然，人们的信心非常高，就像你在信用卡债务方面所看到的，当你对追寻金钱并查看实际数字有信心时，他们不会负债。如果他们觉得工作前景非常好，他们会有工作选择。失业率创下了50年来的新低，这是难以置信的。工资也在增加。优步司机现在每小时可以赚取34到36美元。听着，从一开始我一直在追踪他们的收入情况，起初是15美元，然后是20美元，25美元。所以工资大幅增长。国内生产总值增长了5%左右。失业率也很低。所以经济实际上非常好。这只是事实。但价格震惊是非常真实的。
So I think we can wrap it there unless anybody wants to add it to the price. Well, by the way, just over the last month, there's been a huge rally in stocks, especially gross stocks. Bitcoin is now rallied to $44,000. What? Yeah, that's nuts. A firm is up like 20% today. That's the buy now, pay later company because on strong Christmas spending, like you're saying, all the stocks sacks that bottomed because of interest rates have now just started to massively rally massively. So all the secular. This is all based on expectations of rate cuts coming sooner than people thought. And I think Bill Ackman has really led this trade. And he timed it perfectly apparently by basically going along the bottom market like a month ago.
所以我认为我们可以暂时这样，除非有人想把它加到价格中。顺便说一下，就在上个月，股票市场出现了大幅上涨，尤其是成长型股票。比特币现在已经涨到了44000美元。什么？是的，太疯狂了。因为强劲的圣诞消费，买现支付公司的股价今天上涨了20%。之前由于利率的原因，所有股票都在最低点，但现在开始出现了大规模的反弹。所以这都基于人们对降息预期提前到来的预期。我认为比尔·阿克曼真正引领了这场交易，并且显然完美地把握了时机，大约一个月前他进入了底池。
10 years at 417, 411. Sorry. I mean, we're off like 80 basis points in like a couple months. It's nuts. Right. But all of this euphoria, we've gone from fear to greed and really in one or two months, it's all driven by rate expectations that people are expecting a rate cut in Q1. And so far, that's not really justified by the Fed's hawkish rhetoric, but people never less seem to think it's coming. I think that this could be a doing a put on my tin foil. Oh, what's the tip of what conspiracy foreign sound like a music we can do? I think I think there will be a rate cutting Q1. And I think this is the Biden bailout. Let's go. I think this is I think this is a Biden bailout by the Fed because if they cut rates in Q1, that's going to make everyone feel really flush. It takes about six months to work its way into the system. But that's going to give a big boost to the Biden campaign. If you see a quarter point rate cut in Q1, a trillion of the 5.7 trillion in money market accounts will rip into the market. Oh, wow. That'll be nuts. Just people knowing that they're on the way down that they've peaked and are on the way down is going to unlock a lot of capital. It's going to unlock a lot of capital. And to be clear, it's a small group of people who believe it's coming in the first quarter, Bill Ackman and David Sachs, the majority according to prediction markets think we'll have two of them by the summer. Without debating whether it happens in first quarter or second quarter, the more fundamental thing is if you look two years out, you probably see rates around two and a half percent. And that's 160 basis points from here. That's the big, big change that I think helps all of us quite honestly. Yeah.
10年期和5年期美国国债利率相差80个基点，这是疯狂的。最近几个月，市场情绪从恐惧变成了贪婪。这种情绪转变主要是因为人们预期美联储会在第一季度降息。虽然目前还没有明确的迹象表明美联储会采取鹰派立场，但人们似乎仍然认为降息在即。我认为这可能是一种阴谋。如果在第一季度降息，这将让所有人感到非常兴奋。虽然需要大约六个月的时间才能将此决策传导到整个体系中，但这将给拜登竞选活动带来巨大的推动力。如果在第一季度看到一个四分之一的降息，那么价值5.7万亿美元的货币市场账户中的一万亿将涌入市场。这将是疯狂的。一旦人们意识到利率已经达到了高点并且开始下降，将释放大量的资金。需要明确的是，只有少数人认为降息将在第一季度发生，比尔·阿克曼和大卫·萨克斯是其中之一，而多数人根据预测市场的情况认为我们将在夏季之前要进行两次降息。无论是在第一季度还是第二季度降息，更重要的是，如果我们展望两年后，可能会看到利率在2.5%左右，较现在提高160个基点。这是我认为对我们所有人都有利的重大变化。
And let's segue here. Great segment, by the way, gentlemen. Because in our backyard, what we do every day in terms of capital allocation and building companies, the cleanup work continues. It was a rager, folks. People party well into the next day. And we're still seeing the cleanup. CARTA has some great data. And this is data amongst CARTA users, which is a subset of users willing to pay an expensive price to manage their cap tables. The number of companies that shut down after raising 10 million, which is a very high benchmark, that's up 238% in 2023 from 47 companies last year to 112. This year also VC firms. And I'm seeing this very quietly happening. This isn't reported on VC firms are very opaque about laying people off or reshuffling the deck, but a firm called OpenView out of a Boston just abruptly shut down. They had 70 plus employees. They just raised about 600 million of an $800 million target for their fund. There were reports about great off not hating their target and reshuffling a bit that might have been overstated, to be honest. But on the bright side, we're seeing some rebounding and ARR of the public SaaS companies that started to rebound in Q3. Here's the chart from altimeter. Looks like we hit bottom in Q1 of 2023. Another bright spot, public firms that are continuing to downsize are getting rewarded by the public market Spotify just in a third layoff, 17%, around 1,500 employees. So I guess SaaS everybody was thinking SaaS was over. It was the end of days. We talked about not a recession in SaaS, but a depression. And I think that was accurate.
现在我们转换话题。顺便说一句，先生们，很棒的段落。因为在我们的后院里，我们每天都在进行资金配置和公司建设方面的工作，清理工作还在继续。这是一场狂欢，朋友们。人们一直狂欢到了第二天。我们仍然能看到清理工作的进行。CARTA拥有一些很好的数据。而这些数据是基于CARTA用户之间的，这些用户愿意支付高昂的费用来管理他们的股权表。筹集了1000万后倒闭的公司数量，这是一个非常高的基准，该数字从去年的47家增长了238%，达到了112家。今年还有风投公司。我发现这种情况正在非常低调地发生着。这并不是关于风投公司裁员或调整机构的报道，因为风投公司对这些事很不透明，但波士顿的一家名为OpenView的公司突然关闭了。他们有70多名员工。他们刚刚筹集到了8亿美元基金目标的60亿美元。有报道称，他们并不怎么爱他们的目标，并进行了一些重新洗牌，但说实话，我认为这可能有点夸大其词。但值得一提的是，我们看到一些公共SaaS公司的ARR开始在第三季度反弹。这是来自高度计的图表。看起来我们在2023年的第一季度达到了最低点。另一个亮点是，持续缩小规模的上市公司正在得到公共市场的奖励，比如Spotify刚进行了第三次裁员，员工数量减少了17%，约1500人。所以我想大家以为SaaS已经结束了。这是世界末日了。我们曾经谈论过SaaS不是衰退，而是萧条。我认为这种说法是准确的。
How are you feeling about the private company market and maybe stabilization or the return of growth in SaaS companies? Well, what I've been saying for the past year, year and a half is that we've been in a software recession. The overall economy may not have been in a recession because the consumer has stayed strong, as you said, consumer spending has stayed strong.
你对私人公司市场以及SaaS公司的稳定或增长的回归感觉如何？嗯，我过去一年或者一年半来一直在说我们一直处于软件衰退中。整体经济可能没有陷入衰退，因为正如你所说，消费者保持强劲，消费开支保持强劲。
So the B2C part has held up the economy. But I think in B2B and particularly in software, there has absolutely been a recession. It started in the first half of 2022 with rate hikes. There's a huge revaluation of growth stocks. And you saw multiples come down on SaaS valuations from in the public markets as high as 35 down to seven or eight, something like that. In private VC world, we saw valuations go from call it 100 times ARR to something more like 30 times ARR. So the first half of 2022, we saw a valuation correction.
所以B2C领域支撑了经济。但是我认为在B2B和特别是软件领域，确实发生了衰退。这种衰退始于2022年上半年的利率上调。增长股票的估值发生了巨大的重新评估。你可以看到在公共市场上，SaaS估值的倍数从最高的35降至七八左右。在私人风险资本界，我们看到估值从约100倍的ARR下降到约30倍的ARR。所以2022年上半年，我们看到了一次估值修正。
But then around mid 2022, what I started seeing in all my board meetings was every startup started missing its sales forecast and they started re-forecasting down. And that process really continued for a year. And we saw the exact same thing in the public markets and public SaaS companies as well. And it's really remarkable how the data from the public stocks that our friend, Jam and Ball from altimeter has been publishing regularly, how that has matched up with what I've seen anecdotally in board meetings and conversations in the VC space. That's super help corrects that the CEOs and the boards understand, hey, these private market valuations have to in some way be informed by public. This is a very helpful.
然后到了2022年中期左右，我在所有董事会会议上都开始看到的情况是，每家初创公司都开始错过销售预测，他们开始对预测进行下调。这个过程真的持续了一年。我们在公开市场上也看到了完全相同的情况，包括公开的SaaS公司。值得注意的是，我们的朋友Jam和Ball来自高空调查公司的公开股票数据与我在董事会会议和VC领域的对话中所见到的经验不谋而合，这真是太有帮助了。这有助于让CEO和董事们明白，私人市场估值在某种程度上必须受到公开市场的影响。这一点非常有帮助。
Sure, because the public stocks are the exit comps. So if the public stocks are worth, I don't know, a third of what they used to be, then private valuations have to reflect that. But in any event, I want to go beyond just talking about valuations here. I want to talk about the business results. And again, for this time period from call it mid 2022 to mid 2023, there was a software session. Software companies were cutting jobs. They were re-forecasting down. They were growing slower. In many cases, they were actually shrinking. I mean, some companies lost ARR because of churn. A lot of their customers were shutting down or sharpening their pencils. They were consolidating vendors. The last year has been a really, really tough time in the software space.
当然，因为公开股票是退出比较指标。所以如果公开股票价值大约是以前的三分之一，那么私人估值也必须反映出这一点。但无论如何，我想超越仅仅谈论估值，我想谈谈业务成果。在2022年中至2023年中这个时期，软件公司进行了一次“软件革命”。这些公司在裁员，进行了下调预测，增长速度放缓。在很多情况下，它们实际上在缩小规模。我的意思是，一些公司由于客户流失失去了年度销售额。许多客户关闭业务或者紧缩开支。他们正在整合供应商。过去一年在软件领域是一个非常非常困难的时期。
But I think now we've turned a corner. I started seeing in the last couple of months, I started seeing green shoots and some of my board meetings. And now here we have this chart from Jammin. Can you just put this on the screen again? Where we saw that finally in Q3, we went from four quarters of negative growth in net new ARR to finally a quarter of positive growth. Now 2% is not a great number, but at least we are finally positive as opposed to negative, which means that net new ARR was shrinking.
但我认为我们现在已经转了个弯。在过去几个月里，我开始在我的董事会会议上见到了一些曙光。现在，我们有了Jammin的这张图表。你能再次把它放在屏幕上吗？我们可以看到，在第三季度，我们终于从连续四个季度的净新合同年度费用下降转为一个季度的正增长。虽然2%不是一个很大的数字，但至少我们终于是正增长而不是负增长，这意味着净新合同年度费用正在缩小。
I think again, the software session, I'm calling an end to the software session. Officially, is it official breaking? Yes. Sax is called an end. So let the party begin. I think software revenues are going to rebound. I think the open question that's remaining then is will valuations rebound or will you have to grow into the last valuation or some truncated valuation? And this is where even if rates go to 2%, are people going to be as excited again to bring the public markets back to 15 and 20 times forward ARR? And that's an open question. I think the market says no, which means that even as growth comes back, you still have a valuation reset. That may actually explain why startups are shutting down, why venture firms that, if you looked at that firm and embossed them, that shut down, they had some seemingly very good companies in their portfolio. So there should be nothing stopping them from continuing to raise capital and invest. But I just suspect the end market that they operate in is going to be value constrained if they pay top dollar for things that are now just worth a lot less, even if they double revenue.
