The Great Tariff Debate with David Sacks, Larry Summers, and Ezra Klein
发布时间 2025-04-11 23:55:33 来源
Looking forward to our thing in a few weeks. Yeah, I don't know if I'll end up being there, but I'm hoping to. I'm hoping to. What do you guys have like a liberal cuddle party or what do you do? Yeah, yeah. Larry takes a bunch of MDMA and we all sort of go into the corner and hang out together. God, that sounds incredible. Liberalism is wonderful, man. You should come try it. That's not liberalism. It's called something else. Sorry, Nikki, is our cryptos are joining us or no? He's, I'm talking to now. Looks like he is. Oh, zing, this is gonna be great. It's gonna be like ratings, bonanza.
期待几周后的活动。是啊，我不确定我是否能到场，但我希望能参加。你们要搞一个自由派的抱抱派对吗？是啊，Larry会带了一堆摇头丸，我们会一起到角落里玩。天啊，这听起来太棒了。自由主义真是太美好了，兄弟，你应该来试试。这可不是自由主义，叫别的东西。对不起，Nikki，我们的加密货币家伙会加入吗？我现在正在和他说话，看起来他会来。哦，太棒了，这将会是个收视率大热的活动。
All right, we do have David Sacks here. David and she have a quick time on. Look at Sacksie, please. Okay. So, it's residential. He looks thin, doesn't he? Oh, he looks fabulous. All right, here we go. Three, two, one. What? You're like your winter slide. Rainman, David Sacksie. And I said we open sources to the fans and they've just got the reason with them. I'm gonna be West. I'm Queen of King of the World. I'm going back to the number one podcast in the world. I'm your host, Jason Calacanis with my besties, Jamal Polyhapatia, our chairman, dictator, and live from, well, the administration. Mr. David Sacks, our czar for AI and crypto and amazingly too.
好的，我们这儿有大卫·萨克斯。大卫和她有一点点时间。看看萨克西，请。好的，是住宅区。他看起来瘦瘦的，不是吗？哦，他看起来极好。好了，我们开始。三，二，一。什么？你就像冬天的风景。雨人，大卫·萨克西。我说我们向粉丝们开放资源，他们只是跟着他们的理由。我会是西部。我是世界的国王。我将回到世界排名第一的播客。我是主持人，杰森·卡拉卡尼斯，与我的挚友贾马尔·波利哈帕提亚，我们的主席，独裁者，现场来自（好吧）政府的。大卫·萨克斯先生，我们的人工智能和加密货币的沙皇，也惊人地擅长其他事。
Fantastic guests this week. We have New York Times writer and host of the Ezra Klein podcast. It's got a new book with Derek Thompson Abundance, any co-founded Vox in 2014 and he's our guest here today before Trump ships him to El Salvador. Please welcome El Ezra Klein, are you sir? Glad to be here by the final hours of freedom. Okay. Great. Good to be here. Sorry, Sacks. And with us, of course, Larry Summers, economist, former treasury secretary, under Clinton, former director of the National Economic Council, under Obama. And the president of Harvard from 2001 to 2006. Thanks for coming, Larry. It'll be with you.
本周我们有很棒的嘉宾。我们邀请到了《纽约时报》的作者以及Ezra Klein播客的主持人。他刚和Derek Thompson合著了一本新书《富足》，而且他在2014年共同创办了Vox。他今天在我们节目中做客，赶在特朗普把他送去萨尔瓦多之前。请欢迎Ezra Klein先生，您好吗？很高兴在自由的最后时刻来到这里。好的，很高兴能来这儿。抱歉，Sacks。还有我们当然不能忘记的来宾Larry Summers，他是经济学家，曾在克林顿政府时期担任财政部长，也在奥巴马政府时期担任国家经济委员会主任，并且在2001到2006年担任哈佛大学校长。感谢你的到来，Larry。很高兴能和你们在一起。
Okay. We have a lot to get to here. So we might as well talk about the big news of tariffs. It's day 80 of the Trump presidency and a second presidency, his second term, and Trump tweeted that he paused tariffs for everyone but China on Wednesday. Basically, let me just queue up the details, Larry, and then we'll get your take on all of this. One week after liberation day, Trump announced on-truth social that, in effect, he was raising tariffs against China 125% based on their lack of respect, quote unquote, instead of negotiating and that he was pausing reciprocal tariffs on all other countries for 90 days.
好的，我们这里有很多内容需要讨论。所以我们不妨先谈一下关于关税的重要新闻。这是特朗普总统任期的第80天，他的第二个任期，而周三特朗普在推特上表示，他暂停了对除中国以外所有国家的关税。基本上，让我先介绍一下细节，拉里，然后我们来听听你对此的看法。一周前的解放日，特朗普在“真实社交”上宣布，实际上，他由于所谓的“不尊重”而将对中国的关税提高了125%，而不是通过谈判，同时他暂停了对其他所有国家的互惠关税，为期90天。
And markets ripped 10%. Every post of this. And today, Thursday, when we tape, there's been a massive sell-off on Wall Street. So the roller coaster ride continues. What it will be on Friday when you consume this podcast is anyone's guest. S&P is down 5% today. For contacts, the S&P was at 5700 pre-liberation day. So about a 9% drop after these wild swings. And in fact, this has been historic volatility. Here are the top sell-offs in history. As you can see, three of them came during Black Monday in 1987. Three of them came during the financial crisis. Three of them came during COVID and coming in 11th is Trump's tariffs.
市场上涨了10%。每篇关于此的帖子都提到这点。而今天，星期四，在我们录制节目的时候，华尔街出现了大幅度的抛售。所以这种过山车般的行情还在继续。周五当你收听这个播客时会怎么样，谁也不知道。今天标准普尔500指数下跌了5%。为了方便理解，标准普尔500指数在"解放日"之前是5700点。所以在这些剧烈波动之后，大约下降了9%。事实上，这是历史性的波动。以下是历史上的重大抛售情况。可以看到，其中三次发生在1987年的黑色星期一，三次发生在金融危机期间，三次发生在新冠疫情期间，位于第11位的是特朗普的关税政策。
Also in the gainers, you have these big rebounds. Wednesday's 9.5% recovery was number three. The administration says this was all part of a master plan. We'll hear more about that later. And that they laid a trap for China. They laid a trap. Bessent has been the spokesperson during this retreat or whatever we're going to call the pause and quote. This was driven by the president's strategy. He and I had a long talk on Sunday and this was his strategy all along. I don't think we need to play the clip. That's the gist of it.
翻译如下：
在上涨者中，也出现了一些大幅反弹。星期三的9.5%反弹位列第三。政府表示，这一切都是计划中的一部分。稍后我们会了解更多细节。他们称这是给中国设下的一个陷阱。他们确实设了个陷阱。在这次撤退或暂停期间，Bessent一直担任发言人。这个行动是由总统的策略推动的。他和我在星期天进行了长时间的交谈，这是他一直以来的策略。我认为我们不需要播放视频片段，以上就是要点。
The White House count then tweeted in all caps. My favorite way to tweet. Do not retaliate and you will be rewarded. Wall Street Journal on the other side posted a story about why Trump blinked the chronicle the decision as being affected by Jamie Diamond who went on Fox to express fears of recession while saying the tariffs were valid and that he knew the Trump and cabinet will be watching him on Fox, other banking executives who felt they didn't have a lot of influence in this administration according to the Wall Street Journal started lobbying Republican lawmakers at the Trump tariff plan would tank the economy.
白宫账号随后用大写字母发推文。这是我最喜欢的发推方式：不要报复，你将得到回报。同时，《华尔街日报》发表了一篇报道，解释了特朗普为何在贸易政策上退让。文章指出，特朗普的决定受到了杰米·戴蒙（Jamie Diamond）的影响，他在福克斯新闻上表达了对经济衰退的担忧，同时表示关税政策是合理的，并指出特朗普和他的内阁会在福克斯关注他的发言。根据《华尔街日报》，其他在本届政府中感觉没有太多影响力的银行高管也开始向共和党议员进行游说，认为特朗普的关税计划将损害经济。
The Wall Street chief of staff, Susuile started receiving calls from executives and lobbyists expressing concerns. And the Wall Street Journal reports that Trump was influenced heavily by Bessent. They were flooded with worried calls from Wall Street and that the president was lobby to find an off ramp. Trump ultimately relied on his instincts according to the administration. Larry is this 4D chess? Or is this something else? What are your thoughts? It's dangerous work with a sledgehammer on a pretty sensitive machine which is the global economy that's having really serious consequences.
华尔街的幕僚长Susuile开始接到来自高管和游说者的电话，他们表达了担忧。据《华尔街日报》报道，特朗普受到Bessent的重度影响。他们收到了华尔街方面的大量担心电话，总统也被施压寻找解决办法。根据政府说法，特朗普最终依靠自己的直觉。Larry，你认为这是四维象棋般的高招吗？还是另有原因？你的看法是什么？这就像用大锤操作一个非常敏感的机器，全球经济正在受到真的严重后果。
First it's important to understand that there's more tariffs that are around than you described. And after the big back off there's a 10% across the board tariff, a range of structural tariffs like on steel and automobiles and a range of new tariff threats like on pharmaceuticals. Here's a kind of market based estimate of what the damage that the market thinks this is all doing to the US economy is. Let's take today's number 9% if that's right that would be about $4 trillion.
首先，要了解目前存在的关税比你描述的要多。 在大幅度撤销之后，仍有一个10%的全面关税，还有一些结构性关税，比如钢铁和汽车上的关税，以及一些新出现的关税威胁，比如在制药领域。 这里有一个基于市场的估算，来说明市场认为这些关税对美国经济造成的损害。 假设今天的数据是9%，那么这将大约是4万亿美元的影响。
Of course the $4 trillion since liberation day of course markets were down coming into liberation day because of some anticipation of these policies. So let's be conservative and say these policies have taken $6 trillion off the stock market. Now the stock market only measures the adverse impact on corporate profits, not the adverse impact on workers, not the adverse impact on consumers. So you need to add to that stock market number. One way of thinking about adding to it would be to say that corporate profits were 10% of the economy. So you could argue for multiplying by a factor of 10. But maybe that's being too exaggerating or too bold. So let's multiply by a factor of 5. And what you get is a loss in the $30 trillion range as the present value as estimated by markets of what's being done.
当然，自解放日以来，市值下降了4万亿美元。实际上，在解放日之前，由于人们对这些政策的预期，市场已经有所下滑。保守一点说，这些政策可能使股市市值减少了6万亿美元。不过，股市只反映了对企业利润的不利影响，没有体现对工人和消费者的不利影响。所以，我们需要在这个基础上再加上这些影响。一个估算方法是考虑企业利润占经济总量的10%，所以可以把这个数字乘以10。不过，这可能显得太夸张或者太激进。所以，我们可以选择乘以5。这样算下来，目前市场估算的政策影响价值损失大约在30万亿美元左右。
Now I know that Trump administration sometimes likes to say it's working for Main Street not Wall Street. I noticed that they were pretty excited about the stock market rally yesterday in a way that wouldn't really go with not caring about markets. So I think what markets are seeing what's is what's true, which is three things. This is an inflation shock because you're adding to prices. The CEO of Amazon got it right. The secretary of the Treasury got it wrong. Increases in tariffs of this magnitude. The overwhelming part of them will be passed on to consumers.
现在我知道特朗普政府有时候喜欢说他们为普通老百姓工作，而不是为华尔街服务。但我注意到，他们对昨天股市的上涨感到非常兴奋，这似乎与他们不关心市场的说法不太一致。所以我认为市场所看到的才是真相，那就是三个方面。这是一个通胀冲击，因为关税提高推高了价格。亚马逊的CEO说对了，但财政部长却说错了。这样大幅度的关税增加，其中绝大部分将转嫁给消费者。
So you've got an inflation shock. When you raise the prices of people and their income, at least in a short run is the same, they're poorer. And that means they can afford less stuff. And that pushes the economy down. And so you've got higher inflation. And you've got more less demand. And therefore more unemployment. All of that's bad for the economy and companies. And the last thing which I think is profoundly important is we are trading like an emerging market country right now.
因此，你遇到了通货膨胀冲击。当商品和服务的价格上涨，而人们的收入至少在短期内保持不变时，他们的购买力下降了。这意味着他们能负担得起的东西变少了，从而抑制了经济发展。这样一来，你就面临更高的通货膨胀和更低的需求，导致失业率上升。这些都对经济和企业不利。而最后一点，我认为尤其重要的是，我们现在的贸易行为就像一个新兴市场国家。
For serious countries, for the United States, the pattern is that when the world gets risk here, the bonds go down in yield and the currency goes up in value because people come for the safe haven. When you're a country like Argentina, then the assets all move together. Falling stock prices go with higher bond yields, go with a weakening currency. And so because of our erratic behavior, we have changed the zeitgeist surrounding America from the traditional zeitgeist surrounding America to the kind of zeitgeist that surrounded one per ounce, Argentina.
对于像美国这样的发达国家来说，当全球风险加剧时，通常会出现的模式是国债收益率下降，货币升值，因为人们寻求这个安全避风港。而对于像阿根廷这样的国家而言，资产则会一起波动：股价下跌伴随着债券收益率上升和货币贬值。因此，由于我们的反复无常，美国的形象已经从传统的形象转变为类似于曾经的阿根廷的样子。
And that goes with all the other things that are happening. The more protectionism, denying the independence of the central bank, fiscal irresponsibility, breakdown of traditional boundaries between government and business, substantial cronism as a strategy, authoritarian tendencies towards the opposition, lack of total respect for judiciary. Keep going, Larry. Keep going. Is a pattern of America being governed on the kind of one per-own Argentina model. And that sometimes produces some benefits for some people in the short run. That sometimes generates popularity for it.
这与正在发生的其他事情是一脉相承的。越来越多的保护主义、否认央行独立性、财政不负责任、政府与企业之间的传统界限被打破、以大规模裙带关系为策略、对反对派的专制倾向、缺乏对司法体系的完全尊重。这种治理模式类似于像阿根廷那样由个人主导的治理方式。有时，这种模式在短期内会给某些人带来一些好处，并因此产生一定的支持率。继续吧，拉里，继续这样做。
Per-own kept coming back in Argentina. But ultimately, it's extremely costly for a society. You've heard Larry's take on all of this. Larry's giving it about a B plus on the Harvard grade scale, which might be inflated. I'm not sure. Sachs, obviously, in the administration, you cover two things, AI and of course, crypto. And you're a member of the pod. So let's get your take on what happened this week with these tariffs. Even the most ardent supporters of Trump have felt this is chaotic, not well executed, not communicated well.
在阿根廷，Per-own 不断回归。但最终，这对一个社会来说代价极高。你应该听过 Larry 对这一切的看法。Larry 按照哈佛的评分标准给了它一个 B+，这个评分可能有些水分。我不太确定。显然，Sachs 在政府里关注两个问题：人工智能和加密货币。另外，你也是这个播客的成员。因此，让我们来听听你对本周这些关税事件的看法。即使是特朗普最坚定的支持者也认为，这次行动混乱无序，执行不力，沟通不畅。
What's your take, Sachs, on how this was executed and could this have been done better? Well, I think what happened, if you go back to Liberation Day was only eight days ago, as April 2nd, if I had told you on April 1st that Donald Trump would find a way to get the entire world to eagerly embrace a 10% tariff on the American market, and not only would they not complain, but they'd actually be relieved that it was only 10%. You would have said that would be an April Fool's joke. If I had told you eight days ago or nine days ago that Trump would find a way to accelerate the United States's decoupling from China, which is something he's long wanted to do, and that Wall Street would basically breathe a sigh of relief over that, you would have said that there's no way that could happen. If I had told you eight or nine days ago that President Trump figured out a way to assert a presidential power in a way that gives America extraordinary leverage over virtually every country in the world, you would have said, I don't believe it, I don't, you know, what is that power?
你怎么看，萨克斯，这件事的执行情况？有没有更好的做法？我认为，如果你回顾一下解放日（只有八天前，也就是4月2日）的情况，如果我在4月1日告诉你，唐纳德·特朗普将会找到办法让整个世界欣然接受对美国市场征收10%的关税，而且不仅没有人抱怨，反而因为只有10%而感到如释重负，你一定会说这简直就是愚人节的笑话。如果我八天或九天前告诉你，特朗普会找到办法加速美国与中国的脱钩，这是他长期以来想做到的事情，而且华尔街对此感到松了一口气，你一定会说这不可能发生。如果我八天或九天前告诉你，特朗普总统找到了某种方式使用总统权力，使美国在几乎全世界范围内对各国拥有了非同寻常的影响力，你一定会说，我不相信，这是什么权力呢？
And he proceeded to do that, and now basically every country in the world except for China is coming to Washington seeking to negotiate a new trade deal for the United States on better terms for the U.S. If you told me any of that a few days ago, I would have believed you, and I would have thought the consequences would be a substantially deteriorated American economy and a substantially less secure. I don't think we know that. No, I don't think we know that. It's not any surprise. There's nothing surprising about the fact that the United States has the power to extort Lassotto. It's just, and that's the country that was singled out in the Trump formula for the highest level of protection. There is no surprise in that. There is no surprise that's not going to Washington right now. That's not going to Washington right now. It will be very, very costly. It will be very costly. It will be very costly.
他按计划行事，现在世界上基本上除了中国，每个国家都纷纷来到华盛顿，希望为美国谈判一份新的贸易协议，以便于美国获得更好的条款。如果几天前你告诉我这些情况，我可能会相信，并且会认为其后果是美国经济显著恶化，同时安全性大大降低。但我不认为我们已经确认这些结果。不，我认为我们还不了解。美国有能力施压莱索托，这并不令人惊讶。令人注意的是，莱索托是根据特朗普的政策被选为需要最高程度保护的国家。对此没有惊讶之处。现在不去华盛顿不会有意外，但成本会非常高。这将代价高昂。
It will be costly. It will be costly. Everybody's going to try to cut it. No one's going to come to Washington. But that doesn't. Never would have occurred to anyone with experience in government that the United States would have any difficulty getting any major country to come send a representative to the United States to have a discussion and a negotiation with a United States automatter that was of concern to the United States. Then Larry, why didn't they? Never could possibly have come as an enterprise. Okay, let me let Sacks reply to that and then Ezra, I'm going to bring you in. Sacks, go ahead, you reply.
这会很昂贵，很昂贵。每个人都会试图削减成本，没有人愿意来华盛顿。但这并不意味着什么。在政府工作有经验的人从未想到，美国会在邀请任何主要国家的代表来美国进行讨论和谈判时遇到困难，尤其是在涉及美国关心的问题时。然后，拉里，为什么他们没有来？这从来不可能被视为一个企业。好的，让萨克斯来回应这个问题，然后以斯拉，我再请你加入讨论。萨克斯，请开始你的回复。
Then why didn't they, Larry? Do you think that all these countries were going to renegotiate their trade deals with the U.S. if President Trump asked nicely, if he said pretty police, let's renegotiate our trade deals so you take down your trade bears, they would have done it. If he had said pretty police with a cherry on top, that's not the way these things were. He had to establish the leverage in the negotiation first. The fact that matters, he's the first president in decades who's been willing to do that. You don't get anywhere by just asking nicely. I think that what President Trump did over the last eight days is a, establish the leverage and be, get all these countries to now want to negotiate a new trade deal with the United States.
那么，拉里，他们为什么没有这样做呢？你认为，如果特朗普总统态度友好地请求这些国家重新谈判与美国的贸易协议，比如说“请大家友好地重新谈判我们的贸易协议，让你们撤销贸易壁垒”，他们就会同意吗？如果他加上一句“拜托了”，那也不是解决问题的方法。这些事务不是这么运作的。他必须首先在谈判中建立优势。实际上，他是几十年来第一个愿意这样做的总统。光靠友好请求是行不通的。我认为，特朗普总统在过去的八天里已经（a）建立了谈判的优势，并且（b）促使所有这些国家现在愿意与美国谈判新的贸易协议。
This is such a terrific thing. Why do markets think it's so terrible for the American economy? Maybe there's, maybe the markets just completely wrong, but at least another possibility is the market's judging this, the market, I mean, job of markets is to look forward. Just to look past the immediate, it's to see what the long run consequence are going to be. And markets are making a pretty devastatingly negative judgment. Not true. Not true. They're on this doubt. That feels emotional and nice, but it's just not accurate. So let's just establish a couple of facts about quote unquote the markets. Number one, there are two markets and they behave totally differently and sometimes inversely to each other. There's the stock market and there's the bond market with respect to the stock market.
这真是件好事。为什么市场却认为这对美国经济是如此糟糕呢？也许市场完全错了，但至少还有另一种可能性：市场对此的判断，市场的职责是展望未来，不仅仅是关注眼前，而是要看长期的后果。当前来看，市场做出了相当负面的判断。不完全如此，市场对此的怀疑虽然听起来情绪化且让人感到安慰，但实际上并不准确。我们先来澄清一些有关所谓“市场”的事实。首先，有两个市场，它们的行为截然不同，有时甚至是完全相反的：一个是股票市场，另一个是债券市场。
What they are debating and you're right, Larry, is what is the effective long term rate of return? A dollar needs to generate in order to pay me back that dollar. That is what the fundamental stock market does. And what we have seen for many years with training balances, trade deficits and close to zero interest rates of which more of that happened under Democrats and Republicans. We have allowed the stock market to inflate past historical averages. What we've actually seen happen in the last week is what most people would call mean reversion. The stock market is still way above where it was last year, two years ago, three years ago. What has happened is that the forward multiples have compressed. So that's number one. That's the fact you can debate whether that's bad or good. And I'm willing to debate that with you.
