E121: Macro update, Fed hike, CRE debt bubble, Balaji's Bitcoin bet, TikTok's endgame & more
发布时间 2023-03-24 10:10:42 来源
What are you eating, free, brook? Is that Buffalo jerky? What is that? That's a red pepper. It is not the bull tongue. I didn't have time for lunch. I got pistachios. I got a red pepper.
你在吃什么，小伙子？这是野牛肉干吗？那是什么？那是红辣椒。那不是公牛舌头。我没时间吃午餐。我有开心果和一颗红辣椒。
Oh, wait, wait, look at this. Look at this. Oh, is that our branded pistachios? Are these the best pistachios? They're the best. You've got something vinegar, yeah? Something vinegar, yeah, yeah, yeah, they're the best. Are those unpeeled pistachios? These guys are so rich, people peel their nuts. People have been peeling my nuts since the Facebook I feel.
哦，等等，等等，你看这个。你看这个。哦，这是我们的品牌开心果吗？这些是最好的开心果吗？它们是最好的。你有一些醋，对吗？一些醋，对，对，对，它们是最好的。这些是没剥壳的开心果吗？这些家伙是如此富有，人们会剥开他们的坚果。自从 Facebook 以来，人们一直在剥我的坚果。
I'll let your winners ride. Rainman David Sack. And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just got crazy with it. Love you guys. Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 121 of the World's Greatest podcast. The All-in Podcast with me again. Of course, the dictator himself, Chimoff Polly Hoppatea, the Sultan of science, David Friedberg, and the rainman himself, yeah, definitely. David Sacks, gentlemen. How are you doing?
我会让你们的胜利者继续前进。来自Rainman的David Sack。我们将其开源给粉丝们，他们对此变得疯狂。爱你们。嘿，大家好。欢迎来到《世界上最伟大的播客》的第121集。再次与我们一起的当然是统治者Chimoff Polly Hoppatea、科学大师David Friedberg和Rainman本人，确实是的，David Sacks先生。各位，你们好吗？
The world's greatest genuflector. Thanks, thanks, thanks. The world's greatest moderator is here. Oh, this, you guys, I got to tell you something. The Griff is on.
世界上最伟大的屈膝者来了。谢谢，谢谢，谢谢。世界上最伟大的主持人在这里。哦，你们，我得告诉你们一件事。格里夫在上了。
A lot of corporate gigs for me to moderate. I don't even have to prepare. I just show up and moderate. Oh, what's up? What is an example of such a gig? There's a lot of corporations and conferences that pay a pretty penny to have the world's greatest moderator come and interview people.
我有很多公司演讲需要主持，甚至不必准备，只需要出现并主持就行。哦，你好呀！这种演讲有什么例子呢？有很多公司和会议，它们愿意花大价钱请世界最优秀的主持人来采访人。
This is like the used car parts association of America. It'll be like, I did one with like a thousand litigators at an attorney conference for like the SaaS software they all use. And it was a wonderful fireside. You know, it's just great. This is like the Griff deserves to be.
这有点像美国的二手汽车零件协会。就像我在律师会议上与一千名诉讼律师一起参加了关于大家使用的SaaS软件的会议一样。火炉旁的讨论非常棒。你懂的，这种感觉非常好。这就像格里夫应得的一样。
You have to fly commercial. Where do they fly private? It's commercial at this point. Yeah. What is your what is your writer say? What kind of what do you want? Do you ask for spice salted macadamia nuts? What do you ask? I do not have them.
你得坐商务舱。他们飞哪儿能飞私人航班呢？现在只有商务舱。没错。你的写手说什么来着？你想要什么？你要辣味腌夏威夷坚果吗？你要什么？我没有那种坚果。
Do my nuts know what I do is I blend the travel costs into the speaking fee. And then nobody knows when I'm in a row. What hotel I'm staying at or whatever. Basically, I'm back on the road, folks. I'm back on the trailer.
我的家人知不知道我的做法是把旅行费用合并到演讲费中，这样没有人知道我在哪里以及住在哪家酒店之类的。总之，我又开始在路上漂泊了。
Do you get, you know, no, no, no. What he's saying is no, what he's saying is he gets a $2,500 travel budget. And instead he comes the day of and leaves the day of saving and netting himself an extra $2,500.
你知道吗，他的意思是不，他的意思是他获得了2500美元的旅行预算。然而他选择在活动当天赶过来，活动结束后就离开，节省了这2500美元，并多赚了2500美元。
Well, you know, you can optimize. If you're saying optimize, I did use, I had, you know, during COVID, I racked up a million and a half, two million of these United points. And I have just been grinding those United points down. So shout out to United and the pandemic.
你知道，你可以优化。如果你说优化，我确实在COVID期间积攒了一百五十万到两百万的美联航点数。我一直在利用这些点数。所以感谢美联航和这次疫情。
All right. Just a lot of news. So you're right, Jamal. It's even worse than that. It's even worse than that for travel expenses when he's not even paying anything. Maybe do you say that's not the best part of the story? Part of the grifters using the cash app to commit fraud and murder. Oh, Lord, I mean, that Hindenburg report is, I mean, it's a work of art.
好的，有很多消息。所以你是对的，Jamal。旅行费用更糟糕，他甚至什么都没有付。也许你说这不是故事的最好部分？骗子们使用现金应用程序进行欺诈和谋杀的一部分。哦，主啊，我是说，那份 Hindenburg 报告真是一件艺术品。
But we got to start with the fed hiking rates by 25 basis points. And the general feeling in the country that maybe the fed doesn't know what they're doing. And maybe it's time for regime change. The fed increased rates by 25 basis points. Yesterday, Wednesday. So the fed has increased the federal funds rate from nearly zero in March of 2022. Now the range of 4.75 to 5% fastest rate hike since the 70s.
我们必须从联邦基准利率上调25个基点开始。全国的普遍感觉可能是，联邦储备委员会不知道他们在做什么。也许是时候进行制度改变了。联邦储备委员会昨天（星期三）将基准利率上调了25个基点。因此，自2022年3月以来，联邦资金利率已从接近零上涨至4.75％至5％范围，这是自20世纪70年代以来的最快加速利率上升。
Speculation the fed my pause rate hikes or even cut. Do the recent banking failures didn't happen. So if you bet that they were going to pause, you were wrong. And if you bet they were going to cut, you were also wrong. But the market has ripped a bit a day. After which people are trying to figure out in the group chats. It doesn't seem like anybody has a theory here.
有人猜测美联储可能会暂停升息甚至降息，如果最近银行的失败并没有发生，那么如果你赌美联储会暂停升息，你就错了。如果你赌美联储会降息，你也是错的。但是市场一天天地上涨。之后人们在群聊中试图弄清楚情况，似乎没有人有一个理论。
But let's start with SACs. Maybe an explainer a little bit on how the fed works. There's a board there. People serve a 14 year term. I guess they replaced somebody every two years. And Jerome Powell was placed in 2018 by Trump. And I guess there's a lot of hand-ranging now that they were laid on inflation, obviously. And then they went too fast. And maybe now they're not slowing down enough.
但让我们从SACs开始。也许解释一下联邦储备系统的运作方式。那里有一个委员会。人们任期14年。我想他们每两年换一次人。杰罗姆·鲍威尔于2018年被川普任命。现在显然他们在通胀问题上面对很多手足无措的情况。然后他们走得太快了。现在也许他们没有放慢足够的速度。
So what's your take on it objectively SACs? Putting aside partisanship and this administration versus that administration. Just objectively, do they know what they're doing and how could they do a better job? No, I don't think they know what they're doing. They clearly reacted way too late to the inflation. We've talked about this before. We had that surprise inflation print in the summer of 2021, 5.1%. They said it was transitory. They didn't react until November. They continued QE for another six months. And they suddenly got a hawkish in November of 2021. They didn't even start the first rate increase until March of 2022. So they were really asleep at the wheel and late to react to the inflation by about nine months.
那么， SACs，您对此有什么看法呢？我们暂且抛开党派纷争、这届政府和那届政府的争端，在客观的角度，他们明白自己在做什么吗？要如何做得更好呢？不，我认为他们不知道自己在干什么。他们对通胀反应明显太晚了。我们之前也谈到过这个问题。2021年夏天爆出了惊人的通胀率，为5.1%。他们说这是暂时的。直到11月份，他们才作出了反应。他们又延续了6个月的量化宽松政策。直到2021年11月，他们才突然向鹰派转变。他们甚至直到2022年3月才开始第一次加息。所以，他们真的严重失察并在对通胀的反应上晚了差不多9个月。
Now I think they're potentially making the opposite decision, which is they are late to recognize what stress and distress the economy is under right now. Powell had three choices they could have made at this meeting. They could have raised rates, which is what they did. They could have cut rates, which they did, or they could have done nothing, basically held path.
现在我认为他们可能做出了相反的决定，即他们迟迟没有认识到经济现在所承受的压力和困境。鲍威尔在这次会议上有三个选择。他们本可以升息，也就是他们所采取的措施。他们本可以降息，也这么做了，或者他们本可以什么都不做，基本上维持原来的路线。
And the argument for raising rates is just that what we have this inflation problem, we need to keep raising interest rates until the rates are above inflation. And that will bring inflation down. Then you can start to lower rates. That's sort of the conventional view.
提高利率的论据是我们现在面临通胀问题，需要不断提高利率直到利率高于通胀水平，这样才能降低通货膨胀率。这是一种传统观点。等到通胀率下降后，就可以开始降低利率。
I think the problem with that view is it ignores that we've just seen a run of bank failures. And there's tremendous stress building up in the banking system from unrealized losses on long-dated bonds. Also, unrealized losses on commercial real estate loans. And we've barely scratched the surface of seeing that problem. That's I think the next shoot-a-drop in this whole thing.
我认为那种看法存在的问题是忽略了我们刚刚经历过一连串银行倒闭事件。银行系统中积累的长期债券未实现损失问题和商业房地产贷款未实现损失问题正在加剧压力。而我们才刚刚开始看到这个问题，这也是我认为整个问题的下一步导火索。
So, I think that the right decision here was to either cut rates or to stand pat. You may have seen that Elon said, listen, we should be cutting rates here. There's way too much latency in this inflation data. The economy is seizing up. We don't need to be raising rates right now. We actually need to be cutting them. I think that probably, if or me looking at the upside-down side of these decisions, I probably would have just stood pat because again, we've just seen this banking crisis. Why wouldn't you just wait one month to see? Maybe there is latency in the inflation data. Maybe that banking crisis is not over. Why wouldn't you just stand pat for one month? You can always raise rates in a month.
我认为在这里做出正确决定要么是降低利率，要么是保持现状。你可能已经看到了Elon的话，他说我们应该在这里降低利率。通货膨胀数据有太多的延迟了，经济正在停滞不前。我们现在不需要提高利率，我们实际上需要降低利率。从这些决定的上下两个方面来看，我可能还是会选择保持现状，因为我们刚刚经历了这场银行危机。为什么不等一个月看看呢？也许通货膨胀数据有延迟。也许银行危机还没有结束。为什么不再等待一个月呢？你总是可以在一个月后提高利率。
I think that this move here could in hindsight be seen as the straw that breaks the camel's back.
我想这个动作可能会被认为是压垮骆驼的最后一根稻草。
Shemoth, would you have paused and waited to see another card and then watch the hand developed? Or do you think they're doing the right thing by raising? Or should they have cut? I think they did the worst thing possible, which is they took the middle path.
Shemoth，如果你是赌徒，你会暂停等待看到另一张牌，然后再观察手牌发展吗？或者你认为他们提高赌注是正确的做法？或者他们应该放弃？我认为他们做了可能最糟糕的事情，就是他们采取了中间道路。
If you think about what the Fed has the ability to do, they obviously have the ability to raise and lower interest rates. But what we don't talk about is they have a balance sheet that can absorb assets. For the last 10 or 15 years, we've had a phenomenon called quantitative easing. And for folks that don't understand what that means, that is essentially the Federal Reserve buying assets out of the market and giving people money for it so that that people can then go and buy other things with that money.
如果你考虑联邦储备委员会所能够做的事情，他们显然有能力提高和降低利率。但我们不谈论的是他们拥有的一个资产负债表，可以吸收资产。在过去的10年或15年里，我们出现了一种叫做量化宽松的现象。对于不了解这意味着什么的人来说，这基本上是联邦储备委员会从市场上购买资产并给人们钱，让人们能够使用这些钱购买其他东西。
Last June, they started what's called quantitative tightening, which is essentially reversing that policy and restricting the liquidity in the system. So if you look at those tools and you sort of play a game tree on what the Fed could have done, I think that you have two choices. One is you massively let inflation run amok where you have no tools to fix.
去年六月，他们开始实行所谓的量化紧缩政策，即基本上扭转该政策并限制系统中的流动性。因此，如果您看这些工具，并在美联储可能采取的措施上进行一些游戏树分析，我认为你有两个选择。一种是大规模放任通货膨胀失控，且没有任何修复工具。
Or you have massive liquidity in the financial system. But you actually do have tools to fix that, which is through some combination of quantitative easing and tightening, depending on how much liquidity you want in the system. So I think actually I disagree with SACs. I think they should have done the opposite. They should have raised 50 Bips. It would have created a little bit more chaos in the short term.
你们系统里有大量的流动性。但是你们确实有方法来解决这个问题，通过定量宽松和收紧的组合方式，取决于你们想要多少流动性在系统中。所以我认为我其实不同意 SACs 的观点。我认为他们应该做相反的事情。他们应该提高 50 个 Bips。这将在短期内造成更多的混乱。
But it would have set us up to understand what was fundamentally broken and still give the Federal Reserve the ability to use their balance sheet and use liquidity in the future to solve the problem. They took the worst option, which is neither did they cut, nor did they raise enough. And so this problem that SACs represents actually is the fundamental problem now, which is you won't have enough clarity and signal to really know whether this 25 basis point enough.
但如果他们采取了这种方法，我们就可以了解到基本上有什么问题，并且仍然赋予联邦储备委员会在未来利用其资产负债表和流动性来解决问题的能力。他们选择了最糟糕的选项，既没有削减也没有提高足够的利率。因此，SACs所代表的问题实际上是现在的根本问题，这就是您不会有足够的清晰度和信号来确切了解是否足够降低25个基点。
Look, I've maintained now for nine months that rates are going to be long higher than we like and longer than we want. And so I think it's high time that we acknowledge that we have a sticky inflation problem, who's back we have to break. We've known since Volker era what we need to do to do that, which is you need to get interest rates to be greater than terminal inflation, which means that a 5% Fed funds rate is insufficient. So we're going to need to see a print of 5.5, 5.75% and that's when you're going to have enough contraction and then the Fed can come back with liquidity.
听我说，我已经保持着这个想法已经九个月了，利率比我们喜欢的和想要的长得多。所以我觉得现在是时候承认我们有一个顽固的通货膨胀问题，需要我们去破解。自从沃尔克时代以来，我们就知道了要做到这一点需要做什么，就是要让利率大于终端通货膨胀率，这意味着5%的联邦基金利率是不够的。所以我们需要看到5.5，5.75%的利率抵制效应，那时候我们才能有足够的紧缩空间，然后联邦储备银行可以回来提供流动性支持。
But if they don't take these steps, we're going to be in this very choppy neither here nor there situation. And I think that is what causes the real damage because it's the corrosive effects of uncertainty and what that does to lending, to risk taking, and I think is really bad for the economy.
如果他们不采取这些措施，我们将处于这种非此即彼的混乱局面中。我认为这才是真正造成损害的原因，因为不确定性带来的腐蚀作用对贷款、风险承担产生影响，这对经济来说真的非常糟糕。
For a bird, where do you land? We have SAC saying they should have stood pat, which I'm not saying either go hard, take the medicine. I don't know. I'm not an economist on judging the balance that they're trying to weigh right now. I think everyone's got a different, you can hear a cacophony of opinions on this one.
作为一只鸟，你会降落在哪里？我们有SAC表示他们应该坚守原地，而我也不是要求强硬，去接受这种药物。我不知道。我不是经济学家，不能判断他们现在正在努力平衡的问题。我认为每个人都有不同的观点，你可以听到这个问题的不同意见。
What I'm more interested in is we talk a lot about the banking crisis underway, and I know we're going to talk about this question on commercial real estate in a minute. But if you look at the yield on the tenure treasury, I think coming out of this past two weeks, you know, the yield on the tenure treasury dropped from 4.1% down to, looks like it closed at 3.4% today, nearly a 0.7% decline in the past two and a half, three weeks. And that's also off of 3.8% since the start of the year.
我更感兴趣的是我们经常谈论正在发生的银行危机，我知道我们马上就要讨论商业房地产的问题。但如果你看看10年期国债收益率，在过去的两周中，收益率从4.1%下降到了看起来今天收盘在3.4%左右，这是过去两三周内近0.7%的下降。而自年初以来，这也下降了3.8%。
And remember when we talked about the impact on asset values at banks, I think if you look holistically at the roughly $7 trillion of assets held at banks, some, you know, whatever the set of banks that are that we looked at, the average kind of equity ratio is about 15%. So, you know, a 2% or sorry, 3% adjustment over 10 years on the treasury impacts the value of a chunk of that portfolio down 25%, which starts to put you into dangerous territory. And there's obviously a distribution of what that does to certain banks that are overweight, you know, 10-year bonds, whether they're loan obligations on mortgages or treasuries or corporate bonds or real estate bonds, a real estate debt.
记得我们谈到银行资产价值对经济的影响，如果你从整体上看银行持有的约7万亿美元资产，这些银行的股权比率平均约为15%。因此，如果国债在10年内调整2%或3%，将导致该资产组合价值下跌25%，这将使你处于危险的领地。显然，对于那些持有10年期债券、抵押贷款、国债、企业债券或房地产债务的银行，所造成的影响存在分布差异。
And so the more encouraging point that I think we should pay attention to is does the market tell us that these short-term rate actions are driving down the medium and longer-term rates in a way that will improve the balance sheets of all these institutions that own a lot of this debt, particularly the banks and funds and so on. And, you know, I'll do the math here real quick, but just in the last two weeks, the impact on the 10-year treasury has probably had a pretty sizable impact. You know, we talk about unrealized losses. It's reduced those unrealized losses. It's improved them.