我再想一想，关于软件领域的讨论，我宣布结束了软件讨论。官方上说，这是官方的结束吗？是的。结束了。所以让我们开始派对吧。我认为软件收入将会反弹。然后我认为剩下的一个悬而未决的问题是，估值会反弹，还是你将不得不逐渐适应最后的估值或一些缩水的估值？在这方面，即使利率达到了2%，人们是否会再次像以前那样兴奋地将公开市场的前景看到15倍和20倍的未来年度收入率？这是个悬而未决的问题。我认为市场的回答是否定的，这意味着即使增长回归，估值仍然会重新调整。这也许可以解释为什么一些初创公司倒闭，为什么看起来在他们的投资组合中有一些非常优秀的公司的风险投资公司也关闭了。所以，如果他们支付了更高的价格，买入的东西现在只值很少，即使收入翻番，也不会有什么阻止他们继续筹集资金和投资。
I'll give you an example. We talked to the private equity guys a lot just because we try to understand where they are buyers. Why is that important, Shmoop? Explain why private equity versus public markets and how they think about businesses. Because I think it's a very important point that you've made to be privately.
我来给你举个例子。我们与私募股权投资者经常交流，就是为了了解他们的买方位置。为什么这很重要，Shmoop？解释一下私募股权投资与公开市场之间的区别，以及他们如何思考企业。因为我认为，你提到的持有私募股权是一个非常重要的观点。
I think that when you look at the ecosystem, the ecosystem doesn't work if you never get liquidity to your employees and to your shareholders. So liquidity happens in one of two ways. It can go in the public markets or you can transact to private equity. Why? Because they have almost as much money and, frankly, more in many cases to pay than a public market can give you via a traditional IPO. So I think that they are a pretty rational buyer and they do a very good job because they are a concentrated buyer of finding a very fair price. What is the real honest market clearing price?
我认为，当你观察生态系统时，如果不能给员工和股东提供流动性，生态系统就无法运转。所以流动性可以通过两种方式实现。一种是在公开市场上进行交易，另一种是转让给私募股权。为什么呢？因为私募股权几乎拥有和公开市场一样多的资金，并且在很多情况下，比传统的首次公开募股(IPO)更有能力给出更高的价格。所以我认为他们是一个相当理性的买家，他们经过集中购买能够找到一个非常合理的价格。真正诚实的市场清算价格是多少呢？
And so if you don't want to look at the market through rose-colored glasses and you want sobriety, ask a private equity investor what they would buy your position for. That's why I spend a lot of time talking to them because I want to know what this stuff is really worth. And what I would tell you is that even for companies that are in the hundreds of millions of ARR, the premiums that they're willing to pay are between three and five times ARR at the high end. And that a lot of deals get transacted between one and three times ARR. That may not be what people want to hear, but that's because when you look at the underlying ability to generate cash flow, many of these businesses haven't proved it yet. And so they want to buy things in a margin of safety where they can come in and cut certain expenses while still helping to grow in certain markets. All of that used to be a 10x multiple in the public markets. So private equity is buying for three to five times and really one to three times. It's going to be hard for the public market buyer to be paying a lot more than that. Got it. Can I build on that?
This is a chart that was published on December 1st by Jammon at Altimeter. And I do think it speaks to the valuation question quite well. You can see here that there's this line at 7.8 times, which I think refers to 7.8 times next 12 months revenue. That is the long term pre-COVID average. So that is where the average SaaS stock has traded over a long period of time. We're currently, as of December 1st, we're at 5.8. I think it's probably a little higher now because the market's pretty much rallied over the last five days. But you can see that we're still trading below the long term average in terms of multiples. And part of that is because interest to 10 year is still at 4.3%. Although it's come down quite a bit. You can see it peak there around 5%. Now it's at 4.3. If you believe that the 10 years going to go back down to, I don't know, this 2.5, 3% range. And if you believe that growth is re-accelerating, then I think there is room for this number, the 5.8 number, to at least grow into the long term average, which is 7.8. So there is room there. I think that as the stocks are priced today, it doesn't feel like they're overpriced. Let's put it that way. And I never want to tell anyone what to buy. But you can see here that we are still trending below the long term average. He should pull this number back to 2010. Interesting.
因此，如果你不想过分乐观地看待市场，而是想要冷静客观地进行评估，那么就去问问一位私募股权投资者，他们会用多少钱来买你的份额。这就是为什么我花很多时间与他们交谈，因为我想了解这些东西真正的价值。我告诉你的是，即使对于年收入达到几千万美元的公司，他们愿意支付的溢价也在年收入的三到五倍之间，高端可能稍高。而且很多交易的价格在年收入的一到三倍之间。这可能不是人们想听到的，但是因为当你看这些企业产生现金流的能力时，很多企业还没有证明它们能够持续产生现金流。因此，他们想要在一定的安全范围内购买，可以削减某些费用，同时帮助在某些市场上实现增长。在公开市场上，这一切过去常以10倍的倍数进行交易。所以私募股权以三到五倍的价格购买，而实际上一到三倍。公开市场的买家很难支付更高的价格。明白了。我可以进一步扩展一下吗？
这是一张由Jammon于12月1日在Altimeter上发布的图表。我认为这很好地解答了估值问题。你可以看到这里有一条线，7.8倍，我认为这指的是前12个月收入的7.8倍。这是长期的COVID前平均值。这是长期以来平均的SaaS股票交易水平。截至12月1日，我们的倍数是5.8倍。我认为现在可能稍高一些，因为市场在过去的五天里相当强势。但你可以看到，与长期平均倍数相比，我们仍然低于交易水平。部分原因是由于十年期利率仍然为4.3%。尽管它已经下降了很多。你可以看到它在5%左右峰值，现在是4.3%。如果你相信十年期利率将回到2.5%或3%的范围，同时相信增长正在重新加速，那么我认为这个5.8的数字至少有机会达到7.8的长期平均水平。因此，还有机会。我认为按照目前的股票价格来看，它们并不显得过高。就这么说吧。我从不想告诉任何人该买什么。但你可以看到，我们仍然低于长期平均水平。他应该将这个数字回溯到2010年。有趣。
So at the start of the super cycle, after the great recession, it's not a bad point. But I'm probably pulled it back, frankly, all the way to 2005, 2006, because you had enough companies there that were public that were sassy software companies, including Salesforce, might be a 6 instead of 7.8. And we might be at the 20 year average. That's a really good point. I'll ask Brad to do that.
所以，在超级周期开始之初，经历了大衰退，这并不是一个坏的观点。但老实说，我可能把它拉回到2005年、2006年，因为那时有足够多的上市公司是时髦的软件公司，包括Salesforce，可能是6而不是7.8。我们可能会回到20年的平均水平。这是一个非常好的观点。我会请布拉德做这个。
Freeberg, switching to you, you have been a capital allocator and company formation executive for the last getting close to a decade. And you made big news this week. Instead of doing more funds, which I know you had a lot of people interested in backing your funds, you decided you're going all in, and that you are choosing to take the highest performer, most promising company in your portfolio and become CEO of that company, explain your decision, because I think it does relate exactly because you've got skin in the game here, the most skin possible, which is your time. You've decided to go the CEO route, put all your eggs in one basket, explain your thinking.
Freeberg，轮到你了，过去近十年你一直是一位资本配置者和公司组建高管。而你在本周造成了很大的新闻。我知道有很多人对支持你的基金感兴趣，但你决定全身心地投入其中，并选择了在你的投资组合中表现最好、最有前途的公司，成为该公司的首席执行官。请解释一下你的决定，因为我认为它确实与此直接相关，你已经全力以赴了，而你的时间则是最宝贵的资源。你决定选择担任首席执行官，将所有的鸡蛋放在一个篮子里，请解释一下你的想法。
We started a business at the production board, which is my firm four years ago with Judd Ward, who's the CTO and co-founder of this business who came up with some pretty novel ideas on how we could use gene editing to make incredible transformations and agriculture a reality.
我们在四年前与Judd Ward一起在生产委员会上创办了这家公司，他是我们的首席技术官和共同创始人。他提出了一些非常新颖的想法，如何利用基因编辑来实现农业的惊人变革。
The conversation originally started from a paper I read in January of 2019. I reached out to Judd and said, hey, we should talk about this paper. And we started brainstorming and Judd came up with this concept for this business. And it was really a, you know, call it a moonshot that they undertook.
最初的对话始于我在2019年1月读到的一篇论文。我联系了贾德并说，嘿，我们应该谈谈这篇论文。然后我们开始进行头脑风暴，贾德提出了这个企业的概念。这真的是一个非常具有挑战性的尝试，可以称之为一次冒险。
And we've put tens of millions of dollars of capital into this project over the last four years and been operating it in stealth. And the team had some pretty significant breakthroughs this year that make the whole thing a reality now. The potential of the business is so significant that I really don't have a choice but to go all in on this. It's a no brainer.
在过去的四年里，我们已经投入了数千万美元的资金，并秘密地运作着这个项目。今年，团队取得了一些非常重大的突破，使整个计划变成现实。这个业务的潜力非常巨大，我真的别无选择，只能全力以赴。这是一个不需要思考的明智选择。
As I said in the tweet, I could out I could spend a bunch of my time as you said, like starting other businesses or making investments. But at the end of the day, you know, investing a cruise to a power law where if you have something that's going to be transformative, it could be many multiples on all the other stuff you do. And so it only made sense for me to say, look, I've, I've got to dedicate my time, attention and energy to making sure that this business realized its potential. I'm going to go in full time as CEO. So it's pretty exciting.
如我在推文中所说，我可以像你说的那样花费大部分时间，比如开办其他企业或进行投资。但归根结底，你知道，投资往往是遵循幂律的，如果你拥有一些具有变革性的东西，那么它可能会产生与其他所有事情相比的多倍效果。所以对我来说，只有一件事情是合理的，那就是我要全身心地致力于确保这个企业实现其潜力。我将全职担任首席执行官，这非常令人兴奋。
You know, gene editing, I'll talk a little bit about it, but I can't share too many details. Gene editing, as you guys know, was discovered, this controversial, whether it was discovered first by George Church and the group at the at the Broad in Harvard or Jennifer Doudna in her group at Berkeley. But CRISPR-Cas9 is the system that allowed us for the first time ever to go in and make specific edits to DNA. Historically, any work we've done in the genome has been, you know, very ad hoc, haphazard, throwing large amounts of DNA into a cell to try and get that cell to do something. But CRISPR really unlocked this call it search and replace function in DNA. And that capability has allowed researchers to make novel therapeutics to create, have new discoveries in biology, and has really unlocked an entirely new era in biology.
