The AI Productivity Boom Is Here | Luigi Buttiglione

Let's be clear, I definitely prefer one thing, I prefer the US thing. I think the US economy, the US market in terms of return is absolutely ambitious. The history of the US over the last 40 years, or the so-called exceptionalism, it has all to do with technology. This is one of those cases in which it matters to look at the so-called neutral rate. On these occasions, the productivity growth, as you said, skyrocket. So this means that the neutral rate most likely goes up and quite a lot. I would not try to position the level of actual interest rates below the level of neutral interest rates. That would be a policy mistake which could be extremely expensive in the median term.

让我说明一下，我明确偏爱一个东西，那就是美国的东西。我认为美国的经济和市场在回报方面极具野心。过去40年美国的历史，或者说所谓的"例外主义"，都与技术有关。这种情况下，关注所谓的中性利率是很重要的。在这些时候，正如你所说，生产率的增长会迅速飙升。这意味着中性利率很可能会上升，并且幅度不小。我不会尝试将实际利率水平定位在低于中性利率水平的位置。那样的政策失误在中期可能会非常昂贵。

Before we get started, a quick reminder that block works is premier institutional conference. The digital asset summit is returning to New York City this March 24th to 26th. This year represents more than $4.2 trillion in assets under management with 150 speakers and 750 institutions attending. Speakers include SEC Chair Paul Actance, CFTC Chair Michael Selleig, Fed Governor Stephen Moran, and Tedder CEO Paulo Ardonio. Alongside, countless other executives, asset managers, regulators, and the core crypto infrastructure builders shaping the industry.

在我们开始之前，快速提醒一下，Block Works 是一个顶级的机构会议。数字资产峰会将于今年3月24日至26日重返纽约市。今年将有超过4.2万亿美元的资产管理规模参与，会议将吸引150位演讲嘉宾和750家机构的参加。演讲者包括美国证券交易委员会（SEC）主席保罗·阿克坦斯、商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）主席迈克尔·塞莱格、美联储理事斯蒂芬·莫兰以及Tedder首席执行官保罗·阿多尼奥。此外，还有无数的高管、资产管理者、监管者，以及塑造该行业的核心加密基础设施建设者们参与。

If you want serious institutional grade view of digital assets in 2026, digital asset summit is where it happens. Use code forward 200 for $200 off and head to blockworks.co slash events for more details. Nothing said on forward guidance is a recommendation to buy or sell any investment score products. This podcast is for informational purposes only, and the views expressed by anyone on the show are solely their opinions, not financial advice, or necessarily the views of block works. Our hosts, guests, and the block works team may hold positions in the company's funds or projects discussed. As always, investments and blockchain technology involve risk, terms, and conditions apply. Do your own research.

如果你希望在2026年获得关于数字资产的严肃机构级观点，那么数字资产峰会就是实现这一目标的地方。使用代码forward 200可以享受200美元的优惠，并访问blockworks.co/events获取更多详情。 在forward guidance上所说的一切都不是对任何投资产品的买卖建议。本播客仅供信息参考，节目中任何人的观点都仅代表个人意见，不构成财务建议，也不一定代表BlockWorks的立场。我们的主持人、嘉宾和BlockWorks团队可能会持有节目中讨论的公司、基金或项目的股份。 一如既往，投资和区块链技术存在风险，适用条款和条件。请自行进行研究。

All right, everybody. Welcome back to another episode of Forward Guidance. And joining me today is Luigi Boutiglione, CEO and founder of Albi macro. And this is a bit of a precursor episode to an upcoming panel that Luigi will be participating at our digital asset summit in New York in a few weeks. So if you enjoy our conversation, feel free to get your tickets and go check out the conference there. It's going to be a fantastic time. But Luigi, it's an honor to have you on Forward Guidance for the first time. Welcome. Oh, it's my pleasure. Absolutely to be with you Felix.

好的，大家好。欢迎回到《前瞻指南》的新一期节目。今天和我们一起的是Luigi Boutiglione，他是Albi Macro的CEO兼创始人。这一期节目有点像是即将在几周后的纽约数字资产峰会中，Luigi将参与的一个小组讨论的前奏。所以如果你喜欢我们的对话，欢迎购票并去参观那场会议。这将是一次精彩的活动。Luigi，很荣幸第一次邀请您来到《前瞻指南》。欢迎！哦，非常高兴能够和你在一起，Felix。

Yeah, it should be a great time. And for those that aren't aware of your background, you have a storied background. So I think it'd be great to just spend some minutes hearing a bit about your different positions and hats you've you've helped throughout the years and how that's led to what you're up to today. I've been a little bit of a global chapter of economics because I started with academia. Then I moved into central banking at the Bank of Italy and the European Central Bank. Then investment banking. I was the chief economist of Bakery's capital.

是的，应该会是个很棒的时光。对于那些不熟悉你背景的人来说，你有一个丰富多彩的经历。所以我认为花点时间了解一下你以前担任过的不同职位和角色，以及这些经历是如何引导你走到今天的，这将非常有意义。我在经济学领域有一段全球的旅程，因为我最开始是从学术界起步的。然后，我进入了中央银行系统，在意大利银行和欧洲中央银行工作。接着，我转向投资银行业，曾担任贝克里斯资本的首席经济学家。

Then I moved into hedge funds for 15 years where I was chief strategist of a number of those. The last one was Breven Howard. And then in the last eight years, I you know, a years ago I started this consultancy company. And basically for the first seven, eight years of history of this company, we have been dealing with the major players. So the largest hedge funds, big banks, people that you know, and I'm sure that you spoke speak about a lot of times. Not too many, but now what you're doing, we're trying to broaden the spectrum of our audience and clients trying to being that kind of clients.

然后，我在对冲基金领域工作了15年，并在其中一些公司担任首席策略师。最后一家我工作的公司是Breven Howard。在接下来的八年中，我创办了这家咨询公司。基本上，在这家公司最初的七八年里，我们一直在与主要的市场参与者合作。包括最大型的对冲基金、大银行和一些你可能经常听说的人物。虽然数量不多，但现在我们正在努力扩展我们的客户范围，希望能够吸引更多这类型的客户。

So contacts expertise to a larger audience. So this is also why we started really a few months ago, an app which could be much more accessible in terms of content, but also in terms of cost for a larger audience. I mean, so hopefully it's a kind of you can read it a little bit as an attempt to of democratization of economics and finance. Peace call there be macro as the as I want. Yes. And you also launched a, I noticed you also launched a sub-sact this week and you came out with an initial piece all about AI and productivity.

将专业知识传递给更广泛的受众。这也是为什么我们在几个月前开始开发一个应用程序，它在内容和成本方面都对更广泛的受众更加友好。我想希望这可以被视为经济和金融知识普及化的一种尝试。此外，我们还推出了一个名为Macro的新项目。是的，我注意到你们本周还推出了一个Substack专栏，并发布了有关人工智能和生产力的首篇文章。

And this is great timing because that's been something I've been thinking a lot about personally is trying to understand where do we go from here? How do we think about something that is potentially so disruptive and how does that impact the economy and how do we even derive signal of what's occurring in the economy? So we'd like to start with our conversation there and hear about your perspective on AI and where do you believe it is it hype? Is it a bubble? Is it the real deal? Is it somewhere in between all those things? How do you think about it?

这真是一个很好的时机，因为我个人一直在思考这个问题：我们接下来要怎么走？我们应该如何看待一个可能具有颠覆性的事物？它对经济有什么影响？我们又如何从经济中得出实质性的信号？所以，我们希望从这个话题开始讨论，听听您的观点。关于人工智能，您有什么看法？您认为它是炒作么？是泡沫吗？还是假的就是现实？或者是介于这些之间的某个位置？您是如何考虑这个问题的？

I think disruptive is a nice word and this rapid is good. So this is the way we think of it especially for the US because for the time being AI is mainly a US thing. It affects very little for the time being the rest of the world. But the way we see that is more of a blessing than a curse. Sometimes we hear of it as it was a curse on my goodness. There is AI around how do we go from here? It's a good thing. I mean, there is no doubt and I would say from Dustin point the way we think of that is that it is not that different from previous major technological progress we have had in the past. Actually from our analysis so far it looks like the main one but it goes in the same direction.