他们正在讨论的问题是，正如你所说，Larry，长期的有效回报率是多少？也就是一美元需要产生多少收益，才能让我赚回那一美元。这基本上就是股票市场的作用。而我们多年来在贸易平衡、贸易逆差和接近于零的利率环境下，在民主党和共和党执政时都发生过这样的情况——让股票市场超出了历史平均水平。实际上，我们在上周看到的情况是大多数人称之为均值回归的现象。股票市场仍然远高于去年、两年前、三年前的水平。实际情况是未来的市盈率倍数已收缩。这是第一点。至于这是否是好事或坏事，这点可以讨论，我也愿意与你一起探讨。
Okay. Now let's go to bonds. And then with respect to bonds, what we are seeing now is there are two very complicated issues and we don't know what the unknown known is. And let me be very specific. In the last two days, we saw one part of the bond market totally get out of whack. And what we know is that the yields changed materially in a very acute way, which is a typical of how the bond market typically digests a philosophical change in approach to policy. Normally when you see an acute reaction in the bond market, the underlying reason tends to be some financial calamity in a participant. What we heard in the last 24 hours is a lot of this move may have been attributed to an enormous levered bet on US treasuries by a Japanese hedge fund.
好的。现在我们来谈谈债券。关于债券，目前有两个非常复杂的问题，而我们不知道那些已经存在却未被注意的问题具体是什么。让我具体说一下。在过去两天中，债券市场的一个部分完全失去平衡。据我们所知，收益率发生了非常显著的变化，这与债券市场在遇到政策方法的哲学性变化时通常的反应方式不同。通常，当你看到债券市场出现剧烈反应时，背后的原因往往是某个参与者出现了财务危机。在过去的24小时里，我们听说这个剧烈变化很可能是因为一个日本对冲基金对美国国债进行了巨大的杠杆押注。
It will take three and four and five and six weeks for us to really know separately. What we do know though, where the structural complexity of the market, and this is where Larry, I agree with you, is acute and important to observe is in the credit markets for private companies. And that is where you have to pay a lot of attention. Okay, Larry, let me let you respond to Shemaath's response to you. And then, Ezra, I promise you're going to come in next. Larry, go ahead.
我们需要分别等三周、四周、五周和六周才能真正知道结果。不过，我们已经知道的一点是，市场的结构复杂性，尤其是在私人公司的信贷市场，这是一个需要特别关注的重要领域。在这方面，Larry，我同意你的看法。好的，Larry，现在我让你回应Shemaath对你的回答。然后，Ezra，我保证你会在下一个发言。Larry，请开始。
Martha, as you will know, the vast majority of financial thinking emphasizes changes in the earnings prospects of companies associated with the strength of the economy as a major source of stock market fluctuations. And if you look at dividend strips, if you look at what's happening to analysts, revisions, that's got a lot to do. Negative prospects for the economy has a lot to do with why the stock market has turned downwards. The foreign exchange market is very big and it's a big referendum on whether people have confidence in the United States. Somehow tariffs, reduced imports are supposed to reduce dollar selling and make the currency go up. And not only is the currency not going up, it's going down substantially.
玛莎，如你所知，大多数财务思维都强调，公司的盈利前景变化与经济实力密切相关，这是股市波动的主要原因。如果你观察股息分配或分析师的调整，可以看到这与经济前景不佳有很大关系，这也是股市下跌的原因之一。外汇市场非常庞大，它反映了人们对美国信心的大小。理论上，关税增加和减少进口应该会减少美元抛售，使货币升值。然而不仅货币没有升值，反而大幅贬值了。
So we're seeing a pattern, maybe it's all just due to one Japanese hedge fund, but maybe we're seeing the pattern of this three days that really looks pretty much like the Argentine pattern. That's right, you are hearing this debate. I think there's no debate that this was done in a very extreme fashion at a minimum. Do you wonder if this could have been done in a more gradual or thoughtful way, which are taken on the execution here by the administration of these tariffs and their response to the market?
我们正在观察到一种模式，也许这只是因为某个日本对冲基金的原因，但可能我们看到的是一种类似于阿根廷的三天模式。没错，这就是你听到的讨论。我认为毫无疑问，至少可以说这种做法是非常极端的。你有没有想过，这是否可以以一种更循序渐进或经过深思熟虑的方式来进行，这里涉及行政部门对这些关税的实施及其对市场反应的方式？
I can't say I wonder if it could have been done in a more gradual or thoughtful way. It could have. I defer to Larry on the market. I'm more of a connoisseur of arguments and something I've been thinking about over the past very long eight days is covering the 2024 election and covering Donald Trump's tariff promises. And it was a thing that liberals like me were doing where we do these shows and say Donald Trump is promising a 10% to 20% global tariff and then 65% tariff on China.
我不能说我是否想过这件事是否可以以更渐进或更周到的方式完成。其实是可以的。在市场的问题上，我听从拉里的意见。我更擅长分析各种论点，在过去漫长的八天里，我一直在思考2024年的选举报道以及关于唐纳德·特朗普关税承诺的报道。作为像我这样的自由派人士，我们做节目时常常谈到唐纳德·特朗普承诺实施10%到20%的全球关税，以及对中国征收65%的关税。
And if he does that, it'll have this set of effects, higher prices, it'll create financial uncertainty, etc. And what I would be told, like the counter argument was, oh, you lips. You always take him literally when you should be taking a serious ad. Vivek Ramaswami on my show, he said, he's not going to do that. That's just a negotiating play. And this was the common line from Trump allies on Wall Street.
如果他这么做，就会产生一系列影响，比如价格上涨，会带来金融不确定性等等。有人告诉我，反对的观点是，你们这些人总是字面理解他的话，而应该认真对待他的言论。在我的节目中，Vivek Ramaswami 说他不会那样做，那只是一个谈判策略。这也是特朗普在华尔街盟友们常说的一种说法。
And then I watched his, he began doing not just that, but layering a series with them by lateral tariffs on top of that plan. The markets began freaking out. All they were freaking out, a bunch of his defenders said, no, no, no, actually these tariffs, which we told you were never going to happen or actually a great idea. We need to reset the entire global financial system and you can't ship those tectonic plates without creating a few earthquakes.
然后我看到他不仅在做那些事情，还在此基础上增加了一系列双边关税。当时市场开始恐慌。在大家都很慌乱的时候，他的一些支持者说，不不不，其实这些关税是很好的想法，我们告诉过你们这些关税可能不会发生。我们需要重新调整整个全球金融系统，而在移动这些板块时，总会引发一些地震。
Then the moment the tariffs paused, the 90 day pause on the tariffs on top of the 10% and the China tariff, then I heard, nope, that pause is genius, having you read the art of the deal. But what I would observe from this is it usually when an idea is good, you don't need people jumping back and forth on it so often going between these tariffs are a bad idea, but they're a smart negotiating ploy to these tariffs plus or an actually great idea. You should all calm down as Trump said, you should all be cool back to know these tariffs are a great idea.
当关税暂停时，也就是在10%关税和中国关税的90天暂停期到来时，我听到有人说，这个暂停真是高明，像是在看《交易的艺术》这本书。但我注意到，通常一个好主意不需要人们频繁改变立场。如果关税是糟糕的主意，但又被视为聪明的谈判策略，再到这些关税实际上是个好主意，人们不应该轻举妄动，而是像特朗普所说的，要冷静下来，然后又改变为这些关税是个好主意。这种来回反复并不常见。
I think something I'd love to hear from David. It's very hard to break the pattern being a podcast test. I would like to hear what the measure of success in two years is. We can sit here and speculate about the effect of these and I'm much more on Larry side the one I'm hearing from from Chimouth and David. But what are your measures? What in two years, if manufacturing and unemployment or whatever, is below X, will you be unhappy if GDP is what is a sort of objective yardstick where we could come back in 700 days and say, did this work out or was this a bad idea?
我想听听大卫的看法。我觉得做为播客测试很难打破传统模式。我想知道两年后的成功标准是什么。我们可以坐在这里猜测这些措施的效果，而我更多地倾向于拉里那边的观点，而不是从Chimouth和大卫那边听到的。但你的衡量标准是什么呢？如果两年后，制造业和失业率低于某个值，你会不高兴吗？如果GDP是一个客观的标尺，我们可以在700天后来回顾一下，看看这是否奏效，或者是不是一个坏主意？
Good. I would say probably the biggest thing would be whether the US can re-industrialize to some extent so that we're not completely dependent for our supply chains on potentially hostile adversary. And what is the measure that is that the quantity of manufacturing we're making is that the share of manufacturing is something to understand. You know, during COVID, we learn from very tight points. I am saying it concisely. In COVID, we discovered that we were horribly dependent on a supply chain from China for some of our most essential products, for pharmaceuticals, for other medical gear that we needed during COVID.
好的。我想说可能最关键的问题是，美国能否在某种程度上重新工业化，以便我们不再完全依赖可能具有敌意的对手的供应链。衡量这一点的标准是我们制造的产品数量以及制造业在整体中的比例，这是需要理解的。在新冠疫情期间，我们从非常紧迫的情况中学到了这一点。简单来说，在疫情期间，我们发现对于一些最基本的产品，比如药品和其他我们在疫情期间需要的医疗设备，我们过于依赖来自中国的供应链。
Sure. So what would be if you were to put a metric on it? As one example, but we've also learned that our entire supply chain for all sorts of industrial products now is dependent on China and other countries. So let's be more precise. We have 4% unemployment at the record low of our lifetimes. And do you think Americans want to work in these factories? And if so, which factories? Obviously pharmaceuticals, that's a dependency. Obviously building ships and weapons, that's a dependency.
当然。那么如果你为此设定一个指标，会是什么呢？举个例子，我们已经了解到，现在各种工业产品的整个供应链都依赖于中国和其他国家。那么，来更具体一些吧。我们现在的失业率是4%，这是我们一生中见过的最低点。那么你认为美国人想在这些工厂工作吗？如果是的话，在哪些工厂呢？显然，制药业是一个依赖项。显然，造船和武器制造也是依赖的领域。
I think we can all agree on that. And that might be hundreds, low hundreds of thousands of jobs. Do you believe we should be making Nike sneakers here? Do you believe we should be making jeans here again? What would be the objective measure of success? Like a certain number of jobs, certain number of factories, certain types of factories? Because the other piece that I don't understand, and maybe you can inform me here, SACs. Is number one, who's going to do this work if we're going to be deporting millions of people?
我认为我们都能同意这一点。可能会涉及到成千上万的工作机会。你认为我们应该在这里制造耐克运动鞋吗？你认为我们应该重新在这里生产牛仔裤吗？成功的客观标准是什么呢？比如一定数量的工作岗位，一定数量的工厂或特定类型的工厂？还有一点我不明白，也许你可以给我一些信息，SACs。首先，如果我们要驱逐数百万人，那么谁来做这些工作呢？
And we have the lowest unemployment of our lifetimes. And we have automation coming to these factories. And Americans don't want to take these jobs historically. How is this all going to work? It seems a bit farcical to me that we're going to bring these things back. I don't think the millions of Americans who lost their jobs in the heartland because we let China into the WTO, which is something that Larry, I think, supported in championing the decade.
我们一生中经历了最低的失业率。而这些工厂中即将迎来自动化。美国人从历史上来说并不愿意接受这些工作。那这一切将如何运作呢？在我看来，让这些东西回来有些可笑。我不认为那些因为我们让中国加入世贸组织而失去工作的数百万美国人，会因此而获益。我想拉里在过去几十年中是支持并倡导这一决定的。
We're talking about decades ago. That's what started this whole thing. I don't think those millions of people want to lose their jobs. You're talking nonsense. What are you talking about, Larry? David, you were a Treasury Secretary when we won. You did, David. When we walked China into the WTO, and you were just still defending it. I was just watching an interview. All of them are Larry.
我们在谈论几十年前的事情。就是那些事情引发了这一切。我不认为这些数百万人希望失去他们的工作。你在胡说些什么呢。你在说什么，Larry？David，当我们获得胜利时，你是财政部长。是的，David。当我们让中国加入世贸组织时，你一直在为此辩护。我刚刚在看一个采访。他们全都是Larry。
David? Larry, you just did it in your own way. You'll never get to that. Larry, ask me a question. Why am I asked what I got to talk for two seconds before I get interrupted? You guys give five to ten minutes. Finish your thoughts. Finish your thoughts for three minutes. I got to speak for two seconds. Then you interrupt me. You speak for five or ten minutes. Go right ahead.
大卫？拉里，你刚刚用你自己的方式做了。你永远无法做到那样。拉里，问我一个问题。为什么我才刚开始说话两秒钟就被打断了？你们可以说五到十分钟，把想法讲完，把想法讲三分钟。而我只能说两秒钟，然后你们就打断我。你们可以讲五到十分钟，随便继续吧。
Larry, I just saw you do an interview with Neil Ferguson, where he asked you, was it a good idea to bring China into the WTO? Was it a good idea to give them permanent normal trade relation status? Basically, MFM, which is something that Bill Clinton did in 2000. And I met, it was bipartisan. George O. Bush continued it. Was, and you were defending this as a good idea for the country. What was the result of that over the past 25 years?
拉里，我刚看到你接受尼尔·弗格森的采访，他问你，把中国纳入世贸组织是否是一个好主意？给予中国永久正常贸易关系地位（基本上就是最惠国待遇，即比尔·克林顿在2000年时所做的事情）是否是一个好主意？我得说，这是一个两党共同的决定，乔治·W·布什继续了这一政策。而你则在为此辩护，认为这对国家是个好主意。过去25年，这样的决定带来了什么结果呢？
Millions of industrial jobs were lost or export to China. Millions of factories shut down. The United States has a diminished and a hollowed out industrial base. We certainly can't make the products of the future like drones or semiconductors. Jason, just to answer your question. Yeah, obviously some industries are more strategic than others. Do I personally care about sneakers or textiles? No, I personally don't.
数以百万计的工业职位流失或外包到中国，许多工厂关闭。美国的工业基础已经被削弱，变得空泛。我们显然无法生产像无人机或半导体这样的未来产品。回应你的问题，杰森，显然有些产业比其他产业更具战略意义。我个人对鞋类或纺织品并不关心。
Do I care about semiconductors? Absolutely. Do I care about circuit boards? Do I care about drones? Do I care about robots? Do I care about EVs and cars? Absolutely. Okay. Those industries, we are no longer in a position. We are no longer in a position as a country to make those products. We exported our entire supply chain. I just let many factories to China have three questions. How was that a good idea, Larry? Okay. You have three questions here. And then as I'll go back to you and Shema, go ahead.
我关心半导体吗？当然关心。我关心电路板吗？我关心无人机吗？我关心机器人吗？我关心电动车和汽车吗？当然关心。好吧。对于这些行业，我们国家已经无法再制造这些产品了。我们的整个供应链都外包出去。我只是让许多工厂搬到了中国，有三个问题。拉里，这到底是个好主意吗？好，你有三个问题。然后我会回到你和Shema，继续吧。
I have three questions for you. One, can you name a single trade barrier that was reduced? By the United States associated with China accession. A single restriction that existed in the United States that had not been in place for five years before that we removed during China's WTO accession. Can you name one? I don't think we said done any of it, Larry. We've opened our markets to China. I'm sure it's good. What restriction, your thesis is that we threw open the market and therefore we exposed ourselves to all of this China thing.
我有三个问题要问你。第一，你能说出美国在中国加入WTO时取消的任何一个贸易壁垒吗？有没有一个在过去五年里一直存在，但因中国加入WTO而被美国取消的限制措施？你能说出一个吗？我觉得我们没有做过这样的事情，拉里。我们已经向中国开放了我们的市场。我相信这很好。你的观点是，我们打开了市场，因此让自己暴露在所有这些中国相关的问题中。
And question I'm asking you is, can you name any restriction on Chinese exports to the United States that was in effect in 1999 and was removed by our WTO accession in 2000? Can you name any such restriction? Just name one. This was a policy that built up over time. No. It was basically made permanent. It was made permanently walk China to the WTO and gave them MFN status. I'm sorry, David. I'll ask the question one more time. We had given them MFN status 15 years before. No one, they had MFN status. They had it for 15 years.
我想问的问题是，你能否说出任何一个在1999年对中国出口到美国的限制措施，这个限制在我们2000年加入世贸组织时被取消了？能举出一个例子吗？这种政策是逐渐形成的。并不是，它基本上被永久确定，使中国加入世贸组织并给予他们最惠国待遇。抱歉，David。我再问一次问题。我们在15年前就给了他们最惠国待遇。没人，他们有最惠国待遇。他们已经享有了15年。
There was not a single reduction in a barrier to Chinese trade. So the way in which you're describing it is just there's no resemblance to what it was. So it's a restriction to the WTO. What was the point of bringing them into the WTO? The point of bringing them into the WTO was to use the leverage that we had to win a whole variety of concessions that enabled us to. Larry, let's go more to China. This is an extraordinary idea. It's called reciprocity. This is an extraordinary. Let's go beyond the history here.
没有任何对中国贸易壁垒的减少。你所描述的情况与实际情况完全不符。这是对世界贸易组织（WTO）的限制。那么，为什么要让他们加入WTO呢？让他们加入WTO的目的就是利用我们的杠杆作用赢得各种让步，从而实现我们的目标。拉里，我们更深入地讨论一下中国。这是一个非同寻常的想法，叫做互惠。这个想法非常独特。让我们超越历史，看看更多的内容。
Larry, let's move forward. I want to respond to this. I want to respond to this. You're totally not history. All right, listen. This is a bad deal. Hold on a second. Let's go back to this. Just a minute. I just want to know the whole argument you are making is about increased exports to the United States that had bad consequences. And so I'm just going to keep asking you what barrier that previously existed. Okay. I'll name them. I'll name them. I'll name them.
拉里，让我们继续。我想对此作出回应。我想回应这一点。你完全不是历史。好，听我说。这是个糟糕的交易。等一下。让我们回到这个话题。稍等片刻。我只是想知道你整个论点是关于对美国出口增加带来了不良后果的。那么我会一直问你之前存在的那些障碍是什么。好的，我来说，我来说，我来说。
Let me get you one. Let me get you one. Prior to the WTO, China imposed a bunch of export duties and taxes on a whole bunch of goods to control of. Okay. That prioritized domestic supply. As part of coming into the WTO, China said, hey, hold on. We'll limit these export duties to only a specific set of products. And then they cap those duties at agreed rates. Number two, they eliminated export quotas. They historically had export quotas to manage the volume of goods.
让我给你拿一个。在加入世贸组织之前，中国对大量商品征收出口关税和税费，以控制国内市场的供应。这样做的目的是优先满足国内需求。在加入世贸组织时，中国表示会限制这些出口关税，只适用于特定的一些产品，并将这些关税限制在商定的税率之内。其次，他们取消了出口配额。过去，他们通过出口配额来管理商品的出口量。
Under that WTO commitment, they agreed to phase out all those quantitative restrictions on exports, except were explicitly justified under WTO. Number three, they removed the export licensing restrictions. Number four, they ended state trading monopolies for exports. Number five, they liberalized foreign trade rights. The point is people thought that China was going to be a honey pot of economic activity. And it turned out to be a sucking sound, a grand sucking sound of opportunity where the globalist corporation saw a massive labor arbitrage.
根据世贸组织的承诺，他们同意逐步取消所有数量型出口限制，除非是在世贸组织明确允许的情况下。第三，他们取消了出口许可证限制。第四，他们终止了国家对外贸的垄断。第五，他们放宽了外贸权利。大家原以为中国会成为经济活动的聚宝盆，结果却变成了一个机会的“巨响”，让全球公司看到大量劳动力套利的机会。
So it's fair to say that it was done with the best of intentions, but it was a bad deal. And they got one over on us. I really want to say that rather than having 30 minutes of debate over something that happened in the 90s, I would like to go back to this question. I keep not hearing. I would answer your question, because that was a great question. I would like to hear from David. But I'm, I'm, I'm love yours to talk.
所以可以这样说：虽然他们本意是好的，但这是一笔糟糕的交易，他们在这件事上赢了。其实我想说，与其花30分钟辩论上世纪90年代发生的事情，我更希望回到这个问题。我一直没能听到完整的问题，我很乐意回答，因为这是个好问题。我想听听大卫的看法，不过我也很愿意继续和你讨论。
Yeah, I want to, I want to, I want to, I want to have a chance to, I want to just see to just be talking in an anecdotal way about the industry. So, okay. We want him so forward. I would like to announce these policies and then there's never, there’s, give me, give me what indices you are going to look for where if it's, if in four, two years, it is under X, I can come back and we can have some metrics.
好的，我想，我真的想有个机会，我只是想随便聊聊这个行业。我们希望他能积极一点。我想宣布这些政策，然后再也没有，给我一些你将要看的指标，如果在四年或两年后，这些指标低于某个值，我可以回来，我们可以有一些衡量标准。
I'm sorry. Here's a matrix for you. Okay. Let's go back to Bill Clinton's speech that was given at Johns Hopkins on March 9th, 2000. No, he was asking about forward, David, forward looking metrics. What would you think would be successful two years from now? Not the history lesson. We haven't finished the debate about China and PNTR, okay? But my question predated that debate.
对不起。这是给你的一张表格。好的。让我们回到比尔·克林顿在2000年3月9日于约翰·霍普金斯大学发表的演讲。不是，他询问的是关于未来的，戴维，未来的衡量标准。你认为两年后什么样的情况算是成功？这不是一堂历史课。我们还没有结束关于中国和PNTR的辩论，好吗？但我的问题是在那场辩论之前就已经存在了。
Yeah, we're trying to get to the subject. Let's just finish up on this topic. No, we're trying to move forward. That's all. We're trying to finish up on this topic, okay? Okay. Let's just get the last one about this. Okay. You can have a look. So March 9th, 2000, Bill Clinton announces PNTR at Johns Hopkins. It's a very famous speech. Learme, you can tell us about how I got written. Anyway, Bill Clinton promises several things. He makes a number of arguments for PNTR. He does not think that this does nothing.