你知道的，基因编辑，我来稍微讲讲，但是我不能透露太多细节。正如你们所知，基因编辑是否是由乔治·邱奇在哈佛的广泛组或是詹妮弗·道纳在伯克利的研究小组首次发现而产生争议。但是CRISPR-Cas9是首次让我们能够特定地编辑DNA的系统。从历史上看，我们在基因组中所做的任何工作都是相当临时、无序的，将大量DNA投入到细胞中试图使其做某种事情。但是CRISPR真正解锁了DNA中的搜索和替换功能。这种能力使研究人员能够创造新的治疗方法、在生物学上进行新的发现，并真正开启了生物学的一个全新时代。
One application of gene editing is in agriculture, where we can look specifically at the genes in plants and what they do to the plant. And if we can make specific changes that you would otherwise see in nature through traditional plant breeding and mutations happen over time through plant breeding, can you accelerate those changes? And can you make a set of changes rather than spend millennia breeding plants? Can you make a specific set of changes that will cause the plant to do something very novel? And as a result, get the plant to be more successful. And by editing the DNA of the plant to make it more successful, its yield goes up. It can generate more food with less water, more food with less land, more food with less labor, etc, etc. That's the general premise on how we can use gene editing to drive productivity in agriculture.
基因编辑的一个应用领域是农业，我们可以针对植物基因进行研究，以及它们对植物的功能。如果我们能够通过传统植物育种和突变过程中自然发生的特定变化来加速这些变化，是不是可以节省几千年的育种时间？我们能否进行一系列特定的改变，从而使植物展现出非常新颖的特性？通过编辑植物的DNA，使其更成功，其产量也会提高。它可以用更少的水、更少的土地、更少的劳动等生产更多的食物。这是我们如何利用基因编辑来提升农业生产力的一般前提。
Amazing. And you could, I assume, make the strawberries taste more delicious like those ones from Hokkaido in Japan, as opposed to just making them giant flavorless softballs.
太棒了。而且我猜想，你可以使草莓的味道更美味，就像日本北海道的草莓一样，而不仅仅让它们变成无味且巨大的软球。
The way gene editing has been thought about in agriculture over the last decade has been exactly what you're saying, which is to make a specific crate edit, which is one edit and one gene that does one specific thing to the plant. And what Judd and the team came up with was starting with the problem rather than starting with this kind of very specific thing that we could do. And they said, how do we get yield to go up significantly in plants? And they came up with this creative idea, which is doing a series of edits, which is called multiplex editing, multiple edits across multiple genes, that would actually change the biology of a plant in a fundamentally understandable way, but that would ultimately drive such a transformative increase in yield, it would open up entirely new opportunities in agriculture. And so that was the moonshot was the series of edits that could change how plants do a specific set of things that makes their yields go up significantly. And we weren't sure if it would work.
过去十年来，人们对农业中的基因编辑的思考方式正是你所说的，即进行特定的创造性编辑，即对植物进行一个编辑和一个基因，以实现一项特定的功能。而朱德和他的团队提出的是从问题出发，而不是从我们可以做的非常具体的事情出发。他们说，我们如何显著提高植物的产量？于是他们想出了这个有创意的想法，即进行一系列的编辑，称为多重编辑，对多个基因进行多次编辑，从而在根本上改变植物的生物学特性，但最终会带来如此彻底的产量增长，从而在农业领域开辟全新的机遇。所以这个雄心勃勃的目标是进行一系列的编辑，可以改变植物进行一系列特定事物的方式，从而显著提高产量。当时我们不确定它是否会成功。
First of all, we weren't sure if it was possible to do the edits. Editing plants is very hard. The cell wall of plants has to be dissolved. And then you have to get the editing machinery into the plant into the cell. And then you have to get that cell to edit the right gene and not have other edits. And then you have to get the cell to grow back into a plant. There's so many complicated, difficult steps. You have to get all of them to work.
首先，我们不确定是否可能进行编辑。编辑植物非常困难。植物的细胞壁必须被溶解。然后你必须将编辑设备引入细胞内。接着你还得让该细胞编辑正确的基因，而不是其他基因。然后你必须让该细胞重新生长成植物。其中有许多复杂而困难的步骤。你必须让所有这些步骤都能成功。
And then we weren't even sure if making all those edits would cause the outcome that we expected. And it turns out that that it does. And that happened as of a few weeks ago at this company. And that's why I decided to step in because suddenly, oh my gosh, the moonshot is working. We put in a lot of capital. We spent years funding the exercise. It's real. And now we're going to take off. And so that's why I'm going all on this. So I'm being a little cagey with respect to the details. As I understand, it's top secret stuff. That's fine.
然后，我们甚至不确定进行所有这些编辑是否会带来我们预期的结果。结果证明，确实会产生我们期望的结果。这是几周前在这家公司发生的情况。这就是为什么我决定介入的原因，因为突然间，天大的好消息来了。我们投入了很多资本，花了数年时间资助这个项目。现在这一切都成为现实了，我们即将起飞。所以这就是为什么我完全投入其中。所以关于细节我有点保密。据我所知，这是绝密的事情。没问题。
I definitely want to talk more specifically about what the team's done and what we're going to do with the business, which I will happily do in a few months when some things become public. But in the meantime, I'm excited to do it. I got to tell you, the last set, it's been seven years since I've been an operating CEO.
在接下来几个月，有些事情变得公开后，我绝对愿意更具体地讨论团队已经做了什么，以及我们将如何发展业务。但与此同时，我对此感到兴奋。我必须告诉你，自从我担任执行总裁以来已经过去了七年了。
And to some degree, there's always been a piece missing for me in what I do every day that I haven't felt like I've had the ability to have the influence and make the decisions that I think need to be made. You're advising the CEO, you're sitting in a board seat, kind of encouraging them to do certain things. But then sometimes they listen and sometimes they don't. So to actually be in the seat feels to me like the right place. It's the right place where I can have the influence and drive the change that I want to see. And I haven't done that in a very long time. And so it's also personally, I think the right decision for me to find satisfaction in the work I'm doing, not to mention the excitement I get out of the business.
在某种程度上，对于我每天所做的事情，我始终感到有一块拼图缺失，我觉得自己没有能力去影响并做出我认为需要做出的决策。你会为首席执行官提供建议，坐在董事会席位上，并鼓励他们去做某些事情。但有时候他们会听取，有时候他们不会。所以实际上坐在这个位置对我来说感觉就像是正确的地方。这是我可以施加影响力并推动我想要看到的变革的正确位置。我已经很久没有这样做了。所以从个人角度来看，我认为这也是我找到工作满足感的正确决定，更不用说我从业务中获得的兴奋感了。
And you and I have talked about this privately. The world has too much capital. There's just tons of money. There's too many problems to be solved. The real issue, especially when you're running an incubator or a startup studio, like somebody startup studios, is who is going to pilot this very fast jet fighter and the number of people who are ambitious and technically know how to fly one of these planes and do it at high speed and want to take on that dangerous cockpit is very low. And so I think it's very courageous of you to jump on and do this.
你和我私下已经谈论过这个问题。世界上拥有过多的资本，有大量的金钱，同时也存在太多需要解决的问题。真正的问题是，特别是当你在运营一个孵化器或创业工作室时，像某些创业工作室，谁将驾驶这架非常快速的喷气战斗机，那些雄心勃勃、技术娴熟、能够以高速操作并愿意承担那危险的座舱的人非常少。因此，我认为你能够跳进去并且去做这件事是非常勇敢的。
The point you're making is a really good one worth talking about just for a second. There's been this criticism in Silicon Valley. And I'd love your guys's point of view on this too, Jamaf and Saks, but like and Jacob, but like there's been this criticism in Silicon Valley, which is that we do too much of the easy stuff and to all the capital goes into the apps and stuff. You think that are the path of least resistance to making money, not into the hard things that are low probability require a lot of capital. It's not universally true, but it's generally true with respect to how capital is allocated.
你提出的观点非常好，值得我们花点时间来讨论一下。在硅谷一直存在这样的批评。我很希望你们的观点，Jamaf和Saks，以及Jacob，也能给出意见。在硅谷，有人批评我们过于专注于做简单的事情，投入的资本都流向了应用程序等方面。他们认为这是一条最容易赚钱的路径，而不是投资那些困难、低成功概率且需要大量资本的项目。虽然这并不是普遍适用的，但一般而言，资本的分配情况的确如此。
And I was kind of talking with a bunch of people last week about this. And I kind of realized that like, there's only if you're going to do a difficult project that requires a lot of capital, you're going to want to entrust that capital to someone that has proven themselves. Someone who's proven themselves is generally going to have the choice of things they're going to want to do with their life. And if they've proven themselves, it usually means they've had some exit event or some liquidity event that discourages them from doing a very difficult thing and taking on a lot of risk and burning themselves to death again when they've already made it.
上周我和一群人谈到了这个问题。我渐渐意识到，如果你要做一个需要大量资本的艰巨项目，你会想把这笔资本交给那些已经证明自己能力的人。已经证明自己的人通常会有选择自己生活的权利。如果他们已经证明了自己，通常意味着他们经历过某种退出事件或流动性事件，这让他们不太愿意再承担巨大的风险去做一个非常困难的事情，并再次让自己疲惫不堪，尤其是当他们已经取得成功时。
And the people that have made it usually make it in software the first time around because software creates a path of least resistance to generating returns. And then the challenging question for them is do you do it again and you make easy money, you know how to do it? Or do you take a 5% shot or 2% shot of success, 98% chance of failure going after a very hard project that takes a very long period of time? So I think that the challenge with difficult technology being developed in Silicon Valley is less about a dearth of capital or a dearth of ideas or a dearth of opportunities. It's more about a dearth of talent that finding the right folks who have the capabilities and have done this before to want to step back into the saddle and take on a very large low probability problem is really the challenge that I see a lot of in getting a lot of these things kind of going and funded.
而那些成功的人通常第一次在软件领域取得成功，因为软件创造了一条最低阻力的路径来产生回报。然后对他们而言，挑战就是再次做出成果，赚到容易的钱，因为你已经知道怎么做了。或者，你选择冒险去追求一个非常艰难的项目，可能只有5%或2%的成功机会，98%的可能会失败，需要很长时间才能完成。所以，我认为在硅谷开发困难技术的挑战，不在于资金不足、创意不足或机会不足，而是在于人才不足，找到那些具备能力并且已经有这方面经验的人，愿意重返战场，面对这个可能性很低的艰巨问题，这才是很多项目在推进和融资方面面临的真正挑战。
Hard to get people to be in the arena, yes, Chima? You've seen this in your portfolio? Not a hard problem, it's what I'm saying. Like a 2% chance of success kind of problem. Like why would I do that when I can go do something that's I'm 60% like they succeed at and do really well doing it?
很难让人们参与其中，是吗，Chima？你在你的投资组合中也看到过这种情况吧？这不是一个棘手的问题，我的意思是这不太可能成功的问题，大概只有2%的成功机会。为什么我要去做这样的事情，而不是去做一些我有60%的成功机会并且能做得很好的事情呢？
I find that most companies are very under-managed and under-experienced and it's surprising for me. It lacks a level of sophistication that I just assumed existed and I guess that's because my last experience was when I was helping to build a company that frankly coming out of the great financial crisis, we were recruiting people at Facebook from Google for the most part and then building an entire core of young people and grooming from within. We had a pretty good go of it.
我发现大多数公司管理不善且经验不足，这让我感到惊讶。它们缺乏我曾认为存在的一种复杂程度，我猜这是因为我上一次的经历是在我正在帮助建立一家公司的时候。诚实地说，那是在大金融危机之后，我们主要从谷歌招募人才到Facebook，然后从内部培养了一支完整的年轻团队。我们取得了相当不错的成绩。
Fast forward to 2023 and I must admit that the companies that I interact with when I get into the weeds, I think the real talent at Friedberg's point is spread too thin across too many businesses and so there are pockets of greatness in every company but there's no real gravitational pull for any of them as a result of that.