我认为“颠覆性”是一个不错的词，而这种快速的发展是好的。我们特别从美国的角度这样看待它，因为目前AI主要针对美国，对世界其他地区的影响暂时还很小。但在我们看来，这与其说是诅咒，不如说是福音。有时候我们听到有人把它看作一种诅咒，好像在担心“天哪，到处都是AI，我们该怎么办？”但实际上这是一件好事，这一点毫无疑问。从总体来看，我们认为这与过去经历过的重大技术进步没有什么不同。根据我们目前的分析，它看起来可能是主要的变革之一，但方向是一致的。

So the way we think of it is that there is a substitution effect. So this means that the quote unquote a machine does more jobs than humans or there is a productivity which takes out some jobs but then there is an income effect. So the society, the economy gets richer. So in the end is broadened the pie. So there is more to do with more formal people. So again, I would say it's a blessing. It's not a bad thing.

我们这样理解它：这是一个“替代效应”。这意味着机器在某些工作上取代了人类，或者通过提高生产力，一些工作消失了。但同时，也存在一个“收入效应”。这就是说，随着社会和经济变得更加富裕，整个“蛋糕”变大了。因此，有更多的事情可以由更多受过专业培训的人来完成。所以我认为这是一个福音，而不是坏事。

The other thing I would say is that you mentioned productivity and this is as I was saying major for the time being mainly a U.S. thing. For the rest of the world it has not meant much but again, also this is not new. If you look at the history of the last four years or so, we have had four major quote unquote technological revolutions. The first one was a personal computer when I went to university in the mid 80s. Actually I came to the U.S. and I was shocked.

我还想说的是，你提到的生产力目前主要是一个美国的问题。对世界其他地区来说，这并没产生太大影响，不过这也不是什么新鲜事。如果你回顾过去四年的历史，我们经历了四次所谓的重大技术革命。第一次是在我80年代中期上大学时的个人电脑革命。当时我来到美国，感到非常震惊。

I entered the PC lab of the New York University and I saw 60 pieces. I never seen one in my life in Italy. So this is one. Then there was of course the dot com second half of the 90s and beginning of 2000. Then there is the so-called control revolution around 2010, 2015 and now there is AI. And in each cases we could observe a large very significant boost to productivity in the U.S. which then normalized but it was very significant. We almost saw none of it in Europe for instance. So it's really a U.S. The history of the U.S. or the last 40 years or so called exceptionalism.

我走进纽约大学的电脑实验室，看到60台电脑。在意大利的时候，我从未见过这样的场景。这只是其中一个例子。接下来是90年代后期到2000年初的互联网热潮。然后是2010到2015年左右所谓的“控制革命”，现在是人工智能。在每个阶段，我们都可以观察到美国生产力有显著提升，虽然之后会恢复常态，但当时的提升非常明显。然而，例如在欧洲，我们几乎看不到这样的变化。所以，这实际上是一段关于美国的历史，或者说是过去40年左右被称为“美国例外主义”的故事。

It has all to do with technology. Although just to finish that is not a technology comes out from a tree. It comes from human capital. So in a sense you can say that this you can call it physical capital revolution comes from a human capital revolution and which means university, patents, all these things R&D or in the East all these fields in which the U.S. dwarfs the rest of the world and especially dwarfs Europe. Unfortunately where I am now sitting.

这与技术密切相关。然而，技术并不是从树上长出来的，而是源自于人力资本。从某种意义上说，你可以称之为一场由人力资本革命带来的实物资本革命，这包括大学、专利以及所有研发领域。在这些方面，美国远远领先于世界其他地区，尤其是欧洲。不幸的是，我目前就坐在欧洲。

Yeah fair enough. On that note about productivity. Yeah it's no secret that the productivity numbers that have been coming out of the U.S. over the last six to eight months have been pretty exceptional and unit labor costs have been decreasing and it feels like everybody wants to get excited be like okay this is it. You can see it AI is impact in the labor market but then you know I would say that the criticism to that narrative the other side of it is that lucky you know we just went through a pretty meaningful fed hiking cycle, job openings or decreasing each you know potentially each business is just trying to get more out of each worker and therefore that's why productivity is increasing.

好的，没错。说到生产力，大家都知道，在过去六到八个月里，美国的生产力数据表现相当突出，单位劳动成本正在下降，大家都很兴奋地想要说，就是这样。你可以看到人工智能对劳动力市场的影响。但另一方面，对这种说法的批评是，由于我们刚经历了一次重大的美联储加息周期，职位空缺在减少，每家公司可能都在努力从每位员工身上获得更多，因此生产力才在提高。

How do you how do you isolate and contrast those two potential narratives and see that okay this is actually maybe it's a bit of both but there is also that fundamental AI story hitting the labor market. Well there is a probably there is a little bit of both if one looks at the dynamics of productivity there is clearly at the end of 2022 beginning of 2023 there is a jump in productivity. I mean it cannot be just luck. We could see that after covid I mean initial productivity went down they rebounded very strongly then it was coming off gently it was renormalizing to the pre-covet trend then all of a sudden it rebounds clearly and persistently and consistently and you know this is exactly after the large of charge of GPT at the end of 2022.

如何区分和对比这两种潜在的叙述，并看到，可能这两者都有一点影响，但也存在着一个影响劳动力市场的基本的人工智能故事呢？其实当我们观察生产力的动态时，很明显在2022年底到2023年初，生产率出现了一个跃升。显然，这不仅仅是运气使然。我们可以看到，在新冠疫情之后，最初的生产力下降，然后强劲反弹，接着又开始缓慢恢复到疫情前的趋势，然后突然又明显且持续地反弹，而这一幕恰好发生在2022年底GPT大规模推出之后。

So I would say it's very difficult that all of a sudden productivity goes up labor formation goes down I mean it's completely different from a recession it has nothing to do with a recession but definitely for this kind of growth which we have seen we have which we have been witnessing in the US in the last few years job formation should have been much greater even encompassing the fact that supply of labor has been lower than usual because of the less immigration especially in the last year or so. It's more than that and it's also clearly that you can isolate as you said clearly in some sector especially in some services which are more AI affected.

我会说，突然之间生产力上升而劳动力形成下降是非常困难的。我指的是这与经济衰退完全不同，和衰退没有关系。然而，对于我们在过去几年间在美国看到的这种增长，工作岗位的形成应该远大于实际情况，即使考虑到由于移民减少，特别是在过去一年左右，劳动力供应低于往常。远不止于此，正如你所说的，某些领域，尤其是一些受人工智能影响较大的服务行业，也能明显地看到这一点。

I would say there are a lot of you know indications is difficult to have a hundred percent proof but I would say the indication is there. You mentioned monetary policy and I think this is going to be a big debate also with the new chairman coming, Kevin Worsh by the way I know him since the time my time is a brevon-haar but it was our consultant there. He makes a point of the fact that productivity growth means less inflation. It could be in the short run again we have seen these things we have witnesses this thing in previous episodes.

我认为有很多迹象表明这一点，虽然很难有百分之百的证据，但我可以说这些迹象是存在的。你提到了货币政策，我认为这将是一个重大的争论点，特别是随着新任主席凯文·沃什的到来。顺便说一下，我在布雷文-霍华德工作时就认识他，他是我们的顾问。他指出，生产率增长意味着更低的通货膨胀。在短期内，我们可能会再次看到这种情况，我们在之前的事件中已经见证过了。

I would say but I would say what has to be extremely careful in translating this into easy policy even in the short run because this is one of those cases which in matters to look at the so-called neutral rate the rate which equates savings and investment and on these occasions like the one we are seeing now, productivity growth as you said skyrocket so this means that the neutral rate most likely goes up and quite a lot and you know if we go back also to the lessons of Excel a Swedish economist of a long time ago it's a big mistake to put the the level of interest rates below the neutral rate because in the end what you have you have over accumulation of capital and in the end you you have both a bubble so asset price inflation and eventually also inflation of goods and services.