好的，我们尝试回到主题。我们就把这个话题结束吧。不，我们在努力向前推进。就这样。我们只是想结束这个话题，好吗？好的。让我们来看看最后一个问题。你可以看一下。在2000年3月9日，比尔·克林顿在约翰·霍普金斯大学宣布了永久正常贸易关系（PNTR）。这是一场非常著名的演讲。Learme，你可以告诉我们我是怎么写这篇演讲的。无论如何，比尔·克林顿承诺了几件事情，他为PNTR提出了一些论点。他认为这并非毫无意义。
Where your argument is that Bill Clinton didn't do anything. You're saying that somehow it happened under Reagan or something like that? That's not what Bill Clinton was arguing. He said, number one, there'd be huge economic benefits for the US. He says, quote, by this agreement, we will increase exports of American products. He means to China. That will create American jobs. Okay, did that happen the way we intend it? I don't think so. Number two is, he believed that we- You looked at the data on export flows from the United States to China.
你的意思是说比尔·克林顿什么都没做，而这些事情是在里根时代发生的吗？这不是比尔·克林顿的观点。他认为，首先，这项协议将为美国带来巨大的经济利益。他说，通过这项协议，我们将增加美国商品的出口，意思是出口到中国，这将创造美国的就业机会。那么，这是否如我们所期望的那样实现了呢？我并不这样认为。其次，他相信我们——你查看过来自美国到中国的出口数据吗？
It actually did happen at a quite substantial rate. But with huge trade deficits from the United States, you're arguing that they did not act in a discriminatory way towards our products. This idea that Americans could just do business in China the way that they could do business here is ridiculous. Anyone who tried to do business over there knows, you have to create a JV. You have to get a local partner, give him 51%. It was extraordinarily difficult. We were discriminated against, Larry. It was ridiculous to try and claim that somehow this was an equal relationship.
实际上，这确实发生了，而且频率相当高。但是，美国存在巨大的贸易逆差，你却在说他们没有对我们的产品采取歧视性行为。认为美国人能像在国内一样轻松地在中国做生意的想法是荒谬的。任何尝试过在那边做生意的人都知道，你必须成立合资企业，找到一个当地合作伙伴，并让他持有51%的股份。这是非常困难的。我们受到了不平等待遇，Larry。试图声称这种关系是平等的，这是荒谬的。
Okay. And we imported far more from them than we ever exported to them. So Bill Clinton was wrong about that. Number two, he said that signing PNTR and bringing China to the WTO would promote democracy in China. That we would export one of democracy's most cherished values, economic freedom. Did that happen? I don't think so. He said this would strengthen global trade by ensuring China adhere to international trade rules, reducing trade barriers and resolving disputes through WTO. Did that happen?
好的。我们从他们那里进口的远远多于我们出口给他们的东西。所以在那方面，比尔·克林顿是不对的。第二，他说签署永久正常贸易关系（PNTR）并让中国加入世界贸易组织（WTO）将促进中国的民主。我们的民主价值观——经济自由会因此被传到中国。这实现了吗？我认为没有。他还说这会通过确保中国遵守国际贸易规则、减少贸易壁垒并通过WTO解决争端来加强全球贸易。那实现了吗？
I don't think so. And then he said on national security, he said it would improve our national security to bring China to WTO and help make them rich. He said, quote, if we don't deal with China in this way, we will increase the prospect that they will turn inward. That's not what happened. We helped make China rich. We've exported millions of jobs to them. They built up their economy and their supply chain to the point where now they are a global competitor to the United States.
我不这么认为。然后他在谈到国家安全时说，把中国纳入WTO并帮助他们发展经济将会改善我们的国家安全。他说：“如果我们不以这种方式处理与中国的关系，就会增加他们自我封闭的可能性。”但事实并非如此。我们确实帮助中国变得富有，把数以百万计的工作机会转移给他们。他们借此增强了经济实力和供应链，如今已经成为美国的全球竞争对手。
They're a peer competitor. We turned that baby dragon into a dragon-sized monster that can now challenge us in Asia and across the world for primacy. Why in the world have we done that? Disrupt for national security reasons. That was a very foolish thing to do. Okay. Larry, I guess I have to let you maybe self-grade. How did you guys do? Is there any regrets as Sax is pointing out there? Obviously, China has not magically become a democracy, but I guess you could argue they do have a middle class now.
他们是一个对等竞争者。我们把那个小龙变成了一个可以在亚洲乃至全球挑战我们主导地位的巨龙。我们为什么要这样做？为了国家安全原因而采取了这样破坏的措施。这真是个愚蠢的决定。好吧，Larry，我想我得让你自我评价一下。你们的表现如何？正如Sax指出的那样，有没有任何遗憾？显然，中国并没有神奇地变成一个民主国家，但我想你可以说他们现在确实有中产阶级了。
We haven't gone to war with them, so I guess you could argue that this has been good for relations. But to Sax's point, they are incredibly powerful and they are our top adversary. How would you grade the history of this so we can move forward? I was a surging, growing, reforming economy. Growing at double-digit rates. That was before there was any WTO agreement. The WTO agreement did not change a single rule that represented a U.S. restriction on imports from China.
我们还没有和他们开战，所以你可以说这对双边关系还是有好处的。不过，Sax提到，他们非常强大，是我们最大的对手。为了能继续前进，你如何评价这段历史？在那之前，我国是一个迅速崛起、不断改革的经济体，增长率达到了两位数。这是在任何世贸组织协议之前发生的。世贸组织协议并没有改变任何一项美国对中国进口的限制规则。
It did change a variety of rules, not as far as I would have liked, that let the United States export more to China and protected United States intellectual property in China that brought China more closely into the international system. You need a counterfactual for what would have happened if China had been excluded from the World Trade Organization. That counterfactual is not that they would not have sold goods to the United States. That principle had already been crossed 15 years before, not a single restriction was reduced.
这确实改变了一些规则，虽然没有达到我理想的程度，但这些规则让美国能够向中国出口更多商品，并保护了美国在中国的知识产权，将中国更紧密地融入国际体系。你需要一个对照来想象如果中国被排除在世界贸易组织之外会发生什么。这个对照并不是说他们就不会向美国出售商品，因为在此15年前，这个原则已经被突破，没有一个限制被减少过。
I don't get the whole mindset here. I understand that we should have done more as a country for the Rust Belt and invested in it much more heavily. If I was worried about dependence and strategic and all that, the last policy I would have wanted to abolish was the chips act. That's the largest boldest thing the United States has ever done to avoid dependence in a national security area. Let me branch them off. The Trump administration has killed all of that.
我不太理解这里的思维方式。我明白我们应该在国家层面上为“铁锈地带”做更多的事，应该加大对它的投资。如果我担心依赖问题和战略等方面，最后一个我想取消的政策就是《芯片法案》。这是美国在国家安全领域避免依赖最大的、最大胆的举措。然而，特朗普政府却终止了所有这些努力。
You heard as original question and the history here from Larry and David looking at their some industries that we need strategically for a military cars. These are fairly obvious where earth minerals are obvious. But we also have the lowest employment of our lifetimes and Americans probably don't want to work in factories on mass. What is your take on going forward some metrics that this administration? should not sacks a saying this? You're saying it. What would you measure this success as in terms of ensuring and reducing dependencies? If to as was point two years from now, we would have graded. Give us some specifics here, Trima.
您已经从拉里和大卫那里听到了原始问题和历史，他们关注的是我们在军事车辆方面战略上需要的一些行业。这些行业中显而易见的就是稀土矿物。然而，我们也面临着我们这一代人中最低的就业率，美国人可能不想大规模进入工厂工作。对于政府未来的发展，您认为我们可以依靠什么衡量指标来判断其是否成功？尤其是如何在确保和减少依赖性方面取得成效？如果两年后我们对这一点进行评估，我们会怎样评分？请给出一些具体的建议，Trima。
There is a major issue that the United States has that's much bigger than China, which can be framed in the lens of resiliency and the ability to defend for ourselves. There are supply chains that have many single points of failure. An independent of whichever country that single point of failure exists. It could be an ally or it could be a foe or it could be a frenemy. That creates risk. And I think what we are learning and David's right, it was really highlighted during COVID, we are not in a position to take care of what we need.
美国面临的一个主要问题比中国更严重，可以从弹性和自我防卫能力的角度来审视。很多供应链存在单一故障点，无论这个故障点在哪个国家，可能是盟友、对手或者是亦敌亦友，这都会带来风险。我认为我们正在学到东西，并且大卫说得对，它在新冠疫情期间被凸显出来了，我们没有能力满足自己的需求。
So if I had to very precisely answer Ezra's question, I would say that we need to measure and protect four critical areas. Everything else I think we can deal with some inefficiency, some single points of failure. But the following four areas Ezra, I would say are sacrosanct. Number one is all of the technology, both the chips as well as the enabling technology around artificial intelligence. It must be a robust, largely American supply chain. It must. You cannot have single points of failure outside the United States because what you see is even in allied countries, their posture towards things like free speech and other things can ebb and flow, their posture on trade, their posture on defense.
如果要非常精确地回答Ezra的问题，我会说我们需要重点关注并保护四个关键领域。对于其他领域，我认为可以承受一些效率低下或者单点故障。但以下四个领域对于Ezra来说是不可侵犯的。第一项是所有有关人工智能的技术，包括芯片和相关支持技术。我们必须拥有一个强健的、主要由美国主导的供应链。这是必需的。因为即使是在友好国家中，他们对言论自由等问题的态度可能会出现波动，对贸易和防务的态度也可能会改变。
Okay, so that's number one. Number two is energy. We have a critical deficit of electrons in America. We do not have the capability we need to make the energy we need quickly in many ways. We have supply chain issues on that gas. We have critical supply chains that can be shut off by China around photovoltaics. So whether you believe in coal, whether you believe in that gas, whether you believe in clean energy, we are in a very bad, sure enough.
好的，那么这是第一点。第二点是能源。美国正面临电子的严重短缺。我们缺乏快速生产所需能源的能力。在天然气方面，我们有供应链的问题。中国可能切断有关光伏的关键供应链。因此，无论你相信煤炭、天然气还是清洁能源，我们的处境都非常不利。
Okay, I think we're in agreement. We're going. Number three are there are critical material inputs that drive the material science of the future. Rare earths are an example going back to chips, things like gallium, things like phosphorus even. So we have a critical minerals and rare earths and material science input problem. And then the fourth, Ezra, are pharma APIs so that when American citizens get sick, we have the ability to not just make it, but also design it and manufacture it because some of these APIs, the active principle ingredients for many of the drugs require very convoluted and complicated processes, coal chains and the like.
好的，我认为我们达成了一致意见。我们要去。第三点是未来材料科学中有关键的材料输入，这些驱动因素很重要。稀土就是一个例子，还有与芯片相关的镓、磷等。因此，我们面临一个关键矿物、稀土以及材料科学输入的问题。然后是第四点，Ezra，涉及药物API（活性药物成分），以确保当美国公民生病时，我们不仅有能力生产它，还能设计和制造它。这是因为许多药物的API需要非常复杂的流程、冷链和其他类似的保障机制。
And again, there we depend on folks whose view of the United States can change in real time. So if I had to say to you Ezra, what I would expect is if the United States government, whoever was in charge, would put those four things on a board, then detail out all of the key inputs, measure how much we can make ourselves versus import. And then basically try to level that playing field. We would be in a very good place.
再说一遍，我们依赖于那些对美国看法能实时变化的人。所以，如果让我告诉你，Ezra，我期望的是，如果美国政府，不管是谁当权，能把那四个关键事项列在板子上，然后详细列出所有关键的投入，衡量我们能自给自足多少，又需要进口多少。然后基本上尝试拉平这个竞争环境。那么我们就会处在一个非常有利的位置。
A couple things because I think I probably agree with all of that and what it sounds like is an excellent argument for Joe Biden's policies, which were functionally, maybe not the pharmacide, just literally that. Let's pull out semiconductors and the semiconductor supply chain. Let's pull out energy. Let's plot a couple of things like that. What was it? A high fence around a small garden was what Jake Sullivan called it. Let's particularly try to restrict the supply chain export of AI critical materials to China. They had a whole set of policies about this.
有几件事情想说，因为我觉得我可能完全同意这些观点，这听起来像是对乔·拜登政策的极好论证，不过也可能不包括那些药物方面的内容。让我们着重看看半导体和半导体供应链，能源等。正如杰克·沙利文所说，这是用高墙围住一个小花园。特别是要尝试限制人工智能关键材料对中国的供应链出口。关于这一点，他们制订了一整套政策。
Now the Trump administration, the thing we are in theory here discussing is an extraordinarily broad based set of policies. It is tariffs on not just China, it's on Brazil. It's not just on critical industries like Chimath is talking about, but it's on mangoes and avocados and lumber from Canada and basically everything else. I guess there's an argument I could sort of extract out of this that the Biden administration believed what they called Frenchoring, which is that you want to create an integrated supply chain of allied countries that we can work with and that we can rely on and the Trump administration.
现在，我们理论上在这里讨论的是特朗普政府的一组非常广泛的政策。这些政策不仅涉及对中国的关税，还包括对巴西的关税。不仅仅是奇马特提到的关键产业，而是包括来自加拿大的芒果、牛油果、木材以及几乎所有其他产品。我想可以从中得出一个观点，即拜登政府相信所谓的“盟友供应链”，这意味着我们希望创造一个与盟国一起合作并依赖的整合供应链，而特朗普政府则采取了另一种策略。
I think believe something, depending on who's talking, more like that the entire supply chain needs to be onshore to America specifically. One of the problems and the reason I'm keep trying to push people to be very clear about their arguments and very clear about their metrics is that I feel like there's this kings cup of what we're trying to achieve here where one day it's that we're trying to achieve the reindustrialization of the American heartland and the next we're trying to replace the income tax with tariff income. The next we're just using it as all purpose surplus leverage against any country that does anything we don't like. The next day we're using it for an entirely third purpose and maybe we're just going to use it to isolate China but to bring in our friends. None of these, you can't do all of these things at once and it needs to be very stable if you're going to get companies to do these long term cap ex investment decisions that take decades to play out.
我认为，根据说话者的不同，整个供应链需要特别地在美国本土化。这是因为我一直在推动人们明确他们的论点和指标。我感觉我们在试图实现的目标上有点混乱。今天我们可能想要实现美国腹地的再工业化，明天我们想用关税收入替代所得税，再下一个可能是要用这个手段对付任何我们不喜欢的国家。还有可能我们用它来孤立中国，但同时要拉拢我们的盟友。这些目标都不能同时实现，如果我们希望公司在长期资本支出投资决策上保持稳定，就需要明确和稳定的目标，因为这些决策需要数十年才能实现效果。
I know in the markets, you guys didn't want to change anything. You guys didn't want to change anything about anything. I wasn't in the I wasn't in the Biden administration number one. I'm cheating. Ezra and Larry as a team. I would love to change. I just want to make sure I would change all kinds of things. You mean the Democrats didn't want to change the cars. Let's see if we can let it won't even admit that PNTR did anything. We not keep doing PNTR for minutes. Let's look forward and not backwards. Look at the look at the chipsack. Look at the IRA act. They did the exact things we're talking about. Larry, go ahead. Let's see if we can find a little bit of agreement. Please.
在市场上，我知道你们什么都不想改变。你们不希望对任何事情做出改变。我不是拜登政府的一员。我在作弊。Ezra和Larry作为一个团队，我很想做出改变。我只是想确保我会改变各种事情。你是说民主党人不想改变汽车。看看我们能否承认《永久正常贸易关系法》是否有什么影响。我们不要一直纠结在《永久正常贸易关系法》上。让我们向前看而不是向后看。看看《芯片法案》和《通货膨胀减少法案》。他们正是在做我们所谈论的事情。Larry，继续吧。看看我们能否找到一些共识。拜托。
Here. I agree with Jamoth's agenda. I may not agree in every detail, but I broadly agree with Jamoth's agenda. And I'll go a little further than that, Ezra. I think Joe Biden's attachment to energy security was kind of selective and heavily oriented to green technologies, not others. I thought canceling the keystone pipeline was a clear mistake. I thought the stopping a variety of things involving liquid natural gas were a clear mistake. So I think the Biden administration's approach to regulation that empowered every NGO with respect to stopping transmission lines with respect to constructing power plants because of the importance of democratic constituencies was a mistake. So I think energy security is a central objective of policy and that there's a lot of room to move beyond what the Biden administration did.
当然。我同意贾莫斯的议程。虽然我不完全赞同细节部分，但整体上我支持贾莫斯的观点。艾兹拉，我想再多说一点。我认为乔·拜登对能源安全的关注有些选择性，主要偏向绿色技术，而忽视了其他方面。我认为取消拱心石输油管道是一个明显的错误。此外，停止多项与液化天然气相关的项目也是错误的。我认为拜登政府在法规方面的做法，使得所有非政府组织都有权阻止输电线路的建设和发电厂的建立，因为这些对民主党的选民群体非常重要，但这也是一个错误。因此，我认为能源安全应该是政策的核心目标，相较于拜登政府的做法，还有很大改进空间。
I actually believe that very strongly and agree with Jamoth and David. What I don't understand is chips absolutely right. The chips act was all about making there be an American semiconductor industry with production in the United States as a central priority. The Trump administration has declared war on that. Rare earths, we want to have a strategic petroleum reserve for any rare earth. You want to do more mining in the areas that Jamoth says we should in the United States or in friendly countries, I am all for that. Here's what I cannot understand Jamoth. They don't see how your resilience agenda drives anywhere near liberation day and the emphasis on tariffs. It drives towards a set of specific industrial policies, perhaps including tariffs in some particular product areas, but steel from Canada, anything from Lasoto, any natural resource product across the board tariffs on everything.
我确实强烈相信这一点，并同意Jamoth和David的意见。我不太理解的是关于芯片的问题。芯片法案本来是为了让美国半导体行业以在美国生产为核心优先事项，而特朗普政府对此却采取了对抗态度。在稀土方面，我们希望能有一个战略性的稀土储备。你想在Jamoth提到的地区或者友好国家中增加采矿，我完全支持。但我不明白的是，Jamoth，他们看不出你的韧性计划如何推进到解放日，这种计划更偏向于一套具体的产业政策，可能在某些特殊产品领域包括关税，但对于加拿大的钢铁、来自莱索托的任何东西，或者各种自然资源产品，全都一律征收关税，这就让我无法理解。
I think you are absolutely right about resilience and that traditional conventional economics has given it too little thought and that COVID pointed that up as a central issue. What I can't understand is why Donald Trump's echoing of Leia Cocoa from the A's about tariffs is responsive to any of that. But this is the point I'm trying to draw around Biden. I'm not saying I agree with every way the Biden administration defined its objectives. I just wrote an entire book about the failures of democratic policy making in this specific era. What I am saying is a Biden administration's view of trade with it. There are targeted industries. We should be putting a lot of both domestic policy and international policy into play in order to protect and restore or French or and the Trump administration's view is that you have a generalized problem running all across the world that requires highly general policies that then when I ask people to defend it, they sort of move to this targeted argument.
我认为你关于韧性的问题绝对正确，传统的经济学对此考虑太少，而新冠疫情则突出显示了这一核心问题。我不明白的是，唐纳德·特朗普为何响应了莱雅·可可在80年代关于关税的观点，这与韧性有什么关联。但这是我尝试在拜登周围描绘的观点。我并不是说我同意拜登政府定义目标的每一种方式。我刚写了一本关于这一时代民主政策制定失败的书。我想说的是，拜登政府关于贸易的观点是，针对特定行业，我们需要通过国内政策和国际政策来保护、恢复或发展。而特朗普政府认为全球存在普遍性问题，需要高度普遍的政策。当我询问人们为此辩护时，他们往往会转向这个有针对性的论点。
Donald Trump's view, I feel like we end up making something that is not that complicated into something much more complex than it is. Since the 80s, Larry's point about Leia Cocoa, Donald Trump has appeared to hold the view that any time the U.S. is operating at a trade deficit with someone else, that is evidence we are being ripped off. And that is how you get, at least the initial set of tariffs here, that work off of bilateral trade deficits and try to correct every single one with every single country, be it Lissotto or a collection of islands inhabited by penguins.
唐纳德·特朗普的观点，我觉得我们常常把不那么复杂的问题搞得过于复杂。从80年代起，拉里提到莱亚·可可（Leia Cocoa）的观点，特朗普似乎坚持认为，只要美国与其他国家存在贸易逆差，那就是我们被占便宜的证据。这也就是最初的关税设置的由来，试图通过针对每个与美国有双边贸易逆差的国家采取措施加以纠正，不管是莱索托，还是一群企鹅居住的小岛。
I think it's really important to be connected to the policy that was actually announced and not sort of projecting all of our own onto it. Like, yes, Larry's right, that you could have a different set of critical industries than Biden did. The Biden team is very focused on clean energy over other kinds of energy. I also do not agree with the liquid gas pause. I thought there were some, you know, there, and we did not do nearly enough on things like permitting reform. Right, there's a lot you could have done that they didn't do. But if what you have in your head is a targeted idea of reshoring specific industries or near-shoring or Frenchering or whatever, which is kind of what I'm hearing from a number of people on this call, then it seems like you would want targeted policies.
我认为非常重要的是要关注那些已经宣布的政策，而不是仅仅将我们自己的想法投射到这些政策上。的确，Larry说得对，你可能会有一套与拜登不同的关键产业选择。拜登团队在清洁能源上投入了更多关注，而不是其他类型的能源。我也不同意暂停液化天然气的决定。我认为在许可改革等事情上，我们做得远远不够，确实有很多事情可以做，但他们没有做到。如果你心中有一个关于特定产业回流、邻近外包或者所谓的"友岸外包"的明确想法——从这通电话中的许多人发言来看似乎就是这样，那么你可能会希望有针对性的政策。
And what we have is not targeted policies. It's broad-based policies. So a 90-day pause on larger broad-based policies and a huge trade war with China. I would like to hear a defense from somebody. Ezra and I agree, specific policies. I'd like somebody to explain to me why it's a remotely sensible theory to say that the United States is being exploited by any country where the overall pattern of trade is such that we are running a trade deficit. And maybe in the process, you could explain to me why my grocery store is exploiting me because I'm running a massive trade deficit with that. Okay, trade deficit, Shemafer, Sachs, who wants to take it?