因此，我认为我们应该关注的更鼓舞人心的一点是，市场是否告诉我们，这些短期利率行动是否以一种方式推动中长期利率下降，从而改善拥有大量这些债务的所有机构的资产负债表，尤其是银行、基金等。我这里需要快速计算一下，但在过去的两周里，对10年期国债的影响可能已经有相当大的影响。我们谈论的是未实现的损失。它减少了那些未实现的损失。它将它们改善了。
So, I think that that's like the more important metric to be tracking is, you know, if you look at all the assets that we're all worried about right now, are they going up in value or down in value in a way that introduces more stability into these kind of banking systems that we care about? And I think right now it looks like maybe things are improving. And that might be part of the optimism around, you know, equity markets and folks buying and so on.
我认为更重要的指标是追踪所有我们现在担心的资产：它们的价值是增加还是减少？这是否会为那些我们关心的银行系统引入更多稳定性？我认为现在看起来事情正在改善。这可能是对股票市场乐观情绪和人们购买的部分原因。
Yeah. And so this is, I guess, where people have started to talk about the next shoe to drop. We obviously had this time-based liquidity issues with Silicon Valley bank. Now the Wall Street Journal is talking about commercial real estate and how much debt there is since COVID.
是的。所以我猜这就是人们开始谈论接下来会发生什么的地方了。显然，我们对硅谷银行有了时间限制的流动性问题。现在《华尔街日报》正在谈论商业房地产和COVID之后的债务有多少。
Obviously, people are doing more remote work. A lot of the skyscrapers is not just San Francisco, but in many locations remain empty or underutilized. People are now having their leases come up every year. More and more of these leases will become vacant. And then we'll see if these buildings are worth what people paid for them.
显然，人们现在做更多的远程工作。很多大楼，不仅是旧金山，而是在很多地方都是空置或未被充分利用的。现在人们的租约每年都会到期。越来越多的这些租约将变成空置。然后我们会看到这些建筑是否值得人们为它们支付的价值。
Smaller banks hold around 2.3 trillion in commercial and real estate debt, including rental apartment mortgages. Almost 80% of commercial mortgages are held by banks according to this Wall Street Journal story.
小型银行持有约2.3万亿的商业和房地产债务，包括租赁公寓贷款。据《华尔街日报》报道，近80%的商业抵押贷款由银行持有。
SACs, you are an owner of some commercial real estate and you play in the space. You have a lot of firsthand knowledge. What is your, putting aside your personal holdings or exposure? What is your take on what you're seeing? What is the game on the field right now in terms of commercial real estate and San Francisco and beyond?
作为一位商业房地产的业主，您对这个领域有着丰富的亲身经验。如果不考虑您个人的所有权或风险暴露，那么您的看法会是什么？您对当前商业房地产市场和旧金山及其他地区的情况有何看法？请分享您的观察。
Well, if you talk to the commercial real estate guys, they'll tell you that the situation is dire. There's two dire. There's two problems. First, there's a credit crunch going on. So there's just no credit available. If you're a commercial real estate developer and you have a building and you want to refinance your construction loan or put long term debt on a building, you just can't do it. I mean, the banks are not open for business. They literally don't want the business. And I think that comes back to the fact that banks right now are hunkered down in an offensive posture. They're seeing deposits flee from their banks unless, of course, you're one of the top four.
嗯，如果你和商业房地产的人谈话，他们会告诉你现在的情况非常危急。问题有两个。首先，目前有一波信贷紧缩。所以现在没有可用的信贷。如果你是一位商业房地产开发商，你有一个建筑物，并且你想重新融资你的建筑贷款或者为你的建筑物债务安排一个长期计划，你就不可能做到。我的意思是银行已经停业了。他们根本不想做这种生意。我认为这与当前银行采取了一种攻势有关。他们看到存款从他们的银行撤出，除非你是前四名之一。
Does that freeze on the bank's pre-date the Silicon Valley bank crisis? And it was exacerbated, where people having the hard time getting loans before that?
那个银行冻结资产的事情是在硅谷银行危机之前吗？这会让人们在此之前就很难贷款吗？
It pre-dates it, but definitely what you saw with SVB and these other banks, including credit suites, is that banks now are getting much more paranoid. And that's why you saw that if you look at the discount window, which is when the banks go to the Fed as lender of last resort and basically post collateral to get liquidity, we had the biggest spike in discount window borrowing since the 2008 financial crisis.
它比它出现得早，但绝对是你在SVB和其他银行，包括信贷套房所看到的，银行现在变得更加多疑。这就是为什么你会发现，如果你看看贴现窗口，这是当银行作为最后贷款人去找联邦储备银行，基本上要抵押物来获取流动性的时候，我们经历了自2008年金融危机以来最大的贴现窗口借款激增。
Yeah, that line on the right side, that is a spike in one week's borrowing.. This exceeds anything that happened in 2008. The warning signs should be flashing red over something like this.
嗯，右边那条线是一周借贷的高峰.. 这超过了2008年发生的任何事情。这样的预警信号应该会闪烁红光。
Now, to bring it back to the forester. And to be clear, that's banks who have real estate exposure going to the Fed, going to the government saying, hey, can we get some money to cover these? It's not specifically about real estate. It's more about bank liquidity.
现在，让我们回到林务员这个话题。需要明确的是，银行有房地产风险暴露，他们向联邦储备银行，向政府请求贷款来覆盖这些风险。这不仅仅与房地产有关，更关乎银行流动性。
The banks are saying we don't have enough liquidity right now to cover our needs, which are highly volatile right now because basically depositors are moving out of community and regional and small banks into the big four so-called systemically important or SIP banks. So what's happening is that, again, banks are hunkering down. They're getting very defensive.
银行们说我们当前没有足够的流动性来应对我们目前非常不稳定的需求，因为基本上存款人正在从社区、地区和小银行中流出到所谓的四大系统重要或SIP银行中去。所以现在的情况是，银行们再次蜷缩起来。他们正在变得非常保守。
They do not want to make new loans because they can't tie up assets. They are trying to stay liquid themselves. So that's what's happening now in sort of with respect to new lending.
他们不想发放新贷款，因为他们不能绑定资产。他们正努力保持自身的流动性。所以，就新贷款而言，目前正在发生这种情况。
And then on the other side of it, you have existing loan portfolios. There's something like $20 trillion of commercial real estate debt. And most commercial real estate lending is done by small banks by community banks.
然后在另一方面，你有现有的贷款组合。商业房地产债务大约达20万亿美元。而大部分商业房地产贷款是由小型社区银行提供的。
So they are sitting on these huge, seary loan portfolios. And I think something like 300 billion needs to be refinanced or is coming due in the next year. Normally, that's rolled over and refinanced. There was separately, there was a study showing that unrealized losses in these loan portfolios in the banking system may be around $2 trillion. It was a study that was reported on by the Wall Street Journal.
所以他们坐在这些巨大的、充满风险的贷款组合上。我认为在接下来的一年里，大约有3000亿需要进行再融资或到期兑付。通常情况下，这些贷款会被滚动再融资。此外，有一项研究显示，银行系统中这些贷款组合的未实现损失可能高达2万亿美元。这项研究被华尔街日报报道过。
So in the same way that we had huge unrealized losses in these long dated bonds, I think we also have actual Silicon Valley banks specifically. That's where we saw the worst offender. But it's a systemic problem. I think similarly, we have huge unrealized losses in commercial real estate loan portfolios.
所以，就像我们在这些长期债券中有巨大的未实现亏损一样，我认为我们在硅谷银行的确实存在实际的问题，那就是我们看到的最糟糕的罪犯。不过这是一个系统性问题。同样地，我们在商业房地产贷款组合中也有巨大的未实现亏损。
And this is, I think, even a more subtle and pernicious problem because with securities like T-bills or mortgage bonds, it's very easy to know what the unrealized losses are. The reason why they hadn't realized the losses was not because they didn't know what they were.
我认为，这是一个更加微妙且有害的问题，因为像国债或抵押债券这样的证券，很容易知道未实现的损失是多少。他们没有实现这些损失的原因不是因为他们不知道这些损失有多少。
It was because of a stupid accounting rule that said they didn't have to realize the losses if they were, quote unquote, holding them to maturity. With these loan portfolios, we don't know how big the exposure is. And we won't know until you start seeing some defaults and reprisings of assets.
因为一个愚蠢的会计规则，他们不必承担损失，如果他们把它们“以到期日持有”。对于这些贷款组合，我们不知道暴露面有多大。直到您开始看到一些违约和资产重新定价，我们才能知道。
Real estate commercial real estate is a much more dynamic market, right? You have to have a buyer there. You have leases. You have leases coming off at different times. You have sub leases occurring. And you have the owners of them flipping them, right?
房地产商业地产市场会更加有动态性，对吧？你需要有买家。你有租约。你有不同时间到期的租约。你有子租赁产生。而且你有这些产权所有人在翻新它们，对吧？
And refinancing them constantly to buy new buildings. And so. Right. And those loans aren't as liquid, right? With a mortgage bond, those are basically a bunch of loans mortgage, mortgage is typically that I've been packaged up and turned into a security and there's a liquid marketplace to trade them.
不断地进行再融资来购买新建筑物。是这样。那些贷款没有那么流动，对吧？通过按揭债券，基本上是一堆按揭贷款，通常被打包并转化为一种证券，然后有一个流动的市场可以进行交易。
And the case of these loan portfolios, there may not be a liquid marketplace. So you don't really know how impaired that loan portfolio is until you actually get to a place where when will we know what because that's the thing I'm wondering we saw a lot of headlines, you know, Pinterest bought themselves out of their new headquarters in the Bay Area San Francisco, I believe specifically.
在这些贷款组合的情况下，可能没有一个流动的市场。所以你真的不知道贷款组合的损失有多严重，直到你真正到达一个地方，知道什么时候我们会知道，因为这就是我在想的事情，我们看到了很多标题，你知道，Pinterest在旧金山湾区买断了他们的新总部，我相信是具体指的旧金山。
I heard Facebook got rid of a couple of billion dollars and wrote down some expansion. Amazon is selling buildings. They had gotten a ton of buildings and we saw last week they got rid of another nine thousand or they're planning another nine thousand and a riff and they can't get people to come back to the office.
我听说 Facebook 损失了数十亿美元并撤销了一些扩张计划。亚马逊正在出售楼房，他们获得了大量楼房，我们在上周看到他们又削减了九千个楼房，还有一些人员的裁减，他们无法把员工带回办公室。
So how bad is the overbilled, I guess is the question because that will be the driver of the value of these buildings because if there's too much supply, then what are these buildings actually worth? Are they worth ninety dollars a square foot?
那么，关键是被多收的费用有多糟糕，因为这将决定这些建筑的价值，如果供应过剩，那么这些建筑实际上值多少钱呢？是每平方英尺九十美元吗？
What if there's no, what if Amazon doesn't want more space? You can see it in the credit default spreads of these banks. It's in the water table already. So you can, Nick, you can just throw it up. If you look at any bank that's lending and that has a portfolio, this is Deutsche Bank's, you know, Euro-denominated CDS.
如果没有什么，如果亚马逊不想要更多的空间怎么办？从这些银行的信用违约掉期可以看出来。它已经融入了水位。因此，你可以，尼克，你可以直接放弃。 如果你看看任何一个放贷和持有组合的银行，比如德意志银行的欧元计价CDS。
But it's the same for Barclays, it's the same for Sockgen, it's the same for a bunch of American banks. There is a risk in the system that SACs articulated that is now getting priced in. There are all kinds of loans whose payments which the banks need cannot necessarily be insured, which means that then there could be illiquidity there. There could be a flow of deposits out from those banks, which would then make their ability to pay their debt holders lower.
巴克莱银行、Sockgen以及一些美国银行都面临同样的问题。SACs指出的系统风险现在正在被定价。存在各种类型的贷款，银行所需的付款并不一定能得到保障，这意味着可能存在缺乏流动性的情况。这些银行可能会面临存款外流的情况，这会降低它们偿还债权人的能力。
You also have this complicated issue already where it's really like the first time in a long, long, long time where debt holders actually got wiped out in the credit suite's debacle before the equity holders did.. And that's created all kinds of ripple effects.
你也已经面临这个复杂的问题了，在这个问题中，债务持有人在信贷危机的失败中首次被清零，比权益持有人更早遭受了损失。这产生了各种连锁反应。
So this credit bubble is here and it's being manifested right now in these very sophisticated parts of the market. And eventually they'll ripple to the broader economy at large.
这个信用泡沫就在这里，现在正在这些非常复杂的市场中显露出来。最终，它们将波及到整个广泛的经济。
But how a person feels this is they're not going to be able to get a car loan or a mortgage or the interest rates they pay will go up. And then how bond holders will react to all of this stuff is they'll just start to find different assets probably the front end of the curve, money market cash, gold. And they'll just abandon all these assets.
"但是一个人如果感觉到自己无法获得汽车贷款或抵押贷款，或者他们支付的利率会上涨，那么他们会怎么想呢？然后，债券持有人将如何对所有这些事情做出反应呢？他们可能会开始寻找不同的资产，可能是前端收益，货币市场现金，黄金等。然后他们将放弃所有这些资产。"
And then the other problem is that it's just really, really bad for risk assets. So the things that we invest in startups, technology can be seen either in a world of inflation run amok because the Fed isn't hiking fast enough, which just destroys future cash flows or in a world where the Fed pivots in a moment like this and Nick, you can show the second chart, both result in the same outcome, which is that you just see these massive drawdowns in the value of risk assets.
然后另一个问题就是它真的很、很不利于风险投资。我们投资的那些创业公司、技术公司可能会遭受通胀失控的影响，因为美联储没有快速升息，这会破坏未来的现金流；或者在像现在这样的时刻，美联储突然转向，你可以看到第二张图，两种情况的结果都是一样的，那就是你会看到风险资产的价值急剧下跌。
So we're in a really complicated moment. And this is why I think again, the Fed needed to take leadership this past week and actually do the hard work of either cutting 50 bips or raising 50 bips. And this middle path is the absolute worth path because trying to thread a needle in this complicated economy, I think, is just going to be impossible.
所以我们现在处于非常复杂的时刻。这就是我认为，美联储上周需要采取领导作用，实际上去做要么降低50个点基点，要么上调50个点基点这个艰难的工作的原因。而这种中间道路是最不值得选择的，因为在这个复杂的经济情况下，试图穿过针眼我认为是不可能的。
And then what happens is then the markets move around them. Right. The markets have completely said we now discredit what you did. And they're basically banking that the Fed will be forced to cut rates massively in short course because the crisis will be so severe that it'll outweigh the risk of inflation.
然后发生的是市场开始围绕它们转动。是的，市场已经完全否定了你们的行动。他们基本上押注联邦储备委员会将不得不在短期内大幅削减利率，因为危机将如此严重，以至于它将比通货膨胀风险更为严重。
Think about that. Yeah. All this real estate comes on the market. There's no buyers for it. The mortgages are due. Does that mean a commercial real estate owner just basically gets foreclosed on and they hand the keys back to the bank or the banks as the grocery journal story was sort of alluding to that the Fed will say, you know what? We'll just extend.
想想看。是啊，所有这些房地产出售了，没有买家。抵押贷款到期了。这是不是意味着商业房地产所有者基本上会被银行收回并把钥匙交还给银行，就像超市日报的故事隐约透露的那样，联邦储备委员会会说，你知道吗？我们会延期的。
We'll backstop this real estate which happened in the last bubble. And we hope that over time it works itself out and demand returns. Now, of course, that's different than a post-COVID world. So this time could be different. What happens in the case of 2024, 2025? All of these office spaces are returned and the keys are handed back.
我们将支持上次泡沫中发生的这种房地产业务，并希望随着时间推移，这个市场自己调整并且回归需求。当然，这和COVID后的世界是不同的。因此这一次可能会不同。如果到2024年、2025年，所有这些办公空间都被归还，钥匙被交还，那会发生什么呢？
Yeah. So, okay. So Jason, you asked a question like how does this problem manifest? Let me describe from the point of view of that real estate owner. There's basically two problems.
嗯，好的。那么，Jason，你问了一个问题，就是这个问题是如何显现的？让我从房地产所有者的角度来描述一下。基本上有两个问题。
One is that you have a tenant who's in a long-term lease five, seven, ten years. That lease rolls. So that lease comes due. Now they don't need the space anymore. You know, we know that takes to Francisco which has got to be the worst market for searing in the country right now. That's something like 30 to 40% of the space is vacant.
有一种情况是，你有一个租户签订了长期租约，五年、七年或者十年。租约到期后，他们不需要这个空间了。我们知道这种情况在目前全国来说，旧金山的市场是最差的。那里大约有30%到40%的空间是空置的。
So that's either space for rent or space for sub-lease because no one's using it. So they put it back on the market. Well, all those sub-leases, they're still paying rent because they have a contract. So what happens is as those leases roll, now all of a sudden you don't have to pay rent anymore. So you're going to stop.
那么这要么是出租空间，要么是转租空间，因为没有人使用它。所以他们把它放回市场。好吧，所有那些转租的人仍在支付租金，因为他们有合同。所以当这些租约到期时，现在突然你不必再支付租金了。所以你就会停止支付了。
Or if you still need the space, you're going to negotiate a much, much lower rent. So now all of a sudden, the real estate owner can't make their debt service covenant ratios. The income from the building is just substantially less. They can't make their debt service. It's on that and explain that ratio to folks.
如果你仍然需要这个空间，你将会谈判得到一个非常非常低的租金。这时，房地产所有人突然无法满足他们的债务服务契约比率。建筑物的收入大大降低，他们无法偿还债务。这就是所谓的债务服务比率，需要向人们解释清楚这个比率的概念。
You have a certain amount of debt you own, let's say sales force tower in Salesforce's case. They're sub-leasing 125,000 square feet. Let's say they ran to that for 500 million. What is this debt service ratio? Explain that to the audience..