我想说的是，在将这一点转化为简单的政策时，即使在短期内也必须非常小心，因为在这种情况下，需要关注所谓的中性利率，即储蓄与投资平衡的利率。在我们目前看到的这种情况下，如你所说，生产力的增长非常迅速，这意味着中性利率很可能会大幅上升。同时，如果回顾瑞典经济学家埃克塞尔的经验教训，把利率设定在低于中性利率的水平是一个大错误，因为最终会导致资本过度积累，并且最终可能出现资产价格泡沫，以及商品和服务的通货膨胀。

So what has to be extremely careful that would be really a policy mistake to just try to interpret and enjoy this productivity and the fact that you see the unitary work costs going down the short term and thinking that you can go and cut interest rates if you allow me just a second that reminds me in my time of the bank at the bank covetally in the second half of the 90s and I previously I was visiting scholar at Harvard and I met Paul Samuson who's you know one of the greatest economist of ever I would say not just of last century I would say ever and I invited him at the bank covetally and he wrote a paper with us and he was very upset at the time with Greenspan he was saying but there is an evil pusher he used to say is reading too much into CPI CPI is low but it's cutting interest rates and without understanding that actually it is doing that at the time of huge technological progress.

所以，有些事情需要非常小心，政策上的错误可能在于仅仅因为看到生产力提升和短期内单位劳动成本下降就试图解读这一现象并享受其中，认为可以降低利率。如果允许我花一秒钟，我想起了我在上世纪90年代后期在银行的时光，那时我曾是哈佛大学的访问学者，我遇到了保罗·萨缪尔森——我可以说他是史上最伟大的经济学家之一，不仅仅是上个世纪最伟大的。我邀请他到我们银行来合作撰写论文，当时他对格林斯潘非常不满。他说，有一个“邪恶的推手”过分解读了消费者价格指数（CPI），认为CPI低就应该降低利率，却没有理解其实那正是在一个巨大技术进步的时期。

And then he was saying we will have a bubble which is exactly what happened in the end of the 90s and then actually Greenspan had to hike interest rates is to rush and hike interest rates because there was inflation in assets and in goods so one has to be very careful I hope Worsh won't do this I hope you hope but it's funny it's it's us laughing when you mentioned Greenspan because it seems like that's the analog that the Trump administration is looking through right now which is that look we want a Fed share that can see a productivity boom it doesn't try to stop it but actually leans into it and cuts further.

然后他说，我们将经历一个泡沫，这正是90年代末发生的事情，最终格林斯潘不得不迅速提高利率，因为当时资产和商品出现了通货膨胀，所以我们必须非常小心。我希望沃什不会这样做。你会希望，但很有趣的是，提起格林斯潘时我们会笑，因为这似乎就是特朗普政府目前所借鉴的模式。他们希望美联储主席能够看到生产力的提升，不去阻止它，而是进一步推动和降息。

I guess that brings up the question of what do you think monetary policy makers should even begin like what's their framework for such a big disruptive shift you know they have let's like specifically the US this dual mandate and if you have this impact on the labor market where labor costs are coming down perhaps you know white collar workers are being laid off then the other side of things is that what if you have increasing inflation because of oh I don't know maybe the commodities that are required for the data center build out are accelerating you have a higher our star neutral rate because of productivity that just seems like a very difficult situation for monetary policy makers at the end it is but I think he won't be that difficult I personally because I think even in terms of jobs we are not going to see really job destruction we are going to see less job formation but if you look for instance the labor market as it is now where it is now the unemployment rate is low I mean it's not record low but it's I would say quite low by historical standards and probably going down even further.

我想，这引出了一个问题：你认为货币政策制定者在面对这种重大破坏性变革时应该从何入手？他们的框架会是什么？以美国为例，他们有双重使命。如果劳动市场受到影响，导致劳动成本下降，也许某些白领工人失业，那另一面可能是因为数据中心建设加速所需的商品价格上涨，导致通货膨胀增加。此外，由于生产率提高，导致R*（中性利率）提高，这似乎对货币政策制定者来说是一个非常困难的局面。不过，我个人觉得这并不会那么困难。即便在就业方面，我们可能不会看到真正的工作岗位消失，只是新工作职位的增长会放缓。但如果你看当前的劳动力市场，失业率很低，虽然不是历史最低水平，但按历史标准来说相当低，并且可能会进一步下降。

So I'm not to show there is such a tragedy on the labor market I would definitely much more concerned about what's going on with inflation if not in the short term in the median and exactly what you said that is the fact that I would not try to position the level of actual interest rates before below the level of neutral interest rates that would be a policy mistake which could be extremely expensive in the median term maybe and you know sometimes the median term is doesn't mean five years it means few months or maybe a year and then so even politically for Trump could be not the most ideal situation to have an inflation problem I don't know by the midterm elections or even by the presidential elections so it's I think the the American public rightly seems to be quite sensitive to the topic of inflation not the super rich but the midtercast yes yeah.

所以，我并不是说劳动力市场上一定存在灾难。但如果不是考虑短期内的情况，我会更加担心通货膨胀的发展，尤其是关注中期的影响。正如你所说，我认为不应该将实际利率定在低于中性利率的水平，这样的政策错误在中期内可能会非常昂贵。而且，有时候所谓的“中期”并不是指五年，可能就只是几个月或一年左右。因此，即使从政治角度看，对于特朗普来说，如果在中期选举或总统选举时面临通货膨胀问题，那也可能不是理想的情况。我认为美国公众，尤其是中产阶级，对通货膨胀这个话题表现得相当敏感，而不仅仅是超级富豪。

I think another thing you've been writing about before it's just the the ability for monetary policy tools to really impact the economy which is that okay if we fast forward six months and and washes in and you know they start to cut the Fed funds by quite a bit more than it's expected and to your point about our starting higher because of productivity suddenly we see the long end of the bond market start to sell off in the opposite fashion like what how likely do you see that is happening and how do you think about that potential risk because that just seems like a very difficult situation being too I totally agree with you I mean I think in the end the bond Vingilante will do the job in that situation I think that you depicted I personally would expect the yield curve to steepen and steepen so sorry for this language bear steepening so this means that the level the average level of the yield curve goes up but the long end goes up even more than the short time and as we know for an economy like the US the 10 year is probably the most important yield and this is not really under control of the central bank.

我想你之前提到过一个问题，就是货币政策工具对经济的实际影响能力。假设我们快进六个月，美联储大幅度地降低联邦基金利率，超过预期。同时，你提到由于生产率的提升，我们起点较高，突然间我们看到债券市场的长期利率开始反方向上升。你认为这种情况发生的可能性多大？你怎么看待这种潜在的风险？因为这看起来像是一个非常困难的局面。 我完全同意你的看法。我认为在这种情况下，市场会通过所谓的“债券持有人”来调整。我个人期待收益率曲线变得更加陡峭，也就是说，收益率曲线的整体水平上升，但长期利率上升得比短期利率更快。众所周知，对于像美国这样的经济体而言，10年期国债收益率可能是最重要的利率，而这并不完全在央行的控制之下。

So the central bank of course can control the short time the short short term rates not long term rates and but they matter a lot for mortgages so this is something that they have to be very careful about because all of us if inflation is a slow motion process but when it goes it goes it's very difficult to stop it and when it goes then this means that the 14 year is troubled and then for the economy is troubled so I think this is one of those occasions I'm not a huge fan of European policy making but this is one of those occasions which is so called steady hand approach is advisable trying to be too much of an activist and trying to exploit the short term benefits or monetary policy is coming from an easy monetary policy I think would be extremely dangerous.