快进到2023年，我必须承认，当我深入研究时，我与的公司们，在弗里德伯格的角度上，我认为真正的人才在太多业务中分散得过于薄弱，所以每个公司都有自己的亮点，但由于这种分散，却没有真正的吸引力，使它们中的任何一家成为引领者。
This is an excellent point as well. When we had a SERP environment, so many companies got funded, an amazing CMO, CTO, VP of Ops started their own company and their natural position was the sixth man on the bench, on the nicks of the Warriors, not the primary score. They weren't Steph Curry, they shouldn't be in that position, they should be coming off the bench and being an amazing contributor.
这也是一个非常重要的观点。在我们有SERP（搜索引擎结果页面）环境时，很多公司得到了资金支持，一些出色的首席市场官、首席技术官和运营副总裁开始创办自己的公司。他们的天然位置应该是替补席上的第六人，就像勇士队（Golden State Warriors）的边缘球员，而不是主要的得分手。他们不是斯蒂芬·库里（Steph Curry），不应该处于那个位置，而应该成为替补出场，作为一个出色的贡献者。
This is, I've concluded, the best time in the world to start a new company. I am absolutely amazed by the companies coming and applying for funding for us. I understand because that's your business model but what about encouraging people to actually join a good company and learn how to be a good manager?
我得出的结论是，现在是创办新公司的最佳时机。我对那些申请资金的公司感到非常惊讶。尽管我明白这是你们的商业模式，但是你们是否考虑过鼓励人们加入一家好公司，并学习如何成为一位优秀的管理者呢？
Absolutely. These are the two best options I think. If you have two or three really great builders, you actually know how to build and in two or three, you have a great idea and you want to do it, I encourage you start a startup. If you don't have a great idea, you don't have two or three co-founders, you don't want to leave the thing, find somebody who's just getting onto the launchpad or just getting a little escape velocity in their rocket which would be defined as 10 to 30 employees, maybe having raised $2 to $20 million. I said an ideal time to get on the rocket and just any seat you can get, as Cheryl Sandberg said famously, any seat on the rocket ship is a seat on the rocket ship. You just want to get on board.
当然。这是我认为的两个最佳选择。如果你有两三个真正优秀的建筑师，你知道如何建设，并且你有一个伟大的想法并且想要实践，我鼓励你去创办一个创业公司。如果你没有一个伟大的想法，没有两三个共同创始人，你又不想离开当下的工作，那么找一个刚刚踏上发射台或者刚刚获得一点冲出轨道速度的人吧，这可能意味着雇佣了10到30名员工，也许已经筹集到了200万到2000万美元。就像沙尔·桑德伯格 (Cheryl Sandberg) 著名的说法，登上火箭就是目标，只要你能获得任何位置，因为任何座位都是在火箭上的座位。你只需要上车就好。
I disagree with the first part of what you said. Oh, okay. Explain why. I run into two and three person teams every day that I think are exceptionally talented who should be inside of a company and instead they found somebody to give them money and so instead they're starting something and they're just meandering. The problem with these two and three person teams is that even now if you stick the right label on it like AI, you'll find five or six or seven million dollars of money, it won't be led by any single investor. So it's all done in a safe. None of these folks have boards and so they come in and check in with me time to time and I ask them about their progress and it's a mess. I'm shocked and I'm like, why are you guys wasting your time? You should be at a startup that's winning.
我不同意你所说的第一部分。哦，好的。解释一下为什么。每天我都会碰到两三人小组，我认为他们异常有才华，应该在一家公司里工作，而不是找个人给他们钱，然后他们就开始做一些没有头绪的事情。这些两三人小组的问题在于，即使现在你给它贴上正确的标签，比如人工智能，你会发现有五六七百万美元的资金，但没有任何一个单一的投资者来领导。所以这一切都是在一个安全的环境下进行的。这些人没有董事会，所以他们时不时地来找我汇报进展情况，但情况一团糟。我感到震惊，我就想，你们为什么要浪费时间呢？你们应该加入一个取得成功的创业公司。
Part of it is that they think it's the right thing to do and I don't think there's any valor in being a founder. I think there's a lot of valor in building something that's really valuable for people and if that means being a director of marketing, go do that instead. It's a valid point. I think your most valid point in that is that there is not governance and mentorship during the PEEK ZERP era. We created something called founder university to kind of the 12-week course where we teach people how to do this stuff and then we wind up investing in about 10% of those companies and it's not how many people are applying and we tell people when you hit $250,000-$500,000 in revenue, we'll start doing quarterly board meetings with you and they don't even have to be officially board meetings. They're just mentoring sessions for one hour where you present as if it's a board and so I agree largely the passing of the hat and doing a party around and having no mentorship is a weakness in the system. In our firm, we fixed it with founder university.
其中一部分是因为他们认为这是正确的事情，而且我认为成为创始人并没有什么荣誉可言。我认为真正有价值的是为人们创造出有价值的东西，如果这意味着成为市场总监，那就做市场总监吧。这是一个有道理的观点。我认为你在这方面最有道理的观点是，在 PEAK ZERP 时代没有治理和指导。我们创建了一个叫做创始人大学的东西，是一个为期12周的课程，教人们如何做这些事情。然后，我们最终会投资约10%的这些公司，这不是通过申请人数来决定的，我们告诉人们，当你的收入达到25-50万美元时，我们将开始每季度与你进行董事会会议，甚至不需要官方的董事会会议，只是为期一小时的指导会议，你会像在董事会上报告一样。所以我基本上同意，没有指导和只是以举办派对形式来传递帽子是系统的一个弱点。在我们公司，我们通过创始人大学来解决这个问题。
Yeah, but it's dropping a slightly different point. I think that when you have bubbly funding conditions, it leads to an overfragmentation of talent.
是的，但这种说法有点不同。我认为当资金繁荣时，会导致人才过于分散。
Sure. I mean, isn't that the point? Yes. I mean, it takes a certain concentration of outstanding people, not just founders, but also like early employees to create a great company.
当然。我是说，这不就是重点吗？是的。我的意思是，创造一个伟大的公司需要一定数量的杰出人才，不仅仅是创始人，还包括早期员工。
No, with PayPal, right? I mean, that was the greatest concentration of talent in history. That in Google would be the two best examples.
不，是指使用PayPal，对吧？我的意思是，那是历史上才华聚集得最多的时期。谷歌就是最好的两个例子之一。
Yeah. One of the reasons why you can end up with, again, an overfragmentation is if there is too much funding in the system and everybody's getting funded for really mid-ideas and it prevents a congealing of great talent to come together at companies which have a really big idea. If you believe that the startup ecosystem was overfunded during the Zerk bubble, which it clearly was, I mean, you don't just get bubbly valuations. You also get bubbly funding conditions. Then by definition, there are companies at the margins that are getting funded that shouldn't get funded and that leads to an overfragmentation of talent.
是的。导致过度碎片化的一个原因是系统中有太多的资金，每个人都得到资金支持，即使他们的想法只是中等水平的，这阻碍了具有重大创意的人才聚集在一起的公司的形成。如果你认为在泡沫时期，初创生态系统的资金过度注入，显然是如此，我的意思是，你不仅会看到高估值，还会看到资金繁荣的环境。那么根据定义，一些边缘的公司得到了不应该得到的资金支持，这导致了人才的过度碎片化。
Here's what's happening on the ground. We used to see a lot of solo founders outsourcing their tech. What we're seeing now is usually two, three, four founders getting together to do a company. One of the counter-provaling forces here is what we saw with Spotify just laying off 1,700 people, Google laying off 20,000, Facebook laying off, I think 25, or 30,000 Microsoft, Uber. All these companies have laid off so massively, they're all on hiring freezes. Then what happens is there's massive amounts of talent at reasonable prices joining together after having worked at those companies.
以下是目前的情况。我们曾经看到很多独立创始人将技术外包出去。现在我们看到的通常是两个、三个、四个创始人一起组建一家公司。其中一个反作用力是我们看到Spotify裁员1,700人，Google裁员20,000人，Facebook裁员25或30,000人，Microsoft和Uber也都大规模裁员。这些公司都停止招聘。然后发生的是这些公司里的大量人才以合理的价格聚集在一起，他们曾在这些公司工作过。
I would say the companies we're funding at this early stage were never doing solo founders. I mean, less it's a serial entrepreneur. We're seeing two or three people who worked at Uber or Google or Airbnb who have this really great product velocity coming together and they have to be builders.
我会说，我们在这个早期阶段资助的公司从来没有独自创立者。我是说，除非是一位连续创业者。我们看到有两三个曾在Uber、Google或Airbnb工作过的人们聚在一起，他们的产品进展非常迅速，他们必须是创造者。
I think it's two things are true at once. The number of companies being funded has plummeted, I think about 75% sacks. The quality and the amount of concentration of talent even in those startup cohorts is really high. They don't have four job offers from big tech and not having a sales force, $300,000 offer coming in or a Google $400,000 offer coming in.
我认为同时存在两件事是真实的。获得资金支持的公司数量已经急剧下降，我认为大约下降了75％。即使在那些初创公司中，人才的质量和集中度也非常高。他们没有从大型科技公司拿到四份工作机会，也没有来自销售团队的30万美元报价，或者来自谷歌的40万美元报价。
So I think this is going to be the best vintage adventure in our lifetimes. That's my personal belief. I invested in 100 companies this year, but I could be wrong.
我认为这将是我们一生中最好的古董冒险。这是我个人的信念。今年我投资了100家公司，但我可能会错。
We should talk about the Google Gemini launch. Google just dropped their chat GPT killer and from my perspective, it's awesome. Just two quick videos here. It does have very strong multi-modal mode. If you don't know what that is, just means you can use images, videos, text, input, and output. In this demo that you're seeing on the screen, if you're watching the show, they take a picture of a physics test that somebody took in handwriting. They find which answers are wrong. They explain it. Lots of reasoning going on in here. And obviously, the multi-modal means you're seeing an image and you're getting text back.
我们应该讨论一下Google Gemini的发布。谷歌刚刚发布了他们的聊天GPT杀手，从我的角度来看，这非常棒。这里有两个快速的视频。它具有非常强大的多模态模式。如果你不知道是什么意思，就是指你可以使用图像、视频、文本、输入和输出。在你正在看屏幕上的这个演示中，他们拍了一张某人手写的物理考试照片。他们找出了哪些答案是错的，并进行了解释。这里面涉及了很多推理。显然，多模态意味着你可以看到图片并获取文本回复。
Second video they showed and they launched a lot of stuff today with this Gemini brand. They're using the classic example of doing a party, planning a party. They use my likeness in the Google video. Wait, what's going on? Here it is. There's Chubby Chama. Oh, sorry. I can't buy sheep people. Sorry about that, folks. There's Chubby Chama. Please strike that. Oh my God. I should have said that. I thought Vinny Lingham was Fat Chama. Vinny Lingham has claimed Fat Chama. That's why I went for Chubby. I didn't want to infringe on his IP. But anyone else know I got a good cancel.
第二段视频他们展示并且用这个Gemini品牌推出了很多东西。他们用经典的例子来比喻举办派对，策划派对。他们在谷歌的视频中使用了我的形象。等等，出了什么事？这是宝宝查马。哦，对不起，我不能买到绵羊人。对不起，大家对此感到抱歉。这是宝宝查马，请忽略刚才的话。天哪，我真不该说那个。我原以为Vinny Lingham是胖查马。Vinny Lingham已经声明了胖查马。所以我才用了宝宝这个词，不想侵犯他的知识产权。但是其他人是否知道我已经被取笑了呢。
So in this video, the person asked to do a kid's party. What's very unique here is that it does the follow up questions, which is really interesting and understands reasoning and context. But he built a dynamic interface for this use case. And it did like a pin board and a Google S task list and KPIs and all this other nonsense.
