Scott Bessent | All-In in DC!
发布时间 2025-03-19 05:00:23 来源
Okay, we are here in Washington, DC, in front of the White House, having spent the afternoon with our friend David Sacks, our friend Elon Musk, and others. We are here to learn about the debt, the deficit, what's going on in DC. And we have an incredible interview lined up with Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary of the United States. It was amazing. And it's been an amazing afternoon and we're really looking forward to it. It was amazing. Well, this is the pre, the intro to the video. It will be amazing. It's not the pre, it's just the, it's the most. What the f*** are you going to pretend is the pre? It's the, it will be incredible. It was incredible.
好的，我们现在在华盛顿特区白宫前，刚刚和我们的朋友大卫·萨克斯、埃隆·马斯克以及其他人度过了一个下午。我们来这里是为了了解债务、赤字和华盛顿正在发生的事情。我们策划了一场精彩的采访，对象是美国财政部长斯科特·贝塞特。真是令人惊叹。这是一个精彩的下午，我们非常期待这次经历。虽然这是视频的介绍部分，但它将会是很棒的内容。它不是预告，而是最精彩的部分。你怎么能假装这是预告呢？这将是不可思议的，已经是不可思议的了。
But how cool is the White House? And here's a bell. Okay. I'm pretty sure, I'm pretty sure the bell. I can't even describe to you the day we had running around. It's incredible. Running around room to room in the White House. One of the best days of my life. It was one of the best days of my life. It was incredible. Incredible. I think this bell is probably pretty important. Can you guys get a shot of this bell? By the way, so I just. I don't know what it is, but it's really important. It's really important. Yeah. The White House, the people, 201. Super kind, super open, super curious. I mean, did you felt it? You felt accepted?
白宫有多酷呢？看，这里还有一个钟。好的。我几乎可以肯定，这个钟很特别。我都无法形容那天我们的经历，我们在白宫里从一个房间跑到另一个房间，简直太不可思议了。这是我人生中最美好的一天之一。真的是最美好的一天之一，太不可思议了。我觉得这个钟可能非常重要。你们能拍到这个钟吗？顺便说一下，我不太清楚它是什么，但我知道它真的很重要。真的很重要。白宫的人们，真是超级友好、开放而且充满好奇。我是说，你有感受到吗？你有感受到被接纳了吗？
Yeah, I felt it. But I got free soda. They have a soda machine where you can make any Coca Cola flavor you want in the White House. It was pretty cool. I took some hummus. I wrapped it on a paper, which I punched in it. It was a cool afternoon. And this is, what is this? The East Wing of the White House. And we took a walk from the West Wing all the way over to the East Wing. Through the portico? And then we snuck in, or we didn't sneak in, we walked in. And then we're walking around the East Wing. We went to all of the private rooms. I got great photos. We'll slice them into this video.
是啊，我感受到了。不过我拿到了一些免费的苏打水。白宫里有一台可以制作任意可口可乐口味的饮料机，真是太酷了。我还拿了一些鹰嘴豆泥，用纸包着，打了个孔。这是一个舒适的下午。这是，嗯，这是白宫的东翼。我们从西翼一路走到了东翼。通过门廊？然后我们走了进去，也不算偷溜进去。然后我们就在东翼里四处走动。我们参观了所有的私人房间，还拍了很棒的照片。我们会把这些照片插入这个视频里。
And then some secret service dude comes up and he's like, what are you doing here? This is the residence of the president. You have to get the fuck out. He's like, you need to go downstairs now. So we got kicked the fuck out. But it was an incredible tour. Super great. Yeah. Anyway, we're excited for this interview with Scott Bess and hope you enjoy it. I'm doing all of you. All right, besties. I think that was another epic discussion. People along the area. I can hear you talk for hours. Absolutely. We crushed your questions a minute.
然后，一个特勤局的人过来对我们说，你们在这里干什么？这是总统的住所，你们得马上离开。他还说，你们现在就得下楼。所以我们被赶出来了。但这次参观实在是太不可思议了，超级棒。无论如何，我们很期待这次和Scott Bess的采访，希望你能喜欢。我对你们大家有信心。好啦，朋友们，我觉得那又是一场精彩的讨论。周围的人表示，他们可以听你们聊上好几个小时。没错，我们迅速解答了你们的问题。
We are giving people ground truth data to them under your own opinion. What are you going to say? That was fun. Power's great. I'm doing all of you. Well, today's a really important day. We're joined by the 79th Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent. And this is an opportunity that we wanted to take as part of a longer form way of explaining to people, not just how the economy works, but in a little bit more detail. Where are we in this moment in time? Where are we with deficits, tariffs, the budget, economic, monetary fiscal policy? How do we make sure that we all understand the plan to make America great again?
我们正在向人们提供他们自己观点下的真实数据。你会怎么说？这很有趣。权力很棒。我在为你们所有人做事。今天是非常重要的一天。我们邀请到了第79任财政部长斯科特·贝森特。这是我们想要利用的一个机会，以一种更长篇的形式向公众解释，不仅是经济如何运作，还有更详细的信息。此刻我们处于什么样的阶段？关于赤字、关税、预算、经济、货币和财政政策，我们处于什么位置？我们如何确保大家都了解使美国再次强大的计划？
So Scott, thank you for joining us. Good. Thanks for having me. I actually want to start with, let's go back in the way back machine. So South Carolina, your father was a real estate developer. Tell us where the passion for finance came from. Well, I don't know where finance in particular came from. As you mentioned, my dad was a real estate developer and he was kind of boom bus. So I think that's where my passion for risk management came from. But I was very fortunate. Went to Yale wasn't sure what I wanted to do 1980 when I got there. Probably you all can imagine this, but there used to be these things called punch cards and we just gone.
好的，斯科特，非常感谢你加入我们。 好的，谢谢你邀请我。其实我想先聊聊过去的事情。 你来自南卡罗来纳州，你父亲是一位房地产开发商。请告诉我们你对金融的热情是如何产生的。 嗯，我不太确定我对金融的热情具体来源于哪里。正如你提到的，我父亲是一位房地产开发商，他经历过繁荣与萧条。所以我想这就是我对风险管理产生热情的原因。但我很幸运，我去了耶鲁大学，1980年到那里的时候还不确定自己想做什么。你们可能无法想象，那时候我们还用打孔卡片，而现在这些都已经消失了。
The Yale computer system just gone from punch cards to screens. I was going to be in a computer science major, maybe a journalist because people actually used to read newspapers. So punch cards and newspapers from the way back machine. I got an internship just for an individual and he taught me the investment business really well. And who is that? His name is Jim Rogers. He was famous. He was George Soros's first partner. He had just completed and around the world motorcycle trip and written a book called investment biker. And a fascinating guy. And I did the investment business and I thought this is really what I like because it's quantitative.
耶鲁的计算机系统刚刚从打孔卡转变为屏幕显示。我当时考虑要选择计算机科学作为专业，或者做一名记者，因为人们当时确实还读报纸。所以打孔卡和报纸都是过去的事了。我得到了一份实习机会，为一个人工作，他教会了我投资行业的很多知识。这是谁呢？他叫吉姆·罗杰斯，是一位名人，曾是乔治·索罗斯的第一个合伙人。他刚完成了一次环球摩托车旅行，并写了一本名为《投资骑士》的书，是个极具魅力的人物。我投身于投资行业后发现我真正喜欢它，因为它是量化的。
So I had to use my quantitative skills, but you're also constructing a narrative. And it's also like human emotion. And you were trading equities, bonds, everything, currencies? Well, I started out with equities. And I did that for several years. And then I actually ended up at Soros Fund Management, worked for a fellow who's my mentor, Stan Druckenmiller. It was incredible. I think he's on more than 40 years now, never a down year. And when you're sitting next to him, what am I doing all day? Notorious for going all in several times in his career. All in. All in. Only when he's right. Yes, well. But he is the best at changing his mind of anyone I've ever seen. So Druck has that famous adage, invest and investigate. Well, he has several. And I'm trying to get him to write a book because he has so many of these great things. Maybe you all could press him. But invest, investigate. It takes courage to be a pig.
所以我需要运用我的量化技能，但同时也在构建一个叙述。而且这里面还涉及人类情感。你是在交易股票、债券和货币吗？嗯，我一开始是做股票交易的，这样做了好几年。后来我加入了索罗斯基金管理公司，为斯坦·德鲁肯米勒工作，他是我的导师。这段经历非常棒。我想他从业超过40年了，从未有过亏损的年份。当你坐在他身边时，我每天都在做什么？他因职业生涯中多次全力以赴而闻名。全力以赴。全力以赴。只在他确信时才这样做。是的，不过他的另一个优秀之处在于能够迅速改变主意，这是我见过的最厉害的人。所以德鲁肯米勒有句名言：投资并调查。他有很多这种至理名言。我一直在劝他写本书，因为他有太多这样的智慧。也许你们也可以催促他。但就是这句：投资，调查。要有成为"贪婪的猪"的勇气。
Right. So. And then I was hooked on markets because, again, it was quantitative. It was qualitative. And it's real time. You get real time feedback all the time. And you're, you could have a long-term view, but then you're trying to gauge the short term against that. And I loved it. And for 35 years, I've gotten to, I did what's called macro investing. So eventually I was trading currencies, bonds, commodities, the equities, some credit. And I got to travel around the world meeting leaders and trying to figure out what the next move was in policy. I think this is important because I've spoken with folks who trade in macro. And a big part of the role of being a macro investor, macro trader, is really knowing where central bank action is going to be, really knowing how government bonds are going to move. And spending time with economists, not just central, but around the world and learning a little bit about how capital is flowing all over the world.
好吧。所以，我对市场着迷是因为它既涉及量化分析，也涉及质化分析，而且是实时的。你总是能得到实时反馈。虽然可以持有长期观点，但也需要在短期内进行评估。我非常喜欢这一点。在过去的35年里，我一直从事所谓的宏观投资。最终，我参与了外汇、债券、大宗商品、股票、部分信贷的交易。同时，我也有机会环游世界，见到各地的领导人，试图弄清楚下一步的政策走向。我认为这很重要，因为我与一些从事宏观交易的人交流过。作为宏观投资者或交易者，很大一部分工作是了解央行的动向，以及政府债券的走势。同时，还需要与全球的经济学家交流，了解全球资本的流动情况。
Is that kind of the right way to describe that role of being a macro investor just for folks? It's a lot of that. There's another great macro investor called Bruce Köner. And he had this saying that he said, you know, I succeeded because I could imagine a different future and believe it could happen. So the keys to believe it could happen and then manage the risk. So could you imagine what would happen if the iron curtain came down? What would happen? I mean, you all do venture capitalists, but like, you know, how could the world live in a different state? Okay, well, let's hold that idea and double click for us to 92. It's probably one of the most famous moments where the broader world at large met macro trading. And this is really where you and Druck and Soros basically broke the back of the Bank of England. And it's really an interesting window into assessing all of these things.
这段话可以翻译为：
那些做宏观投资的人，是不是可以这样来形容他们的角色呢？这种描述很贴切。还有一位很出色的宏观投资者叫布鲁斯·科纳，他曾经说过一句话："我之所以能成功，是因为我能够想象一个不同的未来，并且相信这个未来能够实现。" 因此，关键在于相信这个未来能够实现，并且管理好风险。所以你能想象如果铁幕倒下会发生什么吗？会有什么变化？你们都在做风险投资，但有没有想过世界在另一种状态下会如何运转？好吧，我们暂且保留这个想法，聚焦于1992年。那可能是全世界范围内大家都见识到宏观交易的最著名时刻之一。那一年，你和德鲁肯米勒、索罗斯一起成功地击垮了英格兰银行，这也是一个很有趣的视角，可以用来评估所有这些事情。
So can you give us the conditions on the ground at that moment and what new reality you saw for England? And then it would be great from there. We'll contrast and compare it to America today. Good. So it's a great historical example. And it also kind of brings in three dimensions. So I was the analyst. Stan was the portfolio manager. And then in a way George was the risk manager. So I was running the UK office. I was on the ground in the UK and I had this light bulb go off. And I thought the fulcrum thought or like my differentiated view was that the UK had just had a big housing boom. And UK mortgages at that time, they didn't have long-term mortgages. They were all floating rates.