中央银行当然可以控制短期利率，而不是长期利率，但短期利率对抵押贷款影响很大，因此他们必须非常谨慎。因为对于我们所有人来说，虽然通货膨胀是一个缓慢的过程，但一旦开始飙升，就很难阻止。而一旦通胀失控，这意味着整个经济都会陷入困境。所以，我认为在这种情况下，采取所谓的“稳健手段”是明智的。过多地进行激进行动，试图通过宽松的货币政策来获取短期利益，是极其危险的。我对欧洲的政策制定没有太多好感，但在这种情况下，这种稳健的做法是值得推荐的。

So I by the way there is no need it's an economy which is doing well it's not doing badly I think if there is a problem which is felt by the American people I would say is more than the lack of jobs is inflation is the prices are too high you want to boost this problem you want to increase this problem why not to show where is the upside yeah make sense two two big themes that are occurring right now that are very in contrast to each other is one which we basically been talking about so far which is US exceptionalism because of the AI boom and the fact that all the leading frontier models are US based like open AI and then dropping et cetera and so all this international capital wants to be exposed to what is potentially the most compelling you know gross story that we've had in a very long time so you want to own those assets they're all US-enominated assets.

翻译如下： 顺便说一句，没有必要担心，因为经济状况良好，并没有糟糕到哪里去。我认为，如果美国人感受到任何问题，那更多的是通货膨胀，而不是缺乏工作机会。价格太高，您想要解决这个问题，或者增加这个问题，为什么不展示其中的好处呢？这样就说得通了。 目前有两个非常对立的主题，一方面是因为人工智能的蓬勃发展，美国被认为具有独特的优势，所有领先的前沿模型，如OpenAI等，都是美国的。因此，国际资本都希望参与这可能是我们很长一段时间以来最吸引人的增长故事，因此他们想要拥有这些资产，而这些资产都是以美元计价的。

But then the other side of things is this narrative of what's going on with the US dollar and the balance of payments and and these big tariffs that have been going on and the impact of that which is that look if you if you narrow your trade deficit that's less dollars going to the rest of the world less recycling of those dollars in the US-enominated assets and so we've seen you know XUS equity markets have been performing exceptionally well over the last six to eight months compared to US equities but then there's also the US equities are the only ones that are truly exposed to this AI boom and those two themes feel very at odds with each other and curious how do you think about those two.

但是，另一方面，有关美元的情况、国际收支平衡以及这些大额关税的叙述再次引起关注。其影响是，如果你缩小贸易逆差，就意味着流向世界其他地区的美元减少，这些美元在美国计价资产中的循环也减少。因此，我们看到，在过去六到八个月中，全球其他国家的股市表现非常出色，相比之下，美国股市的表现却不如人意。然而，美国股市又是唯一真正受益于这个人工智能热潮的市场。这两种趋势似乎彼此冲突，让人好奇你如何看待这两者之间的关系。

Well let's be clear I definitely prefer one thing and I prefer the US thing so I think the other one is a short term development the beautiful performance in Europe is you know it's one of those one I think it was one year in 10 or 115 you know all of a sudden the repair market was called cheap for 15 years there was one year when it was true and then it outperformed and probably it was not I mean I don't want to go into politics but let's say let's say this I think the US economy in the US market in terms of return is absolutely unbeatable so if you look at price earnings however you square them equity market or even the bond market yields the yield is all in the US.

好吧，让我说明一下，我确实更喜欢美国的东西。我认为欧洲的表现只是短期的，以往也有这种情况，可能每10年或15年才出现一次。曾经有一年，修复市场被认为便宜，确实表现优异，但说到底，那也许并不是真的。我不想讨论政治，但我想说，美国的经济和市场在回报方面是无法超越的。无论你怎么看待市盈率，股票市场，甚至是债券市场的收益，一切的收益都在美国。

So if you want to make money sorry you have to invest in the US what happened last year was that there was of course the other variable which also matters which is risk and last year in particular again I don't want to go into politics but there was a perception of risk in the US various kinds of if I am a reserve manager say in Asia reserve manager I fear that my reserves could be confiscated or someone can do war to me these things are nerve people so you may accept to have lower terms sometimes even much lower terms I can invest in investing in Europe but because of a less of a lower risk but I I mean I hope I know as we say in finance hope is not a good strategy so I don't want to hope that this is not going to be pursued for too long by US authorities this is not good but in terms of return I think there is only one story and this story is the US again if you look at equities companies technology and the end even interest rates what before we will call we will discuss in neutral interest rates where neutral interest rates basically is productivity in game that's what it is and this is in the US so I think the Europe is a story of at least the story of a year where rightly I don't understand understandably more the rightly markets were trading more risk than return and also some of the last ten points also looking at the dollar I really struggled to see to accept these ideas these notions that this is the end of the dollar it is not it just it's not in the cards you know they could be some bad years yes bad years are happened to everyone even to the best people and I think last year was one of them and it has to do with risk but you can see in this sad day or war now that we are witnessing well in the end the dollar is not doing that bad so even in terms of risk these days maybe people are saying well maybe it's not that risky compared to Europe Europe is much vulnerable.

所以，如果你想赚钱，很遗憾，你必须投资于美国。去年发生的事情表明，另一个同样重要的因素就是风险。尤其是去年，我不想谈论政治，但人们对美国的风险有一种看法，这种看法多种多样。如果我是一个亚洲的储备经理，我可能会担心我的储备会被没收或者有人会对我发动战争，这些因素让人紧张。因此，有时候你可能会接受较低的收益，甚至是非常低的收益，选择投资于风险更低的欧洲。但我希望大家知道，在金融领域，希望不是个好的策略，我不希望美国当局长时间维持这种政策，这不是一件好事。 然而，从回报的角度来看，我认为只有一个故事，那就是美国。如果你看看股票、公司、科技，甚至利率，我们以前称之为中性利率，而中性利率基本上就是生产力的增长所在，而这都在美国。因此，我认为欧洲的故事至少是一个市场将风险置于回报之上的故事。 此外，关于美元，我很难接受那些认为这是美元末路的观点，事实并非如此。大家都会经历不好的年份，甚至是最优秀的人，我认为去年就是其中之一，这与风险有关。但你可以看到，在我们现在目睹的局势里，美元表现并没有那么差。所以即使在风险方面，这些日子里人们可能会说，也许相比起欧洲，美国也并不是那么危险，而欧洲在某种程度上要更加脆弱。

I don't think anybody would accuse you of being biased considering that you're you're an Italian you've worked in you know Italian century like you're the most European economist like no one wants to be in the yeah and here you are saying this and that's really interesting to me because yeah like there's this narrative over the last 12 months about Europe is unleashing fiscal finally whether it's you know Germany taking off the fiscal breaks starting to spend again and you've had this perhaps is a little bit of excitement around that idea okay now we're going to finally have fiscal after a decade of fiscal austerity across Europe and things are going to be booming again how do what do you think about that thesis you know it's a bit sad thinking that the good theory of a continent has to do with that because in this is what we are talking about so before we're talking about productivity in the US and thinking that fiscal policy in Germany which means that more that in Germany can bring growth persistently over there you know I think it's a bit sad and so to be honest with you I don't think it's a great narrative to buy a currency thinking that that usually I mean unless you do a fantastic use of that to boost again productivity and so on but frankly again I don't want to be perceived as anti-German or anti-Italian or whatever but frankly I think that they have a problem and they better go to the root of the problem rather than trying to postpone that is a postponement postponement of a problem is when you want to deal with the problem that you leverage out Germany can leverage out it's true because they are the level of debt in in that country is by international standards is low so they can do they's not Switzerland it's not Norway but it's definitely not Italy France or the US.