在这个视频中，这个人被要求为一个孩子的派对做准备。这里非常独特的地方在于他提出了后续问题，这真的很有趣，并且能够理解推理和背景知识。但他为这个使用情境构建了一个动态界面。然后他用像钉子板、Google的任务列表、关键绩效指标以及其他一些琐碎的东西来实现这个。
But behind all of this in the Gemini exceptionalism, I think, is that they did all these benchmarks against a bunch of, there's a bunch of tests and batteries of tests that language models use to prove how strong they are. And Google says Gemini beat GPT-4, the latest from OpenAI in 30 out of 32 benchmarks.
但在这背后，双子座的非凡之处在于他们通过一系列测试和测试组来证明自己的强大。而且，谷歌声称双子座在32个基准测试中有30次击败了OpenAI最新的GPT-4。
This is going to come in three flavors, Ultra Pro and Nano. That's basically cost and strength. And there's a lot more behind this. But based on what I'm seeing, in my opinion, I've been looking at the stuff every week with Sundeep and looking at all of the latest and greatest, this feels like it is a leapfrog by about 20 or 30% if this is true.
这将有三种款式，超级版和纳米版。基本上是成本和强度的区别。还有更多背后的信息。但根据我看到的，我每周都与桑迪普一起看最新最棒的东西，如果这是真的，我认为这感觉跨越了大约20%或30%。
But Freiburg, you looked at the original papers. What are your thoughts on the underpinnings I talked about the UX and some of the reasoning? What are you seeing? We'll consider this a flash on the fly science corner for all those. Freiburg stands out there. I haven't read the whole 60 pages, but I looked at the performance charts and it's pretty damn impressive. I feel, I use the demo of it. I feel like you're interacting with data from Star Trek.
但弗莱堡，你看过原始文件。你对我谈到的用户体验的基础和一些推理有什么想法？你看到了什么？我们将把这归类为一个即兴科学角落的灵感。弗莱堡站在那里非常突出。虽然我没有读完整个60页，但我看了一下性能图表，它相当令人印象深刻。当我使用它的演示版本时，感觉就像是在与《星际迷航》中的数据进行交互。
Do you guys ever watch Star Trek? Look at the smile on your face. You are so happy. Your dream has come true from your child. I mean, I was like, this is a lifelong dream. I can finally have a chat with data. It's like conversational. It's predictable. In the sense that it kind of predicts the details that I might ask or might otherwise forget to ask, fills them in.
你们有没有看过《星际迷航》？看看你脸上的笑容，你们太开心了。你们从小时候的梦想实现了。我的意思是，这是一个一生的梦想。我终于能和数据聊天了。感觉就像是交谈一样。它能预测我可能会问什么细节，或者我可能会忘记问什么，然后填补进去。
There's some, I think, really smart features of it. I think it says a lot that Google truly does have the muscle to compete and now is showing the way of us to do so. That they're actually putting this out there, that they're willing to disrupt themselves, cannibalize their own search business potentially in a way that everyone's been worried they wouldn't be willing or able to do. They'll figure out a way to monetize it later, but they really are showing that they're willing to try and make the best product for users, which has always been a core mantra for Google from the origins of the business, focus on the user and all else will follow. Everyone's been saying the last couple years, they're too focused on profit. They're squeezing every nickel and dime out of every click and showing that they're willing to put this out there says a lot about the strategic imperative of the board and the leadership there. That makes a big difference.
我认为它具有一些非常聪明的特点。我认为，这表明谷歌确实有实力竞争，并且现在正在展示给我们如何做到这一点。他们真的把这个推出来，他们愿意颠覆自己，可能会损害自己的搜索业务，这一点让每个人都担心他们不愿意或者没有能力去做到。他们以后会找到一种盈利方式，但他们确实展示出他们愿意尝试并为用户打造最好的产品，这一直以来都是谷歌的核心宗旨，专注于用户，其他一切将随之而来。过去几年，大家一直在说他们太过专注于利润。他们在每次点击中都将每一分每一毫都榨取出来，而他们愿意推出这个产品说明了董事会和领导层的战略需要的重要性。这将产生很大的影响。
The product seems really good. The scoring data seems incredible against GPT-4, which is, I think, the key benchmark. As we know, OpenAI has some new models that are coming to market. Here, let's pull up the table of results. This shows Gemini's performance against GPT-4 using a number of well-known metrics.
这个产品看起来真的很不错。与我认为的关键基准GPT-4相比，评分数据似乎令人难以置信。据我们所知，OpenAI有一些即将面市的新模型。现在，让我们来看一下结果表格。这个表格展示了Gemini在使用一些众所周知的指标对抗GPT-4时的表现。
I'll say that there is no business on Earth that has more data than Google. YouTube is the richest data repository, digital data repository on Earth. The YouTube data set gives Google an extraordinary advantage in training. Clearly, we're seeing that in the results they're getting on imaging a video here. Big announcement for Google. I think it's definitely worth saying that they're in the game, and it's going to be pretty powerful to watch.
我要说的是地球上没有比谷歌拥有更多数据的企业了。YouTube是地球上最丰富的数据存储库，数字数据存储库。YouTube的数据集为谷歌提供了非凡的培训优势。显然，我们可以看到他们在图像视频方面的成果。对于谷歌来说，这是一个重大的宣布。我认为确实值得说一下他们已经加入了这个领域，并且观察起来将会非常强大。
I think it's pretty important to watch. Saxis, Freiburg, said the cajonas are on the table now. Sundar has dropped the way of us. What's your take?
我认为这非常重要需要关注。来自Freiburg的Saxis表示现在该行动了。Sundar已经离开了我们的方式。你对此有什么看法？
I think it's pretty clear that Google's we have a major player in AI, but the question is, are they going to be dominant in AI? I think one of the points that our friend, back Ursula, makes that's well taken about Google's market position is that if you look at their position in search, which is gradually being replaced by AI, they're absolutely dominant in search. Even if they turn out to be good or great in AI, their AI franchise is never going to be as dominant as their search franchise was in that market. And so, to the extent that AI is replacing search, and I think we're seeing that more and more, if you can get the AI just to give you the answer, instead of a list of 10 blue links, that's a better user experience. I think as more and more searches get replaced with AI, it's just impossible that they're going to maintain that same dominant share. Moreover, it's really unclear how you monetize those, let's call them AI searches, where it just gives you the answer, because nobody wants to get three ad links up at the top of their answer. No one's going to click on those. So I think, look, Google is going to be a player in AI, but as AI displaces search, it's going to be a real challenge for them as a company, I think.
我认为很明显，谷歌在人工智能领域是一家重要的参与者，但问题是，他们会在人工智能领域占主导地位吗？我认为我们的友人厄休拉提出了一个很好的观点，关于谷歌在市场上的地位，如果你看他们在搜索领域的地位，这个领域正逐渐被人工智能所取代，他们在搜索领域绝对占主导地位。即使他们在人工智能方面做得很好，甚至是很出色，他们的人工智能业务也永远无法像他们在搜索市场上的地位一样占主导。因此，随着人工智能取代搜索的程度越来越大，如果你能让人工智能直接给你答案，而不是一串10个蓝色链接，那将会是更好的用户体验。我认为随着越来越多的搜索被人工智能取代，他们要想保持相同的主导份额是不可能的。此外，如何对这些“人工智能搜索”进行盈利还非常不清楚，因为没有人希望在自己的答案前面看到三个广告链接。没有人会点击它们。因此，我认为虽然谷歌将会在人工智能领域有所表现，但随着人工智能取代搜索，这将对谷歌作为一家公司构成真正的挑战。
I have the opposite position on explain sacks. While I do think you're right, their dominance won't be the same. Having used the Google flights, AI integration, Google shopping, AI integration, that's in bard right now, which is very like one point out or even point one. I think the number of searches or the number of interactions, the number of queries, let's call them questions asked, is going to go like 10, 20, 50, 100 X. I think people are going to be talking to their ais all day long. And where I think you might be wrong is I think actually the clicks are going to fit in certain categories perfectly into the response. So in this birthday one, if you had a bunch of ideas of what you could click on to purchase, if it said, Hey, great idea for the birthday, did you think about these hats? Did you think about these pinatas? Did you think about these places to get cake? And those were all paid and AI informed them because you want to do an animal based jungle party. And it showed you those, it's going to make unbelievable ad targeting that is right into your planning. Hey, get these hats here, get this, get this flight here, book this restaurant. I think it could be a gold mine. And I think the the the click stream and the ad network is going to fit perfectly into it. Same thing with those questions being asked, you know, Hey, do you want to get a math tutor? Do you want to buy this book, etc? So I am going to take the other side of it. Shmoop, where do you land? Are you short long or neutral Google based on this?
我对解释购物袋有相反的观点。虽然我认为你是对的，但他们的统治不会一样。我已经使用了Google Flights和AI集成、Google购物和AI集成，这在现在是非常有吸引力的，可能是一个点或者甚至是0.1个点。我认为搜索量或互动量、查询量，我们称之为问题的提问，将增加10倍、20倍、50倍或100倍。我觉得人们将整天与他们的AI助手交流。而我认为你可能错了的地方是，我认为点击行为会完全符合特定的类别，并与回复相吻合。所以在这个生日场景中，如果你有一堆可以点击购买的想法，如果它说：“嗨，生日的好主意，你考虑过这些帽子吗？你考虑过这些彩球吗？你考虑过在哪里买蛋糕吗？”而这些都是由AI提供的付费建议，因为你想举办一个以动物为主题的丛林派对。它向你展示了这些选项，这将为你的计划提供了难以置信的广告精准定位。"嘿，在这里买这些帽子，这里买这次航班，这里预订这个餐厅。" 我认为它可能是个金矿。同时，点击流和广告网络将完美地融入其中。对于那些被问到的问题也是一样，你知道，“嘿，你想找个数学家教吗？你想买这本书吗？等等。”所以我要站在另一边。Shmoop，你对基于这一点的谷歌持怎样的观点？你是看空、看多还是持中性？
I think that there's two important things to notice about this. The first is who is in charge of this project. And this is, I think after they did that reorg, the most important person in all of this is Jeff Dean, who if you look back is the one of the most preeminent technical lights, frankly, of the internet, but within Google is just a giant, right? So TensorFlow, MapReduce, Bigtable, Spanner, the guy is just an absolute animal. He's proven an ability to not just conceptualize big ideas, but then get them to market in a way that can work at scale. Right? That's the first thing.