当然可以。请您描述一下当时的实际情况，以及您认为英国迎来了怎样的新现实？然后，我们可以从这个角度出发，对比美国现状。这是一个非常好的历史例子，因为它涉及三个不同的方面。我当时是分析师，斯坦是投资组合经理，而乔治有点像风险经理。我在英国办公室工作，所以对当地情况有直接了解。突然我灵光一现，我的核心观点或说看法与众不同，即英国刚刚经历了一场巨大的房产热潮。而在那时，英国的按揭贷款都是浮动利率，而不是长期固定利率。
So the Bank of England raised rates on a Wednesday. Your mortgage went up on a Friday. The UK had hooked into something called the exchange rate mechanism. They had to balance versus the Deutsche Mark. They had to stay within a band. I noticed that if they raised or I thought if they raised rates to try to stay in the band and protect the currency, it would be unsustainable because British homeowners would get bankrupted. Stan's great feat of analysis was figuring out that these bands set up this incredible asymmetric bet. Because I can push them up against one side of the band and their mandate is just to push me back to the other side.
所以英格兰银行在星期三提高了利率，而你的房贷在星期五上涨了。英国当时加入了一种叫做“汇率机制”的系统，必须跟德国马克保持平衡，维持在一个汇率波动范围内。我注意到，如果他们提高利率试图保持在这个范围内并保护英镑汇率，那将是不可持续的，因为英国的房主将会破产。斯坦的伟大分析在于，他发现这些波动范围创造了一个极不对称的赌博机会。因为我可以让他们在这个区间的一侧达到极限，而他们的任务只是把我推回到另一侧。
So we just lose two and a half percent. And Stan tells this great story telling George Soros, oh, well, here's what I want to do. And he says he told him and George says, well, how much do you want to do? And he said probably 100% of the fund. And he said Soros gave me this really sour o'clock. And he thought that he had said something wrong. Why wouldn't you do three times that deal? So anyway, it was we pushed them against the band, the Bank of England, the British government had to buy this unlimited amount of pounds. And they started raising interest rates and this was September of 1992.
因此，我们只损失了两个半百分点。Stan 讲了一个很精彩的故事，他告诉乔治·索罗斯他的计划。索罗斯问他，打算投入多少资金？Stan 回答说，可能基金的100%。索罗斯给了他一个很不满的表情，于是Stan 以为自己说错了话。但索罗斯问：“为什么不做三倍的交易呢？”于是，我们做了这样的决定。这导致了英国央行和英国政府被迫大量买入英镑，并且开始提高利率。这是在1992年9月发生的事情。
And eventually they just weren't able to sustain the pressure from the high rates. And came out and then the asymmetric risk reward was we made about 20 something percent in a day. And back to what was really Stan's genius, I don't know if I need to be played backgammon, but in backgammon, there's the move after the move. And so Stan, we made all that money and we were kind of euphoric. Okay, now what? Because there's going to be the trade after the trade. So we made that much in a day, but then it was actually the trade after the trade. This isn't well publicized. I think we made another 20% during the rest of the year. Wow.
最终，他们无法承受高利率带来的压力，只能退出。这种不对称的风险回报使我们在一天之内赚了大约20%。这让我想起了斯坦的聪明才智，我不知道你们是否会玩西洋双陆棋，但在这种棋里，每一步之后都会有下一步。我们赚了这么多钱，心情非常兴奋。那么接下来怎么办呢？因为每个交易之后都会有下一个交易。这一点没有被广泛宣传，但我认为我们在那一年剩下的时间里又赚了20%。哇。
So in that moment, what you're really observing is that the real economy is somewhat dislocated, maybe meaningfully dislocated from the financial economy in your operating. And I think you've said this now many times and you've basically used the terminology, the main street, Wall Street dichotomy. How do you observe the moment in 2025, maybe what rhymes with the early 90s or other periods where you've been trading actively? Well, look, I think it goes back to something that's unsustainable is unsustainable.
在那一刻，你真正观察到的是实际经济在某种程度上与金融经济脱节，也许是显著地脱节。我认为你已经多次提到过这个问题，并且用了“主街与华尔街的二分法”来描述这种情况。你如何看待2025年的时刻，这可能与20世纪90年代初期或你曾积极交易的其他时期相似？我觉得这可以追溯到一个简单的道理：不可持续的东西终究不可持续。
And one of the reasons I'm sitting here now is about 18 months ago, I went to see President Trump. I'd known the Trump family for 30 years. I've never known the president that well. But to tell him that I want to get involved in the campaign because I was so alarmed with what the Biden administration was doing with the deficit deficit. Endless stimulus. Endless spending. But in the spending, when we were in solid economic territory, or not in the war, first time ever, and I thought it was very cynical because I actually thought, well, we're going to spend spend spend, and then there'll be no choice but to raise taxes.
大约18个月前，我去见了特朗普总统，这也是我现在坐在这里的原因之一。我认识特朗普家族已经有30年了，但对总统本人并不太熟悉。我去找他是想表达我希望参与竞选活动的意愿。因为我对拜登政府处理预算赤字的方式感到非常担忧。他们不断推出刺激政策，不断增加开支。而这些开支是在我们经济形势稳定、没有战争的情况下首次出现的，我认为这种做法非常不负责任。我担心他们会不断增加开支，最终不得不提高税收，没有其他选择。
So you'd go into this equilibrium that you could just never get out of and you become kind of a European style social democracy, the malaise. And I also think they were very cynical on immigration because if you take the stated number 12 million, the president's number 22 million, I don't know what the truth is, kind of leaning toward the president. But it was, oh, we're going to let all these people across the border. You can't ever make them problems too big to make them go home.
所以，你会陷入一种永远无法摆脱的平衡状态，变成像欧洲式的社会民主国家，面临一种无精打采的状态。我也认为他们对移民问题的看法非常冷漠，因为官方说有1200万，总统却说有2200万，我不确定哪个数字是正确的，我有点倾向于相信总统的数字。但他们的想法似乎是，我们要让这么多人通过边境，你让这个问题变得如此严重，以至于我们无法让他们回去。
But I like to stay in my finance lane. So the finance lane was, we're going to just go to the point of no return and kind of inflict these progressive financial values on the country. You had very meaningful wage suppression in that period. And you had an equity market that was incredibly well bid just because the money supply was just always there. Well, it was always there. And you had these distributional aspects because back to your question, Wall Street versus Main Street, that it was driving me crazy when Vice President Harris said, I'm going to fight for the middle class and she'd have viscerated the middle class.
我喜欢专注于金融领域。在金融领域，我们准备走到无法回头的地步，并在全国范围内推行这些渐进的金融价值观。在那个时期，工资受到显著压制。由于市场上资金充裕，股票市场非常活跃。此外，从华尔街与实体经济的对比来看，这种财富分配的不均让我很抓狂，尤其是当副总统哈里斯说她要为中产阶级而战时，她实际上却削弱了中产阶级。
Or these policies inadvertent intentional had eviscerated the middle class and really the bottom 50%. So we're in this. Because purchasing power goes down, inflation went up. Well, if you didn't have assets. Right. So that's really important. I think people don't understand this, that if you had stocks, if you had assets, your assets inflated. But if you didn't, the cost of everything inflated, but you didn't have the ability to purchase because your wages don't go up.
这些政策，不管是无意还是有意，都严重削弱了中产阶级，并且实际上还影响到了底层50%的人。因为购买力下降了，而通货膨胀上升了。如果你没有资产，那这就很重要。我觉得很多人没有意识到这一点：如果你拥有股票或其他资产，那么你的资产价值会上升。但如果你没有资产，那么所有东西的成本都会上涨，而你的工资却没有增加，导致你没有能力购买。
Yeah. And they not only did inflation go up, but if you look, Jason Trinidad has this thing, I think, calls it the Everyman Index. And so CPI went up about 22 during the period. But the Everyman Index was up over 30, 35%. Because the bottom, 25%, the bottom 50% of wage earners have a different basket than we do and it inflated much faster. 100% Use car prices or car insurance. Car insurance rent groceries. And not only is it unfair, but it's just unstable.
好的。通货膨胀不仅在上升，而且如果你看看，有个人叫Jason Trinidad，他提出了一个叫做“Everyman指数”的东西。消费者物价指数（CPI）在这一期间上升了约22%，但是“Everyman指数”上涨了超过30%到35%。因为收入在底层的25%或50%的劳动者，他们消费的商品种类和我们不同，价格上涨得更快。像二手车价格或者车险、租金和杂货的价格都在上涨。这不仅不公平，而且也不稳定。
Right. And Great civil issues. Yeah. Society issues. Yeah. As you guys got into looking at this, and I remember Stan talking about this in the summer of 23. I think it was, or 23. Yeah. And what was the point of view on what should have been done at that point in time? And then how much farther did it go? How much longer did it last? Well, I think what happened, the Democrats will tell you that the big spending bills were needed for rescue. Yeah.
好的，还有重大的民生问题，是的，社会问题，是的。当你们开始研究这些问题时，我记得斯坦在23年夏天谈论过这个。我认为是这样。那么在那个时候，他们的观点是什么，该做些什么？然后事情发展到了什么地步？持续了多久？嗯，我认为发生的事情是，民主党人会告诉你，巨额支出法案是为了救济所必需的。
And I would say in March of 21, the economy didn't need rescue. It was already in recovery. Right. So these were rescue-sized packages. And even Larry Summers, I remember there was a great debate between Larry Summers and Paul Krugman. And Summers, I think, said, look, this is at least 900 billion, a trillion too much. And the federal reserve was, to the summer of 23, 22. The federal reserve was very slow off the mark.
我想说，在2021年3月的时候，经济并不需要拯救。它实际上已经在复苏了。当时的经济刺激方案规模却很大。我记得Larry Summers和Paul Krugman之间有一场重要的辩论。Summers认为这些措施至少多了9000亿到1万亿美元。到了2022年和2023年夏天，美联储的反应仍然很迟缓。
And we ended up, and again, imagine, top 10% of his assets, stock market is flying. You're in the bottom 50%. You have no assets, but you have debt. Yes. So credit cards are up. Mortgage is impossible to buy house. House prices had gone through the roof due to COVID. So it really did, like, end the American dream. And it, but we've been suffering these distributional effects. Scott, what is the American dream today, do you think? Look, I think the American dream is what it's always been. But after World War II, I think 90% of American families, the children made more than the parents. Now, I think it's 50-50. But it's to own a home. It's financial security. It's to some level of comfort. It's purpose in your work. It's to be able to support your family, to be able to have choices, to not have to work two jobs.
我们最后发现，想象一下，财富的前10%在股市中收益颇丰。而你属于后50%，没有资产，只有债务。是的，信用卡债台高筑，房贷几乎无望，因为由于新冠疫情的影响，房价飞涨。这真的如同终结了美国梦。而且我们一直在承受这些财富分配的不均。Scott，你认为如今的美国梦是什么？我认为美国梦一直以来没有变过。不过，在二战后，90%的美国家庭子女收入超过父母，而现在这个比例大约是50%。美国梦是拥有自己的房子，是有财务安全，是拥有一定的舒适生活，是在工作中找到意义，是能够支持你的家庭，是拥有选择的权利，不必打两份工谋生。
I made a remark at the Economic Club of New York last week, two weeks ago. And Mike Pence decided he was going to troll me. And because I said the American dream is not built on cheap goods. And he said, well, yes, it is. And I just say, with Vice President Pence, let them eat flat screens, economic policy, that doesn't, isn't what people want. They don't want the bubbles from China. It's like the old. They want progression. People want progression. I remember reading. I think Jonathan Hight had some work on this a long time ago, where happiness is measured by your change in net worth or income per year.