我不认为任何人会指责你有偏见，考虑到你是意大利人，并且你在意大利中心工作过，你是最欧洲化的经济学家，没有人希望你置身事外。你在这里发表了这样的看法，这对我来说真的很有趣。因为在过去的12个月里，有一种说法认为欧洲终于开始重视财政政策了，比如德国停止财政紧缩，开始增加开支。这个想法可能让人有些兴奋，好像欧洲在经历了十年财政紧缩后，经济终于要复苏繁荣了。对此，你怎么看？ 我觉得有些悲哀，认为一个大陆的好政策要靠这个来支撑。我们之前讨论了美国的生产力，以及认为德国的财政政策能带来持续增长。老实说，我不认为这是一个值得支持的说法。除非你能非常有效地利用它来提升生产力等等，但说实话，我不想被认为是反德或反意或其他什么的。坦率地说，我认为他们面临一个问题，最好去解决问题的根本，而不是试图推迟问题。推迟问题只是把问题推后。德国确实可以通过借贷来应对，因为他们的债务水平在国际标准上来说是比较低的。德国不是瑞士，也不是挪威，但绝对不像意大利、法国或者美国那么高。

But frankly thinking that they can sort out the German problems with that by struggle even because by the way one of the problems they have now in practical terms is that because of inefficiencies in the administration they struggle to spend that money to spend money really in infrastructure and they say so they're trying to spend so it's easier to spend it in consumption and also this is also why they're questioned even in Germany the government is questioned by that on that so you told that you were leveraging up for investments and now you will leverage up for consumption this isn't not exactly the most promising story I think they should try to do what we were saying before the good thing about the US and I don't want to say the US is the ideal place in the world but not there there are a lot of very good things and Europeans should learn about that rather than complaining so they should invest much more in human capital university R&Ds this kind of meritocracy Europe is not good at that.

坦率地说，认为他们可以通过努力解决德国的问题是不太现实的。事实上，他们目前面临的一个实际问题是，由于行政管理效率低下，他们在基础设施上花钱会遇到困难。因此，他们更倾向于把钱花在消费上。这也是为什么即便在德国，政府的这一做法也受到质疑。政府曾表示会加大投资，但现在却似乎在加大消费支出。这并不是一个非常有前景的故事。我认为他们应该尝试我们之前讨论过的方法。美国有很多值得学习的优点，我并不是说美国就是全世界的理想之地，但确实有很多方面值得欧洲借鉴，而不是一味地抱怨。因此，他们应该更多地投资于人力资本、大学研究与开发等领域，这种基于能力的选拔制度是欧洲不擅长的。

And you know a lot of the people that you can hear also I'm sure you hear also from the other side of the Atlantic those you know big Europeans who have some fantastic ideas well these people most of the time are a part of the problem not of the solution they are there not. Because they were phenomenal individuals but because they had the right political connections so and this does smell like a great story frankly yeah how how do you think that impacts the story of the European Union it it seems like it's very volatile and and struggling in some forms I mean just the simple notion of the fact that like you mentioned you know one country of Europe might want to leverage up with their debt markets one other country might not want to but they're all tied by the same currency and that just I mean it's the original sin of the European Union is this like different debt markets but the same currency you know I could agree more.

你知道，你听到的很多声音，尤其是那些来自大西洋彼岸的欧洲人，他们有一些很不错的想法，但大多数情况下，这些人是问题的一部分，而不是解决方案的一部分。他们之所以在那里，不是因为他们是杰出的个人，而是因为他们有合适的政治关系。所以，这确实闻起来像是一个很好的故事。那么，你觉得这对欧盟的故事有什么影响呢？看起来，欧盟在某些方面非常不稳定且困难。这种不稳定的根源在于，比如你提到的，欧洲的一个国家可能想要利用他们的债券市场，而另一个国家可能不想这么做，但它们却被同一种货币绑定。这就是欧盟的原罪：不同的债务市场却使用相同的货币。我对此无法同意更多。

You know my personal story is that I left the bank we got in 2000 beginning of 2000 and you know what happened beginning of 2000 there was the launch of the Europe you know I draft personally the the program the entry program my country into the Europe but because I drafted it I left and not because I was anti-European now it looks like if you are anti-European this is the the notion in Europe it looks like you are a fascist this is nothing to this is what you said this is economics 101 it's nothing more than this is not to be a fascist so frankly now this could be the topic for another for another episode because they would take the whole present broadcast but the history of the euro is basically the history of the economy so called the economist and against the so-called monetarist.

我的个人故事是这样的：我在2000年初离开了我们那个时候的银行。你知道，2000年初发生了什么事情，欧洲开始引入欧元。我个人负责起草了我们国家加入欧元的计划。但正因为我起草了这个计划，我选择了离开，不是因为我反对欧洲一体化。现在在欧洲，如果你表现出反欧洲一体化的态度，人们可能会觉得你是法西斯。但这其实和法西斯主义无关，这是最基础的经济学常识，仅此而已。坦率地说，这个话题可以单独用一整集节目来探讨，因为欧元的历史本质上是经济学家和货币主义者之间的历史。

The economist used to say this in this back to 1971 not so a long time ago everybody was in favor of the euro I'm of course I'm I'm a European I mean I'm not stupid I think a European Union is a good thing and the European currency is a good thing but you have to do things well you cannot do them bad and well they are not the same thing good means the economist used to say in one of them you have to do first economic union then fiscal union then banking union then political union and then and everything works very well you have monitoring which is a little bit the story of the US and there was a civil war in between by the way which must be forgotten the monetarist used to say so-called monetarist which in the end they were used to say well it would take too long let's start from monetary union and then we can force all the other unions.

经济学家曾在1971年左右说过，在那个年代，几乎所有人都支持欧元。当然，我是个欧洲人，我不傻，我认为欧洲联盟是件好事，欧洲货币也是件好事。但事情必须做好，不能做得不好。做得好和做得不好是不一样的。一个好的做法是，正如经济学家过去常说的，你必须先建立经济联盟，然后是财政联盟、银行联盟，接着是政治联盟，这样一切都会运行得很好。这样你就有了监控机制，这有点像美国的故事，尽管期间发生了一场必须被遗忘的内战。另一种观点来自所谓的货币主义者，他们最终的观点是，按照传统顺序可能会太慢，不如先从货币联盟开始，然后再推动其他联盟的建立。

But as we know as you said these unions are not there yet is there a fiscal union no is there a banking union no is there a political union no can a monetary union work for too long without all these unions that's a question mark for the for the welfare of its people that's another question mark the last thing I would say is that now the situation is even a bit more difficult because the political situation a political environment in Europe is not the same of five years ago ten years ago twenty years ago 20 years ago the so-called pro-European parties were in power right or wrong by the way I think they made a lot of mistakes for the good of their own people but now we are moving into a situation where and again there is not a judgment in this say more let's call nationalist government are taking the power or or have a substantial power within each country.

正如我们所知，就像你说的那样，这些联盟尚未完全形成——财政联盟还没有，银行联盟也没有，政治联盟也没有。如果没有这些联盟，单靠货币联盟能持久运作吗？这是一个问题。它能确保人民的福祉吗？这又是另一个问题。我最后想说的是，现在的情况甚至更复杂了一些，因为欧洲的政治环境与五年前、十年前甚至二十年前已经不同。二十年前，所谓的亲欧洲政党掌握着政权，对或错，他们为自己的人民做了很多决定。但现在，我们正进入一个新局面，尽管不是在判断，只是说，更多可以称为民族主义的政府正在上台，或者在各国中拥有实质性的权力。

So in Italy there is a meloney which by the way is he's not doing that in France I would say probably soon there will be Le Pen or or her deputy in Germany there is AFD which is you know an important minority parliament minority government sorry party and so on in the Netherlands belldum and so on now again I don't want to express any judgment on these parties because that's not my job but if you have a project or mini globalization like the euro without the support of all the other unions that I mentioned before it's very difficult to make it really sustainable where the parties in power are nationalist it's a bit of an oxymor having a globalization or a mini globalization made by nationalists doesn't work very much and at the moment where the institutions as you correctly parenthood out of Europe are not so sound by the moment at the moment so the end story on Europe has not been written in Europe I think common Europe is a good thing but it doesn't mean that we have we have taken the right we are pursuing the right way to achieve it.