你有一定数额的债务，比如销售力量大楼在Salesforce的情况下。他们正在分租125,000平方英尺的面积。假设他们支付了5亿美元的租金。这个债务偿付比率是多少？请向听众解释一下。
When the bank underwrites the loan, they just figure out the interest that you got to pay on the loan relative to the value of the building or the income that is generating. But all those ratios are upside down now because the value of the buildings, the rent has gotten down so much because there's so much vacancy. When these loans were underwritten, Salesforce's go had like a 5% vacancy rate. Now it's like 30 to 40%. They're just no tenants.
当银行承销贷款时，他们只是根据建筑物的价值或所产生的收入来计算你需要支付的贷款利息。但现在所有这些比率都是倒置的，因为建筑物的价值和租金都已经下降了很多，因为现在有太多的空置率。当这些贷款被承销时，Salesforce的办公室的空置率只有5%左右。而现在，它已经增加到了30%到40%。因为找不到租户，所以很难承销这些贷款。
And then in parallel with that, Jason, you've got all these cases where you only have tenants or leases rolling. You have loans rolling. Again, if the owner of the building has either a construction loan or a long-term debt and that needs to roll, they have to refinance it. If they can even get credit, which they may not be able to because of this crunch, they're going to be paying a lot more for it. So now all of a sudden, the income statement for that building doesn't make sense.
然后，跟这个同时进行，Jason，你会面临只有租户或租约到期的情况。你会处理到期的贷款。同样，如果建筑业主有建设贷款或长期债务需要到期，他们必须重新融资。如果他们甚至能够获得信贷，这可能因为财务紧缩而不可能，他们要支付更多的费用。所以，突然之间，建筑物的收入报表就不合理了。
Think about it. Your borrowing costs are higher and your revenue is lower. So now all of a sudden, the building is under water. So where does that end up? Well, they default on the debt and the bank ends up owning the building. So then what happens is you end up with all of downtown San Francisco owned by a bunch of banks. What are they going to do with it? They don't want to be in the real estate business. So they have to fire sale those buildings in a bunch of auctions at rock bottom prices because by the way, there's no cash or liquidity out there.
想想看，你的借贷成本变高了，而你的收入又变低了。所以，突然之间，这栋建筑变得不值钱了。那么最终会怎样呢？他们会拖欠债务，银行最终会拥有这栋建筑。所以接下来会发生什么呢？你会发现整个旧金山市中心都被一堆银行拥有了。他们会怎么做呢？他们不想从事房地产业务。因此，他们必须以极低的价格在一系列拍卖中抛售这些建筑物，因为顺便说一句，市场上没有现金或流动性。
So who are the buyers going to be? Who's the buyer? That was exactly right. We have a 30% vacancy rate. There's no renters. So what happens to Troy? Is it just like a debt city? And then the tax-based collapses in the city because so much of the tax-base is dependent on real state.
那么，买家们会是谁？谁是买家？这是完全正确的。我们有 30% 的空置率，没有租客。那么特洛伊会发生什么？难道它只是一个负债城市？税基在城市内崩溃了，因为很多税基都依赖于房地产。
So listen, I think they're going to have to work this out. I don't think they can just let the free market take its course here because you're going to end up with the scenario I just painted. So I think what hopefully would happen maybe is that the banks do some sort of deal with the real state owners that they blend and extend or whatever. But in order to do that, they're going to need to be backstop by somebody. And that's the Fed.
听我说，我觉得他们必须解决这个问题。我觉得他们不能只让自由市场自行发展，因为你最终会陷入我刚才描述的情况。所以我希望发生的可能是银行与房地产所有者达成某种协议，他们可以混合和延长或其他的方式。但是为了做到这一点，他们需要有某个人提供支持。那就是美联储。
Freeburg, what are your thoughts? Just writ large as it were on the commercial. It was $90 a square foot for Class A, SACs in the city. Is that the price? What's that going to be? 60, 70, 80, 90 bucks a foot, depending on what kind of building you're talking about.
Freeburg，你有什么想法吗？商业广告上说得很明确，A级SACs在城市里每平方英尺要价90美元。那就是价格了吗？这要看你所谈论的建筑物的种类，价格可能在60、70、80或90美元每英尺不等。
I mean, you have all these empty office towers. So look, I never invest in office towers. I do small boutique, kind of brick and timber spaces in Jackson Square. We're doing okay because people still want to be in those spaces. But these office towers on Market Street or in Soma, which is where all the investment went during the boom. Nobody wants to be in those buildings anymore. And it doesn't help that the city has allowed this giant open air drug market to metasties right outside their door.
你看，这里有那么多空置的写字楼。我是说，我从来不投资写字楼。我做的是杰克逊广场的小型精品店，采用砖木瓦建筑，因为人们仍然喜欢这样的空间。但是在市场街或Soma区的写字楼，那些在繁荣期间投资的地方，没人想待在那些建筑里了。而且城市还容许了这个巨大的露天毒品市场在他们的门口蔓延，这也不利于这些写字楼的发展。
Freeberg? Yeah, I think it's inevitable. We'll have probably two to three trillion dollars of federal money, you know, spent to backstop and support the asset. I mean, that's the general theme here in case everyone isn't paying attention at home is that the Fed, the US government will continue to print money and create programs to effectively support asset values such that there is a crippling economic ripple effect.
Freeberg？是的，我认为这是不可避免的。我们可能会有两到三万亿美元的联邦资金被用于支持和支援资产。我的意思是，总的主题是，如果每个人都没有注意到，美联储和美国政府将继续印钞并创建计划，有效地维护资产价值，以便避免经济因素的巨大影响。
And this is the danger of debt spiral of debt. And it's why I always talk about how concerned I am about global debt levels and particularly debt levels in the US, but really global debt levels. I'll say the statistic again and over and over again, 360% global debt to global GDP.
这就是债务螺旋的危险所在。这也是为什么我总是谈论我对全球债务水平特别是美国债务水平的担忧。实际上，我会一遍遍地重复这个数据：全球债务相当于全球GDP的360%。
But, you know, even within some of these asset classes, a significant amount of debt has been used to fuel asset prices and to fuel equity value. And then that equity value gets levered and reinvested. And so the rippling effect in the economy of declining asset value can be magnified through leverage. And it unfortunately, debt in general forces growth without growth debt fails.
你知道，即使在这些资产类别中，也有很多债务被用来推动资产价格和股权价值。然后这些股权价值被杠杆化和再投资。 因此，在经济中，资产价值的下降会通过杠杆作用而放大。不幸的是，债务总体上强制增长，而没有增长，债务会失败。
And so when we've used debt to demand growth on a macro perspective, it causes, you know, significant stress and strain on the system when you're going through periods of like we are right now, what should be natural recessionary effects from COVID and shutting down the economy or natural asset price declines because of that? And we can't let it happen because if it were to happen, the rippling effect would be crippling.
所以，当我们在宏观层面上使用债务来推动增长时，当你经历像现在这样的自然经济衰退期或因此而导致的自然资产价格下降时，对于我们的体系来说会造成巨大的压力和负担。我们不能让这种情况发生，因为如果发生，会产生灾难性的连锁反应。
So this is a good example. You'll probably, I don't know what the facility will look like. Maybe the government passes some congressional bill that says, Hey, guys, here's $3 trillion to support, you know, all this real estate. Here's another, you know, $2 trillion to support banks and, you know, giving them liquidity because the other problem, as you guys know, is most people's most of the population in the US has most of their assets, their asset value or their equity value in their home.
这是一个很好的例子。我不确定这个设施会是什么样子。或许政府会通过一项议会法案，给予三万亿美元的支持来支持这些房地产。再有，还有两万亿美元用于支持银行，并为它们提供流动性，因为你们知道，大部分美国人的资产价值或者股权价值都在房子里。
And those home prices are supported by residential loan programs. And, you know, if you actually have a massive right down in the value of that asset class, that's when, you know, everything kind of falls apart. So, you know, we will continue to be buoyed by that, that, that, that kind of inflationary behavior.
这些住房价格得到了住宅贷款计划的支持。如果实际上这种资产类别的价值出现大幅下降，那就是所有事情开始崩溃的时候了。所以我们会继续被这种通货膨胀行为所支撑。
Unfortunately, biology, I think, has it right? We'll talk about it in a minute. That there has to be money printing to get out of this hole. I don't know if it's necessarily in this moment hyperinflation area as he predicts. You know, he uses the Deutschmark and the Weimar Republic as this kind of storyline that this is what's about to happen in the US.
很遗憾，我认为生物学是正确的。我们马上就要讨论它了。必须印制货币才能摆脱这个困境。像他预测的那样，我不知道现在是否一定处于恶性通货膨胀区域。你知道，他使用德国马克和魏玛共和国作为故事情节，表明美国即将发生这种情况。
The truth is it looks a little bit more like the pound sterling at the end of the British Empire, where, you know, there's certainly an inflationary and devaluation effect that arises, but it's not, it is the reserve currency of the world today. And so it's really hard to kind of just say, hey, it's going to be hyperinflationary and the value is going to go to zero. It's just not going to happen. So that seems to be the dollar of the dollar. Yeah.
实际上，它更像是英帝国结束时的英镑，当时出现了通货膨胀和贬值效应，但它仍然是当今世界的储备货币。因此，很难断言它会出现恶性通货膨胀并价值归零。这似乎就是美元的实际情况。
So that seems to be the bet now, Chemaugh, that some folks are predicting catastrophizing, hey, this is the end of US supremacy, the end of the dollar. Of course, modern monetary theory seems to stay. You can just keep printing dollars and make a couple trillion dollar coins, a backstop it. And by the way, tarp was profitable modestly for the United States and the backstop of real estate totally work.
现在看起来，有些人预言了灾难，认为这是美国霸权的终结，美元的终结。当然，现代货币理论似乎还在继续。你可以继续印刷美元，并制造几个万亿美元的硬币来作为后盾。顺便说一句，TARP对美国有一些适度的盈利，房地产的后盾也完全有效。
So where do you land on this? Do you think these backstops and modern monetary theory stating that you can just print money? You own your own fee of currency is going to work. Or as we pivot to the billion dollar or sorry, the million dollar biology Bitcoin bet that this is the end of days.
那么你对此有什么看法？你认为这些防护措施和现代货币理论，声称你可以随意印钞，拥有自己的货币费用会起作用吗？或者随着我们转向亿万美元或者抱歉，一百万美元的生物比特币赌注，这是否意味着世界末日的来临？
I think it's not the end of days, but I think you're conflating a bunch of things together. So look, MMT was in hindsight idiotic. In the moment, it never quite made sense, but in hindsight, it's clearly idiotic. And I think that we can properly dispense with that.
我觉得这不是末日，但是我认为你把很多事情混在一起了。所以看，回想起来，MMT很荒谬。当时它从来没有很有道理，但是回想起来，显然非常荒谬。我认为我们可以适当地摆脱它。
But the reason that we print so much money is sort of what freebrook says, which is that we just want a well-functioning society. And the simplest and shortest way to do that is to make sure that there aren't any winners and losers anymore. And the most effective way to do that in the markets is with money. Print a bunch of money and there are no more winners and losers. And so everybody can kind of win. Some people may may win more, but nobody really ever loses.
我们印那么多钞票的原因，有点像Freebrook所说的，就是我们只是想要一个运作良好的社会。而最简单，最有效的方法就是确保不再有赢家和输家。在市场上，实现这一点的最有效方法就是印钞票。印一堆钞票，就没有赢家或输家了。这样每个人都可以赢，一些人可能会赢得更多，但没有人真正会输。
So I think that's the that's the MO that we're operating under. The thing is, I don't think that unhealthy to that schema, if you're sort of a looing to no losers, that's a more philosophical and a commentary on capitalism and a bunch of other things. And you're right, I don't think it makes sense. I do think you need winners and losers to really make society function well.
我认为这是我们所遵循的运作方式。事实上，我认为这个模式对健康并不好，如果你想找到没有失败者的人，那就更多的是指一种哲学和对资本主义等问题的评论。你说得对，这是没有意义的。我认为你需要有胜利者和失败者才能使社会真正运转良好。
But the other part of it is like, does it reinforce or does it decay US dollar hegemony? And I think it actually reinforces it. And the reason is just very practically speaking, when you look at how dependent other people, other countries are on the US dollar, in times of stress, they actually become more dependent. And that has a lot to do with their boring patterns, the amount of dollar central banks need outside the United States.
但它另一方面的影响是，它会强化还是削弱美元的霸权地位？我认为它实际上是强化了美元的霸权地位。原因非常实际，当你看到其他国家和人民对美元的依赖程度时，在压力下，他们实际上变得更加依赖美元。这在很大程度上与他们的借贷模式、美元中央银行在美国境外需要的数量有关。
And so what did you see in a moment of stress? Actually, the Fed opened up swap lines to all the central banks that they work with their most important operating partners of Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. Switzerland. And they moved the liquidity window from weekly to daily and they pounded the swap lines.
在紧张时刻，你看到了什么？实际上，美联储向与其最重要的合作伙伴欧洲、加拿大、日本等的所有中央银行开放了互换额度，同时将流动性窗口从每周变成了每日，然后他们不断将互换额度注入市场。
So I don't know, I think that most people that that kind of like it's like a boy crying wolf, maybe at some point somebody will be right, but you're going to lose so much money trying to take a point of view around this topic that it's more practical to just look at dollar flows. And dollar flows go up in moments of stress, not go down. And they go up in a distributed manner across the monetary plumbing of the world.
所以，我认为大多数人可能会觉得这有点像说谎的男孩，也许在某些时候某些人会是对的，但你试图在这个话题上持某种观点只会浪费大笔资金，因此更实际的方法是看美元的流动。美元流动在压力时刻会增加，而不是减少。同时，美元的流动会分散在全球的货币流通中。
All right, so let's explain in the biology bad since that trended and he is the boy, as you're saying, what cried wolf this past week. Cry Bitcoin.
好的，那我们来用生物学的角度来解释一下上周引起关注的那个男孩，就像你所说的那样，他哭了比特币。
Yeah, the boy.
是的，那个男孩。
So a friend of the pod, biology on March 17th, predicted that Bitcoin will reach $1 million in 90 days due to US hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is defined as prices going up 50% month over month, just so we're clear on exactly how dramatic that is. He made the bet on March 17th against a pseudo anonymous Twitter user, James Medlock, who said they would bet $1 million that the US would not experience hyperinflation. So biology sort of inserted Bitcoin into that bet. It wasn't a Bitcoin bet that and I think he's done two of these bets. So he's betting two million in total on Bitcoin, hitting one million by June 17, which there's probably no chance of that happening. We're very tiny chance unless the panel in a second.
所以，我们的一位播客朋友在3月17日预测，由于美国的恶性通货膨胀，比特币将在90天内达到100万美元。恶性通货膨胀被定义为物价每月上涨50％，这很明显是多么惊人的局面。他在3月17日打赌，认为美国不会经历恶性通货膨胀的一个名为James Medlock的伪匿名Twitter用户将赌1百万美元。所以， biology把比特币插入这次赌局。这不是一次关于比特币的赌注，我认为他已经进行了两次这样的赌注。因此，他总共在比特币上打了200万美元的赌注，要求比特币在6月17日达到100万美元，但这几乎没有可能发生，除非panel说。
Bitcoin was trading at 25, 26,000 at the time. It's now trading at over 28,000. And biology has been on every podcast known to man in the last 72 hours talking about this. I've watched one or two of them. And it's pretty out there argument, I think. And you can just type in biology on YouTube and watch any of the 20s done.
当时比特币交易价为25, 26,000美元。现在交易价已达到超过28,000美元。生物学家在过去的72小时内出现在了各个知名播客中，谈论这个话题。我观看了其中的一两个节目，我认为他们的观点相当具有争议性。你可以在YouTube上输入"生物学"，然后观看其中的任意20条视频。
He believes regional banks are insolvent. He thinks the feds need to, because he's going to need to print a massive amount of money. Like we've said here, do more QE and then cut rates. It all seems reasonable, but that that will lead to hyperinflation. It's not reasonable. Wow. No, no, no, not that it's reasonable. We just printed that they're going to cut rates. We just discussed. They're going to eventually cut rates and they'll be more QA. So that part is reasonable. Just that one little piece.
他认为地区银行破产了。他认为联邦政府需要这么做，因为他们需要大面积印钞票。就像我们在这里说的，更多的量化宽松政策，然后降低利率。这看起来都很合理，但这会导致恶性通货膨胀，这是不合理的。哇，不是这个合理。我们刚刚提到了他们将会降低利率，并进行更多的量化宽松政策。所以这一部分是合理的。只是这一个小的问题。
But then he believes as the part that is kind of out there, that hyperinflation is going to devalue the dollar. And this is the time. He does not. And I made a bunch of, I asked him this a bunch of times and he would not be honest about it or didn't want to answer my question. I said, Hey, what percentage are you in Bitcoin? Somebody says he's 99% in Bitcoin. He will not confirm. And so I was like, well, if you want a thousand Bitcoins, if this goes up, you know, a very small amount, four or five percent, you're going to pay for the bets. And are you talking your own book here or not?
他认为超级通胀会使美元贬值，这是个超出预期的风险。他坚信现在是时候行动了。但他不会说实话或者不想回答我的问题。我问他：“你的比特币占多少比例？”有人说他99%的财产都在比特币里，但他不肯确认。所以我说：“如果你想获得1000个比特币，如果比特币涨幅很小，只有四五个百分点，你就会为赌注付出。你是在自己的盘口上下注吗？”
Sax, what do you think of this overall bet? Is it a stun?
Sax，你觉得这个总体打赌怎么样？是一个惊人的打赌吗？
Yeah. He's saying like, this is the lifeboat's moment. And just to add to it, he says you have to leave the United States and get to Singapore or a place or if you're going to stay in the United States, you need to get to Wyoming or Texas or somewhere that explicitly allows Bitcoin because the closer you are to the United States banking system, what happened to Silicon Valley bank on that fateful weekend where people couldn't get their cash and we're going to have to, you know, Miss payroll. He says that's the dry run for the entire US banking system.