我认为有两个重要的事情需要注意。首先是谁负责这个项目。在他们重新组织之后，我认为在这整个过程中最重要的人是杰夫·迪恩。回顾一下，他是互联网上最杰出的技术专家之一，在谷歌内部更是巨人一般存在。所以，TensorFlow、MapReduce、Bigtable、Spanner，这些东西对他来说都是很简单的。他不仅能够构思出大的想法，而且还可以将它们成功推向市场并实现规模化运作。这是第一件事。
The second thing is that this Gemini is a collaboration between DeepMind for the first time and Google Research and a bunch of other people at Google. So I think Freeberg mentioned this before, the test for Google is not their technical capacity, but their ability to organize everybody and get them to row in the same direction. So I think that that's really important. My takeaway is what I kind of put out on Twitter, which is that I think all of this is one more brick in the wall on this theme of commoditization. So we have all of these really interesting foundational models. If you just look back a little bit, Loma2s advances have been pretty amazing. Out of the UAE Abu Dhabi, the government there showed some falcon, which showed some really interesting promise. Obviously, OpenAI is doing some great work with GPT4 and GPT5. Now you see Gemini and the results that they're generating. There's going to be a proliferation of foundational models. The cost of those models will go to zero. And so why is that an important thing? Well, one, it's good for the ecosystem. Two, it's really good for developers. And three, it allows us to then figure out where the real value is going to be made. And I think the value is in taking these models and wrapping them with cheap, abstracted hardware. You can't have an economy get built in AI when you have year long waiting lists for H100s and A100s from Nvidia. That's not possible. So that entire layer as well will get commoditized. So the folks that are the AWSs, the Azures and the GCPs of the world, or these next generation entrants who are building AI clouds, those folks, I think will make money. And then the apps will make money. So I think it's a very good thing. I think that you don't want a lot of the lock in that Nvidia was trying to create. They were trying to create essentially a walled garden where you have to use CUDA in order to basically compile to these, these miles to their chips. It's going to break all of that. So I'm generally quite constructive. I think that this is a really good step in democratizing this whole thing and letting the value accrete to the ends. It's a barbell infrastructure providers and app builders. That's my best guess of where money gets made here.
第二件事是这个双子座是DeepMind与Google研究和谷歌其他一些人之间的首次合作。所以我认为Freeberg之前提到过，对于Google来说，考验的不是他们的技术能力，而是他们组织大家并让他们朝着同一个方向努力的能力。所以我认为这真的很重要。我的观点就是我在Twitter上发布的，也就是我认为所有这些都是关于商品化这一主题的又一个积木。所以我们拥有所有这些非常有趣的基础模型。如果你稍微回顾一下，Loma2s的进展是相当惊人的。阿联酋阿布扎比的政府展示了一些很有希望的出色工作。显然，OpenAI正在做一些GPT4和GPT5方面的出色工作。现在你看到了Gemini和它们所产生的结果。将会出现大量的基础模型。这些模型的成本将降为零。为什么这是一个重要的事情呢？首先，对于生态系统是有益的。其次，对于开发人员来说非常有利。第三，它使我们能够找出真正的价值将产生在哪里。而我认为真正的价值在于将这些模型与廉价的、抽象化的硬件进行封装。当你从Nvidia那里需要等上一整年才能获得H100和A100时，AI经济就无法形成。所以整个层面也将被商品化。那些构建AI云的AWS、Azure和GCP等公司，或者那些正在构建下一代进入者，这些公司将赚钱。然后应用程序将赚钱。所以我认为这是一件非常好的事情。我认为你不希望有很多像Nvidia一样试图创造的封闭园地。他们试图创造一个必须使用CUDA来将代码编译成他们的芯片的墙围园地。但这将被打破。所以总体而言，我是非常积极的。我认为这是民主化整个过程的一个非常好的步骤，并让价值流向最终的受益者。基础设施提供商和应用程序开发者是我在这里赚钱的最好猜测。
All right. Adobe's $20 billion acquisition of Figma is stalled right now. UK's CMA stands for competition in markets authority. It's effectively blocked this acquisition for a couple of obvious reasons. One reduces innovation. Two eliminates competition between two top competitors and product design. And three removes Figma as a threat to Adobe's Photoshop in illustrator products. CMA mentions some potential remedies divesting of overlapping operations in each market where the deal could cause less competition or just prohibiting the merger entirely feels like that's what's going to happen. And also actually I have to take the issue with a peak. There was a peak. There was a peak. There was a peak. There was a peak. There was a peak issue with you said that they are doing this for obvious reasons. I don't think these reasons are obvious in the sense that I don't think I don't think they speak for themselves. I think they have to be defended. And I don't think these are good reasons. Oh, yeah. When I say obvious reasons, I'm not endorsing them. I'm just saying the standard reasons of lack of competition and consolidation of competitors. But yeah, expand on your point and you think it should not be stopped this merger.
好的。Adobe以200亿美元收购Figma的交易目前陷入停滞。英国的CMA代表市场竞争管理局。出于几个明显的原因，CMA有效地阻止了这次收购。第一，这将减少创新。第二，这将消除两个顶级竞争对手在产品设计领域的竞争。第三，这将使Figma不再对Adobe的Photoshop和Illustrator产品构成威胁。CMA提到了一些可能的解决方案，如在可能导致竞争减少的各个市场上剥离重复运营，或完全禁止合并。看起来这将是发生的情况。我还要对你说的有一个问题提出异议。你说他们出于明显的原因这么做。我认为这些原因并不明显，我认为它们需要被证明。而且我认为这些不是好的原因。哦，是的。当我说明显的原因时，并不代表我支持它们。我只是指的是缺乏竞争和竞争对手整合的常规原因。但是，你可以进一步阐述你的观点，你认为这次合并不应该被阻止。
Well, first of all, this merger was originally announced, I think, back on September 15th of 2022, over a year ago, what is that? That's almost 15 months ago. So this is a ridiculous amount of time for regulators to take to figure out whether they're going to prove the deal. That's no good for anybody. I think businesses, whether you're Adobe, whether you're Figma, have a right to have these questions answered much more quickly. So what are the regulators doing?
首先，我认为这次合并最早是在2022年9月15日公布的，已经有超过一年的时间了，这是什么？那几乎是15个月之前的事了。所以对于监管机构来说，花这么久时间去决定是否批准这笔交易是非常荒谬的。这对任何人来说都不好。我认为无论是Adobe还是Figma这样的企业，都有权利更快地得到这些问题的答案。所监管机构到底在干什么呢？
So that's point number one. Point number two is that it's mostly the UK regulator, which is called the CMA or Competition of Markets Authority. They're the ones who are dragging their feet and holding this up. So Figma and Adobe have to get the approval of three different regulatory bodies. They have to get approval in the United States from, I think, the DOJ. They have to get approval from the EU with Brussels. And now because of things to Brexit, they also have to get approved by the UK. And to me, it's a little crazy that one country's competition authority, the UK, which is not in the grand scheme of things that big a market can hold up this entire deal. It should be faster, of course. They should have just a number of deals. I question whether one country, the UK, should be able to hold up a deal if the US and the EU approve it.
所以这是第一点。第二点是这主要是由英国监管机构CMA（Competition of Markets Authority）引起的拖延和阻碍。所以Figma和Adobe必须获得三个不同监管机构的批准。他们需要获得美国司法部（我认为是）的批准。他们需要获得欧盟布鲁塞尔方面的批准。由于脱欧的原因，现在他们还必须获得英国的批准。对我来说，一个国家的竞争机构，像英国这样在整体大局中市场规模并不是很大的国家，竟能拖延这整个交易，这有点不可思议。当然，应该更快一些。他们应该只需一些交易审批。我质疑如果美国和欧盟批准该交易，一个国家如英国是否有能力阻止该交易。
And one thing I would say to startups is if the CMA is going to start holding up deals for a bunch of novel reasons, meaning reasons that haven't previously been articulated before in an antitrust law, why in the world do you want to create nexus with the UK? I think this pertains to all the startup ecosystem, because look, I remember when I was doing Yammer, we decided to open an office in Europe and we decided to settle in London. And we created a pretty big office in London. We thought that was the best place for a startup to locate. If you had told me at the time that that would subject our acquisition by Microsoft to the CMA over there, and that they would take some novel interpretation and go hold up my deal, there's no way I would have wanted to open an office in the UK. So let's be clear about that.
有一件事我要对初创企业说的是，如果市场竞争与监管局（CMA）因为一系列新奇的原因而开始阻止交易，也就是说，这些原因在既有的反垄断法中从未被清楚地提到过，为什么你们要与英国建立联系呢？我认为这涉及到整个初创企业生态系统，因为你看，我记得当我在做Yammer时，我们决定在欧洲开设一个办公室，并选择在伦敦落户。我们在伦敦创立了一个相当大规模的办公室。我们当时认为那是初创企业最好的定位。如果你当时告诉我，这将使我们被英国CMA审查并以一种新奇的解释来阻止我的交易，我肯定不会想要在英国设立办事处。所以，我们要明确这一点。
Now, I want to move on just quickly to the argument that the CMA is making. And I do think it's a novel argument. They're not saying that Adobe and Figma are competitive today. And actually, I think they are operating in different markets. Figma is a product for web designers and web developers. And the end state of a Figma design is code. If you look at Adobe's products like Photoshop, the end state is marketing collateral. It's a marketing design product. Nobody uses Figma to create marketing collateral. They use Photoshop. And nobody who's using Photoshop is using that to build websites. Okay, these are in practice pretty distinct markets. And I think the CMA has conceded that they're distinct and separate markets.
现在，我想快速转到CMA提出的论点。我认为这是一个新颖的论点。他们并没有说Adobe和Figma目前是竞争对手。实际上，我认为它们在不同的市场运作。Figma是为网页设计师和开发人员设计的产品。而Figma设计的最终形式是代码。如果你看看Adobe的产品，比如Photoshop，最终形式是营销宣传资料。它是一种营销设计产品。没有人使用Figma来创建营销宣传资料。他们使用的是Photoshop。而使用Photoshop的人不会用它来建立网站。实际上，这些市场在实践中是相当独立的。我认为CMA已经承认了它们是不同且独立的市场。
But what the CMA is trying to say is that at some point in the future, if we block this deal, Figma might compete, might compete with Adobe. They might create a competitor to Photoshop. And that is a bogus rationale for blocking a deal. Because first of all, I think we all know that Figma has no interest in competing with Photoshop. They're not going to compete. They're much more interested in AI. They're much more interested in doing things like prompt to design to code. They're not interested in building, you know, a Photoshop competitor. And there's no reason to believe that they would do that.
CMA试图表达的是，在将来的某个时间点，如果我们阻止这笔交易，Figma可能会与Adobe竞争。他们可能会创造出一个与Photoshop竞争的产品。这个理由是荒谬的，因为首先，我们都知道Figma对与Photoshop竞争没有兴趣。他们不会去竞争。他们对人工智能更感兴趣。他们更喜欢做类似提示设计到代码的工作。他们并不打算构建一个类似于Photoshop的竞争对手。也没有理由相信他们会这样做。
Moreover, that is not an objective standard. Think about it. If you can block a deal on the grounds that these two companies don't compete today, but might one day compete in the future, it gives the regulators a veto over any deal. And that is not the way antitrust is supposed to work. The way that antitrust has historically worked is you define what market these companies are in, and you add their market share together if they're both in the same market to see if it would create an undue monopoly or oligopoly, something, some dynamic like that. It was a market share test, which is an objective test. This is not an objective test. This is a regular saying, hmm, you know, we know you don't compete today, but like one day in the future, you might. That is bogus.
此外，这并不是一个客观的标准。想想看，如果你可以以这两家公司今天并不竞争，但未来可能会竞争的理由来阻止一项交易，那就意味着监管机构对任何交易都拥有否决权。而反垄断本应该是不同的。历史上反垄断的做法是确定这些公司所在的市场，并将它们的市场份额相加，以查看是否会产生不当的垄断或寡头垄断，或者类似的动态。这是一个客观的市场份额测试。而现在却是一个规定说“嗯，我们知道你们今天并不竞争，但将来可能会竞争”。这是站不住脚的观点。
So if you allow the CMA to block this deal on that ground, they can block any deal for any reason. And then on top of it, they've taken 15 months to come down with this opinion. I think this is going to have a very chilling effect on M&A activity for not a good reason, for not a good reason. And that is the last thing the Star B ecosystem needs right now. I'm going to agree about the time. I'm going to agree that we should let a little more M&A happen. I'll disagree. Adobe has a product XD competes directly with Figma. And then I've gotten multiple designers who have included me in Figma designs for things that are other than interfaces. They're using it for decks. They're using it for marketing collateral. And if you go look at Figma's templates offering, they are all Photoshop Illustrator key functions. So in the market, even though the products were not designed as competitors, designers are starting with Figma for many design projects in my direct experience and by looking at the templates. So I'll disagree on that third point.