我们现在实施的不是针对性的政策，而是广泛的政策。比如针对更大范围的政策实施90天的暂停，以及与中国发起的大规模贸易战。我希望能听到某人的辩护。Ezra 和我都赞同采取具体的政策。我希望有人能够向我解释，美国因为与某些国家的贸易模式导致贸易逆差，就认为被这些国家剥削，这种理论有什么道理。在这个过程中，你或许也能解释一下，为什么因为我在杂货店的支出很大，导致我有巨大的贸易逆差，就意味着我的杂货店在剥削我。好吧，谈到贸易逆差，Shemafer，Sachs，谁愿意来解释一下？
I can start the maybe Sachs and Sachs and so let me actually start by giving some credit to where Biden did do a few things, right? Just in the spirit of finding some common ground. Inside the IRA, I think that there were two things and I've said this pretty repeatedly, but I just want to put it on the record again. The ITC credits and the ITC transfer markets for those credits, the tax equity markets, are critical industries in America to support private investment in all kinds of very complicated markets, energy markets being the most important.
我可以先从Sachs和Sachs开始，所以让我来先给拜登做得不错的地方一些肯定，只是为了找到一些共同点。在《降低通胀法案》（IRA）中，我认为有两件事情值得注意，我已经多次提到这一点，但我想再正式记录一下。投资税收抵免（ITC）和这些抵免的ITC转让市场，即税收权益市场，是支持美国各种复杂市场私人投资的重要行业，其中能源市场是最重要的。
And what the Biden administration did to their credit was remove the uncertainty because those things had to be renewed over and over again and they gave us a very long window where we could underwrite investments to your point, Ezra. That was smart. But it's important to also remember that in order to get Biden's budget done, what they did was they had mentioned roll over on permitting reform. And Ezra, you know this probably better than all of us. When you look inside of the CHIPS Act as smart as that initial policy was, if you ask, why has nothing actually happened? Why have no fabs actually been built other than grandiose statements? The answer is that, which you speak to in your book. It's just this complete malaise and inability to actually get these things permitted and turned on even when it's right.
拜登政府值得称赞的一点是，他们消除了不确定性，因为那些政策需要一再更新，而他们给了我们一个很长的时间窗口来制定投资计划，就像以斯拉你提到的那样。这是聪明之举。但也要记住，为了完成拜登的预算，他们在许可改革方面做出了妥协。而以斯拉，你可能比我们所有人都更了解这一点。当你仔细看《芯片法案》时，尽管初衷很聪明，但如果你问，为什么实际上什么都没有发生？为什么除了夸大的声明之外没有真正建造工厂？答案就在你书中提到的——就是这种完全的懈怠和无法实际获得许可并启动项目的无能，即使一切条件都已具备。
So I just want to acknowledge that that's there. So Larry, very, very importantly to your question, the thing that we have to acknowledge is that in certain countries, what you have is a very blurry line between private and public industry. And they have this very tight coupling. And again, I hate to go back to China, but it is the best example of this. Where what do they have? I choose one other country just for the sake of it. We can use Korea, we can use Japan, we can use Germany.
所以我只是想承认这一点。Larry，你的问题非常重要，我们必须承认的是，在某些国家，私人企业和公共行业之间的界限非常模糊，它们之间紧密结合。再说一次，我不想总是提中国，但它是这个现象的最佳例子。他们有什么呢？为了举例，我们还可以选择韩国、日本或德国。
Okay. There are instances where the government balance sheets support private industry. They can support them in three different ways. Number one is the tax credits that they can use, the subsidies that they can use to build the things that they need. Number two is how then they can support that in the active selling and engagement in public spot markets to shape the demand curve of the things that are made. And then number three is the taxation on the back end, the terms of repayment and the capital cycle. Those are things that in the United States, we overwhelmingly turn the responsibility over to the private markets to do.
好的。有时候政府的财政支持会帮助私人企业。他们可以通过三种方式来支持。第一，是提供税收抵免和补贴，帮助企业建设所需的设施。第二，是通过积极参与和销售来影响公共市场的需求曲线。第三，是税收政策、还款条件和资本循环，这些通常是由私人市场在美国承担的。
We are the cleanest, the purest form of capitalism in that sense. But many other countries are shades of this. And again, let's not talk about China, which is a thing. So Larry, you're in one second. So Larry, so what do you have is how do you defend dumping? How do you defend that? How do you defend spot market manipulation that drives American companies out of business? How do you fight that?
从这个意义上来说，我们代表了最纯粹的资本主义形式。但很多其他国家只是这种形式的变体。同样地，我们先不谈论中国，那又是另一回事。那么，拉里，接下来你怎么看？你要如何为倾销辩护？你如何为这种行为辩护？你如何为操控现货市场导致美国公司破产辩护？你要如何应对这些问题？
And I think here's the problem. If President Trump had announced a big broadening of... anti-dumping law to confront a variety of instances of what he said, the administration after careful economic analysis saw as inappropriate subsidy. I might or might not have thought that they were doing that in the right way. But we wouldn't be having this argument. The front pages would not be about tariff policy day after day. And the stock market would not be down by five trillion dollars.
我认为这里的问题在于，如果特朗普总统宣布大幅度扩大反倾销法，以应对他说的不当补贴的各种情况——这是政府经过仔细经济分析后得出的结论——我可能会不确定他们是否以正确的方式去做。但这样的话，我们就不必进行这样的争论了。新闻头条就不会天天都在讨论关税政策，而股市也不会下跌五万亿美元。
The central thing we are discussing is not whether there are sensible modifications to trade policy to respond to bad practices in other countries or to promote resilience. Those are technical debates that frankly aren't that interesting to a large number of people. The question is whether declaring that we need a whole new era of US economic policy around universal tariffs against everything is so I think that I hear you.
我们正在讨论的核心问题不是是否要对贸易政策进行合理调整，以应对其他国家的不当做法或提升经济韧性。这些都是技术性议题，坦白说，很多人并不觉得这些话题有趣。真正的问题是，我们是否应该宣布进入一个全新的美国经济政策时代，对所有商品普遍征收关税。我想你明白我的意思。
Is a rational step forward or and what I would say by lateral trade surpluses. I'll talk now. We're talking about the Monte Carlo simulation of how to achieve the outcome. And what I am saying is there is just as much as you and I want to guess, the fundamental and honest answer is none of us know the people in the White House, what they know they will share a little bit at a time because the reality is if what you wanted was a white paper or if what you wanted was paint by numbers, I think back to David's point, all that would do is just take any leverage that they had and give people the opportunity to shape their response.
这是一个理性的推进步骤，或者说是双边贸易顺差的方向。现在我来说说。我们正在讨论如何通过蒙特卡罗模拟来实现这个结果。我要说的是，就像你我都想猜测的一样，根本而诚实的答案是，我们中没有人知道白宫的人知道些什么，他们会一点一点地分享，因为事实是，如果你想要的是一份白皮书，或者你想要的是一种按图索骥的方法，回到大卫的观点，所有这一切只会剥夺他们的任何杠杆作用，并给人们提供机会来调整他们的反应。
And I think in traditional game theory and again, in traditional game theory, I think the right thing to do is when you're playing poker, you play street by street, what's the flop? Make a set of actions. What's the turn? Make a set of actions. What's the river? Make a set of actions. And I think if you're going to play to win, this is what they should do. Keep their cards very, very close to the vest.
在传统博弈论中，我认为正确的做法是在玩扑克牌时逐步进行。首先，看到翻牌是什么，然后制定一系列行动策略。接着，看到转牌是什么，再制定一套行动。最后，看到河牌是什么，再采取相应的行动。如果你想赢得比赛，你就应该这样做——将手中的牌严密保密，不轻易透露。
Realize that you can't necessarily surgically go and attack the Lithium market first, then the rare earth market because it all goes back to the same balance sheet. It's the same actor over and over. I think there's a useful analogy to draw here. I think a lot about an article Mark Daner wrote in the New York Review of Books many years ago about the Iraq War.
意识到你不能先去精确打击锂市场，然后再去进攻稀土市场，因为这最终都归结到同一个资产负债表上。重复出现的是同一个角色。我觉得这里有一个很好的比喻可以用。我常常想起很多年前马克·丹纳在《纽约书评》上写的一篇关于伊拉克战争的文章。
And it's an article that is stuck in my mind forever because what he says about it is that one of the difficulties of the politics of the Iraq War is there was no one war. There was everybody's private war that they were projecting onto the Bush administration. You had the liberal humanitarian vision of why we were going to war and what that war would look like. You had a realist vision for it. You had a vision that was more about weapons of mass destruction and keeping the whole land safe from terrorism.
这是一篇永远留在我脑海中的文章，因为作者指出伊拉克战争政治上的困难之一在于，这场战争并不是一场单一的战争。每个人都有他们自己的想法，并将其投射到布什政府身上。有人站在自由人道主义的角度上阐述我们为何参战以及战争会是什么样子；也有人从现实主义的视角来看待这场战争；还有人关注大规模杀伤性武器，关注如何保护整个地区免受恐怖主义威胁。
You had people believe there was an Iraq al-Qaeda connection. There were really dozens of these, which is how you got as broad a coalition behind as bad a policy as that together because everybody said, you know, there being a little bit vague about what's really going on here and why we're really doing this. But I bet you, if you go into their heart of hearts, what they want is the thing I want.
有人让大家相信伊拉克与基地组织有联系。实际上，这样的例子有很多，这也是为什么能够在如此糟糕的政策背后凝聚起一个广泛的联盟。因为所有人都觉得，他们对实际情况和真实动机说得有些模糊。但我敢打赌，如果你深入他们的内心，他们想要的东西和我想要的一样。
Even though the policy doesn't quite match what policy you would get from starting from my premises. And that's really what I hear here. I hear it on this show, but I hear it in general in the discussion around this, that there are a lot of different objectives being projected onto Donald Trump and his trade war. The objectives do not fit the policies we're seeing.
即使这些政策不完全符合我从自身立场出发所制定的政策，我在这里听到的正是这种情况。不仅在这个节目上听到，在围绕此话题的讨论中也是一样。很多人对特朗普及其贸易战投射了许多不同的目标，但这些目标与我们看到的政策并不匹配。
The objectives are not stably articulated by Donald Trump or the people around him, nor is any specific objective being articulated in a stable way without contradicting objectives, also being articulated at the same time. And look, maybe in the end, and this is why I want to push you all on metrics, you get something you like out of this.
唐纳德·特朗普和他周围的人没有稳定地阐述他们的目标，也没有一个具体的目标是以稳定的方式表达的，而不与同时表达的其他目标相矛盾。看，也许最终你们会从中得到一些你们喜欢的东西，这也是我为什么想要大家关注衡量标准的原因。
But you're giving away a lot of clarity just on the trust that what is happening is people are keeping a good hand of cards with a good strategy, a poker hidden from you. As opposed to what's happening is what we seem to be seeing in public, which is Donald Trump is a chaotic and erratic person. They are making policy in a chaotic and erratic way that policies having chaotic and erratic consequences.
但你失去了许多清晰的理解，仅仅因为你相信事情的运作就像一场扑克游戏，对方隐藏了一手好牌和一个好的策略，而你看不到。相反，我们在公众面前看到的似乎是，唐纳德·特朗普是一个混乱且难以捉摸的人，他们制定政策的方式混乱无序，这些政策也带来了混乱无序的后果。
And then they are operating and moving on the fly in chaotic and erratic fashion. So actually heard Ezra say that he feels this administration is being a bit chaotic in the approach here. What's the counter to that? You heard Shamaat say, hey, this is a really. thoughtful. They're holding their cards close to the chest. Maybe you could clarify what your position is. Is this too chaotic or is this crazy? I mean, hearing is a bunch of process objections to Trump's policy. And I'm hearing a bunch of nitpicking. What about the suit to or whatever? Okay. Look, this is a very unrealistic view of politics when we've had a bipartisan consensus in Washington for decades that unfettered free trade is a good thing no matter how big our trade deficits got, no matter how rich and powerful China got, no matter how unfair the trade practices got, no matter how many millions of our jobs and factories got exported overseas. This has been the bipartisan consensus in Washington.
他们在混乱和无序的情况下迅速行动。我确实听到Ezra说他觉得这届政府的做法有些混乱。对此有什么反驳吗？你听到Shamaat说，这其实是经过深思熟虑的，他们在小心翼翼地进行着。也许你可以澄清一下你的立场。您认为这太混乱还是很疯狂？听上去像是对特朗普政策的一堆程序性异议，还有一些挑刺和吹毛求疵的东西。拜托，这对政治的看法很不现实，因为数十年来，华盛顿一直有一个两党共识，那就是不受限制的自由贸易是件好事，无论我们的贸易赤字有多大，中国有多富有和强大，无论贸易行为多么不公平，无论我们的工厂和工作机会有多少被转移到海外。这一直是华盛顿的两党共识。
And Larry, you're right that it started before the Clinton administration and the George W Bush administration definitely accelerated it. But there has absolutely been a bipartisan consensus in Washington that this sort of unfettered free trade policy was good for the country. Now, how do you change that? Now, look, you can nitpick this and you can make all the process objections you want. But Donald Trump has changed the conversation. I just want to get there. Let me finish. Let me finish. Keep saying I've offered a process objection when I'm objecting to the absence of your goals. You were pointing to Donald Trump's views when he was a public figure in the 1990s and 1990s on trade as somehow he was wrong. He was not wrong. He was one of the few people in the few public figures in America who was right about this.
翻译如下：
拉里，你说得对，这件事在克林顿政府之前就开始了，而小布什政府确实加速了这一进程。但是，华盛顿一直有一种跨党派的共识，即这种无约束的自由贸易政策对国家有利。现在，该如何改变这一点呢？你可以对这个问题进行挑剔，你可以提出各种程序上的反对意见。但是，唐纳德·特朗普改变了这个对话。我只是想讲到这里。让我说完，让我说完。总说我是对程序有异议，但我反对的是你缺乏目标。当你指出唐纳德·特朗普在1990年代作为公众人物发表的关于贸易的观点时，仿佛他是错的一样。事实上，他并没有错。他是美国为数不多的在这个问题上看法正确的公众人物之一。
I think most people today would say he was right about this that throwing open our markets to these foreign policy without taking the consequences of the mistake. You guys have me completely confused. Really you do. No, I can't use about the incursion of your position. Larry, Larry, you still believe that the Clinton administration, let's call it a bipartisan consensus, that era was correct. While at the same time you're arguing that PNTR didn't do anything. I think it is really telling that you are so much more low to defend what we are seeing than to attack what has been. If you want to, it's fine. I guess you could have, it would be interesting to have you and to me, there's the same thing.
我想大多数人今天会说，他在这一点上是对的：我们在未考虑错误后果的情况下向外界开放市场。你们把我搞得完全糊涂了，真的。关于你们的立场，我无法理解。拉里，拉里，你仍然相信克林顿政府，就是说两党的共识，那个时代是正确的。同时，你又在说永久正常贸易关系（PNTR）没有产生作用。我觉得很有意思的是，你更倾向于不去批评我们现在看到的东西，而不是去攻击过去发生的事情。如果你愿意的话，那也没问题。我觉得让你参与会很有趣，对我来说，这个情况是一样的。
It should have you and Larry go 12 rounds on the Clinton era. But, when I say to you, listen, there is not a stable set of objectives that fit the policy here. Can I ask that? You say that's a process? I just want to defend the thing they keep actually doing. I would like somebody to explain to me here. Anderson, Jamoth, resilience, central four sectors. Are we more resilient in the four sectors? What's the answer in two years from now? I got that. I agree. All that. I cannot make any linkage between a 10% across the board, Tara, a tariff on steel, a tariff on automobiles, and much of what the rest of the president says and you were very valid objectives. I hear David give this free trade, his destroyed America, and we're going to undo that and this reign in the heart. I can give it to you. I just want to understand how we'll know other ways.
这段话的意思可以翻译并简化为：
你和拉里应该就克林顿时代展开12回合的讨论。但我告诉你，这里没有一个稳定的目标集可以符合政策。我可以这样问吗？你说那是一个过程？我只是想为他们一直做的事情辩护。我希望有人在这里能解释一下。安德森，贾莫斯，韧性，核心四大领域。在这四个领域中我们是否更具韧性？两年后这个问题的答案是什么？我明白了，也同意所有的看法。我无法将10%的全面关税、对钢铁和汽车的关税与总统的许多其他声明以及你认为非常有效的目标联系在一起。我听到大卫说自由贸易毁了美国，我们要扭转这一点，把心灵之痛止住。我可以告诉你这些。我只是想知道我们将如何以其他方式识别这些变化。
Okay, look, I can answer this too. Good. Good. All right, look, Larry and Ezra, welcome to a political coalition. Different people have different objectives, dislike different people had different objectives for the policy that we had in place 25 years ago. Okay, there are some people who think that we should have an across the board, 10% tariff, to raise revenue because the country needs revenue and that that would be a better way to raise revenue than to say have income taxes or capital gains taxes. Stan Druckenmiller, who's not a fan of tariffs, nonetheless said that he would support a 10% tariff no more than 10, but up to 10 as a way to raise revenue.
好的，看，我也可以回答这个问题。很好，很好。好吧，Larry 和 Ezra，欢迎加入一个政治联盟。大家有各自的目标，就像25年前的政策一样，不同的人有着不同的目标。有些人认为我们应该实行统一的10%关税，因为国家需要收入，而他们认为这种方式比征收所得税或资本利得税更好。即使Stan Druckenmiller并不支持关税，他仍表示愿意支持不超过10%的关税，最高可达10%，作为增加收入的方法。
Okay, that's his point of view. There are other people, and I would say I'm more someone who thinks about the geopolitical consequences of this, who think it was a huge mistake to throw up in our markets to Chinese products, basically feeding their economy to the point where they could become a pure competitor of the United States and the US, the threat in the US world order. There are different people, hold on, there's different people with different objectives. One more time because you're, you are just not speaking truth. I want to know one restriction that the United States had on Chinese products that was changed in the year 2000. You said seven times, throw open our market to Chinese products. I want to know one example in which the United States opened its market in 1999. The point of the point of the point of the point of the point of FN.
好的，这是他的观点。有些人，包括我在内，更倾向于思考这一问题的地缘政治后果。有些人认为向中国商品开放我们市场是个巨大的错误，这基本上让他们的经济发展到可以与美国竞争的地步，也对美国在世界秩序中的地位构成威胁。在这里，各种各样的人都有不同的目标。请稍等，因为你没有说出事实真相。我想知道在2000年，美国取消了哪项对中国商品的限制。你反复提到七次，向中国商品开放市场。我想知道1999年美国在哪方面开放了市场。整体来说，这就是讨论的重点。
Well, can you name one product? Yes. Where restrictions were reduced. Okay, David Namin. Listen, you're mischaracterizing what PNTR did. We can play this like a GROC game if you want. People can go ahead and GROC this question, and they'll get this answer. Look, the answer is that before PNTR, China was granted MFN on a year by year basis by Congress. Correct? PNTR made it permanent. What does that do? It created a permanent new framework for trade relations between the United States and China. So it created permanence and it created a certain expectation. What did that enable? Massive investment by US companies in China. So all the bean counters from McKinsey started talking about outsourcing and just in time manufacturing. They started moving the factories over there in a much greater way. The Mitt Romney is in private. Exactly. We hope our secondary finish. We just think the Mitt Romney is in private equity. This is a great idea. Let's move all of our manufacturing.
好的，你能举一个产品的例子吗？可以。在哪些限制被减少的情况下。好的，David Namin。听着，你对PNTR的描述有些不准确。如果你想，我们可以像玩GROC游戏一样展开讨论。人们可以仔细考量这个问题，然后得到答案。看，答案是，在PNTR之前，中国每年都需要美国国会批准才能获得最惠国待遇，对吧？PNTR使这一待遇变得永久化。那有什么影响呢？它为中美之间的贸易关系奠定了一个永久的新框架。因此，它建立了长期稳定性，并创造了一种特定的预期。那这又促成了什么呢？美国公司在中国的巨额投资。因此，麦肯锡的会计师们开始谈论外包和准时制造。而大规模地把工厂搬到中国。没错，像米特·罗姆尼这样的私人股本投资者看到了这一点。这是个好主意，让我们把所有的制造业都转移过去。
Could we be that whether or not it was the WT on the bankers on Wall Street got to financialize and securitize all sorts of new products. Okay. That was the result of PNTR. The thing we have to decide really right now is a country is if the thing that you all are trying to replace this with is better. Right? If it will work. And so I want to go back to what you said a minute. Go David, when you're like, welcome to political coalitions. Larry has been in politics a long time. He was Treasury Secretary. I've covered politics for a long time. I'm familiar with political coalitions. In fact, a lot of my book is currently about the problems in the way the Democratic coalition with too many objectives all at once can end up destroying the ability of the policy to actually achieve a clear goal.
这段文字的大意是这样：
无论华尔街的银行家是否因为万通保险的影响而能够金融化和证券化各种新产品，这是获得永久正常贸易关系（PNTR）后的一种结果。现在，作为一个国家，我们真正需要决定的是，你们试图用来替代现行方式的方案是否更好，它是否有效。我想回顾一下你刚才说的内容。大卫，当你提到政治联盟时，欢迎加入政治联盟的讨论。拉里在政界有多年的经验，曾担任财政部长。我自己也长期从事政治报道，熟悉各种政治联盟。实际上，我目前正在撰写的一本书中有很大一部分是关于民主党联盟的问题，比如当他们同时追求过多目标时，可能会破坏政策实现明确目标的能力。
So this is precisely the non-procedural objection I am bringing here. This is why I think it is dangerous to be treating an appeal of the entire global financial system without a clearly defined objective that is connected to a policy. And so the question is, if the idea is that there are all these different players here who have all these different policy objectives that would connect to all these different policies and everybody's getting a little bit of them and Trump is kind of flipping back and forth through different versions of them, you could end up, despite yes, whatever mistakes were made in the free trade consensus, which I do agree that we had, you could end up with a bad and not even consensus, just a bad next policy, an unclear coalition that is fighting with itself and is making policy without a strong process can create not like nitpicky procedural problems, but actual damage and disasters.