他的意思是，现在是救生船的时刻。并且他还说，你必须离开美国去新加坡或一个地方，或者如果你想留在美国，就需要去怀俄明州或德克萨斯州或其他明确允许比特币的地方。因为你越接近美国银行系统，就越容易遇到像那个决定命运的周末发生在硅谷银行的情况，人们无法取款，我们不得不错失发薪日。他说，这是对整个美国银行系统的模拟演练。
Sax.
None
So first of all, I don't think you can disparage biology because someone who cries wolf says this repeatedly and makes a dire prediction repeatedly and is wrong. And we can't say yet that biology is wrong. Do I think that we're going to have a million dollar Bitcoin in 90 days? I personally find that very unlikely, but you can't say yet. He stuck his neck out making a prediction that will be easily falsified if he's wrong. Second, the last time that biology made a dire prediction was COVID and he was right about that one. So you can't say that this is just like a doomer who throws out crazy predictions and is always wrong. He's actually pretty selective about his now that one predictions.
首先，我不认为你可以因为一个号称自己看到狼群的人一再发表严重预测却错误，就说生物学是有问题的。我们还不能说生物学是错误的。我认为在90天内比特币会涨到一百万美元吗？我个人认为这十分不可能，但我们现在还不能确定。他冒险发表了一项预测，如果他错了，这很容易就会被证明是错误的。其次，生物学上一次做出严重预测是关于新冠肺炎，这次他说对了。所以你不能说这就像一个总是发表疯狂预测而总是错的灾难主义者。他现在预测是相当有选择性的。
Yeah, there is a tweet from January 30th of 2020 in which he basically predicted a pandemic based on a coronavirus and laid out a whole bunch of consequences that mostly came true. Which is why we're talking about this. This is not just some like random person like he actually has a pedigree in a track record.
是的，2020年1月30日有一条推特，他基本上预测了一场基于冠状病毒的大流行病，并列出了一堆大多数成真的后果。这就是为什么我们在谈论这个问题。这不仅仅是某个随机的人，他实际上有一定的背景和历史记录。
Here's my view on it. He can doom and glue. Yes, him and the secret to lab, the two of our opening speakers at all in summer 2023. Those are our bookhead speakers. Book them now.
这是我的看法。他可以毁掉和固定。没错，他和实验室的秘密，都将成为我们在2023年夏季大会上的开场演讲嘉宾。他们是我们会议的重头戏嘉宾，现在就安排他们的预定吧。
Anyway, so look now, what do I think about it? I posted my own theory today, which I would call sort of biology light, which is, okay, look, if you think about the spiking and strates that we've had and that Jamaat thinks we should continue quite a bit longer, there are three main effects that it indisputably has.
总之，看看，我对此有什么想法？今天我发布了自己的理论，我称之为生物学之光。如果你考虑我们所经历的波峰和谷底，以及Jamaat认为我们应该继续很长时间，它无可争议地产生了三个主要影响。
Number one, undercuts the value of long-dated bonds. Number two, it's made lending much more expensive, particularly for big purchases like real estate. Number three, it's increased government lending costs.
首先，它削弱了长期债券的价值；其次，它使得贷款变得更加昂贵，尤其是针对大额购买，比如房地产；最后，它增加了政府的借贷成本。
Okay, now play that through the financial system. What does that mean? Well, if the value of long-dated bonds has sharply decreased, well, that's led to this banking crisis with the unrealized losses. That's already happened. Number two, it's made lending more expensive, the credit crunch and CRE, where we need to see that. And I believe that's going to play out as the second crisis of this larger financial crisis.. And then number three is the increase in government borrowing costs that will eventually play out in terms of being a government debt crisis of some kind.
好的，现在用财务系统来解释一下它意味着什么？如果长期债券价值急剧下降，那么就会出现银行危机和未实现的损失。这已经发生了。其次，它会使借贷变得更加昂贵，导致信贷危机和商业地产问题，这是我们需要考虑的。我相信这将成为更大的金融危机的第二次危机。第三，政府借款成本的增加最终将导致某种形式的政府债务危机。
And I think it will involve a spike in borrowing costs of the federal level and involve sovereign debt issues internationally. I think it will involve budget deficits at states and cities. So I think there's three phases to this financial crisis. We're in phase one, and I think CRE and government debt are the next two phases. And I think a lot of that lines up with what Balaji thinks, where I disagree with him is I don't think we can know what's going to happen in 90 days.
我认为这将导致联邦借款成本的上升，并涉及国际主权债务问题。我认为州和城市的预算赤字也将涉及进来，这是这场金融危机的三个阶段。我们正在第一阶段，我认为商业房地产和政府债务是下两个阶段。我认为这很符合Balaji的想法，但我不同意他的看法——我不认为我们能知道未来90天会发生什么。
I think that the CRE crisis is highly deflationary. It's going to create distress everywhere in the economy. That is going to lead to a massive reduction in liquidity. I think that the government debt crisis, assuming the government wants to inflate and monetize the debt as a way to solve that problem, that will be highly inflationary. But when these things play out, we can't know.
我认为商用房危机会严重导致通货紧缩，它会在整个经济中产生困难，这将导致流动性大幅减少。如果政府试图通货膨胀和货币化来解决公共债务危机，那将会导致高通胀。但是当这些事情发生时，我们无法预知结果。
I think that's what makes this really hard is I think jumping all the way to the sort of finish line and saying we're going to have a million dollar Bitcoin in 90 days because the US dollar is worthless. I think that's pretty mature. I think this could play out over the next couple of years.
我认为这让事情变得非常难，因为我认为一口气跳到终点线并说我们会在90天内拥有一百万美元的比特币，因为美元不值钱，这是相当幼稚的。我认为这可能会在未来几年内发生。
We have a real problem if Bitcoin is the exit ramp. Why? For an inflationary crisis because it's not accessible enough. It's not easily transactable for for for I'm sorry to be negative to the Bitcoin maximalists. I'm generally in favor of this kind of independent storage system that's outside of government state control.
如果比特币成为退出通道，我们会面临真正的问题。为什么？因为它无法满足通货膨胀危机的需求，不够易用。对于比特币极大主义者来说，很抱歉我要发表负面言论。但我通常支持这种独立存储系统，它不受政府国家控制。
I think there's just this unfortunate reality. We saw it the wealth noticed at Coinbase today. They just arrested that crypto guy. Dokewuan was arrested in Contenegro, of all places. Great country. Cracking won't let you wire money in or out as of I think Monday or Tuesday. It's clearly becoming a less accessible system of storage.
我认为这只是一个不幸的现实。我们看到了今天在Coinbase富裕的提现情况。他们刚刚逮捕了那个加密货币的家伙。他居然在黑山被逮捕了，这个美丽的国家。Cracking从周一或周二就不再让你汇款了。很明显，它正在成为一个越来越不可及的存储系统。
What's more accessible? Well, I do think that one of the reasons we're seeing the market move the way it does is because folks are shifting their risk assets around quite a bit right now to figure out where is a good place to put money. I was talking with a asset manager this morning and they had a very strong point of view.
还有什么更易达的吗？嗯，我认为我们看到市场走向的一个原因是因为人们现在正在调整他们的风险资产，以确定哪里是一个好的投资地点。今天早上我正在和一个资产管理人员交谈，他们有非常强烈的观点。
Folks are moving capital away from what they think are going to be most impacted by the risk of this kind of massive inflationary event that may arise or this massive banking crisis that may arise or this massive real estate crisis that may arise. There are other places to then put your capital that's not just Bitcoin and sure maybe some of these things are dollar denominated.
人们正在从他们认为将受到这种大规模通货膨胀事件风险、可能出现的大规模银行危机或大规模房地产危机影响的地方撤出资本。还有其他地方可以投资，而不仅仅局限于比特币，当然，有些投资可能是以美元计价的。
For example, there are many businesses that sell products in non-dollar denominated currencies globally. While they report and trade on US stock exchanges, you're buying a security interest in a business that generates most of its income by selling, referring to many different companies. There are many companies that get the bulk of their revenue, the bulk of their sales internationally.
例如，有许多企业在全球以非美元计价货币销售产品。虽然它们在美国股票交易所上报告和交易，但你购买的是一个通过销售并与许多不同的公司合作而产生大部分收入的企业的证券利益。有许多企业的主要收入、主要销售额都来自国际市场。
There are also many companies that will benefit in an inflationary environment, businesses that are tied to other types of real estate, businesses that are tied to certain capital equipment where consumption will not go down unless there's significant massive global socioeconomic shock. I think that's a lot of what's going on right now.
此外，还有许多公司将从通胀环境中受益。这些企业与其他类型的房地产有关联，与某些资本设备有关联，只有在存在重大全球社会经济震荡时，消费才不会下降。我认为这正是现在许多公司所面临的情况。
It's less about hey, Bitcoin's the only place to go and be safe. It's more about let me reallocate my risk assets a little bit to places that may benefit from or may be better guarded from a massive kind of inflationary shock.
这句话的意思是：这不仅仅是关于“嘿，比特币是唯一可以去并安全的地方”。更多的是让我稍微重新配置我的风险资产，投向那些可能受益或更好地保护自己免受通货膨胀的巨大冲击的地方。
我会这样说：这个问题不是单纯关于“嘿，比特币是唯一安全的选择”。重点是让我在可能受益或更好的抵御通货膨胀的地方重新配置我的风险资产。
Let me just say one more thing. I think one of the biggest risks that is not being talked about is the debt ceiling vote that's due in June.
让我再说一件事。我认为目前没有被谈论的最大风险之一是6月份的债务上限投票。
In June, Congress needs to pass an increase in the debt ceiling because the amount of debt that the federal government is going to have to take on in order to meet our budget deficit and refinance our debt and pay our obligations historically means that we're going to have to have more than what we're, you know, we've approved to date in terms of the total amount of debt.
在六月份，国会需要通过增加债务上限，因为为了弥补我们的预算赤字、再融资我们的债务以及履行我们的义务，联邦政府需要承担的债务金额意味着我们需要比我们迄今为止批准的总债务金额更多。
Now, this has historically been a last-minute vote, you know, crazy dramatic thing that drives markets nuts. The Hill had a public opinion piece from Peter or work and Mary Spade, but I think they make a good point.
嗯，这个历史上通常是最后一分钟的投票，你知道，疯狂或戏剧性的事情总是让市场变得疯狂。山丘杂志刊登了彼得·奥尔沃克和玛丽·斯佩德的一篇公开文章，但我认为他们提出了一个很好的观点。
You know, I've talked to a lot of folks who are calling it in the fixed income market, but also folks are in the equity markets publicly who are pretty nervous about the debt ceiling vote. And if it does look like the Republican party takes a very hard line and says, because this is the current party line, if you don't agree to massive deficit cuts or spending cuts and really commit to that in a bill that we can pass that then also approves the increase in the debt limit, we are not going to approve increasing the debt limit.
你知道吗，我和很多在固定收益市场上打交道的人交谈过，但也和一些在公开的股票市场的人谈过话，他们都对债务上限的投票感到非常紧张。如果共和党采取非常强硬的立场，因为这是当前的党派路线，如果你不同意大规模的赤字削减或支出削减，并在一项我们可以通过的法案中真正承诺这一点，还批准债务上限增加，那么我们将不会批准增加债务上限。
And, you know, what this opinion piece argues, I think is a very good middle of the line solution, which is, you know, come up with points of view and actually document those points of view on making sure that government spending is effectively accountable, that there's no more wasteful spending.
你知道，这篇文章提出的观点，我认为是一个非常好的妥协方案，就是提出不同的观点，并在确保政府支出有效可控、没有浪费支出的基础上，实际记录这些观点。
And that there are certain programs that both parties can very quickly agree to as being, you know, very wasteful. And if you start there, you maybe get enough across the line that both parties kind of say this makes sense, let's do this. And then we can kind of increase the debt limit.
所以，其实有些项目，两党都可能很快就会认为非常浪费。如果从这个方面入手，或许就能够说服足够的人支持这个想法，让两个党派都认为这样做很有意义，可以开始实施。然后，我们就能够逐步提高债务上限了。
Because in the absence of that, the US will have to default on debt. This is always the big threats never happened. And if that happens or there is the looming threat of that happening, combined with the banking crisis, combined with, you know, the liquidity crisis, combined with the real estate crisis that maybe boom emerging here. Let me ask you a question that's kind of a thing for you. Really meltdown.
因为如果没有这个，美国将不得不违约债务。这总是一个伟大的威胁，从来没有发生过。如果这种情况发生，或者有可能发生，再加上银行危机、流动性危机和房地产危机，可能会出现繁荣。让我问你一个问题，这对你来说是个大问题。真的崩盘了。
So look, I think this is the biggest like black swan, it's not a black swan, but this is the biggest kind of elephant in the room right now is. And I think that, and sorry, I think if people in DC could get together today, and if you could, instead of doing the typical last minute 24 hour vote, a day before the debt ceiling needs to be increased, if this could do it, if this could be addressed today, it could start to put in some of the layers of backstop and coverage and protection and safety that the markets, I think, really need to manage some of the trepidation in the weeks and months ahead.
看，我觉得这是目前最大的问题，就像黑天鹅事件一样，虽然不是黑天鹅，但这是房间里最大的大象。如果DC的人们今天能够聚在一起，而且如果你们不是像通常那样在债务限额需要提高前一天匆忙投票，而是今天就处理了它，那么它可以开始实施一些后备、覆盖和保护措施和安全措施，我认为这是市场实际需要的，以应对未来几周和几个月的不确定性。
I want to jump to the crypto crackdown and get your opinion on that, Saksverse. But I wanted to a clarifying point here with freeberg. You have been in the Ray Dalio end of empires, empires collapse and that, hey, maybe the US is winding down its supremacy and biology was pretty much saying, yep, this is the moment. Where is there any light between your position of like, hey, Dalio's correct. This is the end of the empire. And biology is like, it's the end of the empire right now. Where do you stand on that, preberg?
我想跟 Saksverse 谈谈加密货币打击并听听你的意见。但在此之前，我想与 freeberg 澄清一下。你在 Ray Dalio 倡导的帝国崩溃那一端，Dalio 说，嘿，也许美国正在削弱它的霸权地位，而生物学几乎在说，是的，这就是时刻。在你的立场上，Dalio 正确，帝国已经终结了，而生物学则认为它就是现在在终结，你在哪里站立，freeberg？
So, I mean, I've always been concerned. I've told you guys this for like three years and I've obviously promoted this book for two and a half years. When Dalio's points of view with lots of kind of empirical wisdom behind it, I think indicate that the US is on a path and the way we spend and the way we behave and the way markets are reacting, I think, indicates that a lot of what has happened historically is happening now in the US.
所以，我的意思是，我一直都很担心。我已经告诉过你们三年了，而且我显然已经推广过这本书两年半了。当戴利奥的观点背后有很多经验智慧时，我认为表明美国正在一条道路上——我们的消费方式、行为方式以及市场反应方式表明，历史上发生的很多事情现在正在美国发生。
Now, it doesn't, I don't know if it's going to happen overnight. That's where I would have light with biology. Okay. The notion of kind of hyperinflation again, I think means that, so think about all the US dollar holders around the world. It would be a shock for the collective system. It would require the collective system to collectively agree to get off the dollar very quickly for that to really happen.
现在，我不知道它是否会在一夜之间发生。这就是我在生物学上会有启示的地方。好吧。再次谈到通货膨胀，我认为这意味着考虑一下全球的美元持有者。这将会对整个系统造成震动。要真正实现这一点，需要集体系统迅速地共同决定摆脱美元。
In the meantime, I do think there will be inflationary effects. I do think there will be massive kind of asset value shocks. But I'm not sure there's going to be this kind of like, why more republic, George Mark, hyperinflation thing because it is the reserve currency and it is so widely held by everyone. It would require collective giving up. It also seems like there may be, you know, we talked a lot about the petro you want trade, which I think is critical to see that actually happen. I think that's going to be the linchpin.
同时，我认为会有通货膨胀的影响。我认为会有大规模的资产价值冲击。但我不确定会不会有这种像更多的共和国、乔治马克、超级通胀之类的事情，因为它是储备货币且被广泛持有。这需要全体人民的共同放弃。此外，似乎可能会发生石油-石油货币交易，这是我们经常讨论的。我认为这会成为关键。
Got it. Maybe that catalyzes this. And that seems to be a little bit tightrope right now too. It doesn't seem super definitive that Saudis are embracing China. There's obviously this behavior with, you know, it's not as definitive right now.
明白了。也许这会催化这个问题。现在看起来可能有点危险。沙特是否接受中国并不是很明确。很明显还存在这种行为，现在还不是很确定。
I think that that looks to happen to kind of really catalyze that. Let's get our tinfoil hats on here for a second.
我觉得那似乎会促成某些事情的发生，让我们在这里戴上锡纸帽。
In relation to the biology bet, there has been a lot of action against crypto. Obviously, authoritarian countries took control of crypto long ago, China banning it, etc. North Korea, other authoritarian places kind of tighten their grip on it. Now here in the United States, Coinbase got a Wells notice.
关于生物学赌注，有很多行动针对加密货币。显然，威权国家早已控制了加密货币，例如中国禁止使用，北朝鲜和其他威权地区也在加强控制。现在在美国，Coinbase受到了威尔斯通知。
That is a warning basically and giving you a last chance to kind of respond to the SEC. And this was based on their loaning programs. And on top of that, a number of other crypto crackdowns have occurred. We saw celebrities getting smackdown and getting fines and doing settlements.
这基本上是一个警告，给你最后一个机会去回应证券交易委员会。这是基于他们的贷款计划。除此之外，已经发生了几次针对加密货币的打击事件。我们看到了名人被责罚并被罚款和达成协议。
This has led sacks to a theory that the United States government wants to break the back of crypto. Crypto has done a great job of breaking their own back with plenty of crypto grips inside of trading and all kinds of shenanigans with FTX and front running and painting the tape.