所以，如果你允许竞争与市场权威机构(CMA)以这个理由阻止这笔交易，他们可以出于任何原因阻止任何交易。然后，除此之外，他们花了15个月的时间才提出这样的意见。我认为这将对并购活动产生非常冷静的影响，这并不是一个好的原因，这不是一个好的原因。而这恰恰是Star B生态系统现在最不需要的。关于时间，我同意。我同意我们应该允许更多的并购活动。我不同意。Adobe有一个与Figma直接竞争的产品XD。而且我收到了多位设计师把我包括在Figma设计中的邮件，这些设计不仅仅是界面。他们在制作演示文稿时使用它，他们在制作营销资料时使用它。如果你去看一下Figma的模板，你会发现它们都是Photoshop Illustrator关键功能。因此，在市场上，尽管这些产品并不是设计为竞争对手，但根据我直接的经验和查看模板，设计师们开始使用Figma进行许多设计项目。所以在这个第三个观点上，我不同意。
Shmo'th, your take. Well, hold on. I got to do a fact check on one thing. You're right that Adobe had a competitive product to Figma called XD. They shut it down. They shut it down. It was a failure. So they are out of the market for a web design tool. They're out. So that argument no longer exists. And I don't know if they shut it down because of this deal or because it was failing anyway, but they solve that problem. Now with respect to these use cases, we're okay, yeah, you're talking anecdotally, Jason, about you've seen some web designer. No, I'm talking factually. Go look at the templates. I just put the link in there. It's still anecdotal. It's not based on a market share test. If you want to make this argument that Figma and Photoshop are competitive products, break it down in terms of market share. That's my point. Add up Figma's market share in the market for marketing collateral and see if that would create undue concentration. Fair enough.
Shmo'th，你的看法呢。等等，我需要就一件事实核实一下。你说得对，Adobe曾经有一个与Figma竞争的产品叫XD。他们关闭了它。他们关闭了它。它是个失败的产品。所以他们已经退出了Web设计工具市场。他们已经不在了。所以这个论点已经不成立了。至于这些使用案例，我们没问题，是的，Jason，你在谈论一些Web设计师的个人经验。不，我是根据事实说话的。去看看这些模板吧，我刚刚放了链接。但这仍然是个人经验，而不是基于市场份额测试的。如果你想要以市场份额来衡量Figma和Photoshop的竞争产品，那就具体分析一下吧。这就是我的观点。把Figma在市场营销物料市场上的市场份额加起来，看看是否会产生过度集中。说得对。
My objection is that they're not basing this decision, if it can even be called a decision. I think it's more like just concerns and dragging their feet. But they are basing their concerns on something that's unquantifiable. And I do think that antitrust decisions should be quantifiable. The concerning thing here is that this is on the heels of Activision and Microsoft, which was equally protracted and drawn out. I think it's bad for capital markets when deals that are offered up just linger for 15, 18 months. I don't think that that's healthy. It causes a lot of pause amongst investors. And it probably freezes both Adobe and Figma from investing the way that they would if they knew that this thing was voted up or down in three months or whatever. So I think that I totally agree with you that there needs to be an SLA around these things. And you can't take this much time.
我的异议在于他们并没有基于（如果这样都能称之为基于）这个决定。我认为更像是只是关切和拖延。但他们所关切的东西是无法量化的。而我认为反垄断决策应当是可以量化的。令人担忧的是，这正好发生在Activision和微软之后，那也同样是持续了很久。当交易提出后停滞了15、18个月，对资本市场来说是不好的。我认为这样做不健康。这使得投资者都停下了脚步。而且这可能会阻碍Adobe和Figma按照他们原本会做的方式进行投资，因为他们无法确定这件事会在三个月内通过或否决。所以我完全同意你的观点，这些事情需要有一个服务级别协议。而且你不能花这么长时间来处理。
I breezed through the CMA report. My gosh, it's 400 pages, which is like, that's insane. A 400 page document is like, it's a little outlandish, but I wanted to call out two parts of that document. One is in support, sacks of what you said. Nick, you can just throw it up here. What they said was that in assessing the competitive effects of the merger, we must decide whether there is an expectation, i.e. more than 50% chance that the merger will result in diminished competition. Now, that's like a little nuts because David, as you said, it's like, we're going to take an expected probability and a guess into the future about what we think will happen. And I think that that's not a fair way of doing business. I think that you have to look at what will happen when this happens and judge on its face. You can't say, well, also, by the way, I expect that you guys will be intelligent and really execute. So that'll just increase the odds. That's not right. That's that's what business is. So if I had to steal man the profigma side, I would say that that's unreasonable.
我迅速翻完了CMA报告。天哪，有400页，这有点疯狂。一份400页的文件，有点离谱，但我想指出文件中的两个部分。其中一个支持了你说的观点，尼克，你可以把它展示出来。他们所说的是，在评估合并的竞争效应时，我们必须决定是否存在期望，即合并将导致竞争减弱的可能性超过50%。现在，这有点疯狂，就像大卫你说的，我们要对未来发生的事情进行预期概率和猜测。我认为这不是一种公平的商业方式。我认为你必须看到事情发生时会发生什么，并根据事实来判断。你不能说，噢，顺便说一句，我预计你们会很聪明并且能够有效执行，所以这会增加成功的可能性。那不对，那是商业的本质。所以，如果我要替争议方辩护，我会说这是不合理的。
The second side on the profigma side is there's this long point here. I think it's like number 27 or 28 in this document. And this is what's crazy. It basically says like, hey, we went through document discovery. We found some emails that basically said by Adobe that said, we did market analyses. We didn't think we were doing very well. And I think it's important to note for the CMA that this is what 100 years of MBA classes have taught people to do. I mean, you teach executives that go work at companies to do what's called a SWOT analysis to figure out what are the risks and opportunities for your business and then to go and invest to fix them. That's capitalism and that's business theory. And we've taught executives at every single company to do this. That can't be illegal, meaning to use your brain inside of a business to realize that what you did isn't working. So that's also, I would say, sacks in support of what you're saying, which is it's taking too long. It's speculative. And you're punishing people for actually being good business people. And I don't think that makes sense. What's the number six months?
在Profigma方面的第二个观点是这里有一个很长的观点。我认为这个观点在文件中可能是第27或第28点。这就是疯狂的地方。它基本上说，嘿，我们进行了文件调查。我们找到了一些Adobe的电子邮件，基本上说，我们进行了市场分析，我们认为自己做得不好。我认为对于CMA来说，值得注意的是，这是100年来MBA课程教给人们做的事情。我的意思是，我们教导高管们在公司工作时要进行所谓的SWOT分析，找出业务的风险和机会，然后投资进行修复。这就是资本主义，这就是商业理论。我们教导了每个公司的高管这样做。这不能是非法的，也就是在企业内部运用自己的思维来意识到自己做的事情不起作用。所以我认为这也支持你所说的，这需要太长时间，是不确定的。你在惩罚那些真正是优秀的商业人士。我认为这是不合理的。6个月的数字是多少？
Just to add to that, again, like an important overlay here is that the CMA is the UK's regulator and they're the smallest market. The GDP of the UK is 3 trillion. The GDP of the EU is 16 trillion. The GDP of the US is, I forget, it's in the 2025 trillion range. So you've got the toughest regulator who is coming up with the most novel legal theory.
再补充一点，需要特别强调的是，CMA是英国的监管机构，而英国市场相对较小。英国的GDP为3万亿，欧盟的GDP为16万亿，美国的GDP在2025万亿范围内。因此，你们面临的是最严格的监管机构，他们提出了最新颖的法律理论。
I think it's worth exploring that these regulators, I think, are working in conjunction. And those fingerprints looked a little bit more obvious. I'm not playing conspiracy theorists, but it looks like the EU, the FTC, and the CMA did work together. I don't know how officially or not in Microsoft Activision. It looked relatively coordinated. I suspect that it stands to reason that they're in touch and they talk about these deals and their combined perspectives.
我认为值得探讨的是，我觉得这些监管机构是协同工作的。而那些指纹看起来更加明显。我不是在玩阴谋论，但看起来欧盟、美国联邦贸易委员会和英国竞争与市场管理局确实合作了。我不知道他们在微软动视（Activision）的事务中是否官方合作，但看起来相对协调。我怀疑他们会保持联络并就这些交易和共同的观点进行讨论，这是有道理的。
I don't know how else you just generate a 400 page report with this kind of specificity unless there's some amount of collaboration and sharing, which, by the way, I think does make sense. I think it does make sense to coordinate your point of view. But I think I agree with you, David. But we don't know that for sure. I mean, like, all I know is that in the press reports, it's been about the CMA. It's possible that the EU or I don't think US will do this because that would just be like inventing a wholly new antitrust law, right?
我不知道除非有一定程度的合作和共享，否则你如何仅仅凭借这种具体的规模而生成一份400页的报告。顺便说一句，我认为这样做是有道理的。我认为协调观点是有意义的。但是我同意你的观点，大卫。但是我们并不确定这一点。我的意思是，根据新闻报道，这个问题主要与市场竞争管理机构有关。欧盟也可能介入，但我不认为美国会这样做，因为那将相当于创造全新的反垄断法案，对吗？
No, I understand. I'm just saying that my point of view is that as a business owner, my response to this would be to gatekeep the app in these geographies so that I don't create an access if I ever get bought.
不，我明白。我只是在说，作为一名企业主，我认为我的回应是在这些地区设置应用程序门槛，这样即使被收购后也不会给他人提供访问权限。
Bingo. That's my point. That's exactly my point is that the smallest market is creating the most problems for this merger. So assuming they're kind of on their own in this and the EU doesn't just copy it, if you're right, if they copy it, then Figment Adobe have a bigger problem. But I think that's what's going to happen. Right. Then maybe the EU does copy, but right now, the CMA is way ahead of any other regulator in terms of a novel theory.
好的，就是这个意思。我的意思就是，最小的市场却给这个合并带来了最多的问题。所以假设他们在这方面是独自行动的，欧盟不会只是简单地模仿，如果你是对的，如果他们模仿的话，那么Figment Adobe就会有更大的问题。但我认为这就是将会发生的事情。对，或许欧盟会模仿，但目前来看，英国竞争与市场管理局在提出一种新颖理论方面要比其他任何监管机构都领先。
So what I'm saying is if you're a company, why would you subject yourself to that when it's so easy to avoid their market? I think it fundamentally hurts UK productivity over the long run because I don't see how companies, if they can't get a reasonable SLA for a response and then B, get a reasonable document that's not going to require $50 million of lawyers and consultants to read, to do business in a country just goes down, the incentives to do a business.
所以我的意思是，如果你是一家公司，为什么要自愿接受这一切，当避开他们的市场是如此容易呢？我认为这从根本上损害了英国的长期生产力，因为我不认为公司能够得到合理的响应时限保障（SLA），然后还能得到一份不需要花费5000万美元的律师和顾问来阅读的合理文件，以在某个国家做生意。这会导致做生意的动机减少。
So now if you steal man, the other side, I actually think it's very difficult to steal man why this is bad for competition. I think the only steel man is more from the economic shareholder perspective of Adobe, which is could they have paid a different price? What does that, because I think it's a mixture of cash and stock, so that's changed because Adobe's rallied a lot. And is that price worth it? But that's again, not a reason to use a regulator to run a deal to the ground, right? Adobe should just man up and talk to Dylan and say, here's the new price. Otherwise, here's a billion dollars. I don't think Adobe is driving it in that way.