上周或两周前，我在纽约经济俱乐部发表了一番言论。对此，迈克·彭斯决定要反驳我。我说美国梦不是建立在廉价商品之上的，而他则说，是的，确实如此。我只是想说，彭斯副总统的"让他们吃平板电视"的经济政策不符合人们的期望。人们不想要来自中国的泡沫经济。他们想要的是发展。我记得很久以前读过乔纳森·海特的研究，他提到幸福感是由每年净资产或收入的变化来衡量的。
It doesn't matter what your absolute levels are. By all these socio-economic surveys that they do, that feeling like you're having some progression in life is what folks are looking for. And I wonder whether solving for that, we created a system, and I'd love your point out your read on this, that we said, everyone should own a home, that's the American dream. And in order to do that, people put most of their net worth into a home. 60% I think of middle class net worth is tied up in a single asset. And then in order to get them to feel like they're progressing, we've created a system of loans and a system of economic and fiscal policy that ultimately drives the value of the home up every year.
不论你的绝对收入水平如何，那种感觉自己在生活中有所进步的心态才是人们真正追求的。从各种社会经济调查来看，拥有这种进步感是很多人所关注的。我在想，为了满足这种需求，我们是否创造了一个这样的体系：我们说每个人都应该拥有一套房子，这就是所谓的“美国梦”。为了实现这个目标，人们把大部分的净资产都投入到了房子上。我记得中产阶级大约60%的净资产都集中在这一项资产中。为了让人们觉得生活在进步，我们建立了一套贷款体系以及经济和财政政策体系，这最终导致房价每年都在上涨。
Now we're kind of in an unsustainable housing bubble. Most people can't even afford to buy a home. What did we get wrong there? And how does that affect what the American dream should look like going forward? Well, I think a lot of it's scarcity. What you're talking about is out in San Francisco, super tight zoning laws. So there's scarcity for homes. If you think, like Ivy League education, all of a sudden you gave all these people access to Ivy League education. You brought in international students, but the number of degrees awarded, Harvard Dale Princeton probably hasn't changed very much since the 1950s.
现在我们正处于一个无法持续的房地产泡沫中。大多数人甚至买不起房子。这方面我们出了什么问题呢？这又将如何影响未来的美国梦呢？我认为很大程度上是因为房屋稀缺。比如在旧金山，严格的分区法规导致房屋供应紧缺。就好比常春藤盟校的教育，如果你突然让所有人都能上常春藤盟校，引入很多国际学生，但自1950年代以来，哈佛、耶鲁、普林斯顿颁发的学位数量可能并没有大幅增加。
So you created just this demand for scarce things, which leads to this anxiety. But you also created, I think, a sense of hopelessness through. I can't access it. I will never be able to pay down my student loan. I will never be able to afford a home. I can never see my income growing to give me access there. Yeah. And. Is that a D-reg solution? The first part of it is it's a data problem. Because in order for the government, I mean, the one thing that struck me about, I think, this Trump 2.0 administration is, I think you have a better beat on the fact that this data is not as reliable as other administrations would say they were.
你创造了对稀缺物品的需求，这导致了焦虑。但我觉得，你也因此造成了一种无望感。我无法获得这些东西。我永远无法偿还我的学生贷款，永远买不起房子，收入也无法增长到让我能负担这些的地步。那么，这就是一个数据问题的解决方案吗？第一部分是一个数据问题。因为对于政府来说，我觉得在特朗普2.0政府时期，一个让我印象深刻的事情是，他们对数据的了解比其他政府要深刻，因为他们意识到了数据并不如其他政府所宣称的那样可靠。
But in order to do whatever it is they wanted to do anyway. So it's sort of like, let me just find the data that justifies what my action is. And part of why you can't, I think, tell the story is, do you trust the GDP numbers? Do you trust non-farm payrolls? Do you think these are reliable enough for you to act on behalf of the United States? No, look, they're subject to big revisions over time. And I thought one of the big mistakes the Biden administration made and thank goodness they made it, was they refused to vote. They went with the numbers, not what the American people were feeling.
为了做他们想做的事情，有时候人们会选择寻找能够支持他们行动的数据。所以，这就像是：让我找到那些能证明我行动合理性的数据。然而，为什么很难讲述这个故事的一部分原因是，你相信GDP的数据吗？你相信非农就业数据吗？你认为这些数据足够可靠，可以让你代表美国采取行动吗？其实不然，因为这些数据随着时间会有很大的修正。我认为拜登政府所犯的一个大错误，幸好他们犯了，就是他们选择跟着数据走，而不是倾听美国人民的感受。
They said, no, it's a vibe session and you really don't understand how good you have it. This has happened. This has happened. When in reality, I was on Meet the Press yesterday and there was something that said, well, the American people don't believe Donald Trump's doing enough on the economy. And I told the host, I said, you know, the one thing I'm not going to answer is that they don't know what they're talking about. I have to have respect for how they feel and then we need to go back and look at what is causing this anxiety.
他们说，不，这是一种氛围，你根本不了解你拥有的有多好。这已经发生了。这已经发生了。而实际上，我昨天上了《会见媒体》节目，节目中提到美国人民认为特朗普在经济方面做得不够。我告诉主持人，我不会说他们不了解情况。我必须尊重他们的感受，然后我们需要回过头去看看是什么导致了这种焦虑。
So that's what we're going to do. So let's peel the onion back. What do you think is causing this anxiety? Where are the levers that maybe the federal government can control in releasing some of the pressure and what are more market functions that just need to clear up some of these? Well, look, I think we're trying to do three things and I think you may have talked about it last week before. The three legs on the stool. Three legs on the stool. And from the outside, you intuited that very well. I would do just a little refinement on that. That's what I was going to ask you. Yeah, just tell me where I was right and wrong. But you were adjacent to everything.
所以这就是我们要做的事情。让我们深入分析一下。你认为是什么导致了这种焦虑？有哪些杠杆可能是联邦政府可以控制的，以释放一些压力？哪些是更市场化需要解决的问题？我想我们正在尝试做三件事，我想你可能上周已经谈论过了。就像三脚凳的三个支柱。你从外部观察得非常好。我会做一些小小的调整。我本来想问你的，就是请告诉我哪里对，哪里不对。不过你已经很接近所有问题的核心了。
So on one, we are trying to bring down this massive federal debt, cut the spending, but in a controlled way. You can't do it all at once. I don't like to repeat private conversations with the president, but I'll repeat this one because I think it's very, it really illustrates where his head was at. First time I went to see in the same song at Mar-a-Lago and walk in the door. He said, Scott, how are we going to get these debt and deficits down without causing a recession? And that's exactly where we are now. How are we going to get the debt and deficits down, not close a recession?
所以，一方面，我们正努力以一种可控的方式减少庞大的联邦债务，削减开支。你不能一下子就做到。我不喜欢重复和总统的私人对话，但我愿意说说这次，因为我认为这能很好地说明他的想法。我第一次去海湖庄园见他时，一进门他就说，"斯科特，我们怎么才能在不引发经济衰退的情况下降低债务和赤字？" 这正是我们现在面临的问题：如何在不引发衰退的情况下减少债务和赤字？
And I said, sir, when you win, you didn't get us here. We're going to set a goal by 2028. We want to get back to the long-term average. We're going to deflate it slowly. Long-term average being about 3% deficit to GDP. But 3 3 1-1-2% deficit to GDP. And I keep saying the US, we don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem because we are averaging right about 18% revenue until federal government. We're at about 18%. And Biden administration blew it out, blew the spending out to 25. Normally, it's about 21 21 1-1-2%.
我跟那位先生说，当你赢了的时候，这不是因为你把我们带到了这里。我们的目标是到2028年实现回到长期平均水平。我们计划慢慢减少赤字，长期平均水平大约是GDP的3%。但现在赤字大约是GDP的3.3%。我一直在说，美国不是收入不足的问题，而是支出过多的问题，因为我们的收入平均大约占联邦政府的18%。而拜登政府的支出激增到了25%，通常应该是大约21%。
We have the 2% inflation nominal GDP, take real GDP is 1-8. So we get nominal GDP 3.8 and it all works out. And it was very interesting. I had one of the heads of one of the Singapore sovereign wealth funds here last week. Guess what Singapore spends in terms of spending to GDP? Deficit 3%. They have no deficit, but they spend 18%. 18%. 18%. And he said, you know, he said, we have a lot in common with the Trump administration. We like small government. We don't like immigration, illegal immigration. And we like personal safety, which I thought was very interesting.
我们有2%的通胀名义GDP，假设实际GDP是1-8。因此，我们得到名义GDP是3.8，一切都算出来了。这很有趣。上周，我接待了一位新加坡主权财富基金的负责人。你猜新加坡在支出占GDP的比例是多少？赤字是3%。他们没有赤字，但他们的支出是18%。18%。18%。他还说，你知道吗，我们和特朗普政府有很多相似之处。我们喜欢小政府，不喜欢移民，尤其是非法移民，而且我们重视个人安全。我觉得这很有趣。
Sorry, so let me just understand. So deflating government spending is key, but the big challenge has been that we have now accumulated 30 some odd trillion dollars nearly of debt. And the interest on that debt has started to grow. We now have to pay 1.2 trillion dollars in interest payments per year. So that starts to consume more of the spending budget that we have at the federal level, which means we can spend less on the rest of the federal government's programs. Meaning you have to cut a lot more than you otherwise would have, which is what makes it so difficult and so painful.
抱歉，让我理清一下。减少政府开支是关键，但我们面临的重大挑战是目前已经累积了大约30万亿美元的债务。这些债务的利息开始增长，现在我们每年需要支付1.2万亿美元的利息。这就意味着联邦层面可用于其他项目的预算越来越少，因此我们在其他联邦政府项目上的支出必须减少得更多，这使得削减开支变得非常困难和痛苦。
Is it realistic that you can get Congress to act in the way that Congress needs to act to get to the level that we need to get to given the high interest payments and the high debt level that we have? And with this Republican Congress, and I'm not sure what a deficit hawk is, but I think I would qualify as one. And a lot of the Republicans, I actually have to coax him. You can't do this all at once. I was with one of the congressional budget committees two weeks ago. And they really want to cut this fast.
在我们面临高额利息支付和高债务水平的情况下，要让国会采取必要行动实现我们的目标，这现实吗？面对这个共和党主导的国会，我虽然不太确定什么是赤字鹰派，但我想我可以算一个。而且很多共和党员，我实际上得劝说他们。你不能一下子做完所有事情。两周前我跟其中一个国会预算委员会会面，他们确实想迅速削减开支。
And I said, you do realize every 300 billion we cut is about a percentage of the GDP. So you could, so we are trying to land the plain well and the plan. Cause that's really what I would like to talk about today. I think there's three plans here. But plan one, we're gonna de-lever the government via the spending. We are also going to shed excess labor from the government. So on that side, and then on the other side, we're going to de-regulate the financial system, the regulated financial system, really been what I call a regulatory corset for a long time.
我说，你知道每削减3000亿美元大约相当于GDP的一个百分点。所以，我们想要的是顺利地落实计划。这正是我今天想谈论的。我认为这里有三个计划。第一个计划是通过削减开支来减少政府的负债，同时也会让政府中多余的劳动力流失。而在另一方面，我们将放松对金融体系的管制，这个管制体系长期以来一直像个“监管束缚”。
And as we de-regulate that, then the private sector can re-laborage. So government de-leveraging, private sector re-laboraging, and the employment, or the folks who lost their government jobs, will be picked up by the private sector. But this is really important. And I think this is the most critical thing. I'm really glad we got the chance to talk today. Because I hear so much about the conversation on any one of these topics independent of the others.
当我们取消这些管制后，私营部门就可以重新进行人力配置。如此一来，政府部门的去杠杆化，就会使私营部门增加杠杆，并且那些失去政府工作的人员也可以被私营部门吸收。这非常重要。我认为这是最关键的事情。我很高兴我们今天有机会讨论这个话题，因为我经常听到有关于这些话题的讨论，但很少结合在一起进行综合分析。
And there's a relationship between them that I think is critical to understand on how this administration is aiming to drive an economic recovery that is not inflationary, is sustainable, and also will allow people to have the American dream in a way that they can have access to today. And so part of fixing the affordability crisis is what can we come back and tell you about it if you want? But where can we get prices down? Eggs are easier. But the other side of getting prices down is getting real wages up.