这导致萨克斯提出了一个理论，即美国政府想要打破加密货币的骨头。加密货币已经做了非常出色的工作，但是他们自己内部有很多加密货币的交易和各种猫腻，例如FTX交易所的前瞻性和涂改成交量的操作，已经导致了自己的失败。
Any grift or criminal activity possible seems to have been exploited. Do you think that these two things are in some way coordinated or there's a coordinated effort by the US government to destroy and kill crypto as an off ramp for the US dollar while the US dollar is dealing with these crises.
任何可能的欺骗或犯罪活动似乎都被利用了。你是否认为这两件事在某种程度上是协调的，或者美国政府正在协调努力摧毁和杀死加密货币，以作为美元的出口，而美元正在处理这些危机？
Well, there's a really interesting article that was just published on Substack by Nick Carter, who I guess a guest writer on Mike Solana's Substack called Pirate Wires. This is a follow-up piece to an article he wrote six weeks ago where he laid out an operation by the Biden administration called Operation Choke Point, which made the case that the Biden administration was quietly attempting to ban crypto.
嗯，刚刚有一篇非常有趣的文章在 Substack 上由 Nick Carter 发表，我猜他是 Mike Solana 的 Substack Pirate Wires 的特邀作者。这篇文章是他六周前写的一篇文章的后续，当时他阐述了拜登政府的一个行动计划，称之为 Choke Point 行动，这表明拜登政府正在悄悄地试图禁止加密货币。
And now, you know, a month later, there's all these things that are all these steps that the administration is taking to go after crypto and he lays out a bunch in a bullet point list. So the SEC announced a lawsuit against crypto infrastructure company Paxos, crypto exchange Kraken settled with the SEC, SEC chair Gensler openly labeled every crypto asset of the Bitcoin security Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing lane basing Bitcoin.
现在呢，你知道，一个月后政府采取了很多措施来打击加密货币，他列了一些细节作为项目列表。SEC 对加密货币基础设施公司 Paxos 提出了诉讼，加密货币交易所 Kraken 与 SEC 达成了和解，SEC 主席 Gensler 公开将每种加密货币资产都标记为比特币安全，环境和公共工程参议院委员会进行了一次听证会针对比特币。
Biden administration proposed a bill that singles out crypto miners for owner's tax treatment in New York attorney general declared a theorem, which is the second largest crypto asset of security. That's a huge change, by the way. Yep. SEC continues to say, he gets more protection efforts by doubling down their attempt to block a spot between ETFs, OCC, let crypto bank, Protegos application for a national trust charter expire. And then the SEC just sang coin base a Wells notice.
拜登政府提出了一项法案，将针对加密货币挖矿者的所有者税制进行了规定。纽约总检察长宣布以太币为安全性第二大加密资产，这是一个巨大的变化。SEC继续表示，通过加倍努力阻止ETF之间的差距，OCC让加密银行Protego的国家信托章程申请过期。然后SEC向硬币库发出了韦尔斯通知。
So I think it's hard to argue that there isn't a concerted effort now to crack down on crypto by a wide variety of government agencies and authorities starting with Gensler at the SEC who seems incredibly hostile to crypto. So now the only question is, is this correlated with the stress that the banking system is under or is it just a coincidence?
我认为现在很难争辩，各种政府机构和权威开始采取一致行动打击加密货币，从证券交易委员会的根斯勒开始，他似乎非常敌视加密货币。现在唯一的问题是，这是否与银行系统承受的压力有关，还是只是巧合？
And that I don't know, but I think the argument that you would make is that at the same time they're going to deflate the dollar, they're going to make it harder for you to find an off ramp. And he actually brought up a historical example that wasn't aware of. I think it was called the executive order 6201, which is FDR way back in the 1930s, actually had an executive order that confiscated all the private gold bullion in the country.
我不知道这个问题的答案，但是我认为你会争论，他们既要让美元贬值，又要让你更难找到出路。他还举了一个历史性的例子，我之前并不知道。我觉得它被称为行政命令6201号，就是弗兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福在1930年代签署的一个行政命令，它没收了该国所有的私人金条。
And they seized the gold bullion, making the accusation that private citizens were hoarding too much gold. So in any event, this is the theory. I don't know whether it's true or not. It could be a coincidence.
他们搜查黄金金条，并指责私人公民囤积了过多的黄金。所以，这是理论，但我不知道它是否属实，有可能只是巧合。
Shabbat, do you think that this is correlated in any way with the crisis or is just the fact that FTX blew up and all these other things blew up and the public is really upset that they lost a lot of money on this and the SEC has got to cover and be a little bit more active instead of reactive when it comes to dealing with the crypto losses that consumers had.. That's the latter.
安息日，你认为这与危机有关联还是只是因为FTX崩溃了以及其他一些事情崩溃了，公众真的很沮丧，他们在这件事上失去了很多钱，SEC不得不进行覆盖并在处理消费者在加密货币方面的损失时变得更加积极而非反应性。这是后者。
I mean, I think that there was a rumor going around. I don't know how true it is that FTX was days away from getting a critical approval by the SEC to actually even further legitimize their US exchange before they went out of business. So I think Gensler had to pivot very hard from at a minimum being very pro FTX.
我是说，我认为有一个谣言在传播。我不知道FTX离获得SEC的关键批准多近，以进一步合法化他们的美国交易所，然后他们就破产了。因此，我认为Gensler必须非常努力地调整自己的态度，至少对FTX非常支持。
And there's all kinds of stories about his interrelatedness with Sam and his family to very anti-bit or anti-crypto in general. That's clearly happened.
还有各种关于他与山姆及其家族的相互关系与反对二进制或加密货币的故事。显然这是发生过的。
But look, I think that this is like a lot of tin-hatting which I don't think is very productive.
不过，我认为这种想法就像戴着锡纸帽子的人想法一样，我认为这并不是很有建设性。
If you look at the total number of non-zero Bitcoin wallet addresses in the world and let's be extremely generous and say it's 100 million. There are still 7 billion people in the world.
如果你看一下全球非零比特币钱包地址的总数，假设它是一亿，我们非常慷慨地这样假设。然而，全球人口有七十亿。
And so I just think everybody that tries to speak about the fragility of the US and worldwide banking system is right. But and that part I think is quite lucid and unemotional. But every time they try to connect to the Bitcoin, they sound like a crazy person because they're just talking their book.
所以我认为每个试图谈论美国和全球银行体系脆弱性的人都是正确的。但是，这一点我认为很清晰和不带情感。可是，每次他们试图将其与比特币联系起来，他们听起来像一个疯子，因为他们只是在为自己打广告。
And that is exactly the case, by the way, with this kid Nick Carter. And the best example to demonstrate this is in all of this chaos. If Bitcoin or crypto assets in general were truly a legitimate off-ramp and salvation from US dollar hegemony and all of this stuff, why isn't Bitcoin at least at 35,000 a coin right now?
顺便说一下，这个孩子尼克·卡特就是这样的情况。在这些混乱中，最好的例子证明了这一点。如果比特币或加密资产总体上真的是摆脱美元霸权和所有这些东西的合法出口和救赎，为什么比特币现在至少不是每枚35,000美元呢？
It's barely above 28,000. It really hasn't moved that much. And I think the real answer is that most people in Bitcoin are not trying to hedge their existing fiat currency exposure. They're just picking off people in retail. And they're just betraying this thing.
它只是略微超过了28,000。它真的没有太多的变化。而且我认为真正的答案是，大多数比特币的使用者并不是在试图对冲他们现有的法币风险，他们只是想在零售市场中抓住人们。而且他们真的是在背叛这件事。
I mean, how else do you explain an asset that is not absolutely ripped in the face of all of this terrible news about the financial system? And I think the answer is because it's still a cul-de-sac of users it's not broadly available, not broadly adoptable, not broadly used.
我是说，你怎么解释一种资产，在这么多有关金融系统的可怕消息之下，竟然没有完全被摧毁？我认为答案是因为它还只是一小部分用户使用的死胡同，它没有广泛的可用性、广泛的采用性和广泛的使用率。
I still believe that it's valuable. I was the earliest proponent of Bitcoin in 2011, 2012. So I believe that there's a place for it in one's portfolio, but I just think connecting these dots misses the point.
我仍然相信它很有价值。在2011年、2012年，我是最早支持比特币的人。所以，我认为它在投资组合中有一席之地，但我认为连接这些点忽略了重点。
And I think the point is much, much bigger than a crypto off-ramp. The point is that we have a lot of systemic shocks that are building up in the system. We have broken a ton of the systems that cause the financial infrastructure and the world to work properly.
我认为这个要点远远超过加密货币的退出通道。要点是我们的系统中积累了很多系统性的冲击。我们打破了很多使金融基础设施和整个世界正常运转的系统。
And we are just starting to one cover how they're broken. So I think we need to focus our energy on that and dial down a little bit of the Bitcoin maxi stuff because it distracts from a really important set of topics that are more inclusive and actually touch 7 billion people.
我们刚刚开始探讨它们是如何破碎的。因此，我认为我们需要把精力集中在这方面，减少一些比特币极大主义的论调，因为它会分散我们对更加包容和实际涉及70亿人的一系列重要主题的关注。
We have to do the clean up work. And just to be good point really clear here, Nick Carter is a career crypto. He's on his third fund, his $250 million third fund according to a quick Google search. He's a partner at Castle Island. Ventures and I believe, Bology believes what he's saying.
我们必须做清理工作。为了更清楚，尼克·卡特是一位职业加密货币投资者。根据快速的谷歌搜索，他正在进行第三个基金，价值2.5亿美元。他是城堡岛风险投资公司的合伙人，我相信，Bology也相信他所说的话。
And at the same time is massively in Bitcoin and the $2 million, he'll obviously lose in this bet or the 99.9% chance. And he's dead that already. I think he believes he's doing a service just like he did believe he was doing a service with COVID.
同时，他大量地投资于比特币和200万美元，显然会输掉这次赌注，或者说只有0.1%的胜算。他已经承受过这样的损失了。我认为他认为自己在像对待COVID一样地服务。
So I do not doubt his intent. But I believe it's his book is based on this and the $2 million will be easily paid off. He's a very smart. He's a very smart and good guy.
所以我不怀疑他的意图。但我相信他的书是基于这个想法的，200万美元将很容易被偿还。他非常聪明。他是一个非常聪明和好的人。
My point is put this in the who cares bucket and get back to the facts. Freeberg mentioned it. We have a debt ceiling problem that's in the offing. Sacks mentioned it. We have a commercial real estate crisis. We just talked about the fact that he didn't raise rates enough, nor did he cut enough.
我的观点是把这件事放到无所谓的一边，回到事实上来。Freeberg提到了它。我们面临着债务上限问题。Sacks也提到了它。我们有一个商业房地产危机。我们刚刚谈到他没有提高足够的利率，也没有削减足够多的开支。
So we're in this weird middle path that that J power we're talking about. So those are the facts on the ground that I think we should focus on because those will have implications to how people can borrow, start businesses, capitalize risk assets. That's a big problem.
所以我们处于这种奇怪的中间道路，就是那个我们正在谈论的J力量。所以这些是我们应该关注的现实情况，因为它们将对人们如何借贷、创业、资本化风险资产产生影响。这是一个大问题。
I guess the moral hazard comes up sacks. And the critique I think that people have had of you, focusing on bank bailouts, etc. Has been you have been anti bailout and now hey, maybe backstopping the deposits, not backstopping the bank.
我猜道德风险出现了。而且我认为人们对你的批评，关注银行救助等，是你一直反对救助，现在却支持保障存款，而不是银行。
The shareholders lost, you were very clear about that. But let's talk about moral hazard here for a minute. Are we started getting?
股东们亏了，你说得非常清楚。但是，让我们稍微谈一下道德风险问题。我们开始明白了吗？
I'm not for bail. When did I say I was either for a guest? I just clearly stated you were not. I just clearly stated you're not. I'm saying this is the critique that people have had of you. So I'm giving you a chance to address why? Why are you giving him people's critiques to him? Nobody because I want him to talk about the future moral hazard. What people more of your 765421 Twitter. Okay.
我不支持保释。我何时说过我支持宾客了吗？我只是明确地说明了你不支持。我只是明确地说，你不支持。我是说这是人们对你的批评。所以我给你一个机会，让你解释为什么？你为什么要把人们的批评转达给他？没有人因为我想让他谈谈未来的道德风险。更多的人会关注你的765421推特。好的。
I was also the about the one. Let me jump. Also, I think about the whole story journal, The New York Times, and everything. Let me jump in and just clarify. I was really clear that SVB shareholders will be wiped out. They're bondholders should be wiped out. They're management stock options should be wiped out. In fact, if it turns out that they should have known the thing was about to go under, I think their stock sales should be clawed back. So I'm not a favorite bailing at SVB. I don't care about SVB.
我也是其中之一。让我来发言。我还思考过整个故事、《纽约时报》和一切。让我插话，澄清一下。我非常清楚，SVB的股东将被清理干净。他们的债券持有人也应该被清理干净。他们的管理层期权也应该被清理干净。实际上，如果他们本该知道这个事情即将破产，我认为他们的股票销售应该被追回。所以我不是SVB的拥护者。我不在意SVB。
Yes. Of course. Now let's do that for commercial real estate. No, the question is what you do with deposits and depositors. Correct. I think there is a real debate about how you treat depositors in a banking crisis. I think there are two views on that. There's an old-fashioned view and then there's a more modern regulatory view.
当然。现在让我们聊聊商业房地产。不，问题在于你如何处理存款和存款人。没错。我认为对于银行危机中如何处理存款人这个问题，存在着真正的争论。我认为有两种观点。一是老派观点，二是更为现代化的监管观点。
The old-fashioned view is that if your money isn't a bank and that bank goes under and you're over the FDIC amount, you lose your money. We need people in the system to lose their money because that creates discipline on the banks. It'll make those depositors do a better job shopping for the right bank. That's what I would call the old-fashioned hard-line view.
传统观点认为，如果你的钱不在银行中，但该银行破产了且你的存款超过FDIC的保险额度，你将失去你的钱。我们需要让系统中的人损失钱财，因为这会对银行产生约束力。这会让那些存款人做得更好地选择合适的银行。这就是我所谓的传统强硬派观点。
There's a more modern regulatory view, which is that, listen, the typical depositor, even a fairly sophisticated depositor like a small business or even a high net worth individual, they're not in a position to evaluate the balance sheet of these banks. How do they get to figure out if there's toxic assets that are hidden on the balance sheet of these banks? The regulators didn't see it. It's all going to be a bank and a lot of these banks.
有一个更现代化的监管观点，就是说，听着，即使是像小型企业或高净值个人这样相当复杂的储户，他们也没有能力评估这些银行的资产负债表。他们如何得知这些银行的资产负债表上是否存在隐藏的有毒资产呢？监管机构也没有发现。这都是银行的责任，这些银行很多都存在这种问题。
You don't really get that much more moral hazard by putting the depositor on the hook for that. Remember, the management of the bank already is penalized severely by losing all their stock and all the things. I'm trying to get to before Chimouth interrupted me. I'm trying to get to the bigger moral hazard picture here, which is Jason. Fuck you before you're dropping.
你把存款人置于责任之中并没有带来太多更大的道德风险。要记住，银行管理层已经因为失去所有股票和所有东西而受到了严重惩罚。我试图在Chimouth打断我之前说出我的想法。我试图进入更大的道德风险画面，那就是Jason。你滚蛋之前，去死吧。
But the point, each you're not for a second. The point I'm trying to get to is should commercial real estate should that be belled out? How should society look at that next card that you are saying is going to tip over? How would you handle that piece? Should they? Okay.
但是，要点是，你没有一分一秒的时间。我想表达的重点是商业房地产是否应该被推出去？社会应该如何看待你所说的下一张牌会翻转的情况？你会如何处理这个问题？他们应该吗？好的。
Well, let me just finish the phone on depositors. So the modern regulatory view is that when you open a bank account, you shouldn't have to think about the bank's balance sheet. You just want it to be safe. You don't want all the brain damage.
好的，让我先把存款人的电话接完。现代监管的观点是，当你开一个银行账户时，你不应该考虑到银行的资产负债表。你只想让它安全可靠，不想带来额外的麻烦和压力。
And look, I think there's a lot of merit to that argument. As it turns out, I've been trying to look into this, how much would it cost the system to just fully ensure depositors? It turns out that we have about 17 and a half trillion in deposits in the US, almost 18 trillion. And one of the misnomers you'll hear is well, it costs 18 trillion to basically ensure all the depositors. That's not true because first of all, 10 trillion people don't even know it. It's already insured under FDIC. It's only about seven and a half to eight trillion. That's less than half is left.
听着，我认为这个观点有很多优点。事实证明，我一直在尝试研究这个问题，完全保障存款人需要系统花费多少钱？事实证明，我们在美国大约有17.5万亿美元的存款，几乎18万亿。你会听到一些误解，那就是要保障所有存款人需要花费18万亿美元，这是不正确的，因为首先，有1万亿人甚至不知道它已经在FDIC下得到了保险。只有约七万五千亿到八万亿美元需要保障，少于一半。
Yes, right. Exactly. It's about it's around eight trillion. So isn't it shocking the enumeracy of people that make these claims? I know it's amazing. This is why this is why podcast is basic 20 or top 10 in the world because we're actually breaking down the numbers. Right.
是的，就是这样。大约是八万亿左右。这些声称的人的无知真是震惊人心，不是吗？我懂得，这也是为什么这个博客节目在全世界排名前二十或前十的原因，因为我们实际上在分析数字。对的。
So continue. The leading proponent of this theory that we should just basically not bail out, but backstop the deposits is bill. And he's been making, I think a pretty compelling case that if you don't protect deposits at small banks, all the money is going to flow to the top four banks. That's right. Of course, I wouldn't have that's happening. Yeah, we're watching it happen. Right.
所以继续。这个理论的主要支持者是比尔，他认为我们应该基本上不救助，而是背书存款。我认为他有很有力的论据，认为如果不保护小银行的存款，所有的钱都会流向前四大银行。是的。当然，我不会认为这会发生。是的，我们正在看它发生。
So I've been trying to figure out how much it would actually cost us to do that. And what I've realized is that it's not 18 trillion. It's it's eight trillion. But by the way, that's the amount of deposits. That's not the risk premium. So if you look at FDIC at the end of last year, there was about 130 billion that have been paid in to the FDIC fund by premiums paid by these banks. So in other words, the insurance premium paid by banks was about 1.3%.