这正是我在这里提出的非程序性反对的原因。这就是为什么我认为在没有明确目标和政策连结的情况下，把整个全球金融体系的诉求当回事是很危险的。问题在于，如果我们认为所有的参与者都有不同的政策目标，而这些政策目标又关联到不同的政策，大家各自获取了一部分，特朗普又在不同政策版本之间来回变动，那么尽管在自由贸易共识中确实存在某些错误，但最终可能导致出现一个不好的新政策，而不是达成共识。这样的政策会使得联盟内部产生分歧，导致决策过程不够强有力，可能并不仅仅是产生琐碎的程序性问题，而是带来实际的损害和灾难。
Shemoff, let's look, let's try to look forward here. This obviously has been a cataclysmic, chaotic, intense, whatever descriptor you want to use of the past week productive is okay, sure. And it's certainly created massive swings in the market. Is this all going to cause a recession? Is this too violent of an approach to markets? That is, I think, a valid criticism that people have, including the majority of business leaders are saying, hey, I think I have to start layoffs. You had United Airlines say, we're not going to give any guidance. This feels to business leaders, Republican business leaders primarily and market participants as just far too chaotic and they can't plan. And if they can't plan, then they stop planning, which then is going to cause layoffs, it's going to cause bankruptcies. And who knows what the second and third-order consequences are going to be. So what's going to happen here over the next couple of weeks and months?
Shemoff，我们来试着展望未来。这显然是一个灾难性的、混乱的、激烈的，不管你想用什么词来形容过去的一周，也可以说是多产的。当然，这已经在市场上造成了巨大的波动。这一切是否会引发经济衰退？这会不会对市场来说太过激烈？我认为，这是包括大多数企业领导在内的人们提出的一个合理批评。他们说，嘿，我觉得我得开始裁员了。比如，美国联合航空公司表示，他们将不再提供任何指引。对此，企业领导人，特别是共和党商界领袖和市场参与者，感到太过混乱，他们无法计划。如果他们无法计划，他们就会停止计划，这将导致裁员和破产。谁知道这将会带来哪些第二和第三层次的影响。所以，在接下来的几周和几个月里，这里会发生什么变化呢？
So just on the recession question, and I like to give an answer to Ezra and Larry. I think that, and I've said this for about a year, it was clear to me that we were sneakily in a recession before. And the reason was the vast amounts of money and deficits that were being pumped into government services that perverted the actual GDP picture in America. So as doge sort of slows down that money flow and as the consensus in Congress gets to a better budget, I think that you're going to see that the government was probably responsible for 100 to 150 basis points of just waste. And if you take that out, you will technically be in a recession. That was independent of these tariffs. And I think that that's where the true economy Jason was. And I think that we're going to just find that out.
关于经济衰退的问题，我想给Ezra和Larry一个回复。我认为，并且我已经讲了一年左右，对我来说很明显，我们之前其实已经悄悄进入了经济衰退。原因是，大量资金和赤字被投入到政府服务中，这扭曲了美国的实际GDP状况。因此，当资金流动逐渐放缓，国会达成更好的预算共识时，你会发现政府可能造成了100到150个基点的浪费。如果将这些因素剔除，我们在技术上就会进入衰退。这个过程与关税无关。我认为那才是真正的经济所在，我想我们会发现这一点。
So that's that. On where we go from here, I can give you an anecdote and I'll give you a projection. The anecdote is this weekend, my wife and I were in bed and a person called me, very successful businessman who was representing the president of a country saying, hey, Chimoff, I need some advice. What do we do here? And we walked through the three things that he and his government, that they government were trying to figure out because they wanted an off-ramp. They were like, I'm ready to cry, Uncle. We're ready to tap out. And again, he was calling me as a private citizen, but I think this conversation was very instructive.
所以就是这样。关于接下来我们该怎么做，我可以和你分享一个轶事，并给出一个预测。这个轶事是这样的：这个周末，我和妻子在床上，一个非常成功的商人给我打电话。他代表一个国家的总统联系我，说，嘿，Chimoff，我需要一些建议。我们该怎么办？我们讨论了三个他们和他们的政府想要弄明白的问题，因为他们想找到一个解决办法。他们就像是准备认输、投降。而且，他是以一个私人身份给我打电话的，但我觉得这次谈话很有启发性。
Number one, he's like, look, we have these really high tariffs on inbound American products. We're happy to cut these things to zero. And I said, well, you should do that. Second, while we were exploring, he's like, yeah, you know, we have an enormous capital purchase with Airbus. I said, cancel it. Swap it to Boeing. He's like done. And then the third, which was interesting is he's like, we need to import an enormous amount of energy. And I said, well, who do you give that concession to right now? And it was a non-American company. And I said, well, why wouldn't you just RFP that to an American business and let them compete? And he's like, we'd be open to that as well.
首先，他说：“你看，我们对美国进口产品的关税非常高。我们乐意把这些关税降到零。”我说：“你们应该这么做。”第二，在我们交流的过程中，他表示：“是的，你知道，我们和空客有一笔巨大的资本采购。”我说：“取消它，改为购买波音的产品。”他说：“好，已经解决。”第三个有意思的地方是，他说：“我们需要进口大量的能源。”我问：“你们现在把这个机会给了谁？”答案是一个非美国公司。我说：“那你为什么不对美国企业开放招标，让他们参与竞争？”他说：“我们也可以考虑这样做。”
So he said, you know, we're getting prepared. We want to find a way to talk to the Trump administration. And I'm like, great, however I can be helpful, I'll be helpful to you. I got off the phone. I looked at my wife and I said, if even 30 of the 75 countries do a deal anywhere remotely close to this, this was an enormous win. So let me give you my projection, Jason, of what the art of the deal could be here. What you do is you can rewrite Bretton Woods 2.0. What was Bretton Woods 1.0? It was fixing exchange rates. It was setting up the IMF. It was setting up the World Bank. Those were the conditions on the ground.
所以他说，你知道，我们正在做好准备。我们希望找到与特朗普政府对话的途径。我就说，很好，我会尽量帮助你们。我挂断电话，转头对我妻子说，如果75个国家中有30个达成类似这样的协议，那将是一个巨大的胜利。让我告诉你我的预测，杰森，这里可能的交易艺术是什么。你可以重新制定布雷顿森林体系2.0。布雷顿森林体系1.0是什么？它是固定汇率，成立国际货币基金组织，并建立世界银行。这些是当时的基本条件。
Post World War 2, it made a lot of sense. What would we do if we had to write the Mar-a-Lago Accords right now? I think what we would do is work backwards from the question that Ezra asked and the answer that I gave. How do we create resiliency in these critical markets? Number one, a framework for that. Number two is how do we create limits for government-sponsored intervention against capital for-profit companies, many of whom are American, so that we can actually compete on a level playing field. And then number three, very simply, if you can do business in my country, why can't I not do business in yours?
二战后，这种想法十分合理。如果我们现在要写《海湖协议》，应该采用什么方式呢？我认为我们应该从以色列提出的问题和我给出的答案出发，逆向思考。我们该如何在这些关键市场中建立弹性？第一，为此制定一个框架。第二，我们该如何限制政府对以营利为目的的资本公司进行干预，尤其是许多美国公司，以便能够在一个公平的竞争环境中竞争。第三，简单来说，如果你能在我的国家做生意，我为什么不能在你的国家做生意呢？
And I'll just give you that story for one second. I was responsible. I was the head of every single entity of Facebook outside of the United States. I opened every market. My team and I created a framework for dominating. I figured we figured out how to crack Brazil, India, Russia, you know, the one market that we never could ever make a single Iota progress. Say it, Jason, with me. China. China. Russia. No, we want in Russia. So my point is, in every single market except one, is it that we were just lucky in 174 markets and one we were stupid? No.
让我简单说一下这个故事。我负责管理美国以外的所有Facebook分公司。我拓展了每一个市场。我和我的团队创建了一个可以在各个市场中占据主导地位的框架。我们成功打入了巴西、印度、俄罗斯等市场。你知道我们唯一一个没有任何进展的市场是什么吗？和我一起说，杰森，中国。没错，是中国。俄罗斯不是，因为我们在俄罗斯取得了成功。我的意思是，除了一个市场之外的所有市场，我们不可能仅仅靠运气成功于174个市场，而碰巧在一个市场变得无能。这不是运气的问题。
So I think that the Mar-a-Lago Accords, this sort of Bretton Woods 2.0, is the outcome Ezra. It will basically use tariffs as a way to get these governments to a table and allow us to negotiate a much fair economic quid broker. Here's my concern with this theory. I want to leave out, but I'll leave the sort of question of what the real economy looked like to Larry. This world in which what is happening is a business leader who represents a country is calling you and saying, okay, what do we need to do to deal? Right?
我认为“海湖庄园协议”，就像是布雷顿森林体系2.0，就是我们想要达到的结果。这协议会利用关税作为一种手段，把政府带到谈判桌前，并让我们商讨一个更加公平的经济交易。我对这个理论感到担忧。我不想多加评论，这里先把对真实经济的看法留给拉里。不过，这个世界好像变成了一个商业领袖代表国家打电话给你，说："好，我们需要做些什么来达成协议？"
They're coming to Donald Trump and they are going to come to Donald Trump. As Larry said earlier, there's no doubt that the US economic leverage is enormous. And virtually every country faced with our might is going to try to cut a deal with us. But then there's a call they're not making to you that they're making to someone else, which is we have allowed or we have approached the US as a functionally benign partner for a very long time. And now they're becoming a dangerous partner. They are very, very strong and they will use that strength to crush country smaller than them when it suits the whims of a personless regime run by a person who his feelings, even about people that the US or countries, the US traditionally considered allies like Canada or much of Europe change.
他们正在与唐纳德·特朗普接触，并且将会继续这样做。正如拉里早些时候提到的，美国的经济影响力巨大。实际上，每一个面对我们强大力量的国家都会尝试与我们达成协议。然而，有一个电话他们没有打给你，而是打给了其他人，那就是我们长期以来一直将美国视为一个功能上友好的伙伴。但现在他们正在变成一个危险的伙伴。他们非常非常强大，并且会在适合一个没有个性的政权领袖心意的时候利用这种强大力量去压制比他们小的国家。即使是那些美国传统上认为是盟友的国家，比如加拿大或欧洲的大部分地区，这位领导者对他们的感觉也在变化。
And so yes, on the one hand, for the next year or two, we want to avoid getting a big tear of slap on us. And so we got to figure out what is it that if we offer to Donald Trump, he will say to himself, that was enough of a give that, you know, I can move on to someone else. I can make them the focus of my eye. And on the other hand, they're going to begin to build fortresses and deals and partnerships and approaches that make sure they're less exposed to our ability to wield this power against them in the future.
所以，是的，一方面，在接下来的一年或两年里，我们希望避免受到重创。我们需要找出，对唐纳德·特朗普提供什么东西，才能让他觉得得到的够多了，从而将注意力转移到其他人身上，让他们成为他的焦点。另一方面，他们将开始建立堡垒、达成协议、建立伙伴关系和采取措施，以确保在未来不再那么容易受到我们这类权力的影响。
But before I came on the show, I had gone on X and I saw a clip of you going around, where you're saying that one of the problems with the Biden administration was that you couldn't get anybody on the phone. And then the Trump administration, you make the call, the deputy chief of staff picks up, you say, Hey, I need you to talk to this company. They, I work with them. They're freaking out about the tariffs. The deputy chief of stock, Kelsey company. They work something out. No, no, not that they work something out. They listen, they listen. This, this world in which we are doing the dealmaking by individual relationships, by who can get their calls answered, not by rules that feel clear as stable. That's how the, that's how the Biden administration. That's not what Moss said. And that's not what I said.
在我参加这个节目之前，我在X上看到一个关于你的片段，你提到拜登政府的问题之一是很难打通电话。而在特朗普政府时，你打个电话，副幕僚长就接了电话，你说“嘿，我需要你跟这家公司谈谈，他们是我的合作伙伴，他们对关税感到非常不安。”副幕僚长会与这家公司沟通，他们会想办法解决。不是，他们会解决问题，而是他们会倾听。在我们生活的这个世界里，交易是通过个人关系和电话是否能被接听来达成的，而不是通过清晰和稳定的规则来实现的。这不是拜登政府的做事方式，这也不是我所说的。
Well, Chema, you know, as you're trying to make it sound like corruption, hold on. I was George Clooney. That was making a call. Who cares what George Clooney thinks? Maybe you just say on why I was very, very critical by the guy. I saw that clip. As Ray, what Chema said, what Chema said is simply that the White House listens. They calls, whereas he can get his calls returned by the Obama administration. Great. I think we're actually not saying something all that. No, you mean it sound like corruption. What I'm, well, I just to help a company. What Trump is working through is deal by deal patronage based on how he sees the company.
好吧，Chema，你知道的，你试图让这听起来像是腐败，等等。我是乔治·克鲁尼，打了个电话。谁在乎乔治·克鲁尼怎么想？也许你只是说，我为什么对那个人非常非常批评。我看了那个片段。就像Ray说的，Chema所说的只是白宫会接听电话，而他能收到奥巴马政府回的电话。很好。我认为我们其实没有说什么大不了的事情。你把它听起来像腐败。我只是在帮助一家公司。而特朗普正在处理的问题是基于他对公司的看法而进行的逐个交易的恩惠。
I'm sorry, the other country. That's not what happened. As, can I just make sure that this is clear? Yeah. This is a 150 year old American business. I have no interest in that company except a friendship. These are Americans hiring Americans trying to compete with China who were very negatively affected. And all I said was, why don't you have a chance to explain what's happening on the ground? My point that I was trying to make and maybe I didn't make it clear enough. So let me set the record straight. The Trump administration, what I have seen as a businessman is willing to hear the conditions on the ground as a businessman when I was building Ezra just to be clear, critical rare earth supplies for America under the Biden administration.
对不起，其他国家。事情并不是那样发生的。首先，我想确认一下这一点。好的。这个是一家有150年历史的美国公司，我除了与这家公司有友谊外，并没有其他兴趣。这些是美国人在雇佣美国人，试图与受到负面影响的中国竞争。我只是说，为什么不给你们一个机会来解释一下实际情况呢？我的观点是，我可能没有表达得很清楚，现在让我来澄清一下。作为一名商人，在我建立Ezra时，我发现特朗普政府愿意倾听现场的实际情况，而在拜登政府下，我们看到对美国至关重要的稀土供应。
Battery can materials to compete with China under the Biden administration. AI chips to be the best inference solution under the Biden administration. I couldn't get a call back. That's just the facts. Not because I wanted anything just to tell them what was going on. So fair enough. Okay, fair enough. I am not telling you that the Biden administration should have returned your calls. What I am saying is that the degree to which Trump first and then everybody around him as an example of him because culture comes from the top is working off this kind of individual call and deal making worries me because I believe that you had every one of these calls you're saying and they went exactly the way you say they went.
在拜登政府下，电池材料将与中国竞争。人工智能芯片成为拜登政府下最佳推理解决方案。我没有接到回复电话。事实就是这样。这不是因为我想要什么，只是想告诉他们发生了什么事。好的，没问题。我并不是说拜登政府应该回复你的电话。我想表达的是，特朗普及其周围的人都以他为榜样，因为文化是从上到下的，这种个人电话和交易方式让我感到担忧。我相信你所说的每一个电话都是如你所说的那样进行的。
And then the calls that you are not getting and they. Two minutes ago, Ezra, you were saying that a 10% across the board tariff was too broad and we need to go industry by industry. Now you're saying that it's going to be too particular and he shouldn't do. And you see the word deal making listening to people. I am saying people is not deal making Ezra. It's just listening to people. Are you really going to be there? There is no telling me the way Trump himself works is not individual deal making here.
然后说到你没有接到的电话。两分钟前，Ezra，你还说对于所有行业征收10%的关税太笼统了，我们需要按照行业具体分析。现在你又说这样太具体了，不应该这样做。你提到“交易谈判”这个词，倾听人们的意见。我说，倾听人们的意见并不等同于交易谈判，Ezra。只是单纯地倾听。你真的会在那里吗？没有人会告诉我，特朗普的工作方式不是个别交易谈判。
Here's what I've seen with David. David seems is this really is this really the argument here. I will tell you what I've seen and David seen much more. What I have seen from the president is he takes in hundreds of opinions and starts to figure out what the ground truth is. And the reason is when you only listen to one or two, every president probably deals with this. You have this information asymmetry problem because you are the president of the United States. And so how do you cut through it? You talk to hundreds and hundreds of people and you try and calculate what the truth is.
这是我对大卫的观察。大卫似乎真的是在讨论这个问题。我来告诉你我看到了什么，而大卫看到的要多得多。我所见的总统是，他会听取上百种意见，然后试图弄清事实真相。原因是，当你只听一两个人的意见时，作为美国总统，你可能都会处理这个信息不对称的问题。那么如何解决这个问题呢？你需要与成百上千的人交流，努力计算出真实情况。
So it's not like he's giving any favor. He's collecting information. That is a good process. You want the most powerful person in the world to get to the ground truth. Go ahead, Larry. I am all for information gathering. I agree that the Biden administration did not do as good a job as it could have of maintaining relations with the business community. I agree that it's a good idea for there to be quite extensive connection. I am also appalled by the half dozen phone calls I have gotten from prominent people in business who have said I'm used to being shaken down when I try to do business in some parts of the world. It's a new experience to be shaken down by representatives of the president of the United States.
所以，这并不是说他在给予什么好处。他是在收集信息。这是一个好的过程。你希望世界上最有权力的人能够了解真实情况。继续吧，拉里。我完全支持信息收集。我同意拜登政府在维护与商业界关系方面做得不够好。我也同意应该有广泛的联系。但是，我对自己接到的来自商界知名人士的半打电话感到震惊，他们告诉我，说过去在一些地区做生意时经常被勒索，但现在被美国总统的代表勒索是一次全新的经历。
What's the shift when you have close connections? You help us. You contribute this way. That makes no sense at all. What the president has been trying to do is it's an amazing, amazing, amazing, amazing, maybe it is an erroneous perception to which I have been exposed repeatedly. But it is a pervasive total nonsense. You guys are very confident that you're actually not. Perception everybody else's aren't. It is a perception that is shared by almost everyone who has experience in the conflict of interest area, who has looked at the situation of Trump administration officials and those working as special government employees in the Trump administration.
当你和他人有紧密关系时，会有什么转变？你帮助我们。你通过这种方式做出贡献。这完全没有意义。总统一直在尝试做的事情是非常惊人的，或许这是一个我反复看到的错误认知。但这是一种普遍存在的无稽之谈。你们非常自信，但实际上并非如此。大家的看法并不一样。几乎每个在利益冲突领域有经验的人，或者研究过特朗普政府官员以及在特朗普政府中担任特别政府雇员的人，都有这样的看法。
What are you saying? I just went through that whole process, Larry. What is that mean? I can speak to this because I just went through this process. It took forever, it took like months. I went through the same process everyone else goes through. The OGE career staff have to go through all of your disclosures and they figure out what the conflicts are and then you have to divest them. It's the same process that everyone goes through. You're all over the place making all sorts of accusations here. If you have some proof or you want to accuse someone then want you to just do it. But otherwise what you're saying is just not true.
你在说什么？我刚刚经历了整个过程，拉里。这是什么意思？我可以谈谈这个，因为我刚刚经历过这个过程。花了很长时间，大概几个月。我走的流程和其他人一样。OGE（政府道德办公室）的专业人员会检查你的披露，找出冲突，然后你必须放弃这些利益。这是每个人都要经历的相同流程。你到处都是指责。如果你有证据或者想指控某人，那就直接做吧。否则，你说的话就不是真实的。
It's not backed up by anything. Great. They shook down Eric Adams. That's a direct accusation that happened in public. They shook down Eric. They shook down Eric Adams because they put him in this pocket. That's a big deal, y'all. Like that is the way they are viewing business here. You guys are all over the map making wild accusations. First, it was their big one second two seconds ago, to cause of their discomfort with being overruled by your colleagues in the Trump administration.
这件事没有任何依据。太好了。他们敲诈了埃里克·亚当斯。这是在公众面前直接的指控。他们敲诈了埃里克。他们把埃里克·亚当斯放在他们的口袋里。这是件大事，各位。这就是他们看待业务的方式。你们四处乱指控，真是不着边际。首先，这是他们刚刚在两秒前的一大指控，因为他们对被特朗普政府的同事推翻感到不满。
So the suggestion. They're all over the map five seconds ago. The same ethical standards that I was held and that other members of previous administrations, including the Bush administration, were held. Unfortunately, is not right. Well, that's false. All right. Well, this is true. You're talking about two different types of divest. Hold on. I had to divest a lot as I talked about in this show. Yes. Any event you guys are all over the map making wild accusations two seconds ago. The shakedown was at the level of companies. Then all of a sudden it was OG and ethics. Then it was something about Eric Adam. You guys are doing business. Nobody's making I like that you're like, who's Eric Adams?