这两者之间的关系非常关键，我认为了解这种关系对于理解政府如何推动一种既不引发通货膨胀又可持续的经济复苏至关重要。此外，这种复苏还将使人们能够在今天实现美国梦。在解决负担能力危机的过程中，我们可以向您介绍更多信息，但重要的是要找到降低价格的途径。鸡蛋的价格更容易下降。然而，降低价格的另一面是提高实际工资。
So on getting real wages for working people up, it goes back to the main street versus Wall Street. And the second plan is to reorder the international trading system and bring manufacturing jobs back to the US and have reinvigorate the middle class. Because again, through tariffs. To use tariffs that we're needed to bring other countries into line. And to create an economic incentive to onshore for some industries and some supply chains? Well, so there's tariffs.
关于提高工薪阶层的实际工资，这可以追溯到主街（指普通民众的经济）与华尔街（指金融界）的对立。第二个计划是重新调整国际贸易体系，把制造业工作带回美国，并振兴中产阶级。因为这需要通过关税来实现。使用关税来使其他国家达成一致，并为一些行业和供应链创造在本土化生产的经济激励。就是说，这里的确涉及到关税。
Then I think there are three other things we can do, which are the centerpiece of the administration. We can have the low and predictable taxes. We can substantially flash regulations, because regulations are the equivalent of a drive investment dollars, private investment dollars. And predictability in regulations, and then cheap energy. Right. And sorry, what is the relationship between the tax cuts and the getting to 3%, 3 and 1, 1,2% deficit as a percentage EDC? Especially because the CR unfortunately gave folks a get out of jail free card, because we kept the $2 trillion cap for the next little long.
然后，我认为我们可以做另外三件事情，这是政府的核心。我们可以实现低而可预见的税收。我们可以大幅减少规章制度，因为规章制度相当于驱动投资资金，尤其是私人投资资金。而且在规章制度上保持可预见性，然后是提供廉价能源。对了，我想知道税收削减和实现3%的增长率，以及占EDC的1到2%的赤字之间有什么关系？特别是因为临时拨款法案不幸地给了一些人一个“免于坐牢”的机会，因为我们在未来一段时间内保持了2万亿美元的上限。
Yes. But I've been in this building. I think this is my seventh week, President Trump, been back at the White House for eight weeks. So you actually do need time. So a lot of people who weren't happy about the CR, but shutting down the government went to the conduct of either politically or economically. So sorry, does tax cuts get made up with tariffs, or does tax cuts get made up with cutting government spending? Well, tax cuts will, so tax cuts and deregulation will change the growth trajectory. Grow GDP. Well, grow GDP. If trend line has been 1.8, if you can move the growth to three or above, then you really change their trajectory.
是的，但我已经在这栋楼里待了。这应该是我在特朗普总统回到白宫后的第七周，所以确实需要一些时间。很多人对临时拨款法案（CR）不满意，但关闭政府会在政治或经济上产生影响。所以，抱歉，减税是通过征收关税来弥补吗？还是通过削减政府支出来弥补？减税将对增长产生影响。减税和放松管制将改变经济增长的轨迹，提高国内生产总值（GDP）。如果增长趋势是1.8%，而你能将增长推升到3%或更高，那么就真能改变轨迹。
And if you can keep expenses flat or do the unthinkable and cut expenses, then you can really. So this is important. So sorry, government revenue as a percentage EDP can go lower if you have lower expenses and a faster growing economy. Yes. I think that's really important for folks to understand that relationship. And so in isolation, tax cuts might reduce revenue. But when done with reduced government spending and deregulation and a reordered international trade model, you theoretically will accelerate economic growth in this country, increase government revenue overall, even with a lower tax rate. That's kind of the way.
如果你能保持开支不变，或者更不可思议地削减开支，那么你就真的可以做到这点。这是很重要的。抱歉，政府收入占GDP的比例可以在开支较低和经济快速增长的情况下下降。没错。我认为大家需要理解这个关系。因此，单独来看，减税可能会减少收入。但如果结合减少政府开支、放宽监管以及重新调整国际贸易模式，你理论上可以加速这个国家的经济增长，即使在较低的税率下，总体上仍能增加政府收入。就是这样的道理。
And I'll tell you, shame on me. I was in the investment business 35 years. I talked very confidently over that CBO scoring says this. And it turns out, I didn't know you know what about CBO scoring. Like when you're on this side of the wall, you realize how crazy it is. It's crazy. It's quite a gameable system. Yeah. It's very gameable. Quite a gameable system. And one of the most gameable parts of it is in normal CBO scoring that, so we're calling it, we're saying that we want to renew the tax cuts. We're actually just renewing the current tax regime.
我告诉你，我感到很羞愧。我在投资行业待了35年。过去我非常自信地谈论CBO（国会预算办公室）的评分，但结果发现，我对CBO评分其实一无所知。当你站在这边的时候，你会意识到这到底有多疯狂。这个系统是可以被操控的，没错，非常容易被操控。而其中最容易被操控的部分之一就是，在普通的CBO评分中，我们说要延续减税政策，其实只是维持现有的税收制度。
That somehow after they expire, then they go back to the old rate. Spending never changes. Spending never has to get renewed. And I think when I look and think about a mental model and how do systems work, how do they break down, one of the things that has caused this spending bulge is this idea that you never had to rescore spending. Oh, it's not. And the incentive model is when you have a constituency that you represent as an elected representative that's earning from that spending, they're telling you, if you want to get reelected, make sure my earnings stay. And get me more.
在这些支出过期后，他们会恢复到原来的水平。支出从未改变，也不需要重新评估。我在思考一个心理模型以及系统如何运作、如何崩溃时，其中一个导致支出膨胀的原因就是这种支出从未重新评估的观念。而激励模式是，当你作为一个当选代表，为某个群体谋利益时，他们会告诉你，如果你想继续当选，就要确保他们的收入不变，甚至更多。
And then every year you've got a set of elected representatives whose primary objective in a democratic system is to go in and get more money for their constituents. How do we solve that fundamental problem? How do you think about that? Well, what do you think about that? Do you think that that's true? Do you think that most politicians are here to just get money for their question? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's OPM. It's other people's money. But they. Danny DeVito have that movie. But you would regard that as being a good politician. Like you brought home the bacon for your district.
然后，每年都有一群当选代表，他们在民主制度下的主要目标是为他们的选民争取更多资金。我们如何解决这个根本问题？你如何看待这个问题？你认为这是真的吗？你觉得大多数政客只是为了帮选民拿钱吗？是的，我的意思是，这是用别人的钱。就像丹尼·德维托在那部电影里演的。但你可能会觉得这样才算是个好政客：因为你为自己的选区争取到了实惠。
Yeah. Because the CR, a lot of people didn't like it, but one of the things that a lot of people didn't like, there were no earmarks in it. How dare they? Totally. The Christmas tree bill that kind of shows up at the 11th hour. Where everyone gets a little bit. Can you talk about. So we talked about this deregulation as this one very important lever, right? So how do we add 50, 100 basis points of growth back in? We're going to do it through deregulation.
好的。因为CR（持续决议案），很多人不喜欢它，其中一个原因是它里面没有所谓的"特定拨款"。怎么敢这样？完全同意。到了最后时刻总会出现一个"圣诞树法案"，每个人都会得到一点好处。你能谈谈这个吗？我们说过，放松管制是一个非常重要的手段，对吗？那么我们如何通过它增加50到100个基点的增长呢？我们将通过放松管制来实现。
How do you undo the financial course that, as you said? What are the sort of three or four big ideas that you'd like to affect? Yeah, so we are re-examining all the bank regulations. And why are they there? Why do banks have to. I can remember, it's five or seven percent to hold treasury bills. What are the regulations? Why do I had a whole group of community bankers or small banks here last week? And why do they have to hold the same amount of capital that JP Morgan and Wells Fargo and City hold? When they don't have the complexity, they don't have. Why do the regulators, one of these small bankers said, well, you know, Bank of America does it this way. Bank of America is a trillion dollars in deposits. This was $183 million bank.
如何改变您所说的金融方向？有哪些三到四个重要想法是您想要影响的？是的，我们正在重新审视所有银行监管规定。为什么这些规定存在？为什么银行需要持有五到七个百分点的国债？这些规定是怎样的？上周我接待了一群社区银行家或小银行家，为什么他们需要持有与摩根大通、富国银行和花旗一样多的资本？它们并不具备那些复杂性，没有这些。在监管者看来，就像其中一位小银行家所说的，"美国银行是这样做的"。但美国银行拥有万亿的存款，而这是一家只有1.83亿美元的小银行。
Yeah. But when you look at the regulatory overhang of some of these things, Basel 1, Basel 2, you have all of these frameworks. And then as a result, all these organizations that are running around trying to help you administer this complexity, all it does is just lower economic activity in the end. Well, but I know you all talk about incentives a lot. Back to incentives, what's a regulator's incentive? Just to keep tightening the corset, they don't care about growth. They don't care about the common sense. Turn off every risk. If you had to create a metric then to say, okay, here's how we're going to measure this undoing of the financial corset. Is it sort of the lending velocity by private lenders so that the private re-leveraging can occur? Is that a good way to think about that?
好的。但当你考虑这些事务的监管负担时，比如巴塞尔协议 I 和 II，你会发现有许多这样的框架。因此，许多组织忙于帮助管理这种复杂性，而结果只不过是最终降低了经济活动。我知道你们经常讨论激励问题。回到激励措施，监管者的激励是什么？就是不断收紧这个束缚，他们不关心增长，也不关注常识，只想着消除每一个风险。如果我们需要创建一个衡量这些金融束缚放松的指标，那么是否可以通过私人贷款者的贷款速度来判断，以便私人部门重新加杠杆？这样思考是否合理？
Of course rates are way to think about it? Well, it doesn't have to be rates, but if we do all the things I was just talking about, if we deregulate, if we have cheap energy, if we shed excess labor from the government, if we get government spending down, then inflation should come down, rates should come down. But on the question of how are we going to measure it, I don't have any problem with private credit. I actually think it's exciting. Yeah, it's dynamic. It meets the business where it is. Yeah, okay. And the strength of the US financial system is the depth and now the breadth. But you could see that what's happened, that so much lending's being pushed outside the regulated banking system that tells you it's over-regulated.
当然，以利率来考虑问题是一个方法，但不一定非得是利率。我们如果能实施我刚才提到的那些措施，比如取消多余的法规、降低能源成本、精简政府冗余人员、减少政府开支，那么通货膨胀和利率都应该会下降。至于如何衡量这个问题，我对私人信贷没有意见，实际上我觉得它很令人兴奋。它很有活力，能够满足业务的实际需要。美国金融体系的强处在于它的深度和广度。然而，你可以看到，很多贷款业务被推向了受监管的银行体系之外，这就说明它被过度监管了。
Right, yeah. So now, once we, so one test will be how has bank lending, especially small regional, small banks, community banks, come and dump, and the small banks, the small banks and community banks, there's 70% of agalones, there are 40% of small business loans. Business loans, yeah. And that's one of the reasons main street's been stifled. So can you talk about then how you will work with the Fed in sort of the change of all of this financial machinery? And do you need to work with Congress too to make these changes? And also just generally maybe your thoughts on just the Fed in this process of helper, foe, like where do they stand?
好的，是这样的。现在，我们要测试的一件事情是银行贷款，特别是那些小型区域银行和社区银行的情况。小型银行和社区银行承担了农业贷款的70%，以及小型企业贷款的40%。这也是为什么主街经济受到压制的原因之一。那么，你能否谈谈在这些金融机制的变化中，你将如何与美联储合作？你是否也需要与国会合作来进行这些改变？另外，关于美联储在这个过程中是帮手还是对手，你是怎么看的？
Well, the Fed, I 100% support the Fed's autonomy in monetary policy. I don't agree with it all the time, but. How it is? It's how it is. It's how it is. And so, and I said, I won't comment on perspective policy. I can talk about their mistakes in the past, which have been numerous, but I think like with any system, as it expands beyond sort of the core, I actually think that some of the things they've done in regulation, some of the things they've done in kind of climate and DEI, some of the things maybe even non-standard monetary policy threatens their independence. And I want them to stay strong, robust and independent of monetary policy.