所以我一直在想，实际上它会花费我们多少钱。我意识到它不是18万亿，而是8万亿。但是，这只是存款的金额，而不是风险溢价。所以，如果你看看去年年底的联邦存款保险公司，那么大约有1300亿被这些银行支付的保险费用作为存入了FDIC基金。换句话说，银行支付的保险费大约是1.3％。
So if you were to now additionally cover the whole thing, all the deposits, it would be another roughly 100 billion of premiums paid by these banks. That seems very manageable to me actually. The question is, is the FDIC fund adequate? And I think we're about to find out..
那么，如果你现在又要覆盖整个事情，所有存款，这将是这些银行支付的大约1000亿保费。实际上，这似乎对我来说非常可控。问题是，FDIC基金是否足够？我认为我们即将发现…
It may be the case that a 1.3% insurance premium grossly understated the true risk of putting your deposit into a bank. And we're about to find out that the FDIC is inadequate. I don't know the answer of that question.
也许情况是这样的，1.3%的保险费严重低估了将您的存款放入银行的真实风险。我们即将发现FDIC是不足够的。我不知道那个问题的答案。
Well, I think this boils down to the profitability that an equity shareholder of a bank expects of them. And to your point, is it viable for large G-sibs to guarantee 100% of their deposits? Absolutely. The implication of that will be an enormous hit to their short-term profitability and their return on investment capital, it would just take a massive hit.
我认为根本问题在于银行股权股东对于盈利的期望。至于你提到的大型全球系统重要银行是否能够保证其全部存款是可行的吗？当然可以。然而，这将对它们的短期盈利能力和投资回报率造成巨大打击。这将是一次巨大的冲击。
And so as a result, the stocks of those banks would fall pretty precipitously, which would have a real negative impact on the executives and the CEOs of those banks and the shareholders that own those bank equities. So I think ultimately it'll come down to that decision, which is that if you do want to protect the depositor in the American banking system, 100% for every dollar and do it in a simple way, it will come at the sake of the equity holders of the banks.
所以，结果是，这些银行的股票将会急剧下跌，这将对那些银行的高管、CEO和持有这些银行股权的股东产生真正的负面影响。因此，我认为最终将会下决定，即如果您确实想要以简单的方式100%保护美国银行系统中的存款者的每一美元，那么这将会损害银行的权益持有人。
And if you're willing to make that trade-off, then you can guarantee 100% of the deposits. If you do not want to make that trade-off, then the equity holders will still retain more value than they would otherwise.
如果你愿意作出这样的权衡，你可以保证100% 的存款。如果你不想作出这样的权衡，那么股东仍将保留更多的价值。
And Freeberg, we've seen a couple of examples of the market, the free market, looking at the situation and making new products and services, as well-front Mercury Bank both talked about load balancing across 12 accounts, $3 million.
我们已经看到市场——自由市场——凭借前沿的墨丘利银行和Freeberg两个例子，根据形势推出新的产品和服务。其中，墨丘利银行对12个账户及300万美元的负载平衡进行了讨论，而Freeberg则有别的案例。
So that would make some people who had over 250K just instantly be back-stopped and insured. And then where there's discussion of, I talked about last week, hey, why don't you just have a vault where you pay a bank to hold your money safely?
那么这将使一些有超过25万美元的人立即得到支持和保障。然后就会有关于我上周谈论的讨论，为什么不只是找一个保险库，让银行安全地保管你的钱呢？
I got a ton of responses from all in fans pointing out multiple banks and services that have been trying to do this and also crypto solutions. So is there going to be a free market solution, you think, or when we're starting to see them emerge, that maybe covers this gap a little bit freeberg.
我从粉丝那里收到了很多回复，指出有多个银行和服务一直在试图实现这一目标，还有加密货币解决方案。那么，你认为会有自由市场的解决方案出现吗？或者当它们开始出现时，也许会填补一些自由伯格的这个差距。
And then what are your thoughts just generally on, should we backstop the banks and the deposit, I'm sorry, the banks, the depositors to be clear. So if we just quickly analyze the function of a bank, they loan money to either residential real estate buyers, like homeowners or commercial real estate buyers or businesses that need it.
那么，您对我们是否应该为银行和存款人提供支持的想法是什么？请明确一下，这里所说的是银行和存款人。如果我们快速分析一下银行的功能，它们将资金借给住宅房地产买家，比如房主或商业房地产买家或需要资金的企业。
I think the majority of the capital goes to residential real estate. And if they can't loan enough money, they typically buy bonds, right? They buy other people's loans in the form of bond securities, treasuries or asset back securities or other things like that, or mortgage back securities.
我认为大部分的资本都流向了住宅房地产。如果他们不能贷款足够的钱，他们通常会购买债券，对吧？他们购买其他人的贷款作为债券证券、国债或资产抵押证券等，或者房屋抵押证券。
So they use the cash to make those investments to make those loans and then they obviously earn a return on that. I think we've talked about this in the past.
所以他们用现金来做这些投资、发放贷款，然后他们显然从中获得回报。我想我们以前已经谈到过这个问题了。
The thing that biology has misstated and it would be good to have a conversation with him about this publicly because I have listened to some of his interviews in the last couple days.
Biology可能曾经误传了某些事情，有必要公开与他谈论这个问题，因为最近几天我听了他的一些采访。
He says the banks are they don't have the money that you, the depositor, thinks that you have. And so what he's saying kind of implies that there is no money, that there is no assets value there at all.
他说银行没有你这个存款人认为的那些钱。因此，他的话有点暗示说这里根本没有资产价值，也没有任何钱。
He uses Sandbankman Fried and FTX as an example that the money that was given to Sandbankman Fried's exchange fund was used to buy assets that then very quickly declined in value by 99%. But he held them on the book at 100% and then he reinvested the money and all sorts of other different stuff.
他举例来说明，之前给予Sandbankman Fried交易所基金的资金被用来购买了一些资产，然后这些资产的价值迅速下跌了99%。但是，这些资产在账面上仍被标记为100%，他随后又将资金重新投资，做了各种其他的事情。
And in the case of the loans made by banks and the assets that they as a result hold, the value may have dropped by 25% in kind of the worst case, which is the Silicon Valley bank, tenure, treasury bonds scenario where they bought all 20 billion dollars with the treasury bonds and they took a big hit on that.
对于银行所作出的贷款和它们随之持有的财产而言，在最坏的情况下价值可能会下跌25%。例如，硅谷银行的情况，他们购买了全部20亿美元的国库债券，结果遭受了重大打击。
But it doesn't mean that there's no asset value. It means that the value has declined. And typically there's a buffer between the asset value that the banks are meant to hold and the deposits that they owe back to their customers.
但这并不意味着没有资产价值，它意味着价值已经下降。通常银行应持有的资产价值和所欠客户的存款之间有一个缓冲区。
And if that buffer gets succeeded, then the bank is technically has negative equity. And if all the you know depositors said I want my money back and they went and sold those bonds into the market, they wouldn't be able to make the depositors whole.
如果那个缓冲区失败了，银行从技术上讲就会出现负责任的情况。如果所有存款人说：“我想要我的钱”，然后他们把那些债券卖到市场上，银行将无法偿还所有存款人的钱。
But it doesn't mean the depositors end up with zero. It means instead of getting 100 cents on the dollar, they get 93 cents on the dollar or 88 cents on the dollar. And it would require an orderly dissolution of the banks assets selling those bonds into the market to generate the cash to pay back the depositors.
但这并不意味着存款人最终会一无所获。相反，他们将得到每美元93美分或每美元88美分的赔偿，而不是每美元100美分。这需要有序地清算银行的资产，将这些债券卖到市场上，以产生现金来偿还存款人。
So, the reason we've seen this kind of Fed vertical spike number is because assets are moving so quickly. Depositors are moving their value so quickly from one bank to another that in order for the banks to make the cash available to those depositors, they've had to borrow from the Fed. And then they're going into the market and doing this kind of they should be doing this orderly asset sale of the bonds to generate the cash to pay back the Fed, which is just musical chairs.
所以，我们看到联邦储备系统的这种垂直飙升数字的原因是因为资产移动得很快。存款人将他们的价值从一个银行迅速地转移到另一个银行，为了让银行能够向这些存款人提供现金，他们不得不向联邦储备系统借款。然后它们进入市场，进行这种有序的债券资产销售，以产生现金支付给联邦储备系统，这就像音乐椅子。
Money's moving around. They're causing these problems as musical chairs, and if the musical chairs stop, then we don't have this problem. Correct. So, if people stopped moving deposits around, then you're right. The banks wouldn't need to borrow money to give the pauthers their money and then go do the work of selling the bonds in the market. People are free to move their money around because of the interest.
钱在流动，它们像音乐椅子一样引起问题。如果音乐椅停止，那么我们就没有这个问题了。对的。所以，如果人们停止转移存款，你是对的。银行就不需要借钱给贫穷者并去市场出售债券。因为利息，人们可以自由地转移他们的钱。
Here we go. So you just ensure it and this whole thing stops. So it costs them nothing to just say that right? Yeah. So, here's the thing. Jake, how you mentioned this case that you hear a lot of people saying well why don't you just take your two and a half million dollars and break it up into 10 accounts of which is what people are doing. Yeah. Yeah.
我们开始吧。所以你只需确保它，整件事就会停止。这对他们来说是不需要付出任何代价的，对吧？是的。所以，问题就在这里。杰克，你怎么提到这个案子，听到很多人说为什么不把你的两百五十万美元分成十个账户呢？是的。是的。
Well, look, it's not feasible when you need to run a big payroll at the end of the month and you got payables. It's administratively too complicated. And by the way, what if you accomplished doing that? You haven't solved anything. So, I haven't accomplished for the start-up. It hasn't accomplished. I'm just giving them prediction. The system. Yeah.
嗯，听我说，如果月底你需要支付工资和应付款，那么这种做法是不切实际的。行政管理过于复杂。而且，如果你真的做到了呢？你并没有解决任何问题。所以，我对这家初创公司还没有做出任何实际的成就。只是在预测系统而已。是啊。
Why wouldn't you just raise FDIC to two and a half million or have FDIC be based on the number of employees in your company or allow a higher class, a business class of FDIC that goes up to say. Yes, exactly goes to 10 million and in exchange, the quid pro quo has to be that the bank can't put that money in risky assets. This is not this is so obvious. That's the I see.
为什么你不直接将FDIC提高到250万，或根据公司员工数量设立FDIC，或是允许更高级别、商业级别的FDIC，例如可以到1000万。换句话说，就是银行不能将这笔钱投入高风险的资产中。这一点是如此明显。这就是我所看到的。
The reason I walk through that whole explanation because I want to answer your question. I'm sorry. It took so long, but like I want to highlight that because that is what an insurance underwriter put aside the FDIC and put aside banks and put aside the government's role. Yes. That's what an insurance underwriter's job would be.
我讲那么详细是因为我想回答你的问题。很抱歉耽误了这么长时间，但我想强调的是，这就是一个保险核保人要做的事情，既不考虑联邦存款保险公司，也不考虑银行和政府的作用。是的，这就是一个保险核保人的工作。
They would look at the volatility and the pricing on the bonds that the bank holds and they would determine ultimately two things, probability of loss and severity of loss and the probability is how likely is it that you end up in negative equity and that you have people requesting money and you have to sell those bonds in a loss very quickly. Then the severity is how much would you actually lose?
他们会观察银行所持有的债券的波动性和定价，最终确定两个方面：亏损概率和亏损严重程度。亏损概率指的是你最终是否会落入负资产，并且是否会有人要求提款，使你不得不迅速以低价售出这些债券。而亏损严重程度则是你实际上会损失多少钱。
If the fed raises rates by 3%, and your entire book is tied up in 10-year bonds, you see a 25% decline in the value of your bond portfolio. That's as bad as it gets. If you start with a 10% buffer, now you only have 85% of the money you owe the depositors. Your loss is 15 cents on the dollar. So the insurance company would say what's the probability of that event happening? How much should we underwrite it for? What should we charge as a premium to do that?
如果联邦储备委员会将利率提高3％，而你的整个投资组合都是持有10年期债券，你将看到你的债券组合价值下降25％。这是最糟糕的情况。如果你已经有10％的应急资金，那么你现在只有85％的存款可以还给存款人。你的损失是每百元15元。因此，保险公司会问这种情况发生的可能性有多大？我们应该对其进行多少保险承保？我们应该收取多少保险费来进行覆盖？
That's ultimately how the rates would get set. Now the problem with most insurance models around this sort of a problem set is that these are the extreme tail events that have never happened. The insurance to SACSIS point is super cheap, leading up to the extreme tail event. Then everyone's like, oh my gosh, we underpaid for so many years. We didn't realize how severe the losses could have been. We didn't realize how significant this was going to be.
这就是最终定价的方式。现在这类问题设置的大多数保险模型存在的问题在于这些都是极端事件，且从未发生过。对 SACSIS 的保险费用一直很便宜，直到遇到极端事件之前。然后所有人都会感到，哦我的天啊，我们多年来的保费都不够，没有意识到损失会有多严重，也没看到这将是多么重要。
As a result, you now see this kind of multiplying effect because people are like, oh my gosh, if it happened to them, it could happen to me. Let's all sell and it gets worse and worse and worse. The real rate for the insurance going forward will now have to take into account this massive risk. But the game theory problem is as SACSIS point out.
因此，你现在会看到这种逐渐增多的情况，因为人们会觉得：“哦天啊，如果发生在他们身上，那我也可能遭遇同样的事情”。然后大家都开始卖出，情况变得越来越糟。保险的实际费率现在必须考虑到这种巨大的风险。但是，正如南非公民观察和经济社会研究所所指出的博弈论问题是存在的。
If you just insure everyone, the cost of the insurance actually goes way, way, way, down. Because now you don't have this money movement problem. The point is the more you insure at this point, the cheaper the insurance will actually be if you're an actual or free market underwriter, you know, free market kind of, you know, underwriting process on this thing.
如果你只是让每个人都买保险，保险的成本实际上会大大降低。因为现在你没有这个资金往来的问题了。重点是，如果你是一个真正的或自由市场保险承包商，你知道，在这个问题上保险的数量越多，实际上保险费就会越便宜。
Because now the probability of having this bank run goes way, way down. And therefore, the cost of the insurance should go way down. And so the irony is, if you actually did, and this is getting super technical, but if you actually looked at the statistical model and said, how much is this going to cost to insure every deposit, it gets much, much cheaper the higher the deposits that you're willing to insure would be.
因为现在发生银行挤兑的概率大大降低了。因此，保险的成本应该大大降低。所以讽刺的是，如果你真的这样做了，这变得非常技术化，但如果你实际上看过统计模型，并说，保险每笔存款要花费多少钱，如果你愿意保险的存款越高，保险的成本就会越低。
That's my sense of what the free market would do here. And it's certainly what I think the federal government should probably think about doing if they're going to continue to play a role in backstopping banks.
这是我对自由市场在这里所做的事情的看法。如果联邦政府打算继续在背书银行方面扮演一定角色，那么这肯定是他们应该考虑的事情。像中文母语者那样说话的版本可能是：在我看来，自由市场在这种情况下所能做出的决策是这样的。如果联邦政府继续在支持银行方面发挥作用，那么我认为他们应该考虑采取这种措施。
The net net is people start up to right now are doing five to ten banks. I'm watching it happen. They're doing all these sweep accounts. They're doing multiple accounts. So the government, if it doesn't raise the FDIC limit, is basically just creating extra work for everybody. And it's going to be the same outcome. So this people are going to, the street will find its own use for technology and how to hack this. And that's what's happening with these services.
"其实现在很多人开始同时在做五到十个银行，我见证了这一切。他们在开设多个账户，使用扫描账户等各种方式。如果政府不提高FDIC的保险限额，这只会给大众带来更多的麻烦，而最终结果仍是相同的。所以这些人会继续寻找利用科技的方式，也正是这些服务的运用方式现在正在发生变化。"
Yeah. It's a deal. Man, the old-fashioned view or the traditional view of this, they would say that well, you want those startups being paranoid. Do you want those startups doing the work of disciplining these banks by moving their money elsewhere if they detect a problem? However, the problem with that is you get these bank runs. That is what a bank run is in parts. Is people moving their money because they're fearing that the bank is not doing a good job with their loan portfolio? So this is why in the, let's call it the olden days, before FDIC, we had bank runs in Panics all the time. And that's why FDIC was invented.
是的。成交了。嘿，那些传统观点或传统观念的人会说，你希望那些初创企业非常警惕吗？你希望那些初创企业通过将资金转移至其他地方来约束银行吗？但是，问题在于这会引起银行挤兑。这就是银行挤兑部分的含义。由于担心银行对其贷款组合的管理不力，人们会转移资金。因此，在FDIC之前的古老时代，我们经常出现银行挤兑和恐慌。这就是为什么FDIC被发明出来的原因。
So there's a hugely destructive problem that comes along with placing the depositor in charge of disciplining the banks. And I would argue that the depositor is not the best person to do it. It's the regulator.
所以，将存款人放在惩罚银行的领导地位，会带来巨大的破坏性问题。我认为，存款人并不是最好的人来执行这个任务，应该是监管机构。
Just to kind of lay around what FDIC was saying, I think there's like a fundamental market failure with banking in the sense that the depositor or the consumer and the bank think they're getting two completely different things. When you open a bank account or a checking account, you think you're getting a checkbook, an ATM card, a place to do payroll and pay a bonus. It's a service.
说白了，我觉得FDIC（美国联邦存款保险公司）提到了一个基本的市场失灵问题，就是银行存款者或顾客和银行之间的认知完全不同。当你开一个储蓄账户或支票账户时，你认为你会得到一个支票簿、一张ATM卡，一个进行工资支付和奖金支付的地方。这是一项服务。
And maybe you make a little bit of interest by signing your main motivation. Okay, that's what you think you're getting. Your money, most of all, is safe because you're not signing up with a service provider to have any chance of losing your money. You're not going to.