所以，在意大利有一个梅洛尼，他在法国没有做类似的事情，我想可能很快法国会有勒庞或她的副手。在德国有一个AFD党，这个党在议会中是一个重要的少数派。在荷兰也是如此。现在，我不想对这些政党发表任何评价，因为那不是我的任务。但如果你有一个像欧元这样的项目，或者说是小型的全球化，却没有之前提到的其他联盟的支持，要让它真正可持续是非常困难的。掌权的政党是民族主义者，然而又在推动全球化或小型全球化，这有点自相矛盾。尤其是在目前，欧洲的机构并不是很稳固。所以，欧洲的结局尚未确定。我认为共同的欧洲是件好事，但这并不意味着我们已经采取了正确的方式来实现它。

This episode is brought to you by Coinbase if you're a long-term crypto holder but don't want to sell your bitcoin or ethereum Coinbase now offers crypto back loans powered by Morpho you can borrow up the five million dollars using bitcoin or one million dollars using eth as collateral all like competitive rates typically between four and eight percent there are no credit checks loans originate in seconds and you can repay anytime with no fixed deadlines the USDC liquidity can be used for things like a down payment refinancing high interest debt unexpected expenses or anything else life throws at you importantly Coinbase does not treat borrow transactions as taxable events and over one billion dollars loans have already been opened through the platform if you want liquidity without selling your crypto click the link in the show notes to learn more and get started today before you place a trade you should know who is actually moving the market that's where Arkham comes in Arkham is a crypto intelligence platform and exchange the less you see real on-chain data which wallets are buying selling and moving funds and then trade directly on that information Arkham was built to make blockchains human readable instead of rock transaction data you get clear profiles visualizers a custom dashboards that show what's really happening beneath the surface tracking wallets and fun flows is becoming just as important as technical or fundamental analysis on chain intelligence is also one of the best tools traders have to protect themselves against hacks rugs and scams with Arkham exchange you can go from insight to execution in one place the world's first exchange powered by crypto intelligence check out Arkham and start trading with real on-chain insight at Arkham.com.

本集内容由 Coinbase 赞助。如果您是长期的加密货币持有者，但不想出售您的比特币或以太坊，Coinbase 现在提供由 Morpho 支持的加密货币贷款。您可以使用比特币作为抵押借款最高可达五百万美元，或者使用以太坊借款最高一百万美元，利率具有竞争力，通常在百分之四到百分之八之间。贷款无需信用检查，可在几秒钟内生成，且可以随时还款，无固定期限。USDC 的流动资金可以用于支付首付、再融资高息债务、应对意外开支或生活中的其他需求。重要的是，Coinbase 不将借款交易视为应税事件，已有超过十亿美元的贷款通过该平台发放。如果您想在不出售加密货币的情况下获得流动资金，请点击节目说明中的链接了解更多信息并立即开始。 在您进行交易之前，您应该了解是谁在实际推动市场。Arkham 正是在这里发挥作用。Arkham 是一个加密情报平台和交易所，在这里您可以看到链上真实数据，了解哪些钱包在买入、卖出和转移资金，然后直接基于这些信息进行交易。Arkham 的构建旨在让区块链信息可被人类轻松读取，您将看到清晰的资料、可视化工具和定制仪表板，展示表面下的真实情况。追踪钱包和资金流动已变得与技术或基本面分析同样重要。链上情报也是交易者用来保护自己免受黑客攻击、骗局和欺诈的最佳工具之一。通过 Arkham 交易所，您可以在一个平台上从洞察到执行进行交易，这是全球首个由加密情报支持的交易所。访问 Arkham.com，利用真实的链上信息开始交易。

Shifting gears here a little bit but in 2014 you wrote a seminal paper about leverage and at the time it was very prescient because there is this this idea that you know private about private sector balance sheets had delivered significantly post-oate but in reality it was just this transfer of leverage towards the public balance sheets and I would I feel like ever since covid that idea has just become something that not even just economists talk about like the world society talks about which is that look at government balance sheets they have levered up like crazy private sector balance sheets are pretty conservative these days especially in countries like the US we haven't really seen that and I'm just curious about how you think about that these days because it leads to the question of fiscal sustainability which leads to the the question of fiscal deficits and how long this leveraging up the public debt balance sheets can occur and just wanted to hear about how you're thinking about all of that these days.

这段话大意是这样的：转换一下话题，2014年你写了一篇关于杠杆的开创性论文，当时这篇论文非常有前瞻性，因为大家认为私营部门的资产负债表在全球金融危机后大幅去杠杆，但实际上，这只是杠杆向公共资产负债表的转移。自从新冠疫情以来，这个观点已经不仅仅是经济学家在讨论，而是整个世界都在关注。人们注意到政府的资产负债表上杠杆急剧上升，而私营部门的资产负债表如今反而很保守，尤其是在美国这样的国家。这让我好奇，你如今怎么看待这个问题，因为它涉及到财政可持续性的问题，进而关系到财政赤字以及公共债务杠杆化还能持续多久。我想听听你现在对此有什么看法。

Yeah yeah thank you for I'm reminding that paper of a few years ago. Yeah the title I would say I still think it's quite actual it was delivering what delivered will it be like the Italian way what are we talking about you know as you said it we were just moving private translating private into public debt. Yeah probably is probably sounder than private but I would say still that is and that has to be repaid. Now there are only two things that you can do with that you either pay back or you don't pay back that that's it there is not a third option when you don't pay back there are two other options there are also two options you don't pay back explicitly so you default on it or you don't pay back implicitly by inflation this is something which is and this depends very much on the taste of a population how you want to default or things like easier debt by foreigners then the best way to default is explicit default says thank you very much you were a great friend thank you for lending me money but sorry you're not receiving it.

是的，是的，谢谢你提醒我几年前那篇论文。是的，我会说，我仍然认为这个标题很有现实意义，它表达的内容是以意大利的方式处理问题。我们在谈论什么呢？就像你说的，我们只是在将私人债务转变为公共债务。是的，可能公共债务比私人债务更稳健，但我仍然要说，这些债务最终都是要偿还的。现在处理债务只有两个选择：要么偿还，要么不偿还，就这么简单。若选择不偿还，又有两种方式：一种是明确违约，另一种是通过通货膨胀隐性违约。选择哪一种方式很大程度上取决于民众的偏好。如果是欠外国人的债务，那么最好的方式就是明确违约，说声谢谢，你曾是个好朋友，谢谢把钱借给我，但很抱歉，你收不回了。

If it is if that is domestic then quote and quote the best way is to inflate it away we probably. we would have to face these logics or these problems quite a lot in the in the next decade I would say there is a lot there's a lot of press about that in the US is not a good thing frankly I think it's it's not a good idea again and I don't think there is any need at the moment to leverage up the the public balance sheet in the US economy as we said it's an economy in very good health so there is no why you want to do that I'm not sure why at the same time as we said productivity is very high and productivity and demographics which is so called the real growth from a supply standpoint so in the economy grows if there is more people around and if these people are more productive in the US you still have both things so still there is population growth maybe not as much as in the 50s but still decent by your international standards and productivity growth is very high so I would say the sustainability of public that in in the US I would say to me is not extremely concerned I'm not saying that it's a good idea again to leverage up but I'm not so concerned.

如果这是一个国内的问题，那么最好的办法可能就是通过通货膨胀来解决。未来十年，我们可能会经常面对这样的逻辑或问题。在美国，这个问题有很多报道，坦率地说，我认为这不是一个好的想法，目前也没有必要加重美国经济的公共债务负担，因为正如我们所说，美国经济状况良好，所以没有理由这么做。我不太明白为什么要这样做。同时，正如我们所说，美国的生产力很高。从供给的角度来看，生产力和人口统计趋势代表着所谓的实际增长。经济增长如果伴随着更多的人口和更高的生产力，美国在这两方面表现都不错。虽然人口增长可能不如20世纪50年代那么快，但按国际标准来看还是相当不错的，生产力增长也很高。因此，我认为美国公共债务的可持续性不是特别令人担忧。我不是说增加债务是一个好主意，但我对此没有那么担心。

So if one day the government comes to power and say look I want to cut on that and raise taxes people will complain but economy won't be the end of the US they can do that another constituencies more of a problem a Europe to some extent in China for other in other respects I would say both I probably worse problems than the US is of course as you know in Europe it's point you pointed out there are countries with relatively low debt so Germany has other problems but you know deck is still manageable others like Italy and and France where the situation is more difficult now it has been it was calmer in the last few years but it doesn't mean it will be forever and the reason why it's more difficult situation is not only because debt is any high in these countries but also the most important because productivity is very low actually is negative it's falling so it's not even low growth it's negative and the demographics are very poor so this is this this is really where the problems could be unfortunately same thing for China by the way China is another place where productivity is going down and demographics are going down and the leverage top exactly the wrong moment in 2009 when they reacted to the US great financial crisis.