好吧，美联储，我百分之百支持美联储在货币政策上的自主权。我并不总是同意他们的做法，但事实就是这样。我也说过，我不会对未来的政策发表评论。我可以谈论他们过去犯过的错误，确实有很多。但我认为，像任何系统一样，当它扩展到核心之外时，我其实认为，他们在监管方面、在气候和多元化、公平和包容（DEI）方面做的一些事情，还有一些可能是非标准的货币政策，威胁到了他们的独立性。我希望他们能够在货币政策上保持强大、稳健和独立。
On regulation, I think that they have been much too harsh on especially the smaller banks, medium banks. So there's three main bank regulators. There's the Fed, Office of Control of the Currency, OCC and the FDIC. And then there are other regulators, the SEC, CFTC, but the banking regulators at the federal level are those three. Here at Treasury, we have something called FSOC, Financial Stability Oversight Council. And I chair that, and via that, the President's Working Group, which is another convening mechanism that I plan to just keep pushing for safe sound and smart deregulation. Like, why are we doing this? Why are we doing that?
在监管方面，我认为他们对尤其是中小银行过于严苛。主要有三个银行监管机构：美联储（Fed）、货币监理署（OCC）和联邦存款保险公司（FDIC）。此外，还有其他监管机构，如证券交易委员会（SEC）和商品期货交易委员会（CFTC），但联邦层面的银行监管主要是那三个。在财政部这里，我们有一个叫做金融稳定监督委员会（FSOC）的组织。我主持这个委员会，通过这个和总统工作小组等召集机制，我计划继续推动安全、稳健和智慧的放松监管。比如，我们为什么要做这些事情？我们为什么要做那些事情？
And again, that there's a capital charge to banks for buying Treasury. Totally. So I actually think there's a chance that if we take, it's called the supplementary leverage ratio, if we take that away, it becomes a binding constraint on banks, we might actually pull Treasury bill yields down by 30 to 70 basis points. Every basis point is a billion dollars a year. Can we talk about that for a second? So I think, and I've said this for a year probably, but one of the biggest mistakes that I think Janet Yellen affected was this continued issuance of money on the short end of the curve to finance these deficits, which gives you, you inherit an incredibly difficult challenge, I think over the next nine months, I think there's like nine or 10 trillion that has to get refinanced.
再强调一下，银行购买国债是有资本费用的。这是肯定的。所以，我实际上认为，如果我们取消所谓的补充杠杆率（Supplementary Leverage Ratio），这可能会成为对银行的约束，我们可能会让国债收益率降低30到70个基点。每一个基点都相当于每年十亿美元的影响。我们能谈谈这个吗？我想，我可能已经说了一年了，但我认为Janet Yellen最大的错误之一就是持续在短期曲线上发行资金来为这些赤字融资，这给我们带来了一个非常困难的挑战。我认为在接下来的九个月里，有大约九万亿到十万亿美元需要再融资。
Do you wanna talk about that? Yeah, look, I thought that when rates were low, you're supposed to turn out rates. Exactly. And instead, the Treasury for the past few years has pulled rates in, and I think part of that was to keep rates lower, that they change the issuance schedule when rates move back up towards 5%. I have maintained that policy, but I'm maintaining it because, let's go back to David's question, when are we gonna see the results from getting the government spending under control? And I don't think the markets recognize it yet. Yeah. Again, if we do. They're not sure what to believe. I mean, we hear this commentary a lot. Like what do you really, there's just a lot of uncertainty. There's a big spectrum of opinions there.
你想谈谈这个吗？是的，你看，我以为当利率低时，你应该延长利率。没错。但是，过去几年财政部反而拉低了利率，我认为部分原因是为了保持利率低，他们在利率回升到5%左右时改变了发行计划。我一直坚持这个政策，但我坚持是因为，回到大卫的问题，我们什么时候才能看到政府支出得到控制的结果？我认为市场还没有意识到这一点。是的，如果我们做到了，他们还不确定该相信什么。我们经常听到这样的评论，有很多不确定性，意见分歧很大。
Yeah, like the central value tendency, you're right, the central value tendency, like what's the center of it? Because the range of outcomes is so broad. And we know there's a problem there. We know there's waste, fraud, and abuse. Quantify it. Quantify it. So I think as we are more able to quantify it, we will get credit for it. So let me go back. So outside of waste, fraud, and abuse, as it's termed, I wanna go back to the question I asked earlier, how much does this administration need Congress to act to get to three to 3.5% deficit to GDP? And what's your read on the Congress? And how willing and able they are to take the action that's needed here?
是的，你说得对，像是中央价值趋势，你问的就是它的中心点是什么？因为结果的范围太广了。我们知道这里面有问题，包括浪费、欺诈和滥用。我们需要对这些进行量化。量化是很重要的。我认为我们越能清晰地量化这些问题，我们就会因此获得更多的认可。让我回到我先前的问题，撇开所谓的浪费、欺诈和滥用不谈，我想知道，为了将财政赤字控制在占GDP的3%到3.5%，这一届政府需要国会采取多少行动？你怎么看国会的态度？他们有多愿意和有能力采取必要的行动呢？
Yeah, I think there are a lot of headlines, especially after the CR about the Democrats being in disarray. And media likes to write about disarray. I think the untold story here is Republicans have, for a change, actually been very disciplined. And I think a lot of that, President Trump is kind of shepherding the party, shepherding the movement. Because imagine, he said, oh, that Mike Johnson will never get reconciliation instructions out of, he's got such a slim majority. Well, he did it. He did it, yeah. That he'll never be able to pass a clean CR. He did it. He did it. So let's see what happens with the budget.
是的，我认为有很多头条新闻，尤其是在CR（持续决议）之后，都会说民主党内部混乱。媒体喜欢报道这样的混乱。我觉得没有被注意到的是，共和党这次其实表现得非常有纪律。我认为这在很大程度上要归功于特朗普总统，他在一定程度上引导着这个政党和这个运动。因为想象一下，有人说，哦，麦克·约翰逊永远无法从那么微弱的多数中获得调和指令。可是，他做到了。他做到了。有人说他永远无法通过一个纯粹的CR。他做到了。他做到了。所以，让我们看看预算会发生什么。
So we need Congress to be our partners on the budget. They're very engaged, the House and the Senate, that everybody recognizes that if we don't get this done, it's gonna be the biggest, it's pass fail. It's the biggest tax height in history. Where does Doge come in? Well, Doge, that's the cost cutting. And it's the first time we've really ever had business people looking at it. This Clinton Gore commission that we hear a lot of like, or hear a lot about, I think it was a bunch of business school professors. And, I hear you've got real CEOs. You got Lutnik, you got Bergum, you got Elon. I mean, this cabinet is stock full of experienced operators that can go in and identify where there's an opportunity for saving the taxpayers money and still getting the results.
因此，我们需要国会在预算问题上成为我们的合作伙伴。众议院和参议院都非常投入，大家都认识到如果我们不解决这个问题，那将是最大的议题，这事非同小可。这将是历史上最大的税收增幅。那“Doge”是什么呢？“Doge”就是成本削减。而这是我们第一次真正有商业人士来参与。我们常听到的克林顿-戈尔委员会，我觉得那主要是由商学院的教授们构成的。而现在，我们拥有真正的首席执行官们，比如Lutnik、Bergum和Elon。这一内阁充满了经验丰富的运营者，他们能够识别出节省纳税人资金的机会，同时仍然能达到预期的成果。
Well, it's that. And we had this crypto council meeting the other day. And I was sitting and looking at myself, Secretary Lutnik and Kelly Loffer, everybody was a market person. Like forget business. Like you're weak. And, but with Doge, that I am completely aligned with what Elon's doing and everyone says, do you have to do it so fast? You have to do it. I, like I said, I've only been in this business for seven weeks. I've only been in DC for eight weeks. The thing I can tell you is, if you don't move fast, the vested interest will- Something to do totally. Like the, the quicksand will come up or-
好吧，就是这样。前几天我们开了一个加密货币会议。当时我坐在那里，看着我自己、卢特尼克部长和凯莉·洛弗，大家都是市场出身的人。好像忘掉了商业。就像，你们软弱一样。不过在关于狗狗币的事情上，我完全支持埃隆的做法。大家都说，难道你一定要做得那么快吗？但我想说的是，我进入这个行业才七周，到华盛顿也才八周。我要告诉你的是，如果你不快速行动，那些既得利益者会——会彻底干扰你。就像流沙会陷住你一样。
The clause gets sent. The clause, yeah. Everybody's got lobbyists, everybody's got it. I mean, think about it. Within a 10 mile radius of here. 25% of the GDP of the US, poll seats through here. Poll seats. Every day. And everybody wants to just skim a little. Cause I said to Elon, we were in a meeting and I said, you know, people are mad at you cause you're moving their cheese. And it's not their cheese. It's the American people's cheese. 100%. Every dollar spent goes into someone's pocket and that person's gonna fight tooth and nail to get that dollar to keep flowing into their pocket.
这段话翻译成中文可以表达为：
条款已发送。对，条款。每个人都有游说者，每个人都有。我是说，想一想，在这附近10英里范围内，有美国25%的GDP流通过这里。每天，每个人都想捞一点。我对埃隆说，我们在会议上，我说，你知道吗，人们对你不满，因为你在动他们的奶酪。但那不是他们的奶酪，那是美国人民的奶酪。百分之百的，每一美元的支出都流入某人的口袋，而那个人会竭尽全力确保这笔钱继续流入他们的口袋。
And it's a very, like there is no winning in Elon's role. There's every single time he takes action, there are people that are gonna come after him, that are gonna come after the administration. There's no situation. And obviously gets recast, reclassified in media as being something different, but there's nothing but downside as you make these changes to individual organizations that participate. And then it takes a while for the flow of that money to find its way or those individuals to find their way back into the productive private economy.
翻译如下：
在埃隆的角色中，他所处的是一个非常困难的境地，无论他采取什么行动，总会有人对他发起攻击，对他所属的管理层进行指责。基本上不存在一个完美的局面。而且在媒体上，他的行为常常被重新解读和分类为其他的东西。但在对参与的各个组织进行变革时，这些改变往往带来的只是负面影响。而且，这些资金流动需要一段时间才能重新回到有效的私人经济中，那些个人也需要时间才能找到重新融入的方法。
That's where I think there's a big gap and a big challenge in the perception of the actions that are going on with the changes right now, is everyone sees the cuts, but they don't see the benefits. And that's nine months, 12 months, 15 months down the road. And that's a really hard thing to reconcile for most. Yeah. And I'd say there are a couple of things too, is one, like everyone's hearing cuts and they think their government services are going to go. That's right. That's right. That's different. They're not. I keep saying it's the Department of Government Efficiency, not government extinction, not government elimination. And can we make it run much better with fewer people, with fewer costs? And I don't want to demonize any of these federal employees that they take in this building. I've been so impressed with the quality of the people. I would have hired them in my private firm. They are great public servants.
这是我认为当前变化中行动认知存在巨大差距和挑战的地方，大家看到的是削减，而未能看到其带来的好处。这些好处可能在九个月、十二个月甚至十五个月后才会显现。这对大多数人来说是一个很难理解的事情。是的，还有几点需要说明，一是大家听到削减，就以为政府服务会减少。这是不对的，那是另一回事。削减并不意味着政府服务的消失或取消。我一直强调的是，这是为了提高政府效率，而不是要消灭或取消政府。我们能否以更少的人力和成本让政府运作得更好？我也不想妖魔化那些在此大楼工作的联邦雇员，我对他们的素质感到非常钦佩。如果在我的私人公司，我会雇用他们。他们是出色的公共服务人员。
I need to stay for the weekend. I need a 25-page memo in 72 hours. The super high quality. I actually think when all this is done, there will have been two big savings. One will have been on these contractors. Sure. We were just talking about this. We were just with you on in the West Wing. In the incredible stat, he said, I'm not going to name the firm, so that I don't want to, but he said this one organization gets 98% of their revenue. I was in the newspaper, so we can say it. It's Booz Allen. Exactly. And we were talking about this. And then we were going to do the numbers on the other firms and it's just the whole thing. That's shocking. What kind of risk management is that, by the way? Yeah, right. But it tells you that they didn't manage the risk, that's right. Tells you how entrenched they believe they were. And how good it is for them. And how good it is.