所以建议是这样的。你们在五秒钟前变化多端。我和包括布什政府在内的前几届政府成员都被要求遵守相同的道德标准。不幸的是，这不对。这是错误的。好的，不过这是事实。你们正在谈论两种不同类型的撤资。等一下，我自己也不得不撤资很多次，就像我在这个节目中提到的那样。是的。无论如何，你们刚刚还在各地乱发表言论，几秒钟前还在做一些疯狂的指控。敲诈曾经涉及到公司层面，然后又突然变成关于OG和道德的事情，接着又是关于Eric Adam的事情。你们在做生意。没人说过。我喜欢你这样说，“Eric Adams是谁？”
We're not making no. I know Eric Adams says I supported him on this show. I know he is. It's a straightforward way that Trump does business at every level at which he operates. And so it is happening at can I give you my personal administration? I know you don't I know it's not that I it's not that I don't want to know how it's not I don't want to hear it. You know how this started is because I'm not sure if he wanted all our second Ezra you misquoted something Jamal said on another podcast where all he said was that I can get my phone calls returned by this White House where I couldn't with Obama or Biden.
我们并没有拒绝。我知道Eric Adams说过我在这个节目中支持他，我知道他这样说过。这就是特朗普在他所操作的每个层面上做生意的直接方式。所以事情就这样发生了。我能给你一个我个人管理的例子吗? 我知道你不想听，不是因为我不想，或者不想知道。事情的起因是因为我不确定他是否想要我们全部的第二个Ezra。你在另一个播客上误引了Jamal所说的话，他只是说他可以联系上现任白宫，而在奥巴马或拜登时期则无法做到。
And you guys have somehow morphed that into some sort of like broad ranging accusations of corruption something like that. I think I have no evidence. No clear about what the accusation of a Donald Trump works is Ezra your accusation of me tried to infer some form of corruption or some form of deal making none of that happened what I what I again I'll tell you I connected the White House so they could hear on the ground what's happening from a company who was very negatively impacted by the tear of so that they had the complexion of that feedback as well.
你们似乎把这件事扭曲成某种大范围的腐败指控之类的东西。我认为我没有证据，也不清楚唐纳德·特朗普的行为被指控是什么。埃兹拉，你对我的指责试图推测某种腐败或交易行为，这些都没有发生。我再说一遍，我只是让白宫了解到一个受关税负面影响很大的公司的情况，以便他们能更全面地了解这个问题的反馈。
Okay. Do you deny the possibility that your experience with a Trump administration might be different than people who they feel are less allied to them than you are Ezra I'm willing to forward question. What are you sure that you're a good sample. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. I think we're talking about right now is that people who donate to politicians have unique access to politicians. I think we all agree that that's not true. Just to be very clear I give I have given way more to the Democrats than I've given to Donald Trump and you were disappointed about that and by the way and by the way and where you're allied now and by the way like what's what's crazy is I was the same intellectual person I was under Biden that I am under Trump. It's just that it seems like the Trump administration is like well this is a smart guy with some opinions that we listen Biden and by the way and Larry you and you know this.
好的。你是否否认这样一种可能性：你在特朗普政府中的经历可能与那些感觉与他们不太亲近的人不同？以斯拉，我愿意继续这个问题。你确定你是一个好的样本吗？我甚至不知道我们现在在讨论什么。我认为我们现在讨论的是，捐款给政客的人对他们有独特的接触渠道。我想我们都同意这并不是真的。为了解释清楚，我捐给民主党的钱比捐给唐纳德·特朗普的多得多，你对这一点感到失望。顺便说一下，不管你现在支持谁，顺便说一下，这令人感到奇怪的是，我在拜登任期内和在特朗普任期内都是同一个有思想的人。只是看起来特朗普政府认为，“这是一个有一些值得倾听的观点的聪明人”，而拜登政府似乎没有。顺便说一下，拉里，你知道这个。
These are some very close friends of hours that we share mutually that would not even return my calls. So it is a little personal for me as well Ezra just to be honest with you I'm not going to go there but the point is that's fair. I have never I have never seen a single Iota of any form of anything other than just gathering information from the Trump and they've never asked me for anything. They've never tried to direct me to do anything. They just want to know what's going on when you ask them. Hey can you talk to such and such a person. I assure you that your experience is not the experience of quite a number of the nation's major law firms. It is not the experience of quite a number of the nation's business leaders.
这些是我们共同认识的一些非常亲密的朋友，但他们甚至不愿意回我电话。所以对我来说，这也有点私人情感在里面。Ezra，只是跟你说实话，我不打算详细说明，但这很公平。我从未见过任何来自特朗普方面的要求或指示，他们只是收集信息，并没有向我索要什么，也没有试图让我做任何事情。当你问他们是否能和某个人谈谈时，他们只是想了解情况。我可以向你保证，你的经历与许多国家的大型律师事务所和商业领袖的经历截然不同。
It is not the experience of quite a number of the nation's universities that I am neither the first nor the hundredth person referencing efforts that extortion to use the movie The Godfather as a metaphor for the for aspects of the way in which our country is being governed. What a surprise democratic universities and democratic law firms are making accusations. All right let's move on we think we've read the tariff issue and I think we can all agree that if you donate money you might have better access to politicians. I want to talk about the future of the party Jason if you give 10% to the big guy then you really get access we could do these allegations all day long if you know yeah I there's a long list of people made donations and there's a long list of favorable things that have happened to them after across all administrations and we can debate cause and correlation all day long here but I wanted to talk about the future of the democratic party while we're here Ezra you have been on a tour talking about exactly how incompetent how terrible of the campaign they ran.
这并不是我第一次或第百次听到人们用电影《教父》作为隐喻来形容我们国家的治理方式。许多大学都表达了类似的看法，而民主大学和民主法律公司似乎在进行这样的指控也不足为奇。好吧，我们继续讨论，我们已经了解了关税问题，并且我想我们都同意，如果你捐款，你可能会获得更好的政治家接触机会。我想谈谈这个党的未来。Jason，如果你把10%交给“大人物”，那么你确实能获得更多的接触机会。关于这些指控，我们可以一直讨论下去。的确，有很多人进行了捐赠，也有很多人在不同政府期间获得了好处，我们可以无止境地争论因果关系，不过我想在这里讨论民主党的未来。Ezra，你一直在巡回演讲，谈论他们的竞选有多无能和糟糕。
What is the future and Larry get you know his two cents in here as well is there any saving this party and if so what would it look like well well there's the problem of the party in the campaign let me bracket that because so my book abundance is more about how democrats govern about the state and and local and federal level and some of the pathologies of governance there then be it hard for for liberals to achieve their goals there are versions of this on the right but I'm not really writing about that in in this so my book about its dark Thompson is about the tendency democrats have to subsidize things where they're choking off the supply of the thing they want people to have more of so think about housing in California you get rental vouchers from the federal government but we make it incredibly hard to build homes clean energy which a lot of the Biden administration's policies were about putting huge subsidies behind the building of more clean energy but they didn't really do anything to make the permitting the citing the state capacity to do all of that capable of building that amount of clean energy at the pace they foresaw us building it right that they wanted us to build it and behind this and and I can sort of go into a lot of detail here but it's a diminishment of state capacity that comes from wrapping the state itself in red tape and regulation.
这段文字的大意是探讨民主党在治理中的一些问题，以及假如存在解决这些问题的方法，那会是什么样子。作者提到，尽管民主党在地方和联邦层面有一些政策意图，但实施过程中往往出现问题。例如，在加州，虽然联邦政府提供房租补贴，但建房的限制非常严格；在清洁能源领域，尽管政策提供了大量补贴，但审批和开发能力的不足阻碍了预期的建设速度。这些问题的根源在于政府自身被繁琐的法规和程序束缚住了，降低了其执行能力。
文本中也提到，作者的书《丰盈》更多地关注民主党如何在不同层面治理，以及这些治理过程中出现的问题，而不太涉及右翼的版本。通过这些例子，作者暗示民主党在试图实现其目标时面临的难题，即补贴需求的同时却限制供应，导致政策实施不力。
I think we think and have an intuitive way of thinking about the idea of deregulation on the private sector right when the government is imposing regulations on private companies and it's making it hard for those companies to act to do business etc. But this happens first and foremost on the government itself. One of my favorite examples I've been using lately is there’s a new RAM report that looks at how much it costs to construct square foot of housing in California, in Texas, in Colorado, and it does it on two kinds of housing: market rate and affordable housing subsidized by the public sector. The cost of creating housing in California market rate is 2x in California what it is in Texas, but when you get into that publicly subsidized housing where you have all these new standards and rules and regulations being triggered by the addition of public money it goes up to about 4.4x.
我认为我们对私营部门放松管制的概念有一种直观的理解，特别是在政府对私人公司施加法规时，这让这些公司难以开展业务等等。但首先，这种情况最先发生在政府本身。最近我常用的一个例子是有一份新的RAM报告，它研究了在加州、德州和科罗拉多州每平方英尺住房的建造成本，并对两种类型的住房进行了分析：市场价格住房和由公共部门补贴的可负担住房。在加州，市场价格住房的建造成本是德州的两倍，但是当涉及到有公共资金补贴的住房时，由于新增的标准、规则和法规，这一成本增至大约4.4倍。
So you have this real problem I think in a way of governing that evolved in the 70s and 80s. There's a kind of small government version of the Democratic Party, the new left, more individualistic, that was worried about too much exercise of government power. Now that we are in a different world with different problems—we're thinking about reindustrializing, we have a housing shortage, and you have things like the Biden administration which really are thinking about how to build a lot more in America—but you don't have either a policy architecture or I would say a governing culture that makes that possible.
我认为你面临一个真正的问题，这是在七八十年代演变而来的治理方式。有一种小政府版的民主党，属于新左派，更加注重个人主义，对政府权力的过度使用感到担忧。现在我们处于一个不同的世界，有着不同的问题——我们在考虑再工业化，我们有住房短缺的问题，还有拜登政府这样的政府，真正着眼于如何在美国进行大规模建设——但我们既没有相应的政策结构，也没有我认为的那种使这一切成为可能的治理文化。
A lot of this came from Francis Foucaillama I think and Votocracy. Votocracy, how do you pronounce this? Yes, we're Foucaillama is a great sort of related concept of Votocracy which is the Votocracy. We also got another great concept for bringing up Foucaillama which is the Neo-Liberals which you've sort of been talking about here with a WTN. Other things he says people think about it as the veneration of the market, but it is first and foremost the degradation of the state, and I think that explains a lot more about the world we're in than people recognize.
许多这一切来自于 Francis Foucaillama，我认为，还有 Votocracy。Votocracy，这个词怎么读？是的，Foucaillama 是一个与 Votocracy 密切相关的很棒的概念，Votocracy 就是这个概念。我们还提到另一个很棒的概念是 Neoliberals（新自由主义者），这与您在这里提到的 WTN 有关。他所说的其他内容是，人们认为这是对市场的崇拜，但首先是对国家的贬低，我认为这比人们意识到的更能解释我们所处的世界。
You can agree with this, Francis Foucaillama is probably one of the most polarizing modern academics in America as you read. People end up being very pro Foucaillama or they think Foucaillama... well, because, yeah, I mean look because what happened is, I mean just to uplevel this for a second, is that you had Foucaillama right, the end of history which basically said that democratic capitalism is the end-all be-all and we're basically down to one system and the whole world's going to run on that system.
你可能会同意这一点，弗朗西斯·富卡亚马大概是你读过的美国现代学者中争议最大的一位。人们要么非常支持富卡亚马，要么对他持完全相反的意见，因为他提出的思想实在是太极端。简单来说，他的“历史的终结”理论认为，民主资本主义已经是唯一的最终制度，整个世界将会按照这个体系运行。
That philosophy then animated, I would say, a neo-liberal and neo-conservative consensus in Washington for 25 years and there were three key pillars of that, let's call it globalist consensus. Number one, we'd have open borders, free flow of labor. In fact, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which you know is considered to be conservative, actually supported a constitutional amendment saying that we'd have open borders. Number two, we'd have open flows of trade and capital—so basically the unfettered free trade agenda. Then number three, the third leg of it was Pax Americana: we deploy American troops all over the world to defend this consensus because they've agreed it as liberators, not occupiers. I think all three pillars have been refuted and the person who has represented the shift in this consensus to, I'd say, a new agenda of economic nationalism and geopolitical nationalism is Donald Trump.
这段话表达的意思是：在过去的25年里，华盛顿形形成了一种新自由主义和新保守主义的共识，这种全球化的共识是由三个关键支柱支撑的。首先，是开放边界和自由流动的劳动力，比如，《华尔街日报》的社论尽管被认为是保守的，却支持过一项宪法修正案，主张开放边界。其二，是开放的贸易和资本流动，简而言之就是不受限制的自由贸易议程。第三，则是“美式和平”，即美国在全球部署军队来维护这种共识，因为他们认为美军是解放者，而非占领者。我认为这三个支柱都已经被推翻，而代表这股共识转向新的经济民族主义和地缘政治民族主义的人物就是唐纳德·特朗普。
Okay, I was going to get you have—listen when you have so this is a real reason for violence. End of history and the last man is a much more complicated, but let me finish the point here because I'm kind of on a roll here. Yeah, keep wrapping it, bring it home. When you have a bipartisan consensus that included both Bush Republicans and Clinton Democrats around these three pillars of globalism and then I’d say that country turns against that, that's not going to be a smooth process. That is going to be potentially a violent process. It's going to be a disruptive process and you guys will raise like all these nippy objections and process or whatever.
好的，我本来想告诉你这个——听我说，这是一个真正导致暴力的原因。《历史的终结与最后的人》非常复杂，但让我先把这个观点说完，因为我现在思路很清晰。对，就继续总结，把它说清楚。当你有一个两党共识，包括了布什的共和党人和克林顿的民主党人，他们都支持全球化的三大支柱时，然后如果说这个国家开始反对这种共识，那这个过程不会很顺利。这可能会是一个充满暴力的过程，会是一个充满干扰的过程。你们可能会提出各种细小的反对意见或程序上的问题。
Donald Trump is bringing that realignment question. The real question is: was that consensus correct or was it a failure? I would argue it's a failure. Larry, let me ask you a question then. When you see something like doge happening and people start taking a bit of a more unilateral, a quicker, a less veto-based approach, is that encouraging to you, Larry? Do you think that's the right way to do it? Because we haven't been able to get the government smaller since Clinton, so are you pro doge? Not doge, and do you think this sort of objection to hey, we're going too fast too violently, maybe that's what we need to do at times?
唐纳德·特朗普正在提出关于重新定位的问题。关键的问题是：这种共识是正确的还是失败的？我认为这是失败的。拉里，那么我问你一个问题。当你看到像狗狗币这样的事情发生，人们开始采取更单边、更快速、减少否决的方式时，你是否感到鼓舞？你认为这样做是正确的吗？因为自克林顿以来，我们无法缩小政府规模，所以你支持狗狗币吗？不是狗狗币，你是否认为对我们行动太快太粗暴的反对其实是我们有时需要采取的方式？
And then I’ll go back to you, Ezra, to answer the same question. I think Ezra is broadly right about the promiscuous distribution of the veto power. He's broadly right that we need to be able to do more things more quickly in the state if we're to be an effective government. I think we need much more reform. I think democrats have allowed themselves excessively to become hostage to particular groups, particular traditional concerns, and have lost touch in important ways with an American mainstream.
接下来，我会回到你这边，Ezra，让你回答同样的问题。我认为Ezra的观点大体上是对的，就是我们太轻易地把否决权分散给太多人。他也对了一点，就是如果我们的政府想要更有效率，就必须在州一级能够更快地采取行动。我认为我们需要进行更多的改革。民主党人过于依赖特定团体和传统关切，导致他们在某些重要方面与美国的主流脱节。
I think that in so far as the election outcomes in recent years have not been what they want to that is an important contribution to how that has happened and I agree with David that Donald Trump represents the transformative and profoundly different ideology that has been present in governing America before. I do believe that it is fundamentally not new under the sun just new in America that it is the one perone approach which is very familiar to students of Latin American history in particular.
我认为，近年来的选举结果并没有如他们所愿，这在一定程度上说明了事情是如何发展的。我同意大卫所说的，唐纳德·特朗普代表了一种变革性且与之前美国执政理念截然不同的意识形态。我确实认为，这种方式在本质上并不是全新的，只不过对美国来说是新的。这其实是一种“强人政治”的做法，对于研究拉丁美洲历史的学者来说，这种方式非常熟悉。
And that the general experience of that approach is that its leaders, particularly when they have galvanizing personalities, can be very popular for a substantial period of time but that they are very rarely remembered well by historians of their countries. So my best judgment is that this project is going to end in disastrous failure despite having put its finger on some important concerns and issues. Of course there should be much more aggressive reform of the government than there is but that does not excuse or mean that it is likely to work out well for some of the mindless savagery that the dose is bringing to traditional American institutions.
这种方式的整体经验表明，其领导者，尤其是那些具有鼓动性人格的领导者，往往能够在相当长的时间内获得很高的人气，但在他们国家的历史学家眼中却很少被记住。我最好的判断是，尽管这个项目确实指出了一些重要的关注和问题，但它最终会以灾难性的失败告终。当然，政府确实应该进行比现有更积极的改革，但这并不能成为某些盲目的破坏行为对传统美国机构所造成影响的理由，也不意味着这种方式会有好的结果。
It's going to work out well and to take just one example, my belief is that the revenue loss from the dosage destruction of significant part of the functioning of our nation's tax collection system is likely to exceed in terms of contributing more to the deficit than any savings. Can you describe that simply? What do you mean by that? What is identified the right thing but they're executing on it too much? Go ahead.
这件事会有好的结果，举一个例子来说，我相信，由于对我们国家税收系统功能的严重破坏，导致的收入损失，很可能比任何节省的效果更会加剧赤字。你能简单描述一下这是什么意思吗？你的意思是什么？是不是找对了方向但执行过度了呢？请继续。
You know I have two questions. Larry, just tactically what do you mean by the destruction of the revenue collecting mechanism? That's question number one which was just I just want to understand what you meant higher. My second question which is more broadly if Larry if you were president for a day just give us the Larry Summers plan. Like what is the counterfactual to what's happening now? You can include tariffs; you can include those. I just want to understand how you would frame the solution to what ails us.
你知道我有两个问题。Larry，战术上来说，你说的“收入收集机制的破坏”具体是什么意思？这是我的第一个问题，我只是想更深入地了解你的意思。第二个问题比较广泛，假如Larry你能当一天总统，请告诉我们你会制定怎样的计划。就是如果不按照现在的情况发展，你会有什么不同的方案？你可以包括关税之类的措施，我只是想了解你会如何看待和解决我们面临的问题。
So maybe tactically just talk about the collections part because you referenced it and then just more strategically what the Larry Summers 2.0 plan is. We are firing on mass people whose job it is to audit people like you, and the results of that is that we are losing revenue directly. We are losing revenue further because people once audited go straight in subsequent years and we are losing revenue because more and more people are playing the audit lottery engaging in problematic practices in the expectation can I breath your bubble on this but they will not.
也许我们可以从策略上讨论一下与收款部分有关的内容，因为你提到了它，然后从更战略的角度来看“拉里·萨默斯2.0计划”是什么。我们正在大量解雇那些负责审计的人，而这样做的直接后果是我们的收入在减少。因为被审计过的人通常会在之后的几年里采取合规行为，以避免再次被审计，所以收入进一步减少。此外，越来越多的人在参与所谓的“审计彩票”，进行有问题的操作，因为他们期望不会被审计。抱歉打破你的幻想，但事情并非如此。
Okay, okay that they will not be caught. Let me tell you my experience. I get audited every year automatically and the reason you get audited every single year is typically the way that you acquire your wealth creates complexity. 700 800 900 page tax filings now you don't do that yourself what happens is you typically pay a large big for accounting for millions of dollars to do it Deloitte PWC Anderson etc every year that I've been audited the biggest delta has been about a thousand bucks in this case I actually was odour thousand by the US government last year which was spending on incredible I'll spend it everywhere so Larry just so you know well aware of everything you just said and I have no doubt about your personal integrity it's not the only part you think it is less than a quarter of people with incomes over 10 million dollars are audited so lucky it's just it's just not true let me ask you everybody is not true that everybody is that everybody is audited.
好的，好的，他们不会被抓到。让我告诉你我的经历。我每年都会自动被审计，其原因通常是你获取财富的方式带来了复杂性。700、800、900页的报税文件，你自己一般不会处理这些，而是通常每年花费数百万美元请会计师事务所来做，比如德勤、普华永道、安德森等。我每年被审计时，最多的差额大约是1000美元。实际上，去年美国政府还欠了我1000美元，我可以在任何地方花掉。因此，拉里，我对你刚才所说的一切都非常清楚，我完全相信你的个人诚信。事实上并不是每个人都被审计。收入超过1000万美元的人中不到四分之一会被审计，所以这种说法是不准确的。让我问问大家，并不是每个人都会被审计，对吗？
I get the sense Larry you're you like doge but you don't like the execution got it Ezra you talk about your book we got to move faster we got to do things faster we got to take more risk so are you pro doge or not and if you look at the democratic if you look at this administration I'm going to call it Trump 2.0 for clarity these are I would say two out of three people are on Trump whether it's Shamat your Rogan besent Howard even Trump himself are Clinton Democrats so it's basically Clinton going to say yourself what I don't matter Ezra are you happy about doge your book seems to be a plan to do doge like things I think building state capacity is two dimensions one is what the state can do and the second is a rules under which it doesn't doge seems to me to be fundamentally destructive of state capacity.