如果有一天政府上台，并表示要削减开支并提高税收，人们可能会抱怨，但这并不会导致美国经济的终结。相比之下，其他国家的问题或许更严重。在欧洲，有些国家的债务相对较低，比如德国，虽然有其他问题，但债务还算可控。然而，意大利和法国的情况要困难得多，虽然过去几年比较平稳，但这种情况不会一直持续下去。困难不仅仅在于这些国家的债务水平很高，更重要的是它们的生产力非常低，实际上是负增长，不仅仅是增长缓慢的问题。同时，人口结构也不理想，所以问题可能会在这些方面爆发。而中国也是如此，生产力和人口结构都在下降。2009年，中国在应对美国金融危机时加杠杆的时机很不合适。

And this is a common feature in that paper that you mentioned we call about miracles so there are there have been many miracles in since World War 2 economic miracles the Italian miracle was one of them the Chinese miracle is another one and usually these miracles are made by two things the main one is demographics the second one is productivity the need that it was after World War 2 and in China it was after the accession to three commerce in 2001 these things are but then when these things slow down when the miracles ends people or governments say why should be why should be the end let's try to prolong it productivity is not there anymore so they'll have a job it's and you know what we can if we only grow as we used to grow until last year it's very easy to pay it back but it doesn't work this way and I think China has the same problem and I think China is in this situation that we depicted in that paper already 12 years ago and they are not out of the woods at all so there is definitely a big debt problem in China which again is created by the fact that the assets which which were created without that which is basically real estate are not very productive and now they travel and it's an unsorted business.

这段文字提到的“奇迹”是指自二战以来的一些经济奇迹，意大利奇迹和中国奇迹就是其中的两个。通常，这些奇迹是由两个主要因素推动的，一个是人口增长，另一个是生产力提升。对于意大利来说，这种现象在二战后出现，而中国则是加入世贸组织后的2001年开始的。 当这种增长放缓，奇迹结束时，人们或政府会质疑：为什么要结束？是否可以延续这一增长？但由于生产力的不足，这种延续往往难以实现。如果经济能像去年那样继续增长，那么偿还债务会很容易，但现实往往不如愿。我认为中国现在面临的问题，正是我们在12年前的论文中描述的情形，中国还没有完全走出困境。 中国目前的债务问题很严重，主要是因为那些通过负债建立的资产（主要是房地产）并不具备高生产力。现在这些资产遇到了麻烦，使问题更加复杂且未能解决。

Okay so if you think whether specifically to the US we're beginning to see the start of a re-leveraging up of private sector balance sheets because there's a couple of things happening there's specific to what we talked about early about AI the hyperscalers the meg sevens the big tech companies are starting to lever up for the first time as they're you know most of their free cash will has gone to data center buildouts they're now at the point of beginning to issue corporate debt so they're levering up and then the other big thing I'm seeing is that it looks like if you read between the T-leaves of what Warshan and Besson have been talking about it seems like they want to deregulate the banks and take away some of the the Basel three related regulations to really get commercial banks to start loaning again which really hasn't taken off since oh eight again and it feels like they're also looking for that private sector leveraged up to happen again.

好的，如果你考虑具体到美国，我们开始看到私营部门资产负债表的重新加杠杆的迹象，因为有几件事正在发生。我们之前谈到的关于人工智能（AI）的情况非常相关，超大规模企业和顶尖七大科技公司正在首次加杠杆，因为他们大部分的自由现金流已经投入到数据中心的建设中。他们现在开始发行公司债券，增加杠杆。另一个大变化是，根据沃申和贝松的讨论，如果细细品味，似乎他们希望放松对银行的监管，取消一些与巴塞尔三号相关的规定，以促进商业银行重新开始放贷。这种放贷自2008年以来实际上并未真正回升，他们似乎也在寻求让这种私营部门重新加杠杆的情况再次发生。

Do you do you see those trends and how do you what do you think about them very good question I would say let's try to break it in two pieces let's go to let's start with AI and also let's reconnect to what you're discussing before with the neutral rate this is exactly the case this is the this is the problem this is where you read the problem neutral rate if you keep I think even the reductions which were put in place already already in the last 15 months I would say to some extent were political they were political by the fed before the election the presidential elections and this is also why Trump did not forget that and backfire on power and so on.

你是否看到这些趋势，你对此有何看法？这是个很好的问题。我认为我们可以把它分成两个部分。首先，我们来谈谈人工智能，然后重新连接到之前讨论的中性利率问题。这正是问题所在。关于中性利率，即使过去15个月里已经实施的一些降息措施，我认为在某种程度上也是出于政治原因，是美联储在总统选举前实施的。这也是为什么特朗普对此耿耿于怀，并对鲍威尔采取反击措施。

Then there were some other cuts which again were trying to please the new administration but actually I can tell you if I was coming from Mars or in another in another decade the question in my industry would be of the trader would be okay Luigi why not they going to hike and the first hike is going to be 25 or 50 this is the question this would be the question and precisely because of that because by putting interest rates too low quote unquote to look relative to neutral rate especially for this kind of industries then you encourage them to leverage up and this is exactly what is up.

然后，又有一些削减措施，这同样是为了取悦新政府，但实际上，我可以告诉你，如果我是从火星来或者是处于另一个年代，在我所在的行业中，交易员会问的问题是，好吧，Luigi，他们为什么不加息，而首次加息会是25还是50。这就是问题的所在。正因为如此，因为将利率设置得过低，相对于所谓的中性利率尤其是对这种行业，这反而鼓励了他们加杠杆，而这正是现在正在发生的情况。

If there is a risk and I think I'm very happy that you pointed out because probably the picture I was giving about AI was two rows otherwise and by the way as we as we highlighted also in the sub-stack paper that you mentioned we highlight also that there is a problem with leverage so this it's it's increasing this put is not a leverage is necessarily bad thing but you know it's a free cash flow is decreasing and the problem in aggregate is not a huge problem for the time being but for some companies again I don't want to remain one in any of them but you know we know that for some companies the market is getting worried.

如果有风险，我很高兴你指出来了，因为我可能之前对人工智能的描述过于片面。此外，正如我们在你提到的Substack文章中强调的那样，我们也指出杠杆使用存在问题。这并不是说杠杆一定是坏事，但在现金流减少的情况下，它带来的问题在整体上目前不算严重，但对一些公司来说，市场的确开始担心了。我不想具体指出哪家公司，但我们知道有些公司市场的担忧正在增加。

It's getting worried for some companies it's getting worried from some kind of private credit the private credit market is nervous and I think this kind of nervousness I think is is not unjustified it has to do with risk rather than a return but I would say it's not crazy and again this is where monetary policy subtle nobody speaks about this problem in those terms but it has to do with that if interest rates were higher you would not think so easily about leveraging up when interest rates are low you do and and then you risk doing over inflate something which probably will not need that it was growing already organically.

有些公司现在感到担忧，因为某些类型的私人信贷市场感到紧张。我觉得这种紧张感并不是没有道理的，更多是与风险有关，而不是回报。我认为这种担忧是合理的，并且这和货币政策的微妙影响有关。虽然没有人用这样的方式来谈论这个问题，但确实与之相关。如果利率较高，大家就不会轻易考虑加杠杆。当利率低时，人们则更容易这样做，而这种情况下你就有可能过度膨胀已经自然增长的东西。

So that's a problem another problem which has to do with this and with AI in general but any technological progress in general to multi select the one we are seeing now is that we know that none of the companies that we see now are going to survive this is a necessity there will be winners and losers and the problem of course is the market doesn't know who are the winners who are the losers so there is always a moment when it gets more shaky and that could be a discriminant to discern between these two these two groups going.