我需要待到周末。我需要在72小时内完成一份25页的备忘录，质量要非常高。我其实觉得，当这一切结束时，会有两个大的节省。其中一个就是在这些承包商上。没错。我们刚刚在西翼聊到这个。在一则令人震惊的统计数据中，他说，“我不打算说出这家公司的名字，因为我不想这样，但是他说这个组织98%的收入来自一个来源。”我在报纸上看到，所以我们可以说它是Booz Allen。正是如此。然后我们打算分析其他公司的数据，整个过程真是令人震惊。这是怎样的风险管理？对吧？但这告诉你，他们没有管理风险，没错。同时这也显示了他们相信自己有多根深蒂固，以及这对他们有多好。
You're absolutely. And the way the GRIFT works, you can only have six-month contracts, but they're people who have had 46-month contracts. Incredible. They've been in situ for 20 years. Incredible. And it's this whole DZC. I'm so happy there is transparency and visibility into this. If for nothing else, the administration providing this level of insight and data, I think is so important for taxpayers and individuals in this country to see, to recognize, and importantly to understand just how much of this GRIFT is going on. It's frightening. And I'm glad that it's like being addressed. And the American people can see that they want it. Well, this is what I was going to ask you. Let's just say that somehow the borick slows this whole thing down. You know, what people say is that the conventionalism, well, then the only place to look will be things like entitlements. Good question. Do you think that that's true?
当然，你说得一点没错。这里的骗局运作方式是，你只能签六个月的合同，但有些人却签了46个月的合同，简直难以置信。他们已经在这个位置上待了20年，真不可思议。整个DZC的情况如此，我真的很高兴现在有了透明性和可见性。即使没有别的理由，这种程度的洞察和数据的提供，对于纳税人和这个国家的公民来说，能够看到、认知这点，尤其是了解这种骗局的广泛程度，都是非常重要的。这是令人恐惧的，但我很高兴这个问题正在被解决。美国人民可以看到他们所希望看到的。这是我想问你的问题。假设某种程度上borick减慢了整个过程。人们常说，传统主义者认为，唯一可以考虑的就是类似于福利的东西。你认为这是真的吗？
Well, I think that now that the campaign has had said in the bag that the American people are not going to stay with this is that it may maybe, again, here, maybe in the Northeast Corridor, there's some pushback. But when I've seen the polling data and the rest of the country does not want this to stop and this administration is not going to stop. Yeah. The courts, they're trying to throw sand in the gears with the courts and how some judge can say, oh, all these workers have to come back in. But I also think we've moved really quickly. Now, I think when we start putting out some of the anecdotes and the messages and talk about what's happening, I'll talk about it. I'll be talking about it soon.
好吧，我认为现在这场运动已经稳定下来，而美国人民不会对此止步不前。在东北走廊地区，可能会有一些反对声音。但根据我看到的民意调查，全国大多数人并不希望这件事停止，而这一届政府也不会停止。是的，法院可能会试图通过法律程序拖慢进程，比如某些法官要求所有工作人员回到岗位。但我也认为我们发展得非常迅速。当我们开始分享一些故事和信息，讨论正在发生的事情时，我会进一步介绍这些内容。我会很快开始谈论这个话题。
But there's one very large department that everybody deals with on April 15th that their help desk is fully staffed 24, 7, 365 days a year. They have the same number of people on Christmas Eve as they have on April 14th. I see, wow. This, by the way, is something that I've seen being a lightning rod. Theoretically, every dollar you spend on the IRS, you get $3 back or whatever it is, that's not necessarily true. Like, I just want to be clear that there's, you can still get all your tax revenue at the federal level, but you don't need to waste. I mean, I'd be the ultimate chump if I said, oh, we're gonna cut spending. But I also cut revenues with the IRS, which Treasury controls.
有一个很大的部门，每年4月15日大家都要和它打交道，他们的客服中心全年无休地提供服务。无论是圣诞前夜还是4月14日，工作人员的数量都是一样的。我明白了，哇哦。这件事成为了一个焦点。理论上，你在国税局上花的每一美元，可以让你得到三美元的回报，或者不管回报是多少，这并不一定正确。我只是想说明，你仍然可以在联邦层面获得所有的税收收入，但不需要浪费。我会是个超级傻子，如果我说要削减开支，但同时也削减国税局的收入，国税局是由财政部管理的。
My three goals are very simple. Revenue enhancement, privacy, and customer service. Totally. You know, there's a body of knowledge that says, if we just fed in, and by the way, four or five of these companies can do this now, if we just fed in this entire federal tax code into these AI models, what you can give to Americans is a very guaranteed resolute ability to file taxes with the assurance that there is no waste fraud and abuse. And now all of a sudden, you take this incredible weight off of people's shoulders. Sometimes it is said that you get audited for almost political reasons, it seems like. You know, people that. Not almost.
我的三个目标非常简单：提高收入、保护隐私和提升客户服务。这些都是非常重要的。你知道，现在有一些知识体系指出，如果我们将整个联邦税法输入这些AI模型，而有四五家公司已经能做到这一点，结果可以让美国人非常有保障地自行报税，并确保没有浪费、欺诈和滥用行为。这样一来，人们肩上的巨大负担就会突然减轻。有时候，人们会说你被审计几乎是出于政治原因。你知道，就是那些人。不，不只是几乎。
We have a big announcement on Tuesday, and we brought in the 200 Biden whistleblowers who they have a lot to say about who gets audited, who doesn't. They're gonna be sitting in this building, working on IRS, the matters, and understanding exactly how these audits get triggered, how these political witch hunts happen, and trying to change the ethos of the building. And again, 99% of the people at the IRS are good people. It's just like all these other agencies where they're bad folks. But to your point, this is where technology can create very reliable guardrails for the American citizen, where it's like, okay, well, if this model says, I owe $1,000 in tax, this is it. I'm not trying to change anything. I've sold the company. Software first, and you just know.
我们将在星期二有一个重大宣布，我们请来了200名关于拜登的举报者，他们对谁会被审计、谁不会被审计有很多话要说。这些人将会在这栋建筑里，处理国税局的事务，了解这些审计是如何触发的，以及这些政治迫害是如何发生的，并努力改变这栋建筑（指国税局）的风气。再次强调，国税局99%的人都是好人。就像其他机构一样，总会有一些不好的人。但正如你所说，这就是科技如何为美国公民创建非常可靠的防护措施的地方。比方说，如果这个模型显示我欠$1,000的税款，那就是它了，我不会想要更改什么。我已经售出了公司。首先是软件，你就知道结果。
Let me go back to entitlement. I talked last week on our podcast about Social Security. Social Security has a $2.7 trillion balance, which is just basically a treasury bond that they can't trade out of. Should Social Security have invested in the S&P or invested in equities, and why don't we turn Social Security into a sovereign wealth fund and invest it for the benefit of all Americans going forward? Yeah, I think there's the optimal, then there's the possible. George W. Bush tried to privatize Social Security, and I saw your numbers, listen to your numbers going way back. 1971. 1971, and was $15, $16 trillion that we'd have. I don't know what the numbers are since W tried it. They'd be substantial.
让我回到权利问题。我上周在我们的播客中谈到社会保障问题。社会保障目前有2.7万亿美元的余额，这基本上只是他们无法交易的一种国债。社会保障是否应该投资于标准普尔500指数或股票？为什么我们不把社会保障变成一个主权财富基金，为所有美国人的未来利益进行投资呢？是的，我认为存在最优方案和实际可行的方案。乔治·W·布什曾试图将社会保障私有化，我看过你的数据，并听过你提供的自1971年以来的数据。1971年时，我们本可以有15到16万亿美元。我不知道自布什尝试以来的数据是多少，但肯定是相当可观的。
We wouldn't be thinking about a problem in a few years, but I think now you gotta play the hand, you're dealt. I think we are dealt with Social Security hand, and I think maybe we could re-engineer it if we could create the sovereign wealth fund and have that on the other side. There are a lot of philanthropists who are looking at baby bonds, so if you can create a, some kind of an investment account for newborns, then that would run on a parallel track to Social Security. So that would be compounding, the other thing would be a safety net. Yeah, but it's still sitting in treasuries on the other side. And that's where there's an opportunity, not just to drive up returns, but participate in the American economy and give all Americans today the ability to know that they have some participation in the American economy rather than having their retirement funds being sitting as a loan to the federal government for spending, which I think could be a big dramatic change.
我们可能在几年后就不会再考虑这个问题了，但我认为现在你必须接受你所面临的局面。我认为我们目前正在处理社会保障的问题，我觉得如果我们能够创建一个主权财富基金，或许就可以对其进行重新设计。在另一面，有很多慈善家正在关注婴儿债券，所以如果你能为新生儿创建某种投资账户，那么这可以和社会保障并行发展。这样的话，一个可以复利增长，另一个可以作为安全网。但是，目前这些资金还是主要投资在国债上。这里其实存在一个机会，不仅可以提高回报率，还可以让所有今天的美国人参与到美国经济中，而不是让他们的退休资金只作为政府的借贷工具来用于开支。我认为这可能会带来重大改变。
I don't know if they need to be independent, but I think it's a real opportunity for us. Are you excited by the idea of the sovereign wealth fund? I am. I'm excited by the idea. This is President Trump. Everything he does isn't in a straight line, but I guarantee you, he has a destination in mind. And the idea that he's going to be the first president in generations who is going to, he wants to create assets for the American people, not just debt. So he wants to take the debt down. And then this idea of assets, there was a lot of talk about this economic deal we were going to do with Ukraine. That would have gone in the sovereign wealth fund.
我不确定他们是否需要独立，但我认为这对我们来说是一个真正的机会。你对主权财富基金的想法感到兴奋吗？我很兴奋。这里是特朗普总统。他所做的一切都不是直线，但我向你保证，他有明确的目标。他希望成为几代以来首位为美国人民创造资产而不是债务的总统。因此，他想减少债务。而对于资产的构想，我们曾经有很多关于我们将与乌克兰达成的经济协议的讨论。这将会被纳入主权财富基金。
Yeah. Government has big stake and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When it comes out of conservatorship, where does that go? Where does that go? As you meant Doug Bergum did great work when he's governor of North Dakota. North Dakota has the equivalent of two state sovereign wealth funds. Right. Are they seven, eight, 900,000 people? I think they had $25 billion. Right. Alaska permanent. Alaska permanent. Alaska permanent. But all that's from the natural resource money going in. So to the extent we start the other day where the sovereign wealth fund was announced, President Trump surprised me in the oval and said, could you make a few remarks? And I said, well, we're going to mobilize the assets out of the balance sheet.
好的。政府在房利美和房地美中有很大股份。当它们脱离托管时，这些股份会去哪里呢？Doug Bergum担任北达科他州州长时做得很出色。北达科他州有相当于两个主权财富基金。那里的居民大概有七八十万。他们有250亿美元。阿拉斯加的永久基金也是如此，但所有这些资金都来自于自然资源收入。我们前几天开始讨论主权财富基金，总统特朗普在白宫让我发表几点意见，我说我们将调动资产负债表上的资产。
And all the gold books said, he's going to re-value the gold. I can say today, we're not reviving the gold. But what we are going to do is Doug Bergum and Interior, every other department head is looking for the assets that we can mobilize. So if we have energy leases, federal government owns, back to the housing shortage, federal government owns a lot of land in downtown urban areas. Can we or in suburban adjacent things in Nevada and Utah, can we use that land?
所有的黄金书籍都说，他将重新评估黄金的价值。但我今天可以说的是，我们并没有打算重新评估黄金的价值。我们所要做的是，Doug Bergum和内政部及其他每个部门的负责人正在寻找我们能够动用的资产。如果我们有能源租赁，联邦政府拥有这些租赁的所有权，回到住房短缺的问题上，联邦政府在市中心都市区域拥有很多土地。我们能否在内华达州和犹他州的市郊附近使用这些土地呢？
Do you see a wave of privatizations as a way to sort of both pay down the deficits and debts and also just to- That's important to me. Like why put it in a sovereign wealth fund versus pay down the debt? Help kind of do the finance math for us. You think you can get a higher return? Right. Well, anything that beats our current interest rate? Yeah, I mean, not that I'm keeping score not that I watch it closely, but the 10 year treasury today is 428. 428, yeah. So can we- It's responding well. Can we do better? Yeah. Can we do better than 428? And I think with this group and this cabinet, and if we can put in right now, we're working on the study group for the sovereign wealth fund and we want to do best practices.