我大概明白了，Larry 你似乎喜欢狗狗币，但对其实施不太满意，对吧？Ezra，你谈到你的书，我们需要加快速度，做事更快，并承担更多风险。那么，你到底支持狗狗币吗？如果看看民主党和当前政府，我称之为“特朗普2.0”是为了更清晰明了。在某种程度上，我会说三分之二的人支持特朗普，无论是Shamat、Rogan、Besent、Howard，甚至是特朗普本人，其实都是“克林顿派”民主党人。所以基本上是克林顿会对自己说这件事无所谓。Ezra，你对狗狗币满意吗？你的书似乎是在计划做一些类似狗狗币的事情。我认为构建国家能力是两个层面，一个是国家能做什么，另一个是它不做的规则。在我看来，狗狗币从根本上破坏了国家能力。
First and this goes again to my endless frustration that I feel like goals are not clearly laid out in the Trump administration what are the measures we are looking at and how will they achieve them is it just trying to cut spending dollars they've been very is that but that's not efficiency right I could save a trillion dollars no I could save a trillion dollars of ways it will make the let's put it this way what Larry was just saying right if you cut everybody the IRS right just cut every single one of them on the doge measure of how much dd save in headcount that will look like it counted up towards your save a trillion dollars goal but in terms of what Larry is saying which is the long term efficiency of us tax collections you would have just made the IRS much much much less efficient and we get that but they've also cut all these official software consulting nonsense there is a lot of stuff I am not going to tell you there are zero doge cuts that made sense but I am to say that what I see them doing overall is highly destructive state capacity or similarly a lot of things happening around USAID and say pep far funding is pep far efficient I mean yes you save money by not giving HIV retrovirols to children in Africa but I think it is good that you do that right so that's not the kind of efficiency I'm looking for.
首先，我感到无尽的挫败感，因为我觉得特朗普政府没有明确制定目标。我们正在关注什么样的措施，他们将如何实现这些目标？仅仅是为了削减开支吗？如果是这样，那就不是真正的效率。我可以省下数万亿美元，举个例子，就像拉里刚才所说的，如果你解雇所有的国税局员工，这在减少人头开支上可能会显示为达到了你省下一万亿美元的目标。但从拉里的观点来看，即美国税收的长期效率，你实际上使国税局变得非常非常低效。我们理解这一点，但他们也削减了一些官方软件咨询等不必要的东西。我并不是说没有任何合理的削减措施，但我认为他们整体上的做法是对国家能力造成了极大的破坏。还有在美国国际开发署和“总统防治艾滋病紧急救援计划”（PEPFAR）等项目上的变动。PEPFAR高效吗？是的，你可以通过不给非洲儿童提供艾滋病抗逆转录病毒药物来省钱，但我认为这样做是好的。这不是我所想要的效率。
I am interested in state capacity that is connected to achieving specific goals I've talked to a bunch of people around doge and again here you get a lot of different ideas of what the goals are some people say well what we're trying to do is save money but if what you wanted to do is save money you could say go to congress and do a very big bill there is a lot of interest in congress people like rocona who wanted to work with doge to identify big spending cuts that both sides could agree on defense being a big being a big piece of this and then they decided not to do it so doge to me it would be great if somebody tried it but I see this is much more of a discussion of state capacity and a hack and slash operation.
我对与实现特定目标相关的国家能力很感兴趣。我与许多对狗狗币（doge）感兴趣的人交谈过，他们对于目标有着不同的看法。有些人说，他们的目标是节省开支。但是如果你想要节省开支，你可以去国会推动一项大型法案。国会中有很多人对此感兴趣，比如 Ro Khanna，他想与狗狗币合作确定双方都能同意的大幅削减开支，国防是其中的一个重要部分。最终，他们决定不实施这个计划。所以对我来说，狗狗币的研究更像是关于国家能力的讨论以及一种大幅削减的操作。我希望有人尝试这一策略。
Larry Summers we're going to thank you for coming I know you've got to drop off right now thank you what about Larry Summers to point out could be a lot of opportunity would you like to do your Larry Summers? Yeah before you just know about the counterfactuals yeah what's your plan Larry counterfactual is focus on necessary strategic investments in infrastructure in making America the leading country unambiguously in the world in technology particularly disseminating in large scale artificial intelligence for collective benefit building a larger network of alliances so that we are in a position to counter China both with hard power in the form of increased military expenditures and with moral strength and the world as a whole as a whole behind us as a central organizing theme of foreign policy.
拉里·萨默斯，我们非常感谢你能来光临。我知道你现在得走了，谢谢你。有关拉里·萨默斯指出的巨大机遇，你有什么看法？在你做决定之前，是否了解反事实情况？那么拉里，你有什么计划呢？反事实关注的是必要的战略投资，特别是在基础设施方面，把美国打造成全球领先的科技国家。特别是在大规模推广人工智能以实现集体利益方面。我们需要建立更庞大的联盟网络，以便在军事开支增加所形成的硬实力以及道德力量方面，能够对抗中国，让整个世界站在我们这边，这是我们外交政策的核心主题。
And reinvent our education system at every level to pick up on Ezra's notion of being about results and doing all of that while you're doing the abundance agenda as well of frames stuff up so that we're in a position for governments to get things done. I believe the country is best governed from the center not best governed from a radical fringe. And I believe moving to a transactional model of leadership is the approach of Latin American strong men and history does not find it to be a successful model and so I would venerate rather than denigrate the rule of law as part of governing the country.
在各个层面上重塑我们的教育体系，以实现Ezra关于结果导向的理念，并在推动充裕议程的同时抓住机会，使政府能够更好地执行任务。我相信，国家最好的治理方式是从中间立场出发，而不是依靠极端派。我也认为采用交易式的领导模式是拉丁美洲强人领导风格，但从历史来看这并不是成功的模式。因此，我主张尊重法治，以便更好地治理国家，而非贬低它。
All right they have folks Larry Summers appreciate you coming on the pod thank you Larry spicy spicy episode here sex you wanted agents to respond on the doge issue as we wrap well yeah I mean I'm pretty productive episode yeah let me let let me partially agree with Ezra here. I mean I think that he's trying to introduce this idea of an abundance agenda to the democrat party I think that's a good thing. You know I know you've talked about permitting reform and not tying up projects and so many hoops and so much environmental regulation and you know even DEI and all this kind of stuff so I think that is all well and good I mean we should we should do those things.
好的，他们请来了一些嘉宾，比如拉里·萨默斯，感谢你参加我们的播客，拉里。这是一集充满火药味的节目，你想让代理人回应狗狗币的问题，随着我们的结束，是的，我的意思是这是相当有成效的一集。让我部分同意埃兹拉的观点。我认为他正在努力将“丰裕议程”引入民主党，我认为这是好事。我知道你谈到过许可改革，以及不让项目被各种障碍和过多的环境监管，甚至是多元、公平和包容（DEI）等问题困扰。所以我认为这些都是好事，我们确实应该做这些事情。
The thing that I take issue with is that you're on the one hand saying that there's way too much process around just getting things done right when you're talking about public works but the objection you're making to Elon is that he's not following enough process you know it's not enough niceties. Larry called it mindless savagery this is the problem is how do you expect anything to ever get done the reason why your public works projects don't happen is because there's too many special interests who get organized and they stop it. Okay what Elon is trying to do we have a two trillion dollar annual deficit he's trying to figure out how to cut it every single program that gets cut the interests who receive that money and we found out that it's hopelessly corrupt.
我所关注的问题是，你一方面说在处理公共建设时，流程太多，导致事情难以推进。但你对埃隆的批评是他没有遵循足够的流程，认为他不够注重细节。拉里称之为盲目的野蛮。这就是问题所在——你如何期望事情能顺利完成？公共建设项目无法推行的原因是有太多特殊利益集团阻挠。埃隆在尝试解决的是我们每年两万亿美元的赤字问题，他正在寻找办法削减开支。而每当一个项目被削减时，那些依赖于这笔钱的利益集团就会反对，我们发现这些集团非常腐败。
You know stacey Abrams gets a two billion dollars for a nonprofit and you have all these NGOs who are basically cashing in they're all going to do everything in their power to stop those cuts from happening and they're the ones who are ginning up this hysteria you know burning down card dealerships and so forth and so on. So this is the problem that I see is that you don't really have a kind work to say for the people are actually getting things done who actually are performing things Elon is one who's actually making has a difference.
你知道 Stacey Abrams 为一家非营利组织获得了二十亿美元资助，还有很多类似的非政府组织（NGOs）在赚大钱。他们会竭尽所能地阻止这些削减，他们也在制造恐慌，比如焚烧汽车经销店等等。我看到的问题是，你没有一个恰当的词来描述那些真正努力工作并取得成果的人。Elon 就是这样的人，他确实有所作为。
Yeah can you find any good in this I mean you you sound like your cherry picking you when when I brought it up and a question you like you support does your first thing is to say like well here's my favorite pet projects I want to keep this but yes right like this is I think really important and weirdly it's the throughline of almost everything I've said on the show today knowing what you are trying to achieve is the first part of achieving it. So doji's cutting things that I think do good in the world I'm not going to say hey look they're making the government more efficient we no longer have us you know a strong foreign aid program or whatever it might be.
嗯，你能在这其中找到什么好处吗？我是说，你听起来好像是在断章取义。当我提到这个问题时，你支持的反应似乎是：先说"这是我最喜欢的项目，我想保留这个"，但是，是的，我觉得这个真的很重要。而且奇怪的是，这几乎是我今天在节目中所说的一切的主线。知道你想要达到什么是实现它的第一步。所以说，如果削减一些我认为对世界有益的东西，我不会说："嘿，看看吧，这让政府更高效了，我们不再有一个强有力的对外援助计划，或是什么其他的东西。"
They've destroyed the Department of Education without knowing what they're cutting there I don't think doji's doing a good job because I don't think they have any in a thoughtful way connected means and ends and weirdly my critique off to the democrats is also that they have not been outcomes focused they've been process focused. So David's point here is actually not been the critique I've made here I would make procedural criticisms of doji but there's a world in which my hate on doji is look I agree with what they are trying to do but I wish they would follow the law but that's not my take on the common Harris continuing the spending that was going on or Elon and doji cutting which would you choose.
他们在不了解具体情况的情况下，摧毁了教育部。我认为Doji（道奇派）没做好，因为他们没有以一种深思熟虑的方式把手段和目标连接起来。而奇怪的是，我对民主党的批评也是他们没有关注结果，而是关注过程。所以，在这方面，大卫的观点其实并不是我在这里提出的批评。我会对Doji提出程序上的批评，但也存在一种可能：我其实认同他们的目标，只是希望他们能依法行事。但这并不是我对继续大规模支出的卡马拉·哈里斯和埃隆·马斯克以及Doji削减开支的看法。你会选择哪一个？
I would absolutely prefer to combo Harris administration to the Trump administration would I like to see democrats be significantly more reformist yes I've written a book about it I'm trying to persuade them of this. Our future book is about getting rid of this red tape and you just said you want to keep the people not just getting it's not just getting you just yeah you say you want to change this is radical change I agree but you just said you would rather have had the person and the administration that put nine trillion on top of the whole not all not all.
我绝对更倾向于选择哈里斯政府而不是特朗普政府。我希望看到民主党能进行更多的改革，是的，我已经为此写了一本书，并试图说服他们。我们的下一本书是关于去除繁文缛节的，而你刚刚说你不仅想留住这些人，不仅仅是得到——你刚才说你想要改变，这是一个激进的改变，我同意。但你刚才说你宁愿要那个人和政府，他们在原有基础上增加了九万亿美元，但并不是全部。
I'll never get that change as you guys all invited me here you'll never get the abundance agenda that you want I don't think it's people like Elon or Trump who get things done this is the way that politics work you have to have a paradigm shift to get what you want. I think getting dumb things done is not good change right I actually don't understand how this point is so hard to grok if you get a lot of change and the change is bad I am going to think that is bad not good. Hope that is true for all of you that if Kamala Harris or some other democrat came in and began wrecking things that you wouldn't say well we needed a bunch of change like let's break everything at sight.
我永远也无法获得改变，因为你们把我邀请到这里，你们也永远无法得到你们想要的丰盈议程。我不认为像马斯克或特朗普这样的人能够成就事情，这就是政治运作的方式。你必须进行范式转变才能获得你想要的结果。我认为做愚蠢的事情并不是好的改变，我真的不明白为什么这个观点这么难以理解。如果你得到了很多改变，而这些改变是坏的，我会认为这是不好的。我希望对于你们所有人来说，如果卡玛拉·哈里斯或其他民主党人上台并开始破坏事情，你们不会说我们需要一堆改变，比如随便破坏一切。
I want to see things done well there should be good permitting reform I think so let me give you let me give you an example the kind of thing that I am looking for we talked about ships a bunch on this show I like the chips act I did a big piece that coined the term everything bagel liberalism about the way in which the ideas inside that act when they began building out the grant program layered on too many standards and programs and so on but one thing they then did was they passed a bill or by an signed a bill by Ted Cruz and Markelli taking chips out of the normal environmental review because I said look if this is a matter of national security and we're trying to build a semiconductor fab so quickly we cannot have this layered in years of environmental view which now take on average three and a half to four years.
我希望事情能做好，并且应该有好的许可改革。我举个例子来说明我想要的东西。我们在这个节目中多次讨论过芯片问题，我喜欢《芯片法案》。关于《芯片法案》中包含的各种想法当初在建立资助项目时增加了太多标准和程序，我写了一篇重要文章称之为“全能芝麻贝果自由主义”。但后来他们通过了一项法案，或者说通过了一项由泰德·克鲁兹和马克·凯利签署的法案，将芯片项目从常规环境审查中剔除。因为我说过，如果这是国家安全问题，我们想要快速建造半导体工厂，就不能让这个项目陷入长达三年半到四年的环境审查中。
So because I care a lot about clean energy one of my arguments is that we should have a speed run for clean energy it should knock through the normal levels of review what is happening California high speed rail we're had 12 years of environmental review was not in my view good idea at the same time that doesn't force me to say well I think we should build a bunch of coal plants with that environmental review because I can make distinctions between things I want to see happen in the world and things I don't I think you're totally right with that let me give you the more practical day to day example because those are these albatross projects that are largely a byproduct of ineptitude and corruption but let me tell you a more tactical example so that you can understand why what Elon and Trump are doing is so necessary.
因为我非常关心清洁能源，所以我有一个观点，就是我们应该加速推进清洁能源的发展，应该简化常规的审批流程。看看加州的高铁项目，它经历了12年的环境审查，我认为这并不是什么好主意。但这不意味着我必须说我支持在经过环境审查的情况下建造一堆燃煤电厂，因为我能够区分我希望在世界上看到的事情和我不希望看到的事情。你完全正确，我给你一个更实用的日常例子，因为那些大型项目大多是无能和腐败的产物。但让我给你一个更具体的例子，这样你就能理解为什么埃隆·马斯克和特朗普的做法如此必要。
So as I told you in 2020 on the back end of covid I started a business to build battery cathode active material in the United States okay so that's a business we need so that when you want to electrify everything you want to electrify there are batteries that we can make that's not reliant on the Chinese supply chain it made sense the guy that I started it with worked for Elon the other guy I started it with was a professor at Stanford and the third guy I started it with was the head of battery engineering at Toyota a more complete group of people I think you couldn't put together.
因此，正如我在 2020 年新冠疫情后期告诉过你的那样，我在美国开始了一项业务，生产用于电池的正极活性材料。这样，当你想实现所有事物电气化时，我们就有能力制造不依赖中国供应链的电池。这是一个很有意义的举措。我与我一起创办公司的一个搭档曾为埃隆工作，另一位是斯坦福大学的教授，还有一位是丰田电池工程部门的负责人。我认为，很难再找到这样一个更完整的团队了。
So we start to build we get a deal with general motors so far so good but eventually you hit a point where in order to really commercialize you need some form of government acknowledgement that you're good and the way that you do that is you apply to the DOE and the DOE has a very legitimate grant program that tries to accelerate these key things especially things that are critical we went through that program Ezra we paid a couple million dollars in consulting fees to the people that we were told to pay it to and we were rejected okay fine kept going I kept funding the business and then next year last year we applied again 125 companies applied 25 were shortlisted we all went through incredible diligence we won incredible validation at the end of that entire process.
我们开始推进，与通用汽车达成了一项协议，一切顺利。但最终，为了真正实现商业化，我们需要某种形式的政府认可来证明我们的实力。实现这一目标的方法是申请美国能源部（DOE）的支持，该部门有一个非常正式的资助计划，旨在加速这些关键领域的发展，尤其是那些至关重要的东西。我们参与了这个计划，Ezra，我们为咨询服务支付了几百万美元给所指定的人员，但仍被拒绝了。没关系，我们继续前进，我继续为公司提供资金。第二年，也就是去年，我们再次申请。共有125家公司申请，其中25家进入了候选名单。我们经历了严格的尽职调查，并在整个过程中获得了极大的认可。
So really two years from when I started and millions of dollars we got a hundred million dollar federal grant from the DOE and fifty million dollars from Michigan to build a plant in Michigan to help redemesticate battery cam in the United States it turned out that in that same period while we were going through that rigour roll stacey Abrams got two billion dollars after 30 days and I just asked the question what is broken inside of the government that that's possible that hopelessly corrupt that's exactly right company is fifty people fifty people where none of this money goes into our pockets we take that money and we then have to raise more money I have to put in more money we try to hire people we try to build a battery factory that can basically give us resilience against the Chinese which I think is great they're an incredibly forwarded you know strong and viable competitor in 30 days she got 20 times more than we did how do you explain it.
所以，实际上从我开始的那一天算起到现在两年时间里，我们获得了来自美国能源部的一亿美元联邦拨款以及来自密歇根州的五千万美元，用于在密歇根州建造一家工厂，帮助美国重新生产电池化学材料。然而，令人感到意外的是，在我们经历这段繁琐过程的同时，斯泰西·艾布拉姆斯在短短30天内就获得了20亿美元。我不禁要问，政府内部到底出了什么问题，使得这样的事情可能发生，这种腐败几乎无可救药。我们的公司有50名员工，这些钱没有进我们的口袋，而是被用来筹集更多的资金，我还必须投入更多，我们尝试雇佣更多的人，努力建一家电池工厂，以便增强我们对抗中国的能力。我认为这很棒，因为他们是一个令人敬畏的，强大的竞争者。但是在短短30天内，她却获得了比我们多20倍的资金，这要如何解释呢？
So here's what I'll say I'll see here's what I'll say on the two things and how do you fix I have not myself looked deeply in the stacey abrams story but I am very skeptical of the counts I keep hearing about it I suspect that if she had made two billion dollars in 30 days she wouldn't be now hosting a podcast on crooked media. she'd be on an island somewhere so I can't comment on that piece of it what I yeah the president of America it's a joke from Donald Trump actually very out the broader thing here though right which is you're getting at you're frankly what I worry about is that what you had in that DOE process was fairly quick for the government one of the things that I am targeting in the book is a way that even when members of the administration when governors want things to happen they are not willing to upend the process to pass the new bills to reconstruct the architecture of the federal or the state government to get it happen.
所以，我要说的关于这两件事情是，如何解决它们。我自己并没有深入研究斯泰西·艾布拉姆斯的故事，但我对一直听到的报道持怀疑态度。我怀疑如果她在30天内赚了20亿美元，她现在就不会在Crooked Media上主持播客了，而是可能在某个岛屿上度假。所以我无法评论这部分内容。至于美国总统的话题，从唐纳德·特朗普那里听来的玩笑很离谱。这里更广泛的问题其实是，我真正担心的是，在那个能源部的过程中，政府的反应相对迅速，而我在书中想要探讨的一点是，即便当政府成员或州长想要推动某些事情时，他们也不愿意颠覆现有的程序来通过新的法案，或者重构联邦或州政府的架构以实现目标。
Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom wanted high-speed rail to happen can't you acknowledge it's insane that somebody can get two billion dollars after 30 days I am not going to acknowledge a story I've not looked into myself because I'm not sure I trust the count I don't think it's crazy I don't think it's crazy get the money after 30 days but it depends on whether or not the process was good hold on I want to stop before you guys move around a bunch of like I want to stay on the one thing that I want to stay on with abundance for a minute here is that the thing that I think would be useful to do is actually build legislation to make these processes work more quickly with more discretion from decision makers and then oversight after the fact rather than heavy process before the fact.
Jerry Brown 和 Gavin Newsom 希望高铁项目能够实现。难道你不能承认有人在30天后能获得20亿美元这件事听起来很疯狂吗？对于我没有亲自查证过的事情，我无法承认，因为我不确定自己是否相信这些说法。我不认为在30天后拿到钱是疯狂的，但这取决于过程是否合理。我想在你们继续讨论其他话题之前稍作停顿。我想集中谈谈一件事情，就是我认为需要制定立法，以便让这些流程运作得更迅速，同时给予决策者更大的灵活性，然后在事后进行监督，而不是在事前进行繁琐的流程。
I was talking to somebody highly involved in the role broadband programs under a Biden and one of the things they were saying to me was that there is this entire edifice as he put it of policy that is here to make sure I do nothing wrong what would be better and I think this is right is to allow me to act more and then look afterwards to see if I did something wrong and then hold the accountable for it I think too much of our regulation is precautionary as opposed to being able to let people move quickly and make decisions in the real world and then go back and see how they worked out I think that's a great point and I agree with you on that and I think there are a lot of people out there who would say that governments too too bureaucratic there's too much red tape in terms of getting things done any kind of project like the rural broadband takes 15 steps three of them were DEI that's crazy the environmental reviews and the lawsuits that bogged these projects down for years make them unfinanceable.
我和一位高度参与拜登政府下农村宽带项目的人交流过，他告诉我一个观点：他们认为目前的政策体系过于注重防止犯错，阻碍了行动。他认为，应该允许我们先采取行动，然后再评估结果是否有问题，并据此追责。我认为这是个很好的观点，也很赞同他的看法。许多人认为政府过于官僚，做事繁文缛节太多，像农村宽带这样的项目需要经过15个步骤，其中三个与多元、公平和包容（DEI）有关，这很荒唐。此外，环境审核和相关诉讼常常使这些项目拖延多年，导致项目无法融资。
There are people who agree with you on that you know what they're called Republicans Republicans agree with this but you know who doesn't agree with you AOC and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders so maybe you're in the wrong party because I don't think you're going to convince Democrats of this but we'll see well I wish you well in that I hope you appreciate that yeah no I do I hope I think if you convince Democrats of this I think it'd be a great thing but look this is my issue with some of what you and Larry are saying is that you want Elon and Trump to abide by all these procedural niceties you want them to play by I don't say that Queenbury rules you keep saying this is my view but it's not my view you know who get things done and this is what we say in Silicon Valley you know who get things done disruptive people founders founder mentalities they're the ones who get things done.