也许你会通过签署你的主要动机赚取一点小利息。好的，这就是你认为你会得到的。最重要的是，你的钱是安全的，因为你不会与服务提供商签约，也不会有任何失去你的钱的机会。你不会失去它。
Right. But now what does the bank think it's getting? You know what the bank thinks it's getting? An unsecured loan that they can then turn around and invest in whatever they want or whatever the law allows them to. So there's a disconnect between the parties and transaction.
好的，但是现在银行认为它会得到什么呢？你知道银行认为它会得到什么吗？一笔无担保贷款，然后他们可以将其投资于任何他们想要的或法律允许的投资项目中。因此，交易的各方存在着不相符的问题。
Exactly. It's a total disconnect. And moreover, the way the management of the bank is compensated is that they only have to pay back your loan, your deposit basically is their loan at par. And anything they make on a bet that they make with that money, they get to keep, they get to keep all the upside. Their stockholders' management get to keep that.
准确地说，这是完全不相干的。而且，银行管理层的薪酬方式是，他们只需要偿还您的贷款，您的存款基本上就是他们的贷款，以同等价值偿还。而他们从所押注的钱中获得的任何利润，他们都能够保留，以及股东管理层也能够保留。
And those incentives are driving this. And that's what drove the risk in all likelihood at Silicon Valley bank. They were getting $200 billion. Whatever percentage point they got, Shema. Somehow the executive team is compensated. They're incentive. It's not just that, but the whole banking system creates the incentive.
这些激励机制推动了这种情况发生。这很有可能是硅谷银行所有风险的驱动力。他们获得了2000亿美元，无论他们得到了多少百分点，谢玛。一些高管团队是有报酬的。他们受到激励。不仅如此，整个银行系统也创造了这种激励。
They're highly leveraged. The deposits from their standpoint are leveraged. They're leveraged 10 to 1. So their incentive is to go to the casino and gamble it because they get to keep all the upside. And if they lose it, it's basically someone else on the final work.
他们的杠杆率很高。从他们的角度来看，存款也是杠杆的。他们的杠杆比率是10比1。因此，他们的动机是去赌场赌博，因为他们可以获得全部上涨。如果他们输了，基本上是有别人来承担最终的工作。
In early May, the Fed will release their investigation into signature bank and SVB. Howell said that this week. I think it'll be really interesting to see how much honesty they both put into the report and then whether the entirety of that report is made available to the rest of us to read.
五月初，美联储将公布对Signature Bank和SVB的调查结果。霍威尔本周表示如此。我认为看到他们在报告中放置多少诚实将会非常有趣，然后是否将整个报告公开给我们大家阅读。
But I think Saks has very elegantly summarized what's happening. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this doesn't make sense. And so the question is, what is the tolerance that we have for changing something that clearly is mischaracterized? What consumers think they're getting and what banks are then doing are two totally different things.
不过我认为Saks已经很优雅地概述了现在发生的事情。很明显这样不合理，就算不是天才也能想出来。因此问题就是，我们应该容忍多大的变化来改正这个明显被误解的情况？消费者以为他们得到的与银行实际做的完全不同。
And if the Fed actually is really, really honest and really lays bare everything that happened, it'll be very hard to not legislate changes based on it. And your best swing at a legislative change would be what Chimoff? What is the low hanging fruit? What's the layup here?
如果美联储实际上非常诚实并真正揭示发生的一切，那么要不采取立法变革就非常困难了。您对立法变革的最佳尝试是什么，Chimoff？哪些是低垂的果实？这里很容易出现迫击炮击中的点球。
Well, I think we've seen this happening in other markets for a while, which is that banks have become, in fairness to them, much, much better at risk management, post-Dodd Frank, post-grade financial crisis. And the result of that is that there's been a lot of emerging private credit markets because most of bank is about lending, right? They're not really buying equities, they're lending money, they're a debtor in possession of something, right?
我认为我们已经在其他市场里看到了这种情况，即银行在道定法案和金融危机后，变得越来越擅长风险管理。公正地说，这样的结果是出现了很多新兴的私人信贷市场。因为大部分银行都是关于贷款业务，对吧？他们很少购买股票，更多的是放贷，他们是某些负债的持有人，对吧？
And there's been just a massive explosion of private credit. And it started in the most obvious areas. It started in things like CLOs, it started in asset-backed securities, solar, car loans, credit cards, mortgages, private equity back deals.
私人信用已经出现了大规模的爆炸。它最开始出现在最显然的领域。比如CLOs（抵押贷款信托证券）、资产支持证券、太阳能、汽车贷款、信用卡、抵押贷款和私人股权回购交易。
So I think the rational answer is that banks need to protect 100% of deposits. And that if they want to have extracurricular activities, if you will, they need to be able to raise money from investors, put that to work in a really fair and transparent way, and then share in the profits between all of the related parties that are involved in that transaction, no different than any other risk-taking organization.
所以我认为一个合理的答案是银行需要保护100%的存款。如果他们想要进行课外活动，他们需要能够从投资者那里筹集资金，并以公平透明的方式将这笔资金投入运作，然后在涉及到这项交易的所有相关方之间分享利润，这不同于任何其他冒险组织。
And I think that this is now what we've probably shined a light on is in really odd loophole that just needs to get closed in 2023. There's such easy hygienic changes here. Let's put it a different way.
我认为我们现在可能揭示的是一个非常奇怪的漏洞，需要在2023年关闭。这里有如此简单的卫生改变。换一种方式来表达。
If you raised money for a liquid hedge fund that had quarterly redemptions and then violated the LPA and stuffed it into private companies that had tenure-illiquidity, there would be hell to pay. And vice versa, if you raised money on tenure, a liquid locked up capital on the presumption you were going to invest in startups, and then instead put it in the stock market thinking that you could flip it and make some money, you would have violated the LPA and there be hell to pay.
如果你筹集了一份具有季度赎回的流动对冲基金，并违反了有限合伙协议，并将其投入到具有任期流动性的私人企业中，那么后果将非常严重。反之，如果你筹集了一笔长期资金，将其锁定在流动性上，并认为你打算投资于初创公司，但实际上将其投入了股票市场，试图通过炒作赚取一些钱，那么你就会违反有限合伙协议，将会面临很大的麻烦。
Similarly, I think what SACS is stating is that there is a mismatch of what the depositor, in this case, the investor expects, and what the risk manager is doing. And I think that you have to correct that one way or the other. Make it abundantly clear that we're never going to ensure 100% and deal with that risk or make it 100% and deal with the fallout, which is largely about wiping out a lot of equity value in banks.
同样地，我认为SACS所说的是，存款人，就此次来说是投资者，期望的与风险经理所做的不匹配。我认为你必须要解决这个问题。要么清楚地表明我们永远保不了100%并处理风险，要么让它变成100%并处理后果，后果主要是破坏了许多银行的股本价值。
LPA equals limited partnership agreement. Just to clarify one thing, I'm not saying that these bank managers are all going to the casino and gambling the money. I think that they are generally more responsible than that. What I'm saying is that the incentives created by this crazy system we call banking create a weird incentive for them to gamble because they're so highly levered from their standpoint, your deposits are their leverage.
LPA是有限合伙协议。只是为了澄清一件事，我不是说这些银行经理都去赌场赌钱。我认为他们一般都比那更有责任心。我要说的是，我们所说的银行的这个疯狂系统所造成的激励机制，导致他们有一种奇怪的赌博激励，因为从他们的角度来看，您的存款是他们的杠杆。
Everybody but the G-Sibs, because I think the G-Sibs, there's so much scrutiny. If you look at how well-run city, B of A, Wells and JPM are relative and contrast them to the sub G-Sibs, it's like night and day. And so the other thing that I think we've realized is who thought it was a good idea to raise the bar on eligibility from 50 billion of assets to 200. Clearly now that made no sense. It makes more sense to actually categorize every bank as systemically important, maybe not globally, but at a minimum to the US economy because these people play a vital function in society and they were allowed to take a much more aggressive risk posture because they were able to lobby the government to change the rules.
除了G-Sibs，因为我认为G-Sibs受到了如此多的审查。如果您比较看看长期经营良好的城市，BofA，井冈山和JPM与非G-Sibs的对比，它们就像是白天和黑夜一样。我们认识到的另一件事情是什么？谁认为将资格门槛从500亿提高到200亿是个好主意？很明显，现在这没有任何意义。实际上，将每个银行都归类为系统重要性银行更有意义，可能不是全球性的，但至少对美国经济至关重要，因为这些人在社会中发挥着至关重要的作用，正是由于他们可以游说政府改变规则，所以他们被允许采取更具攻击性的风险立场。
The CEO of TikTok, which claims to be an American company now or an international company, was in front of Congress today. His name is Sho Choo. This is the first time he's really, I think, spoken publicly in an extended period four and a half hours he was grilled. And it was absolutely brutal. It's the first time I've seen a congressional hearing that was bipartisan in a long time.
今天，TikTok的CEO珂舞（Sho Choo）出现在国会面前。TikTok称自己是一家美国公司或一家国际公司。他被质询了四个半小时，这是他第一次在公开场合长时间发表讲话。这次听证会真的非常残酷，我觉得这是很久以来第一次看到一个两党都有的国会听证会。
And he said that, quote, the bottom line is, this is an American date, this is American data on American soil by an American company overseen by American personnel. And then was immediately squirrelly when asked if Chinese employees, including engineers have access to this US data. And he said, this is a complex subject over and over again, he was evasive. And this did not look good for TikTok.
他说，“总的来说，这是美国的日期，这是美国公司在美国土地上收集的美国数据，由美国员工监管。”当被问及中国员工，包括工程师是否可以访问这些美国数据时，他立即显得有些不自在。他反复强调这是一个复杂的问题，避而不答。这对TikTok来说不是一个好信号。
The question now becomes does it become divested and go public or does it get shut down? Sax? I think his goose was cooked as soon as they asked him the question. In preparation for this hearing, did you consult with any member of the CCP? And he could not just outright say no. Nope. So that's his goose was cooked as soon as he couldn't just say no.
现在的问题是，它是否会分拆并上市，还是被关闭？Sax？我想，他一旦被问到这个问题，他就完蛋了。为了准备这次听证会，您是否与任何中国共产党成员咨询过？他当时不能直接说“不”，所以他现在完蛋了。
What do you think about the bipartisan nature of this? And what do you think the outcome is, Sax? This is one of the rare things where it is bipartisan. I mean, there's there's so much outrage and anger at this. I think that they should let the company divest it. I think it is divestiture or shut down for TikTok. Since we're not communists here, I think they should be given the chance to fully divest to an American owned company.
你觉得这种两党合作的性质怎么样呢？你认为结果会怎样，Sax？这是少有的两党合作的事情之一。我是说，这引起了很多愤怒和怒火。我认为他们应该让公司剥离它。我认为TikTok应该剥离或关闭。因为我们不是共产主义者，我认为他们应该有机会完全剥离到一家美国公司。
But look, I just wish that there was as much bipartisan consensus and outrage directed not just at Chinese spying of Americans, but on the American deep states spying on Americans because we just had hearings showing that the American government could ducts elaborate spying operations surveillance of Americans on social media. This was all revealed in the Twitter files. And we got certainly no bipartisan consensus on that. Republicans were outraged, but Democrats tried to portray it as some sort of spat between Trump and Chrissy Teaguey. I mean, that's all they wanted to talk about. So I would like to see this problem comprehensively addressed. And that means I think TikTok going into the hands of an American company, but I also would like more assurances that American companies will not be working with the deep state to spy on us in a fringe or a certain place.
但是你看，我希望不仅对中国监视美国人的行为，而且对美国深层国家监视美国人的行为也能有足够的两党共识和愤慨。我们刚刚进行的听证会揭示了美国政府能通过社交媒体展开复杂的监视行动，这些信息都是从Twitter文件中曝光的。然而我们并没有看到两党形成共识。共和党人感到愤怒，但民主党则试图将此视为特朗普和克里西·蒂格之间的某种争吵。他们只想谈论这个。所以我希望能全面解决这个问题。这意味着我认为TikTok应该被交给美国公司，但我也希望得到更多保证，即美国公司不会与深层国家合作，在某些领域或特定场所监视我们。
Chrissy Teaguey and Donald Trump, who are two people you'd never invite to a dinner party? Freepurg, what are your thoughts? Is it going to divest? Should it be forced to divest being intellectually honest about it? What are your thoughts on TikTok in America? Yeah, I think I've shared this in the past. I think they're probably going to have to spin this thing out.
Chrissy Teaguey 和 Donald Trump，这是两个你永远不会邀请到晚宴上的人，Freepurg，你有什么想法？它会剥离吗？对此应该强制剥离以保持思维诚实吗？你对 TikTok 在美国有什么看法？是的，我想我以前分享过这个。我认为他们大概会不得不把这件事转手给别人。
Paragraph 1:
And if they hold any equity, if the Chinese parent company holds any equity interest, it'll probably be non-voting shares. And there'll be a mandate that the majority of the shares and some degree of oversight.
如果它们持有任何股权，如果中国的母公司持有任何股权，那么可能是无投票权的股份。并且将有一项指示，即大多数股份和某种程度的监督必须存在。
Paragraph 2:
You believe that's the right thing to do? From a national security issue for America to force them to do that? I don't know from a national security point of view. I really don't. I don't have an opinion. From national security and TikTok, I don't know.
你认为强制他们这样做就是正确的事情吗？从美国国家安全的角度来看，强迫他们这样做？就从国家安全的角度而言，我真的不知道。我没有意见。对于国家安全和TikTok，我不清楚。
Paragraph 3:
I've always thought that TikTok was a really... What's the right word? It's like a firefly for Chinese invasion. And it feels like it's a very easy kind of target for, I think, what is generally a big kind of social consciousness right now. So whether or not there's actually some national security points, if there were, I'm pretty sure that a national security person would have stood up and said, we need to stop this thing. I'm not sure I've heard that publicly.
我一直认为TikTok真的......选什么词好呢？就像中国入侵的萤火虫一样。而且感觉现在社会有一种很大的社会意识，很容易针对这种应用。所以无论是否涉及国家安全问题，如果有的话，我相信国家安全人员会站出来说，我们需要阻止这件事。不过我不确定我听过这样的公开说法。
Paragraph 4:
But I will say my point of view from just seeing the political behavior is that they're probably going to mandate that these guys spin this thing out to US investors and that they don't own any... That the Chinese don't have any equity or management oversight or interest in it. Shem off in China itself.
但从我的角度来看，仅仅看其政治行为，他们可能会强制这些人将这个东西拆分给美国的投资者，并且不拥有任何权益或管理监督或利益，让中国人远离它们本身。如果需要的话，第四段可以改写如下：但是，我认为从政治行为上看，他们可能会强制这些人将这个东西拆分给美国的投资者，而不是让中国人拥有任何权益或管理监督或利益。让中国人离开它本身。
Paragraph 5:
The Chinese government does not allow kids to play video games during the week and only three hours on the weekend. They're using apps like WeChat to dictate social score and social behavior, whether it's smoking on a train or not paying your bills. And they are saying they will not divest.
中国政府不允许孩子在平日玩电子游戏，周末也只限制三小时。他们正在使用微信等应用程式来规管社会评分和社会行为，无论是在火车上吸烟还是不支付帐单。同时他们也表示不会撤资。
Paragraph 6:
But anybody who is an investor in the company that had a chance to go public for tens of billions of dollars and eventually take on and people believe that this is a viable competitor to Facebook and Instagram. This could be a company worth ultimately hundreds of billions of dollars. If you were an investor in China, you would want to IPO, you would want to get liquidity.
但是，任何有机会让公司上市获得数十亿美元并最终进军市场、被人们认为是Facebook和Instagram的可行竞争对手的投资者，都会认为这是一家价值数百亿美元的公司。如果你是中国的投资者，你会想要IPO，想要获得流动性。
Paragraph 7:
So if they are refusing to sell, what does that tell you as a market participated in and participated in somebody who's been a capital allocator for over a decade? There's bigger problems in China than even TikTok. US represents for them. I think it's probably what it means. So it's a pretty bad tell.
那么，如果他们拒绝出售，作为一个参与市场并在资本配置方面已有十年经验的人，这给你什么启示呢？中国存在比TikTok更大的问题。我认为这可能是它的意思。因此，这是一个非常糟糕的迹象。
Paragraph 8:
I don't think the investor is a real option because when you think about the details of that, how will the government be satisfied that the code base was separated elegantly, that there was no malware, surreptitiously planted? How will you actually prove all of this to a degree that satisfies a legislator? So I think the pound of flesh that they want is more easily and more salatiously satisfied by shutting the thing down.
我认为投资者并不是一个好的选择，因为如果你考虑到细节，政府怎么会满意代码库得到优雅分离，没有恶意软件秘密植入？你又要怎么证明所有这些事情，以体现立法者的满意程度呢？所以我认为，政府想要的东西更容易且更有成效地通过关闭这个项目来实现。
Paragraph 9:
So if I had to bet on what happens, I bet more on that. I didn't think TikTok did a very good job. And I think that there are some, they were terrible today. And I think that there are some real issues around how much control does actually flow back. I don't think that it was definitive. He needed to be much clear and adamant that this was an independent business that didn't have back doors to China and the CCP to a peace congress. He didn't do that.
如果我必须打赌会发生什么，我会更倾向于那个。我认为TikTok做得并不是很好。今天它们的表现非常糟糕。而且我认为存在一些实质性问题，涉及控制权实际上流向了多少。我不认为这是明确的。他需要更明确而且强硬地表明这是一个独立的业务，没有向中国和CCP开放的后门，向和平大会做出承诺。他没有这样做。
Paragraph 10:
No, he was like, I have to check in on that. I'm not sure. Yeah. I think it was a little bit of the exact opposite. Actually, Sachs is right. Like that first question was just the death blow right from the beginning. It's like, oh, this is not going to go in a good place because they should have been able to see that that question was going to get asked. And you need to have that asked and answered philosophy where the only answer is no. The only answer you could have given is no. And the fact that he wasn't able to say that it was a bit of a faitha complex as soon as that was in my mind, I was like, this thing is getting shut down because I don't think there's a shutdown.