你是否认为通过一波私有化浪潮可以解决赤字和债务问题？为什么选择放入主权财富基金而不是直接还债？请帮我们分析其中的财政逻辑。你认为可以获得更高的回报吗？是的，任何超过我们当前利率的回报都是好的。尽管我并没有紧盯不放，但今天10年期国债的收益率是4.28%。那么我们能做得更好吗？我相信通过这个团队和内阁的努力，我们正在制定关于主权财富基金的研究小组，力求采用最佳实践，我们可以取得更好的成绩。
We're talking to people around the world. We're talking to investment people. We're talking to a lot of the other big sovereign funds. And we're going to do best practices. And we want this to be a legacy about it. Totally. Well, Dan Loeb made this comment that the Australian superannuation, they've got 30 managers, and they have as much on their balance sheet today and their fund, then Social Security does, about $3 trillion, and they have 7% of our population. Yeah, it's incredible. It's incredible. It's incredible. And I was with one of the Middle Eastern funds, and I said something about oil revenue. We haven't had an injection into the fund in 20 years. Why was this such a miss for America?
我们正在与全球各地的人进行交流，我们在和投资人士交流，也在与许多其他大型主权基金进行沟通。我们会采用最佳实践，并希望这能够成为一个值得铭记的遗产。确实如此。Dan Loeb提到，澳大利亚的退休公积金有30个管理公司，他们现有的资产和基金规模与美国的社会保障资金相当，大约是3万亿美元，而澳大利亚的人口只有美国的7%。这真是令人难以置信。最近我和一个中东基金的人在一起，我提到有关石油收入的事。他们说20年来没有向基金注资。这让美国错过的机会太不可思议了。
What happened in the United States was that we took every excess dollar we had, and we invested it in the future. We built infrastructure. What happened that kept us out of this model where others were so successful and clearly have now gotten ahead of us, and their people have a greater kind of safety net than we do. Yeah, I think it was just this idea of it was supposed to be a safety net, not some kind of prosperity ramp. The old age and survivor is Disability Insurance Fund. That's what it's called, right? Under Social Security is like that. You've mentioned cheap energy as a critical part of this holistic program.
在美国发生的事情是，我们把手中所有多余的钱都投资到了未来。我们建设了基础设施。但是，这种方法并没有让我们进入其他国家取得巨大成功的模式，这些国家现在显然已经超越了我们，他们的人民享有比我们更加完善的安全网。是的，我认为这只是因为我们认为应该是一个安全网，而不是一个繁荣的跳板。例如，养老与遗属保险基金（Old Age and Survivors Insurance Fund）就是这样的。你提到过，廉价能源是这个全面计划中的关键部分。
I think three times now. Where do we make mistakes in that path where energy gets out of control? What do we need to do to make sure that energy actually, the incremental cost of the electron basically goes to zero? Well, I think the biggest challenge we're having right now is trying to get private sector to lock in for some things that might not have a payoff for five, 10 years, and how do we avoid student body left, student body right with administrations coming and going? So we're working on that. Well, this is an incredibly nuanced, and I think an important point because we have this very vibrant, as you know, tax equity and transferability market that allows a lot of these organizations to make these five and 10 year investment cases.
我觉得我们已经考虑了三次。我们在哪个环节出错了，导致能源失控？我们需要怎么做才能确保能源的增量成本基本降到零？我认为我们目前面临的最大挑战是，如何让私营部门在一些可能需要五到十年才能见效的项目上，坚持投入。我们还要避免因为政府管理层的交替而导致的政策摇摆。因此我们正在努力解决这个问题。这是一个极为复杂且重要的课题，因为我们有一个非常活跃的税收权益和可转让市场，这使得很多企业能够做出五年或十年的投资决策。
And for all the issues with the IRA, of which there are many, I think the one narrow aspect that it did was it calmed the markets about the future of those specific ITC credits and transferability. And it's a critical thing because there was a report, you probably saw it, but FERC said 90 plus percent of our incremental electrons as of December were from sources that were leveraging these ITC credits and that transferability. So to your point, we have this very delicate balancing act of making sure we. There's the tax side, but then the regulatory side with fossil, it's tougher because it crosses a lot of state lines, there's a lot more permitting, a lot less permitting for solar farm, for wind or geothermal.
对于《通胀削减法案》 (IRA)，虽然有很多问题，但我认为它在一个狭隘的方面发挥了作用，那就是它让市场对那些特定的投资税收抵免（ITC）和可转让性更加放心。这一点非常重要，因为有一份报告你可能也看到了，联邦能源监管委员会（FERC）表示，到12月为止，我们新增的90%以上的电力来源都是利用这些ITC抵免和其可转让性的。因此，正如你所说，我们面临着一个非常微妙的平衡，既要考虑税收方面的影响，又要应对涉及化石能源的规管方面的挑战。化石能源涉及跨越许多州的情况，审批程序繁杂，而太阳能、风能或地热能的审批则相对较少。
Yeah, yeah. And nuclear? Nuclear is gonna be a big part of it, but it's not gonna happen tomorrow. We gotta fix the supply chain and the regulatory. Well, we gotta fix the supply chain, we gotta fix the regulatory. We've gotta decide which model are we gonna go with. And I'm told that YouTube probably know more about nuclear than I do, but it's. I hate it. Oh, okay. Well, no, I don't hate it. I mean, I like nuclear, I just think it's 10 years old. He's a loser, go listen to it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's just not an investable thing for the next one. Well, but we could other than that. But it's important, because the question is when it becomes one, that's when we know we fix the problem.
好的，好的。那么核能呢？核能将成为其中的重要部分，但这不会在明天实现。我们需要解决供应链和监管问题。我们得决定选择哪个模式。我被告知你可能比我更了解核能，但这就是我的看法。我不喜欢它。哦，不，我不讨厌它。我其实喜欢核能，不过我觉得它已经有十年的问题了。他是个失败者，去听听他的意见吧。是的，是的，是的。核能在接下来的阶段并不适合作为投资对象。不过除此之外，我们可以考虑其他选项。但它很重要，因为我们得知道什么时候才能成为投资对象，那就是我们解决问题的时候。
But to the point that it's not investable, that's where the government needs to step. Sure, absolutely. I 100% agree with you. Like, that's where we have to bridge to the technology, we have to do the time arbitrage. I hate the opportunity. And also I'm told, especially with the smaller. SMRs. That you need to cluster them. Yeah. And you gotta find somebody who wants to cluster on it. And all that.
但是，如果情况发展到无法投资的地步，就需要政府介入。是的，绝对没错。我完全同意你的看法。在这个方面，我们必须和技术接轨，并进行时间套利。我不喜欢这个机会。而且，据我所知，特别是对于较小的模块化反应堆（SMRs），需要将它们进行集群化。是的，你还得找到愿意参与集群化的人。就是这样。
And let me ask you one more question as we kinda get to the end, but what's been the most surprising thing for you in this role since you've been in office? The national security aspect. That I would say 40, 50% of my day. Treasury does a lot of national security work. Whether it's CFIUS in terms of foreigners who want to buy US assets, whether it's sanctions, whether it's OFAC, anti-money laundering.
在我们接近结束的时候，让我再问你一个问题：自你上任以来，在这个职位上让你感到最惊讶的事情是什么？是与国家安全相关的部分。我会说国家安全工作占据了我40%到50%的时间。财政部在国家安全方面做了很多工作，包括外国人想要购买美国资产时的外国投资委员会（CFIUS）审查、制裁、海外资产控制办公室（OFAC）以及反洗钱等事项。
We've just designated the Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. We present Trump over the weekend launched a very aggressive strike on, missile strike on the Hooti assets. Well, underneath that, we'd already been working for several weeks on their bank accounts. So, or anyone who is adjacent to them, the Iranians supply the Hootis with their ecosystem previous demand.
我们刚刚将墨西哥贩毒集团指定为外国恐怖组织。我们介绍说，特朗普在周末发起了一次非常激进的袭击，对胡塞武装进行了导弹打击。实际上，在这之后，我们已经对他们的银行账户进行了几周的调查处理。伊朗此前一直在为胡塞武装提供支持。这样一来，与他们有联系的任何人都可能涉及其中。
And while getting here, Treasury had disrupted the ecosystem so much that the Iranians used to hand them cash. Now they're just handing them here, take this oil tanker and try to sell it. So, there is the ability to break that down. When you go home and you're talking to your kids, you're talking to your husband, and you're like, this was so cool.
在达到这个地步的过程中，财政部已经严重扰乱了生态系统，以至于过去伊朗人会给他们现金。现在他们只是把一个油轮交给他们，说试着去卖掉它。所以，有能力去打破这种局面。当你回到家里和你的孩子、丈夫交谈时，你可能会说，这真是太酷了。
There must be these moments where you're like, this was so cool. Do you have any anecdotes that you're comfortable sharing where you're like, this is, I can't believe I'm doing this job? Well, there have been several, but a good example, my family was actually there because after the inauguration, I asked President Trump, I bring my family in, say hello, get a photo, and we're sitting in the oval, so it's myself, my 11-year-old daughter, my spouse, 15-year-old son, and President Trump's having a great conversation with him,
一定会有这样的时刻，你会觉得，这太酷了。你是否有任何愿意分享的趣事，让你觉得无法相信自己在做这份工作？确实有好几次这样的时刻，不过有一个很好的例子：在总统就职典礼之后，我带着我的家人去见了特朗普总统。我问他，能不能让我家人进来打个招呼，拍张照片。于是我们就坐在椭圆形办公室里，有我、我11岁的女儿、我的配偶、15岁的儿子，特朗普总统和他们愉快地交谈着。
and then he said, oh, Scott, while you're here, let me call in these other two people, and we need to discuss this. So, they actually got to see government being alive. So, there's that. I have to say, I think the moment with President Trump, President Trump, Vice President Vance, President Zelensky was kind of a once-in-a-lifetime thing in the Oval Office, I hope it was once-in-a-lifetime.
然后他说，哦，Scott，既然你在这儿，让我叫另外两个人进来，我们需要讨论这个事情。这样，他们实际上可以看到政府在运作。所以就有了那样的时刻。我得说，我觉得那次与总统特朗普、副总统Vance和乌克兰总统泽连斯基在椭圆形办公室的会面确实是千载难逢的经历，希望真的是千载难逢的经历。
And the, but I was sitting there, it was kind of in the front row of history, Vice President Secretary Rubio, myself on the sofa, and watching President Zelensky do what I thought was the biggest diplomatic-owned goal in history. Yeah, I think you said it very well in TV afterwards. It really, really was based on it.
我当时坐在那里，就好像是在历史的前排，副总统秘书卢比奥和我坐在沙发上，看着泽连斯基总统做了我认为是历史上最大的外交失误。是的，我觉得你在电视上说得很好，确实是那样。
And you said, because you were there, you tried to negotiate with him in Kyiv, it was a very escalated, I think you used the word escalator, high decibel conversation. High decibel, yes. Yeah, so, but kind of, my job for 35 years was to be outside the room, try to put my ear to the door, maybe lift myself over the transom, figure out what the leaders needed to do, were going to do, and then how it would affect the markets.
你说，因为你在场，所以你试图在基辅与他谈判。当时的气氛非常紧张，我记得你形容过，谈话内容激烈，声音很大。是的，声音很大，可以这么说。而且，我的工作做了35年，就是在房间外面，试着偷听里面的动静，甚至可能试着透过小窗观察，搞清楚领导人需要做些什么、要做什么，以及这些行动将如何影响市场。
And now it's fantastic and amazing and stimulating, and a little scary, being the person in the room who has to, what should we do, what can we do, how's it gonna affect the markets, how's it gonna affect the real economy, that what's it gonna do to working people in America?
现在，作为那个房间里需要负责的人，这种感觉既奇妙又令人兴奋，同时也有点令人害怕。我们应该做什么，我们能做什么？这些决定会如何影响市场、如何影响实体经济，又会对美国的工薪阶层产生什么影响？
So how do we fix affordability? We're just gonna have to go through, and where's the problem, what's the solution, in terms of, like, are the insurance markets broken? What can we do, there's been no, and I've been involved in the house building business. There's been no technological change in house building in 50 years, maybe 60, some of the building codes go all the way back to the Chicago fire.