现在，如果你去批评对立的一方，我实际上觉得很难从竞争的角度来批判抢劫的原因。我认为唯一的批判是从Adobe的经济股东的角度出发，他们是否可以用不同的价格支付？这是因为我认为这是现金和股票的混合支付方式，所以随着Adobe的大幅上涨，情况发生了改变。这个价格是否值得？但这并不是使用监管机构将这项交易拖垮的理由，对吧？Adobe应该勇敢一点，与Dylan进行谈判，告诉他新的价格。否则，他们可以付十亿美元。我不认为Adobe会以那种方式推动这项交易。
I mean, by all accounts, Figma as a business is still doing very well, even if they paid too high a price 15 months ago, they've grown, they've partially grown into the evaluation already. I don't think Adobe is driving this. I really think that the CMA is driving this. I think there's a regulator who wants to pioneer a novel legal theory. And in a weird way, it's not, have you ever seen like a pack of dogs where you've got like a great Dane and a Doberman and then a Chihuahua and the Chihuahua is trying to leave the pack? The CMA is like the Chihuahua and it's like barking on the hottest and trying to shepherd all the other dogs. You got a yappy little Chihuahua here.
我的意思是，从各个方面看，Figma作为一家企业仍然做得非常好，即使他们在15个月前支付了太高的价格，他们已经增长，已经部分达到了估值。我不认为是Adobe推动了这个。我真的认为是竞争市场管理局（CMA）推动了这个。我认为有一个监管机构想要开创一种新的法律理论。以一种奇怪的方式来说，这不是，你看过像一群狗一样的情况吗，你有大丹犬、杜宾犬，然后还有一只吉娃娃，吉娃娃想离开这个群体？CMA就像吉娃娃，它在热闹地吠叫，试图带领其他狗。你有一只吠声尖锐的小吉娃娃在这里。
The issue that you bring up, Max, is this a great Dane and the EU is a big talk to. Yeah, but if the EU and the United States follow suit, it will, it's just death by a thousand cuts, meaning it will require a Brad Smith like character inside of this company who can go and work with regulators to really get it done. And this is the brilliance of him at Microsoft is, and when you look at the track record of his ability, post this consent decree to get deals done inside of Microsoft, it's truly incredible. There is nothing that they've really tried to buy, whether it's nuance or whether it's Mojang or whether it's GitHub. Activision, they've linked in, they've got the around the table. They're all done. Around the table.
你提出的问题，Max，是关于一只大丹犬和欧盟的大谈特谈。没错，但是如果欧盟和美国也效仿，这将是千疮百孔的末日，意思是这需要一位像布拉德·史密斯这样的人在这家公司内与监管机构合作来真正完成它。这就是微软的辉煌之处，而且从他在这些允诺之后推动在微软内部达成交易的能力来看，真的是不可思议。无论是努安斯、Mojang还是GitHub，他们都不是他们试图购买的东西。动视暴雪、领英，他们都围坐在桌前完成了。围坐在桌前。
Do we really want to create an economic system where whether a deal gets through is completely arbitrary because there's no longer a quantitative test and the regulators can just pause it that at some point in the future, these companies may be competitive. No, the answer is no. And it takes and furthermore, in order to get past the regulators who have a completely subjective standard, you need like a political genius like a Brad Smith. I mean, that is like the definition of crony capitalism, right? Is that you get your deal done if you got a Brad Smith and you don't get it done if you're a startup like Figma. That's not the system we want to be in. Absolutely not.
我们真的想要创造一个经济系统吗？在这个系统中，交易是否成功完全是因为没有再进行数量化测试，监管机构可以随时暂停交易，认为这些公司在将来可能会有竞争力而是任意决定的吗？不，答案是否定的。而且，为了通过那些具有完全主观标准的监管机构，你需要像布拉德·史密斯这样具有政治天才的人。我的意思是，这就是政商勾结的定义，对吗？如果你有布拉德·史密斯这样的人，你可以完成交易，但如果你是像Figma这样的创业公司，你将无法完成交易。这不是我们想要的制度。绝对不是。
Three important things. One, future competition is a stupid test. Number two, just put six months on this. It's not even future. It's their assessment of the probability of future competition, which is just dumb. It's this is precogs in Minority Report. Figma could sign an affidavit today saying that we're not making a show. We're not building it. Yeah, it's not a road map. It's not even an affidavit. It's you could go through, you could conduct discovery on the question of whether Figma has ever even discussed internally, whether they should compete with Photoshop, right? Because you don't just launch a Photoshop competitor out of the blue. You probably discussed it for a while. So they could conduct discovery on that question. I guarantee you, Figma does not have robust conversations in discovery about competing with Photoshop. That's not where their interest is.
三个重要的事情。首先，未来的竞争是一个愚蠢的测试。第二，只需要在这个上面花六个月的时间。这甚至不是关于未来的。这是对未来竞争概率的评估，简直愚蠢至极。这就像是《少数派报告》中的先知。Figma今天可以签署一份宣誓书，说明我们不打算制作或建立一个展示。是的，这不是一个路线图。甚至连宣誓书都不是。你可以进行发现程序，探讨Figma是否曾在内部讨论过与Photoshop竞争的想法，因为你不可能突然推出一个与Photoshop竞争的产品。他们可能讨论了一段时间。所以他们可以对这个问题进行发现程序。我向你保证，Figma在探索过程中没有关于与Photoshop竞争的充分讨论。那不是他们的兴趣所在。
And then also, they should be just have a six month clock to do this. And then if I'm Adobe and Figma, I would say, I would pull a zuck. When they came at zuck and said, you have to pay for news in Australia, you have to pay for news in Canada. Remember these two government overreaches that you couldn't even put a link to a news story? He's like, okay, fine. We're just going to not include links to the New York Times and feeds. That's not allowed. They should just say anybody who's in the UK, you can no longer. We're going to look at your IP addresses. We're going to look at your address. You can't buy Figma. You can't buy Adobe. We're going through with this. So if you don't want consumers to have this product, you don't have to have it. And then people have to get a VPN to use these products. Like I would call their bluff on it. Kind of overreaching, I agree.
然后还有，他们应该只有六个月的时间来完成这个任务。如果我是Adobe和Figma，我会采取和扎克一样的策略。当他们对扎克说，在澳大利亚和加拿大你必须支付新闻费用时，你不能甚至不能在新闻故事中放置链接。他表示，好吧，没问题。我们就不再包含纽约时报和信息流的链接。这是不允许的。他们应该直接说，在英国的任何人，你不能再购买Figma和Adobe的产品了。我们将监测你们的IP地址和地址。如果你不想让消费者拥有这个产品，你就不必拥有。然后人们将不得不使用VPN来使用这些产品。我会挑战他们的威胁。有点过分，我同意。
Okay. Freeburg, any last thoughts as we wrap up here? And then Jake, in order to have a healthy store ecosystem, we need exits. That's online. That's the big picture. Yes. When you put this kind of chilling effect on M&A, because think about it, if you're either an acquirer or you're a target, you're thinking about doing a deal, and you know that it will take you at least or it could take you 15 months to get to the decision. You're not going to do it. It's not worth it. You chilled it. And the standard for whether it gets approved is completely arbitrary. That's going to have a dampening or chilling effect on M&A activity, which means fewer good exits for the ecosystem, which means that less risk capital will want to go into the ecosystem to begin with.
好的。Freeburg，在我们结束之前，还有什么想法吗？然后，Jake，为了有一个健康的商店生态系统，我们需要退出。那就是线上的商店。这是大局观。是的。当你对并购产生这种寒蝉效应时，想一想，如果你是收购方或被收购方，正在考虑进行一笔交易，你知道至少需要15个月或更长时间才能作出决策，你是不会这么做的。这不值得。你给它降温了。而且批准的标准是完全随机的。这将对并购活动产生抑制或寒蝉效应，这意味着生态系统中少了一些好的退出机会，这意味着更少的风险资本愿意进入生态系统。
And a fair thing, I'll run this up the flagpole and see what you think, Sacks. Why don't they say if they're really concerned about the top 10 companies? Hey, the top 10 companies, the trillion dollar crowd, right? The Microsoft, the Google, etc. Apple, they have a different standard than the mid market. So if you really were concerned about consolidation in the top 10 companies, just say they're not allowed to buy these companies without going through the scrutiny. But anybody under $250 billion, they can merge, they can buy each other, they can do whatever they want, they're exempt from this kind of review and just let the free market decide, because then that would build up the mid market, right, Sacks?
而且一个公平的观点，我会拿这个问题来请教你的意见，Sacks。为什么他们不说他们真的关心前十大公司？嘿，前十大公司，万亿美元的巨头们，对吧？像微软、谷歌等等。苹果，他们有与中等市场不同的标准。所以，如果你真的关心前十大公司的整合问题，就直接说他们不能在没有经过审查的情况下收购这些公司。但是在2500亿美元以下的任何公司，他们可以合并，他们可以相互收购，他们可以为所欲为，他们不受这种审查的限制，让自由市场决定，因为这样会发展起中等市场，对吧，Sacks？
I'm concerned about the power of big tech companies, okay? But I would deal with that by targeting anti-competitive tactics. Interoperability. Yeah, require interoperability. Don't let them bundle, things like that. Don't invent some wholly new arbitrary subjective tests for whether a company can be acquired. We have a good standard around that, which has to do with market share. Hey, shout out, Lena Kahn, come on the pot anytime.
我对大型科技公司的权力担忧，知道吗？但是我会通过针对反竞争策略来解决这个问题。互操作性。是的，需要强制互操作性。不要让它们捆绑销售，诸如此类的事情。不要为是否可以收购一家公司而发明一些完全新的武断主观测试。关于这点，我们有一个很好的标准，与市场份额有关。嘿，Lena Kahn，随时都可以来参加访谈。
All right, everybody, this has been, and sincerely, Lena Kahn, come on the pot, let's talk about it. This has been another amazing episode of the All in Podcast for the dictator, Chamoc Polyapathea, the rain man, David Sacks, and El Capitan, the pilot, Sultan of Science and CEO, David Freiber. I am the world's greatest publisher. Love you, besties. We'll see you next time.
好了，大家，这是Lena Kahn，真诚地来到这个节目，让我们来谈谈吧。这是另一个令人惊叹的All in Podcast集，为了独裁者Chamoc Polyapathea，天才David Sacks和科学驾驶员兼首席执行官David Freiber，我是世界上最伟大的出版商。爱你们，最好的朋友们，我们下次再见。
Back at ya. At ya. Bye. Man, dog, take it in. Wish you a driveway, son. Bring it on. Oh, man. My ambitatia will meet me at once.
好的，我明白了。给你同样的回应。回应你。再见。伙计，狗，接受它。祝你有一条顺利的道路，孩子。来吧。哦，天哪。我的雄心会立刻迎接我。
We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy, because they're all just like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.
我们都应该找个房间，开一个巨大的群交派对，因为他们之间就像有这种性紧张感，他们需要以某种方式释放出来。
What? You're the big. What? You're the big. You're a big. Big. What? Good girl. We need to get merged.
什么？你是大的。什么？你是大的。你是个了不起的人。大的。什么？好女孩。我们需要合并。
Besties are now. I'm going all this.
最好的朋友是现在。我会全力以赴。
I'm going all this.
我会处理这一切。