有些人同意你的观点，你知道他们是谁吗？是共和党人。共和党人同意你的观点，但你知道谁不同意吗？AOC（亚历山大·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯）、伊丽莎白·沃伦和伯尼·桑德斯。所以也许你加入了错误的政党，因为我觉得你很难说服民主党人接受这个观点，但我们拭目以待。我希望你在这方面好运，也希望你能理解这一点。是的，我确实希望如此。我觉得如果你能说服民主党人接受这个观点，会是一件很好的事情。但我对你和拉里所说的一些观点有问题，你们希望埃隆和特朗普遵循所有这些程序，你们希望他们遵守所谓的规则。这不是我的观点，你一直说这是我的观点，但不是，你知道谁能真正办成事吗？在硅谷，我们说能办成事的人是那些有颠覆性思想的人，是那些创始人和创业者，他们才是真正能推动事情向前发展的人。
Your response as you're as we wrap here and you have to getting dumb things done quickly is not a good idea Starlink is a much better idea than rural broadband neither batteries batteries are not dumb things you're asking me about what Trump and and Musco doing right now we started here on the tariffs what what you're watching with Trump is using expanded terror authorities to do things that have a bad process behind them and we'll have a bad set of outcomes so look I've asked you many many times here I don't really feel like I got the set of metrics I was looking for but we will maybe talk again in two or three years and we can decide together was this genius work by the disruptors or was this a really really dumb approach to economic policy.
我们在这里总结一下你的回应，认为快速完成愚蠢的事情并不是一个好主意。而Starlink比乡村宽带要好多了，电池也不是什么愚蠢的东西。你问我关于特朗普和马斯克现在在做什么，我们从讨论关税开始。你看到的是，特朗普正在利用扩大的关税权力来做一些背后流程不佳的事情，并且将会导致一系列不好的结果。我多次询问你，但我感觉没有得到我想要的指标。但也许两三年后我们可以再讨论一下，到时可以一起决定这是创新者的天才之举还是一个非常愚蠢的经济政策方法。
What was the issue with the metrics that I gave you as you don't think they're good I don't think they're you want the unit of measurement kilograms I don't think they're completely complete I think you're processing us you're doing to us exactly what the government bureaucrats did to rural broadband what's your metric how long's it going to take you to deploy this we have to check this yeah exactly come on these are debate here's all you need to know asra it's a hundred bucks to get starlink it's 15,000 to do five you really think principles and you're trying to bog it down in procedural arguments hold on this is amazing to me you really think saying to you in two years what are three or four metrics that we gave me doesn't fit the poll I mean look we don't need to do this whole thing again but what you gave me doesn't fit the policy it's just re-industrialization hold on we said that we want to re-industrialize America in critical industries especially and reduce our dependence on foreign supply chains that are based in potential ever-cure countries concrete enough as well those are a sufficient objective because the other thing that I the part of you the part of it that I did not hear was okay where is the economy right there's got to be some cost you don't want to wait so what metric would you want
你给我的指标有什么问题，你认为它们不好。我觉得你是想要用千克作为测量单位，但我觉得这些指标还不够完整。我认为你正像政府官僚对待农村宽带那样对待我们。你的指标是什么？部署这项任务需要多长时间？我们得核对一下。是的，没错。拜托，这就是辩论。这些是你需要知道的：星链需要100美元，而做5项需要15,000美元。你真的在考虑原则，还试图在程序性争论中纠缠吗？ 等等，这让我感到惊讶。你真的认为我在两年后问你提供的三个或四个指标不符合要求吗？ 看，我们不需要再重新讨论这整个事情，但你给我的东西不符合政策目标。我们所说的是，我们希望在关键行业中重工业化美国，尤其是减少对潜在敌对国家供应链的依赖。这些目标已经足够具体，因为我没有听到的是经济状况如何。肯定会有一些成本，你不想等待，那么你希望使用什么指标来衡量呢？
I'd like to see like okay GDP growth has been x I will you want positive GDP growth and we want resiliency for those four critical industries amongst others okay and it'd be nice for the trade deficits come down and you know those are your certain countries yeah get back to work then we're all going to get back to work we got the four critical industries we got the GDP increase and trade deficits it's it's an open debate all right Ezra climbs new book abundance is out in fine bookstores and amazon and all kinds of other places you can get it and you can hear him on podcasts incessantly when are you gonna stop this podcast where is oh man oh man it's a good thing to do one of the last absolutely all right we'll talk you soon Ezra by all thanks for having me thanks Ezra all right thanks Ezra how do you think the debate went I think is a good debate to have and we made progress here the paradox of all of this is what they're describing in some ways is what Trump and Elon are doing yes but it's a it's a bit too hot so if I were to give a criticism or room for improvement to the current administration to maybe pull some of these people over it's basically we're slowing down and explaining what's going on a bit better I give the administration and like I give doge any plus plus it's obvious like they're doing the right thing I give the communication like a B like just increase the communication and you can see they're doing that
我希望看到 GDP 增长，比如说，增加了多少。我们想要 GDP 的正增长，并希望在包括这四个关键行业在内的多个领域保持韧性。贸易逆差能减少就更好了，当然，还有某些国家的问题。大家都要重返工作岗位，当我们实现这四个关键行业的发展、GDP 的增长以及贸易逆差的减少时，这些都是可以讨论的话题。Ezra Klein 的新书《Abundance》已经在各大书店和亚马逊上架，你也可以在各种播客中不断听到他的声音。你什么时候要停下这些播客呢？哦，天哪，这确实是件值得做的事之一。好的，我们很快再聊，Ezra，再见，谢谢你邀请我。Ezra，你认为今天的辩论怎么样？我认为这是一个值得进行的辩论，我们在这里取得了一些进展。矛盾之处在于，他们描述的情况在某些方面类似于特朗普和埃隆正在做的事情，但有些过于激进。对于现任政府，我的建议是放慢步伐，解释清楚正在发生的事情，这样可以争取更多人的支持。我给政府的努力评一个高分，比如说，加密货币的推动，他们做得很好。但在沟通方面我打个 B 评级，只要加强沟通，就能更清晰地展示出他们正在做的正确事情。
Antonio went out and talked a bit about doge they did a round table and they're updating the website faster the more you do that the less the opposition's mind is going to wander the same thing with the tariffs if the tariffs will if if the cent was out there front center every day talking about methodically what their plan was instead of the shock and off I think people would be able to process it quickly let me just add one thing to that one person's opinion okay I like that obviously you can always say that communication should be better but but here's the reality of it take doge for example yeah you have crazy leftist fire bombing tesla dealerships painting swastikas on Tesla cars a costing Tesla drivers okay creating violence and payoffs and trying to depress tesla sales okay and who's to blame for that and then what people say is well somehow elons the disruptive figure here you have a crazy left wing that's reacting in crazy ways to sensible things that doge is doing and then what people do is they reinterpret this chaos has been created by the left is they put the blame for that on Elon
安东尼奥出门谈了一些关于狗狗币的事情，他们进行了一次圆桌讨论，并正在更快地更新网站。你越多这样做，反对派的注意力就越不容易分散。同样的情况也适用于关税问题。如果关税政策每天在大家面前展示，并有条理地解释他们的计划，而不是让人感到震惊，我认为人们会更容易理解。让我补充一点，这是一个人的意见。就拿狗狗币来说，确实是这样。你看到有极端左翼的激进分子在袭击特斯拉经销商店，把纳粹标志涂在特斯拉汽车上，骚扰特斯拉司机，制造暴力冲突并试图打压特斯拉销量。那么，这应该归咎于谁？之后人们会说，似乎是埃隆成为了这个扰乱性人物。你看，是极左翼在对狗狗币正在做的合理事情做出疯狂反应，随后大家将这种混乱归咎于埃隆。
I think your explanation there is even more reason to be proactively communicating decisions so and that doesn't forgive anybody drawing swastikas on Tesla's obviously they should go to jail and if anybody's coordinating it that should be like a rico case we should find out who it is just if we're going to bring these two parties together which I think we came close to here of like finding some common ground.
我认为你的解释说明了积极沟通决策的重要性，这更加坚定了我的看法。当然，这并不能为任何人在特斯拉上画纳粹标志的人开脱，这些人应该被送进监狱。如果有人在背后协调这件事，那应该被作为一个“反敲诈和腐败组织法”（RICO）案件来处理，我们需要找出幕后黑手。如果我们想让双方走到一起，也就是找到一些共同点，那就应该这样做。
I think chamafu outlining your four bullets and then at the end as we're saying well what's the impact on gdp and then you add into that sacks well what's the you know input on the trade difference for the first time you know these two sides I think we outlined what should happen what should the measure be in two years are have we ensured those important industries is gdp robust and is the trade deficit deficit more balanced.
我认为，在您提出的四个要点后，我们还需要探讨这一切对GDP的影响。然后，您可以加入关于贸易差额的问题。在我们的讨论中，我们首次将两方面结合起来，明确应采取哪些措施。两年后，我们需要评估这些措施产生的效果。我们是否确保了这些重要行业的稳定发展？我们的GDP是否保持强劲增长？贸易逆差是否更加平衡？
This is the same debate we always had over immigration let's pick a number and work towards a number right and that's where the debate in our country breaks down in my mind is that we don't pick numbers we can agree that we need a ton of innovation.
这就是我们关于移民问题一直以来的讨论：让我们选定一个数字，并朝这个数字努力。但是在我看来，我们国家的讨论总是破裂的地方在于，我们并没有选出一个一致同意的数字。不过我们可以同意，我们需要大量的创新。
Segue Jason go hey i chimap I saw that you were at the breakthrough prize a ceremony with the weekends are I couldn't make it you're I had family stuff but freeberg was there as well and as everybody knows this is the breakthrough prize is like kind of the Oscars for science they had hundreds of guests there and about a third of them were scientists the third were tech founders and you had a bunch of Hollywood folks there hosted by James cordon and you had Jeff Bezos you're emailing there as I mentioned zok vandizo surge and guenith and mr beast lots of excitement there.
翻译如下：
嗨，Jason，我注意到你去参加了突破奖颁奖典礼，而我没能去，因为我有家庭聚会。不过，Freeberg也去了。众所周知，突破奖就像是科学界的奥斯卡。他们邀请了数百位嘉宾，其中大约三分之一是科学家，三分之一是科技公司的创始人，还有一群好莱坞的人士。典礼由詹姆斯·科登主持，杰夫·贝佐斯也在现场。正如我提到的，还有小扎（扎克伯格）、范迪索（Vin Diesel）、谢尔盖（Sergey Brin）、格温妮丝（Gwyneth Paltrow）、以及Mr. Beast等众多名人也在场，现场气氛非常热闹。
And I know David you were at a secret conference that also I was almost invited to that you back when it's pal tro friend of the pop Jason my neck you can show some photos here oh we do have photos okay my wife my wife sent me a letter to read on the here so let me just open this up here what is it open letter it's an open letter to oh my god okay dear guenith pal tro cheese it's open love letter to guenith okay i'm just gonna read this here okay last night when I met you you i learned in that moment that fair amounts are not a myth they are real and apparently trademark by you.
我知道，David，你参加了一场我差点被邀请的秘密会议，当时是你和朋友Gwyneth Paltrow一同参加的Jason我的脖子上你可以展示一些照片哦，我们确实有照片。我妻子给我寄了一封信让我在这里读出来，让我打开看看哦，这是给Gwyneth Paltrow的公开信吗？是的，看起来是一封公开的爱情信。好吧，我就读一下。亲爱的Gwyneth Paltrow，昨晚当我见到你时，我明白信息素并不是一个神话，它们是真实存在的，而且显然是由你注册商标的。
You have the kind of femininity that could destabilize the stock market i left the encounter slightly dazed unsure if it was your presence or an as of yet unlisted group candle okay wait let's just stop you let me just man explain what she's trying to say here guys wait you are you saying that you got a crop right in a pot trust the stock market guenith pal tro is hot as balls okay that's the answer to try or saying she crashed the mark she has so much aura and ris david you have to i mean i don't know if we have the picture where david met her at the jpm conference but she is so kind she's got high EQ but i gotta say so cool i have to say like i've met a lot of stars that's like a star star that's a star star where you're just like holy you're just kind of like a little bit in awe hmm she's oh she's a star she's a star.
你有一种能让股市动荡的女性魅力。在那次见面后，我有点晕乎，不确定是因为你的存在还是某种尚未上市的“团体蜡烛”。好吧，等一下，让我来解释一下她想说的意思。你是说，你让股市如此动荡，就像格温妮丝·帕特洛一样炙手可热，好吧，这就是她想表达的意思啦。她的魅力足够让市场崩溃。大卫，你必须看看，就是，我不知道我们有没有他在JPM会议上遇到她的照片，但她真的很亲切，情商很高。我必须说，我见过很多明星，但她就是其中的明星中的明星，让人感到惊讶和敬畏。嗯，她真是个明星，绝对是个明星。
There she is fifth bestie guenith pal tro jeepo nat was done nat was stunned i was done we were all stunned so wait are you saying that nat has a girl crush i think so girl crush has been declared here for the first time on all in we have an official girl crush when i think it's just remarkable Jason though is that another conference lost your invitation in the mail i mean it is crazy you gotta talk to the post office about all these invites i keep getting lost in the mail i just started my white house invite this email man you must say what's going on i don't know i gotta get invited to something i think that you're a great i guess i'll see everybody enough one you're a great you're a great family man so at least you're but you're always busy with your family so you i think people know trying to prioritize the fam i got young girls what am i supposed to do you know oh my god all right big shout out big shout out to your enjoy your moment.
在那里，她是第五最好的朋友，Guenith Pal Tro Jeepo。Nat 完成了，Nat 惊呆了，我完成了，我们都惊呆了。等等，你是说 Nat 对一个女生心动了吗？我想是的，这里首次宣布一个女生心动事件，这次我们正式确认了一个女生心动。我觉得这真是太惊人了。杰森，你是不是又错过了一个会议的邀请？真的太疯狂了，你得跟邮局谈谈，我的邀请总是寄丢了。我刚才才收到我的白宫邀请函。你说这是什么情况？我不知道，我一定要被邀请参加点什么。我觉得你是个好人，我希望能见到大家。你是个出色的家庭男人，至少你总是忙于照顾家庭，所以大家知道你在优先考虑家庭。我有女儿，我还能做什么呢？天哪。好吧，给你一个大大的称赞，好好享受你的时刻。
I think yes incredible what they're doing to inspire people to get into science is just so you know they get the awards are enormous it's like three million dollar awards which I think it's just kind of like it's an amazing reflection of how important this stuff is and ever so far the last two years also had a little tier had a shed a little tier hmm because they do these things where like you know you you bring some of these folks that had been impacted positively there was a girl who had her jeans edited she was literally on on her deathbed and this guy david lu who won the breakthrough prize did a very targeted gene at it she's alive and thriving and she gets to present the award to him and you're just like oh my god it's you know sacks when he said he was shedding a tear or almost shed a tear i thought he was gonna say he saw his reflection in his tuxedo and just got a little drop about it because he's how good he looked rough does look good in that photo put it back up put it back let's see the photos you see how much you wear the silhouette the silhouette on your tuxedo is just uh outstanding.
我认为，的确令人难以置信，他们正在做一些鼓舞人心的事情，激励人们投身科学。你知道，他们获得的奖项非常巨大，比如三百万美元的奖励，这反映了这些事情的重要性。过去两年，我也有些感动得快流泪了，因为他们会邀请一些曾受益于这些科学成就的人。比如，有一位女孩，她的基因被编辑过，当时她几乎奄奄一息。而大卫·刘（David Liu）这位获突破奖的人，进行了一个非常精准的基因编辑。现在这位女孩健康快乐，还能亲自把奖项颁给他。这种时刻让人感慨万千。当人们提到眼泪时，我以为他是因为在晚礼服中的反射里看到自己而有些动容，因为他说他看起来很棒。那张照片中的他确实看起来不错，非常吸引人。
Okay well that so net so net swearing our money pre-vae and i'm wearing loripiana which is like a double bracelet to see the double bracelet to see wow they make that cashmere as we're tuxedo i cannot comment on the material choice because it which is that is wow that's like gorgeous garment well actually you know freedberg was going to be on the program today but then he found out how many endangered species did you guys murder did you did you see that Nick do you have the picture of us with zoi saldana oh there's us in freedberg oh freedberg's good oh there's always some gunna the mr beast and her husband Marco perigo great guy this is zoi saldana's husband a cooler funnier fun dude you're not gonna that that guy should be at every party really every man bun every time it definitely looks like it's caring look at zoi saldana's tattoo in her honor chest.
好的，那么，让我来翻译一下这段话：
“好吧，嗯，那就是我们在炫耀我们的钱，还有我穿着Loro Piana，这就像一个双手镯，看看那个双手镯。哇，他们用这种羊绒做成的礼服，真是不知道该怎么评论这材料选择，真的太美了。其实你知道吗，Freedberg本来今天要上节目的，但后来他知道你们杀了多少濒危物种后就不来了。你有看到我们和佐伊·索尔达娜的照片吗？哦，这是我们和Freedberg在一起的样子。Freedberg挺不错的。哦，总有些人会是开心果，比如Mr. Beast和她的丈夫Marco Perego，他真是个很棒的人。这是佐伊·索尔达娜的丈夫，一个更酷、更有趣的家伙。他真应该去每个派对。看看佐伊·索尔达娜在她胸前的纹身。”
希望这个翻译能帮助你理解原文的意思。
i don't know if that i want to see if that clothe you know that clothes guy on x is always critiquing republicans oh he's awesome i love you i want to yeah dear i want to i want to know if he how he responds well that's terrible mr beast fails but i want to know your response to your tuxedo jamauth and finally gives you credit because i think he only comments democrats is sort of the problem oh is he really not uh yeah he's always picking on republicans jimmy look at you guys see the picture of julia's dress i just want to say one thing about julia's or did you see julia's dress i have them let's take a look here
我不太确定我想不想知道那个总在 X 上批评共和党的“衣服男”他怎么看待这个问题。他真的很厉害，我很喜欢他。我想看看他会怎么回应。这真是糟糕，Mr. Beast 失败了，但我想知道您对您的燕尾服的看法。最后给您一些认可，因为我觉得他只评论民主党人，这有点问题。哦，他真的是这样吗？是的，他总是挑共和党的毛病。Jimmy，你们看到 Julia 的裙子了吗？我只想说一件关于 Julia 的裙子的事，或者你们看到 Julia 的裙子了吗？我有图片，我们来看看。
this is an insane story so this is julia milner so the cool thing about this guys is this is this isn't very incredible and famous painting by rafael called the school of Athens yes this is like a visual manifesto of human knowledge and so there's all these very important people Aristotle Plato Socrates Pythagorean Pythagoras etc anyways she got the license i think from like the vatagon and then she worked with dolce and gabana to make it. into a dress for the occasion just to celebrate learning but there she is with with our boy jimmy donaldson so anyways it was a great event thank you jure and julia for including us
这是一个令人难以置信的故事。这位是Julia Milner。关于她的一件很酷的事情是，她得到授权，将拉斐尔那幅非常著名的画作《雅典学院》用于创作。这幅画被视为人类知识的视觉宣言，画中有亚里士多德、柏拉图、苏格拉底、毕达哥拉斯等许多重要人物。总之，她似乎从大公国（梵蒂冈）那里获得了授权，然后与杜嘉班纳（Dolce & Gabbana）合作，把这幅画制作成一条连衣裙，以庆祝学习的精神。在活动中，她与我们的朋友Jimmy Donaldson在一起。这是一个很棒的活动，感谢Jure和Julia邀请我们参与。
alright guys i got a wrap all right david i miss you thanks for the invite all right bison i will hand deliver jason's image yes i'm pretty sure i mean i have a phone number you could text me the invite i could you could send me a calendar i have a gcal i've got a google calendar you could invite i'm a good i'm a good i'm a good i'm a good i'm a good it's so funny that that event that sacks was at one of our mutuals was like hey guys this incredible events going on this famous person's hosting it the celebrities are coming j kow free bark everybody you're all invited and then like two weeks per day i was like um are we going to this thing because i'm just like my calendar and everything they're like i yeah yeah the event happening and i'm like for you jason did you send me event and they're like they're like i'm not sure you're my my your die you're my my my the i'm the invite but you didn't email it okay it's sure i will never go to an event that rejects you ever like a writer die baby for our chairman dictator another exceptional episode of the all-in-porkass we'll see you all loving it bye bye
好的，大家，我得走了。大卫，我想念你，谢谢你的邀请。好了，Bison，我会亲自交给Jason他的照片。是的，我很确定。我有电话号码，你可以短信邀请我，或者给我发个日历邀请，我有Google日历。真有趣，那场Sacks参加的活动，我们的一个共同朋友说：“嘿，大家，这个活动很棒，有名人主持，还有明星来，人人都被邀请了。”然后过了大概两周，我问：“我们要去那个活动吗？因为我的日历上没显示。”他们说：“是的，活动会进行。”我问：“Jason，你发给我邀请了吗？”他们回答：“我不确定。”你是我的致命之友，如果有活动拒绝你，我是绝对不会去的。为了我们的主席和独裁者，这又是一期精彩的节目。我们下次再见。再见啦！
oh what what besties are gone that's my dog taking it away she's right wait so wait it all oh man my natural meaty ass looks we should all just get a room and just have one big hug or two because they're all it's just like it's like sexual tension that we just need to release something what you're that big what you're here whose we used to get Russia's ok okay you
哦，怎么回事，朋友们都走了，那是我的狗把它拿走了。她是对的，等等，所以，等等，这一切哦，天哪，我天生肉嘟嘟的样子，我们应该找个房间，来个大大的拥抱，或者两个，因为就像有一种性紧张，我们需要释放一下。你是说什么？你在这里，我们以前常常一起冲刺，好吧好的你呢？