不，他说，我得跟进一下。我不确定。是的。我认为这完全相反了一点。其实，萨克斯是对的。就像那个第一个问题从一开始就是致命的一击。这就像，哦，这不会是一件好事，因为他们本应该能够预料到那个问题会被问到。并且你需要有一个问与答的理念，在那里唯一的答案就是“不”。你唯一能够给出的答案就是“不”。他不能说出来这一点是有点缺乏耐心的，一旦我想到这个，我就知道这个事情被关停了，因为我不认为有停止的可能。
Paragraph 11:
Yeah, there's no divestiture plan that can be technically audited in a short amount of time to appease these folks. They want a pound of flush. And then separately, the bigger issue that I think you have to deal with is what does that mean for how other governments may be pressured to act who want to be on the pro-US camp? And I think that that's a question because bike dance and TikTok have presence beyond just China and the US.
是的，没有脱售计划可以在短时间内得到技术审计以取悦这些人。他们想要逼近完美。另外，我认为你必须应对的更大的问题是，这对其他想成为亲美阵营的政府可能施加什么压力的意义是什么？我认为这是一个问题，因为抖音和TikTok除了在中国和美国之外，还存在于其他地方。
Paragraph 12:
A third question is how does the golden vote get used on the bike dance board? And what do they do? And do they even want this thing public? Explain golden vote. Essentially, they'll decide what happens to that company. And they have that in Ali Baba. They have that I think a 10 cent. I think they have that at bike dance. So the Chinese government has a very strong hand in the direction of these business.
第三个问题是金色投票在Bike Dance董事会上是如何使用的？他们做什么？他们甚至想公开使用这个东西吗？请解释一下金色投票。实质上，他们将决定该公司的未来。阿里巴巴拥有金色投票权，我认为他们持有10%的权益。在Bike Dance上也有这样的权益。因此，中国政府在这些企业的发展方向上有非常强的话语权。
Paragraph 13:
And then the final point is that there's a secondary app that TikTok has called CapCut, which also is enormously popular in the United States, which is yet another potential backdoor for privacy or spying violations, whatever the US Congress wants to pin on them. So I think it's a very complicated moment for that business and their US asset.
最后一个点是，TikTok还有一个名为CapCut的辅助应用程序，在美国也非常受欢迎，这是另一个可能存在隐私或间谍违规行为的后门，无论美国国会想指控他们什么都有可能。因此，我认为这对于这个企业和他们的美国资产来说是一个非常复杂的时刻。
Paragraph 1:
Sachs, it's pretty clear the CCP is making this decision.. If they decide, let it burn, let it get kicked out of the United States. What does that do in terms of game theory between the two countries and going forward? Because obviously they don't reciprocate. We're not allowed to have Google, Twitter, Instagram, whatever in China. So is this just putting rest of the party?
Sachs，显然中共正在做出这个决定。如果他们决定让它烧掉，让它被逐出美国。这对两国之间的博弈理论和未来带来了什么影响？因为明显地，他们不会回应。我们在中国不能使用谷歌，推特，Instagram等。这只是把党的其余部分放到了那里吗？
Paragraph 2:
What's what decision you're saying the CCP is making? Well, the CCP has the golden vote. It's their decision to divest or not to vest. Chimapoli is they're not divest. I don't believe they will not. They're not going to have the choice. I don't see what decision the CCP has in this. It's going to be out. They don't divest. That's right. It's not a divest or don't divest. I think it'll be shut down. I think they're getting kicked out of the United States.
你说CCP正在做出什么决定？嗯，CCP有黄金一票，他们能决定剥离还是不剥离。Chimapoli是他们不会剥离，但我不相信他们没有这个选择。我不知道CCP该做出什么决定，但这事情会解决的。不是剥离或不剥离的问题，我认为这个项目会被关闭，他们会被赶出美国。
Paragraph 3:
You believe they're going to divest Sachs? I'm saying that's what I would support. To give them the chance. What do you think is going to happen? At Chimapoli, I'm not sure. I think they should be given the chance. If you truly can't move the servers to the United States and vet the code base, I feel like you could have an acquire, figure it out. Vet the code base, move to the data centers, make sure there's no back doors. I think it's not impossible.
你认为他们会剥离萨克斯吗？我认为我会支持这个想法。给他们一个机会。你觉得会发生什么？在奇马波利，我不确定。我认为他们应该被给予机会。如果你确实无法将服务器迁移到美国并审核代码库，我觉得你可以收购它，并解决这个问题。审核代码库，移动到数据中心，确保没有后门。我认为这并不是不可能的。
Paragraph 4:
Hard but not impossible. Let's go with the scenario. That it gets kicked out of the United States. It's shut down. Are there any second or third order impacts? It's as righteous up the tension between the US and China, but we're already there. There. No change.
虽然很难，但不是不可能。让我们按照这种情景来看。如果它被美国驱逐出境并关闭，是否会有任何二级或三级影响？它可能会加剧美中紧张关系，但我们已经在那个点上了，所以没有变化。
Paragraph 5:
Listen, this has been an amazing episode. At Chimapoli did your 3D rocket company make it to space? I saw they had a nice little lift off there. Thank you, Jason. I just wanted to give a shout out. This is like, while all this chaos is happening in the world, it's amazing to see pretty incredible engineering.
听着，这真是一段令人惊奇的经历。在奇马波利，你们的3D火箭公司是否成功进入了太空？我看到它们进行了很棒的发射。谢谢你，Jason。我只是想要发个喊叫声。在这个世界上发生如此混乱的时候，能看到如此令人惊叹的工程真是太棒了。
Paragraph 6:
So last night, we did have a successful launch. Relativity has a 85% 3D printed rocket, which over time we want to try to get to 95% but it's the fuselage, it's the engines. It brings the cost of space flight down by an order of magnitude. It is a hugely disruptive idea. And so what they tried to prove was that they could get this thing into space and they accomplished a lot of goals. They got past Max Q, which is sort of the point at which the atmospheric pressure is the strongest on the fuselage. So we proved structural integrity. We got to main engine cut off. We had stage 2 separation. So a lot of really important technical milestones were achieved. It allows them now to unlock a bunch of contracts that allow us, frankly, just to keep going and building.
所以昨晚，我们成功地进行了发射。Relativity 公司的火箭有 85% 是 3D 打印的，随着时间推移，我们希望能够将这个比例达到 95% 但这涉及到机身和发动机的部分。它将太空飞行的成本降低一个数量级。这是一个非常破坏性的想法。所以他们试图证明的是，他们可以将这个东西送入太空，并取得了许多目标。他们超过了最大动力点，这是大气压力对机身影响最强的时刻。因此我们证明了结构的完整性。我们一直都到了主发动机关闭的阶段。我们完成了第二级分离。所以实现了许多非常重要的技术里程碑。它现在允许他们解锁一堆合同，允许我们继续建造。
Paragraph 7:
There's still a lot of work to do from here. We're building now the next generation rocket, which is called Terran R and rocket engines, which can take instead of 1,500 kilograms, about 20,000 kilos. So enormously proud to have been around this journey. My partner Jay has been really the key person on it. But I just wanted to give a huge shout out to Tim Ellis and the team at relativity. It's super, super, super cool. What they pulled off on. It's just amazing how access to spaces being democratized and the prices are being lowered so dramatically.
从现在开始还有很多工作要做。我们正在建造下一代火箭——Terran R火箭和火箭发动机，可以将货物装载从1,500公斤提升到20,000公斤。对于参与这一旅程我感到非常骄傲。我的合作伙伴Jay是这次行动的关键人物。但我只是想向Tim Ellis和Relativity团队发出巨大的赞扬。他们所取得的成就非常非常非常酷。太空进入的民主化和价格的大幅下降令人惊奇。
Paragraph 8:
What's the impact that's going to have ultimately freeberg, you think, on humanity? I mean, obviously going to Mars is this incredible feat technologically and just mind blowing. But what do you think the net result of all this space activity is going to be for the human condition and the species?
你认为对于人类而言，这最终对弗里伯格会产生什么影响？我是说，显然登陆火星是一项技术上令人难以置信和令人惊叹的成就。但你认为所有这些太空活动的净结果对人类的处境和物种会产生什么影响？
Paragraph 9:
I mean, I think there's a vibrant community of startups and money coming into this space right now. I do think all these guys are going to have to in order to gain wider spread capital markets attention. Elon has had to do a SpaceX. They're going to have to find business models that have kind of near term viability that don't depend on government contracts. Like Starlink. And so I think that's the key question. Obviously, these are very capital intensive businesses. They have very long horizons to hit their milestones.
我的意思是，我认为现在有一个充满活力的初创公司社区和资金进入这个领域。我确实认为所有这些人都必须为了获得更广泛的资本市场关注。埃隆·马斯克不得不开展了一项太空探索技术公司。他们将不得不找到具有近期可行性的商业模式，而不依赖于政府合同，就像星链项目一样。因此，我认为这是关键问题。显然，这些是非常资本密集型的企业。他们需要很长时间来实现他们的里程碑。
Paragraph 10:
So there are certainly capital available in the early stages to make bets on whether or not they can get these milestones. But the broader kind of attention in capital markets is going to come from these things, building real kind of businesses that generate value for consumers and markets. One of the things that I think can unlock opportunity for this market overall is low cost energy. If we can get below, call it 1 cent to 3 cents kilowatt hour of power. Call it 1 cent a kilowatt hour power.
在初期，有一定的资金可以用来打赌他们是否能够达成这些重要的里程碑。但资本市场要更广泛地关注的是建立真正的企业，为消费者和市场创造价值。我认为可以为整个市场开启机会的其中一件事是低成本的能源。如果我们能够将每千瓦时的电力成本降到1到3分之一美分以下，以1美分每千瓦时的电力成本为基准来称呼它。
Paragraph 11:
I forgot the exact relationship. You can get very cheap hydrogen and oxygen fuel sources. And so it's funny if you actually play out the scale factor for space for the space industry, much of it at scale will get driven by the cost of electricity. So it's another reason why there's going to be I think a pretty tight coupling between the cost of power and ultimately the vibrancy of the market. You mentioned something important.
我忘了具体关系了。你可以获得非常便宜的氢和氧燃料。如果你实际玩一下太空产业的比例因素，那么很多东西都会受到电力成本的驱动。所以这是另一个原因，为什么我认为成本和市场活力之间会有相当紧密的联系。你提到了一些重要的事情。
Paragraph 1: The other key thing that we proved was that this is a pure methylox engine.. So CH4 and liquid oxygen. And it was not just stage one, but also stage two, which is unique. The only other folks that have tried to prove that you could have multi-stage methylox is China and their most recent launch failed.
我们证明了另一个关键点，那就是这是纯甲氧基乙烷引擎。所以使用的是 CH4 和液态氧。而且不仅是第一阶段，还有第二阶段，这是独特的。尝试证明多级甲氧基乙烷引擎的唯一其他团队是中国，但他们最近的发射失败了。
Paragraph 2: But it highly simplifies the engineering problem at hand, especially the ground operations and whatnot and sort of like filling these rockets and making them viable. So that was another really big mile. So the producing of that fuel freedberg requires energy. If that energy was cheap, it would be cheaper to make and process that fuel.
但是，它大大简化了目前面临的工程问题，尤其是地面操作和种种问题，有点像装填这些火箭并使它们可行。因此，这是另一个非常重要的里程碑。生产那种燃料费用很高，因为需要能源。如果那种能源很便宜，生产和加工那种燃料就会更便宜。
Paragraph 3: That's right. There's a pretty direct tie-in, particularly the scale manufacturing on fuel that would be used in these rocket systems and power prices here on Earth. So if and as we get power prices down, either through scaled renewables or ideally fusion or some other kind of new technology. Or nuclear or nuclear fusion or something, then the cost of fuel and the cost of these space programs goes down.
没错。特别是在燃料规模制造方面，这些火箭系统使用的燃料与地球上的能源价格密切相关。因此，如果我们通过规模化的可再生能源、理想的核聚变或其他新技术，例如核能或核聚变等方法，将能源价格降低，那么燃料成本和太空计划的成本也会降低。
Paragraph 4: And that ultimately, I think the real question everyone asks is how do you get away from it just being government services businesses, which have a low multiple in markets and obviously high dependency on one or two key customers. And how do you actually get private markets, private market products moving?
最终，我认为每个人都在问的真正问题是如何让它不再只是政府服务企业，这些企业在市场上的倍数较低，显然高度依赖于一两个重要客户。你如何让私人市场和私人市场产品真正起步呢？
Paragraph 5: So tourism obviously makes a lot of sense, travel around the Earth in 20 minutes or something. Some people have talked about mining or colonies and who would fund that real estate. It's unclear right now what the ultimate traveling is a wild one. I've talked to Elon about that, but the idea that you could have a rocket ship take off from Texas and then be in Tokyo, like half an hour or minutes later, is I can only speak for myself, but I would really like to visit Uranus Reaper.
所以旅游显然有很大的意义，可以在20分钟左右环游地球。一些人谈论着采矿或者殖民地，谁会为这些房地产提供资金还不清楚。现在最终旅行的形式是不确定的。我曾与伊隆讨论过这个问题，但是有一种想法，你可以从德克萨斯州起飞一个火箭，然后在半个小时或几分钟后就到了东京，我只能代表自己，但我真的很想参观天王星里收割者。
Paragraph 6: All right, everybody, four favorite. Look at the player here. He's got layers for players, sexy blue skies. He is, he is too layerson. Can you get an ask God subtle, isn't it? He's pulling a Steve Bennett. You got to get more disheveled. He needs the six pens in the color pens. No shave.
好的，大家，开始四个喜爱的人。看看这个选手。他为玩家们准备了层层叠叠的性感蓝天。他是太层叠了。你可以问问上帝，这不是微妙的吗？他正在模仿史蒂夫·贝内特。你需要更加凌乱。他需要六支彩色笔。不要刮胡子。
Paragraph 7: Can you tell us on the show? Do you have a stylist, an actual person you pay for the best you? Nick, can you please put the picture of Steve Benin where he wears the multiple pull shirts? I need to stop for next. For attacking me. It's really weird.
第七段：你能在节目中告诉我们吗？你有一个发型师吗，一个你为了最好的而付费的真实人吗？Nick，你能把Steve Benin穿着多重拉链衬衫的照片放上，请吗？我需要下一步行动。因为攻击我，这真的很奇怪。
Paragraph 8: Oh, yeah, Benin, he thinks you're a venture capitalist or something. Who's been attacking you? Benin was one of many people attacking me on Twitter. I think on his podcast, I think, yeah.
哦，是的，Benin，他认为你是一位冒险资本家之类的人。谁一直在攻击你？Benin是在Twitter上攻击我的众多人之一。我想应该是在他的播客上攻击的，是的。
Paragraph 9: You seem to have made a lot of a lot of new friends on Twitter lately. When you pass around half a million followers, basically what happens is you become a politician. There will always be a fringe element of people who need to manage their anxiety by venting.
听起来你最近在 Twitter 上交了很多新朋友。当你有了大约五十万个追随者时，基本上就成了政治家。总会有一小部分人需要通过倾诉来管理他们的焦虑。
Paragraph 10: That's what you're feeling. You will live that now at million followers, two million, ten million, whatever. There's always going to be a small percentage. Jake Cal doesn't know this because he has mostly bots that are his followers. That's true. That's true. When you have real people, this is what it is. You'll get this one percent or less than one percent and just the number goes up.
你现在感受到的就是这种感觉。无论是一百万、两百万、还是一千万粉丝，都会有一小部分人这样想。Jake Cal不知道这一点，因为他的粉丝大多是机器人。这是真的。当你有真正的人追随你时，情况就是这样。你会得到不到1%的这类人，而且这个数字还不断增长。
Paragraph 11: I would ignore it. Don't worry about what users seven, four, seven, seven, seven, seven, eight, six has to say. Don't worry about it. Yeah, absolutely. I love you. I don't look forward to seeing you on Thursday.
我会无视它的。不要担心用户七、四、七、七、七、七、八、六的话。不必担心。是啊，绝对的。我爱你。不期望周四见到你。
Paragraph 12: For the rainman himself, David Sacks, the Sultan of Science and Principle Panic attacks, our pal David Friedberg and the host with the most going to make what do I mean? What do I mean? I'm going to be saying I'm calling you the host with the most. I'm adding something.
第12段：对于我们的好友大卫·萨克斯，雨人和科学原则恐慌的苏丹，大卫·弗里德伯格以及那位最出色的主持人，他们将会做什么呢？我的意思是什么？我要说，我称你为最有才华的主持人。我要补充一些东西。
Paragraph 13: The host with the most is making me the shiso leaf tempura with Hakaido. You are the world's best genupt Lecture. I am the world's greatest guest, greatest house guest. If you need a house guest to look at your house, Italy, Tokyo, DeSekko, wherever you need a house guest, I'm ready to come and make it a good time.
13. 最热情好客的主人正在为我准备用北海道大马蹄和紫苏叶做的天妇罗。你是世界上最好的广告演讲者。我是世界上最好的客人，最好的住宿客。如果你需要一个住宿客来看看你的房子，无论是在意大利、东京还是DeSekko，只要你需要，我随时准备好过来享受美好的时光。
Paragraph 14: You're the modern Kato Kailan, you're horrible. Absolutely the best. You keep inviting me every week. You are enjoyable though. Love you boys. Let's have fun. Bye everybody. Bye.
你就像现代版的卡通人物卡托凯兰，虽然很可怕，却是最厉害的。每周你都邀请我，并且让我玩得很开心。你们很有趣啊，爱你们。让我们一起玩乐。再见大家，再见。
Paragraph 15: We should all just get a room and just have one big huge or two because they're all just like this like sexual tension that we just need to release that house.
我们大家应该找个房子，搞个大活动，或搞两个，因为那里充满了性紧张感，我们需要释放一下它们。