那么，我们该如何解决负担能力问题呢？我们需要仔细检查，到底是哪里出了问题，解决方案是什么，比如说，保险市场是否出了问题？我们可以做些什么？在我参与房屋建筑行业的过程中，我发现房屋建筑在过去五十年，甚至六十年里几乎没有技术革新。有些建筑规范甚至可以追溯到芝加哥大火之后制定的时期。
So what can we do that, the way we categorize housing, it's stick built or modular? Is there something in the middle prefab? Is the more that comes out of a factory, the more that it's standardized, that neighborhoods from DC, from DC to Bethesda to Potomac, to, like, you could be in contiguous neighborhoods, and if there are different municipalities, they'd all have different building codes, not zoning, building.
那么，我们该如何分类住房呢？目前的分类是传统建造的或模块化的。中间是否存在某种预制房屋？如果房子越多地由工厂生产，标准化程度就会越高，那么从华盛顿特区到贝塞斯达，再到波托马克，就会出现连续的社区。如果这些地方属于不同的市政管辖区，它们会有各自不同的建筑规范，而不仅仅是分区规定。
And why is that? Like, they're adjacent, why do the houses have to be, so is there some kind of window guidance that the federal government can give in terms of the more that comes out of the factory, the cheaper it'll be, the faster we can make it, things like that. Is there pressure that you could apply or influence you can apply?
为什么会这样呢？比如说，它们是相邻的，为什么房子必须这样，所以联邦政府能不能在某种程度上给出一些指导，比如工厂产量越高，成本越低，生产速度越快之类的。你能施加什么压力或者影响吗？
One of the things you mentioned earlier was just, take San Francisco. There's an artificial constraint that's created by the zoning paradigm, and it's not clear how you unlock that. Maybe is it up to private citizens to sort of have regime change at the local level, but how do we sort of unclog that part of it to marry up with this kind of stuff? Because it would be great if you could just build up in many places.
你之前提到过一个问题，比如说旧金山。现有的分区规划造成了人为的限制，我们还不清楚该如何打破这种局限。也许这需要依靠当地的普通市民推动变革，但我们该如何解决这个问题，以便能更好地结合这些新事物呢？因为如果可以在很多地方随意建造，那就太好了。
Yeah, well, I think there are a lot of things where you can look around and find what's interesting that what's something that's interesting that's being done somewhere. So I lived in Greenwich, Connecticut for a while. Maybe the richest suburb in America. There's a ton of multifamily there. Very expensive, very nice multifamily. There's some affordable housing, but Greenwich is not all 10 acres and a horse farm. The state of Connecticut has put in a, I guess it's a law that every municipality has to allocate 10% of vacant land to multifamily.
好吧，我认为在很多事情上，你可以看看周围，找找一些有趣的东西，看看有哪些有趣的事情在某个地方正在进行。比如，我曾经住在格林威治，康涅狄格州待过一段时间。也许它是美国最富有的郊区。那里有很多多户型住宅，非常昂贵，也非常漂亮。当然，也有一些可负担住房，但格林威治并不全是拥有10英亩土地和马场的大宅子。康涅狄格州有一项法律规定，每个市镇必须将10%的空置土地分配给多户型住宅。
And if the zoning board won't give you a hearing, you as a developer, you as a nonprofit for housing can go over the top and go to Hartford. And then Hartford will give you the authority. No town wants the state doing on their behalf. So now the town's negotiate. So I think that there are a lot of things that can be done, again, on insurance. Is there something that I've been thinking about?
如果分区委员会不给你机会，你作为开发商，或者作为非营利住房组织，可以越过他们直接去哈特福德申请。而哈特福德会给你批准权限。没有城镇希望由州政府为他们做决定。所以现在城镇开始谈判。所以我认为在保险方面，其实还有很多可以做的事情，这是我一直在思考的问题。
Is there something the federal government could do for California where we come in, everyone's paying homeowners insurance, then there's reinsurance on top of that. Then I think the California reinsurance company is called Fair on top of that. So it's a well, it's a separate plan, but yeah. Yeah, but it's it's it's it's it's you're stacking it. So is there something we could do where you put another layer of private money in there?
联邦政府能为加州做些什么吗？在这种情况下，每个人都支付房屋保险，然后再加上再保险。我想加州的再保险公司叫做Fair。在这个基础上，这又是一个独立的计划。是的，是这样的，但实际上你是在叠加保险层。那么，我们能不能做些什么，在其中再引入一层私营资金？
And then the federal government is the fifth risk tranche, but it's a federal government comes in, can we mandate down here proper hygiene for changes in the building code? Well, changes in the building code changes and brush cutting and material choices. Yeah, right, right. Yeah, it makes sense. Great. So I think there's a lot. If we get-
然后，联邦政府是第五风险级别，但如果联邦政府介入，我们能否在建筑规范的改变中强制执行正确的卫生标准？嗯，对，建筑规范的变化、植被清理和材料选择都是这样的变化。是的，对，确实有道理。太好了。所以我认为，如果我们能够——
And obviously energy, I mean, just getting back to affordability, right, energy costs come down. That's the big problem. That's all right. No, no, no, no, no, no, but I mean, and energy costs are energy costs, but then there's also the for food, the transportation cost of getting it to the grocery store, everything that's made out of petroleum products. So I think we can do that. And I think there's a lot to do.
显然，能源方面，我是说，回到可负担性这个问题，能源成本下降了。这是个大问题。没错，我的意思是，能源成本就是能源成本，但除此之外，还有食品运输到超市的成本，以及所有用石油产品制成的东西的成本。所以我认为我们可以解决这个问题，并且认为还有很多事情可以做。
Yeah. And it shouldn't be too hard. So we're actually, we should probably be announcing in about 10 days, we're gonna have an affordability czar, but it's gonna be someone with a lot of experience in supply chains figuring out what are a lot of the quick fixes we can do. Oh, that's awesome. Because back to the question, what really has people anxious? Inflation for now is actually pretty close in.
好的，这不应该太难。所以实际上，我们可能会在大约10天之后宣布，我们将任命一名“可负担性专员”。这个人将会是在供应链方面拥有丰富经验的人，帮助我们找出可以快速解决的问题。这真是太好了。因为说回那个问题，人们真正担心的是什么？目前，通货膨胀实际上已经相当接近我们身边。
And, but the affordability has gotten so away from everyone. That how can we bring that down? Yeah. Yeah, good. For all our friends at home who talk a lot about the conversation about climate change and carbon free, I think one of the things that I always point out to people is the cheapest way of driving energy production in this country is if there's a low carbon or carbon free, alternative that's out there that's actually cheaper than standing up new plants.
而且，负担能力已经让所有人都感到压力。那么我们怎样才能降低这个负担呢？是的，是的，很好。对于我们家里那些常谈气候变化和无碳能源的朋友们，我常常指出的一点是，在这个国家，推动能源生产的最便宜方式是，如果存在一种低碳或无碳的替代方案，而且比新建电厂更便宜。
And there's an acceleration. I don't know how much this administration thinks about that relationship, but it seems to me like if we can unlock energy production costs come down and this economy transitions. Well, transitions, and I think it's also not being dogmatic. Totally. I saw what the Biden administration did with EVs. I have an EV, I can't wait for it to come off lease. But also have a hybrid.
在经济向前发展的过程中，好像有一个加速的趋势。我不知道本届政府对此关系考虑得有多深入，但在我看来，如果我们能够释放能源生产，成本就会下降，这个经济就能顺利过渡。此外，我觉得不能过于教条。我看到拜登政府在电动车方面采取的措施。我有一辆电动车，迫不及待想让租约结束，同时我也有一辆混合动力车。
And I think I'd fill it up maybe three times a year. But this administration had a G-hot on hybrids because they didn't pass the purity test. Yeah, they were picking winners and losers in a way that a lot of us were left scratching our heads. Yeah. Yeah. And I think cheap energy solves a lot of problems. I think it'll and cheap energy is energy security too. 100%.
我认为我一年大约会加满三次油。但这届政府对混合动力车有很大偏见，因为这些车没有通过他们的“纯度测试”。是的，他们以一种让我们很多人感到困惑的方式在选择胜者和败者。是的，是的。而且我认为廉价能源可以解决很多问题，我认为廉价能源也是能源安全的保障。完全同意。
Because that's why Europe's kind of over a barrel, literally. And it's why the Russian war machine hasn't, again, literally run out of gas. And to the extent that we believe we're in an existential arms race for technical supremacy, it's really on one dimension, which is AI. And that is so needy of energy. So if we don't pull all of these issues together and realize that we need to basically take the incremental cost to zero, whatever we do, we need to create the incentives and package them all together.
因为这就是为什么欧洲在某种程度上陷入了困境，确实如此。这也是为什么俄罗斯的战争机器，确切地说，还没有因缺油而停止运转。我们认为自己处于争夺技术优势的生死竞赛中，这实际上是在一个方面，那就是人工智能。而这需要大量的能源。所以，如果我们不把所有这些问题结合起来，认识到我们需要将这些增量成本降至零，无论我们做什么，都需要创造激励措施并将它们整合在一起。
I mean, we can't compete manufacturing as an energy. Without energy. Without a bone energy. But we certainly can't compete with that energy. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we're not going to crush labor, like China and some other countries have done. So we got to crush the energy price. Totally. Exactly right.
我的意思是，我们在制造业上并没有足够的能源来进行竞争。没有能源，就没有竞争力。但是我们肯定无法与那些有充足能源的国家竞争。对，对。我的意思是，我们不能像中国和其他一些国家那样压榨劳动力。所以我们必须降低能源价格。完全正确。
And when you're in the Oval, what are the truths and misconceptions of the president, meaning of the outside and what people know or don't know? Oh. How about this? We had a lot of foreign leaders come in. And I knew someone in one of their entourage, which is I won't tell you which one. But afterwards, he comes up to me and goes, holy crap, because he's really smart. President Trump has perfect recollection, because he was talking about something that had happened in that country 30 years ago. And he said he knew really.
当你在椭圆形办公室时，总统有哪些事实和误解？外界的人所知道和不知道的都有哪些？哦，是这样的。我们接待了很多外国领导人。其中有一个代表团的人我认识，不过不会告诉你是哪一个。会面结束后，他走到我面前，说：“天啊，因为他真的很聪明。特朗普总统的记忆力真是无可挑剔，因为他谈到了30年前在那个国家发生的事情，他的确知道得很清楚。”
So the president listens. He is judicious. He is just taking it all in. He likes to see how people react. It's just incredible executive skills. Yeah. And the other thing too, that he's tough. But I went in and I showed him what we were talking about something the other day. And I said, well, this is going to cause some layoffs. Well, let's try to fix it. Yeah, yeah. Let's try to fix it.
所以总统在倾听。他很谨慎。他在吸收所有的信息。他喜欢观察人们的反应。这真是令人惊叹的管理才能。是的。此外，他也很果断。不过，我有一次去见他，跟他提到前几天我们讨论的一件事。我说，这可能会导致一些裁员。他说，好吧，那我们就试着解决这个问题。是的，是的，我们来试着解决它。
So I always say, he really regards himself as the mayor of America. Right. Yeah. There's 330 million people. He wants to be personable to everyone. And he cares deeply about all of them. And he doesn't care whether you're Elon Musk or the guy cutting the rose garden, you're his constituent. Right. Well, Scott, thank you so much for taking the time. This has been a pleasure. And we really appreciate the insight. We wish you the best. Yeah. And thanks for the service. And thanks for doing the role. Good. Thanks, Scott. Good. Thanks, Scott. Thanks.
所以我总是说，他真的把自己看作是“美国市长”。是的，对，有3.3亿人。他希望对每个人都很亲切，并且对所有人都十分关心。他不在乎你是埃隆·马斯克还是花园的修剪工，在他眼中，你都是他的选民。好的，Scott，非常感谢你抽时间来和我们交流。这是一次很愉快的谈话。我们非常欣赏你的见解，祝你一切顺利。也感谢你的服务和你的作用。很好，谢谢你，Scott。