所以，这是一个问题，另一个与此相关的问题是，与人工智能和任何技术进步相关的问题。当前我们看到的情况是，我们知道现在存在的公司中没有一家公司会最终存活下来。这是必然的，总会有赢家和输家。当然，问题是市场并不知道谁是赢家，谁是输家，因此始终有一个不稳定的时刻，这可能成为区分这两类公司的一种标准。

to the best end to wash the regulation story well I would say per se I don't think that's a bad thing the problem is what kind of regulation I know it's a difficult problem but this is the problem with regulation so you some is regulation useless no of course it's very useful is over regulation damaging of course it is the the ability of the regulator is to find the right the to fine tune the right kind of regulation now I'm not that much of an expert to tell you that it's so clear card there is another regulation probably I would say after the great financial crisis there was a bit of a run towards over regulation probably by the way more in Europe than in the US I'm not too sure frankly whether this will be damaging or not of course if they go below the line the red line definitely yes frankly I'm I'm not too sure I don't know if they're crossing the line or not if maybe they're doing the right thing I to be honest with you that I'm not too sure I'm more sanguine or more trepolicy that is something I think is for me is more understandable I mean for someone with my background totally that makes sense.

为了更好地解释这个关于监管的故事，我个人并不认为这本身是件坏事。问题在于监管的类型。我知道这很困难，但这就是监管的问题所在。那么，是否有些监管是无用的呢？当然不是，很多监管非常有用。但是，过度监管是否有害呢？当然是。监管者的能力就在于找到合适的、能够精细调控的监管方式。对于如何明确界定这一点，我并不算专家。在金融危机之后，可能存在一种趋向过度监管的现象，尤其是在欧洲，而不是美国。说实话，我不太确定这是否会造成损害。当然，如果他们超过了某个界限，那肯定是不好的。但坦率地说，我不太确定他们是否越界，或许他们做的是对的。对我来说，更容易理解的是一些相对积极或更加细致的政策，这对于我这样的背景来说是有道理的。

Okay final topic of conversation here it would be remiss to not talk a bit about the action that happened over the weekend we're recording this on monday march second and yeah saw some major geopolitical developments of the US and Israel striking around and in full force so of course you know we are just macro pontificators and not necessarily geopolitical experts but I am curious about how do you begin to think about something like that when that hits over the weekend and how are you thinking about it now well let me allow me to take an economist or a macro economics perspective on this and then we well because of course on geopolitics we can hold up opinions and you know opinions are not analysis and I would say that one thing which is which is important to keep in mind in these situations from an economics and a market perspective is that the development possible developing of a major supply such shock and this could be one of them it's possible we don't know of course and this has to do with two things basically the extent of the shock of the increase in energy prices and inspiration both of them and you know this could be this could be one of them potentially of course I don't know it's possible that you know if one looks at this discussion a few weeks from today we look how how silly was this point made you know yes sitting on the second march second and this is what we can say but this is something which could be relevant for instance by the way again especially for Europe unfortunately for instance we see that today gas prices in Europe have increased by at some stage by 50% now 40% this is a big number our prices is I would say it's very far from historicalize but you know it's it has increased quite a lot from the the sambal lows.

好的，最后的话题，我们不能不谈谈周末发生的事情。今天是3月2日星期一，我们正在录制节目，可以看到周末美国和以色列采取了重大地缘政治行动。虽然我们是宏观经济方面的观察者，并不是地缘政治专家，但我很好奇，当周末发生这样的大事时，你是如何开始思考的？现在又是如何看待的？ 让我从经济学或宏观经济学的角度来谈谈这个问题。在地缘政治方面，我们可以有各种看法，但看法并不是分析。从经济和市场的角度来看，在这些情况下需要记住的重要一点是，有可能出现重大供应冲击，而这可能就是其中之一，当然我们不确定。这主要涉及到两个方面：能源价格上涨和通胀，这可能是一个潜在的因素。当然，我不知道未来会如何，可能几周后回过头来看这段讨论，会觉得当时的看法多么可笑。但在3月2日，我们可以这样说：这可能会对市场产生重要影响，尤其是对欧洲。不幸的是，例如今天我们看到欧洲的天然气价格一度上涨了50%，现在是40%。这是一个很大的数字，尽管我们的价格远没有达到历史最高点，但与以往低点相比，确实大幅上升。

So if this dynamics persist then this is a problem for central banks it is a problem especially for us so called so called inflation target pure inflation targetters like the Europeans or Bank of Canada the the Bank of England less a bit less for the Fed which has a dual mandate so they have to target both with up and with inflation to inflation and to the labor market but still it's a problem also for them and where the problems come from a supply shock well if it is a short term one or let's say it doesn't affect at all inflation expectations or wage dynamics then you don't need to react to that so you as a central bank you do nothing you see through that TV any inflation goes up you know it's temporary a different thing is if there is a so-called second round effect so if the shock is persistent enough then it filters through other goods and services outside energy and to the labor market then this is a problem for a central bank then you have to react and by hacking interest rates and of course you know this is bad for the economy but adding a more persistent inflation shock it will be worse it will be worse.

如果这种动态持续下去，那么这会成为央行的问题，特别是对那些纯粹以通胀为目标的央行来说，比如欧洲央行或加拿大央行，稍微轻一点的是英格兰银行，而美联储的影响稍微小一些，因为美联储有双重使命，所以他们需要同时关注通胀和劳动力市场的问题，但这对他们来说仍然是一个问题。问题的来源是供应冲击，如果这是一个短期的冲击，或者说完全不影响通胀预期或工资动态，那么你就不需要采取任何行动，央行可以无视这种情况，因为你知道这是暂时的。然而，如果出现所谓的二次效应，也就是说冲击足够持久，以至于扩散到能源之外的其他商品和服务以及劳动力市场，那么这对央行来说就是个问题，需要通过提高利率来应对。当然，你知道这对经济不利，但如果不这样做，导致更持久的通胀冲击，情况会更糟糕。

So we don't know of course what what what what will happen in the next few weeks we don't know but I would say the the risks the at yielding to the upside and by the way it was interesting and we have also quote unquote sympathy for the other markets behave this way this is also the way we addressed our clients this morning in our daily titling supply shock and basically say look now the risks that that in a few months interest rates actually.

所以，我们当然不知道接下来几周会发生什么，但我认为风险在逐渐增加。顺便说一句，市场的这种反应也很有趣，我们对其他市场的反应表现出“某种程度的同情”。这就是我们今天早上在日常报告中跟客户沟通的方式，我们将其命名为“供应冲击”。基本上是在说，现在的风险是，几个月后利率可能会上升。

we have to go up rather than down you know a more material and it's interesting that initially the market especially the bone market reacted by a rallying to geopolitical risks at the end of the of before the weekend and the beginning of today or the trading day today and then it started to sell off so yields went up in double digit in terms of that in basis points and I would say there is a there is a reason for that so this is something that we have to watch of course and again we don't know but it's difficult to say there is no risk and when when gas and especially and the dollar price go up this way you cannot say well it will come down maybe I hope like the game as we said before hope is not a good strategy.

我们必须向上行，而不是向下行。你知道，有更多的实质性内容，值得注意的是，最初市场，尤其是债券市场，对地缘政治风险的反应是通过在周末结束和今天，也就是今天的交易日开始时的反弹来体现的。但随后市场开始下跌，收益率以两位数基点的幅度上升。我认为这是有原因的，因此我们必须密切关注。当然，我们不知道未来会怎样，但是很难说没有风险。当天然气价格，尤其是美元价格像这样上涨时，你不能说它会下降。也许我希望如此，但是正如我们之前所说，希望不是一种好的策略。

awesome Luigi is absolutely fantastic to have you on the show really enjoyed that and yeah again we will have links to your to your new albimacker offering in the show notes in description if everybody's interested in that and yeah I just want to thank you for for joining us fantastic oh first that would be very much of a pleasure and hope to see you I'll see you in person I assume absolutely yes it's fantastic and thank you very much I really had a very good time by the way and I hope you'll enjoy our research and and up if you like it and that would be phenomenal thank you very much.

翻译： 太棒了，Luigi，非常高兴你能参加这个节目，真的非常享受。我们会在节目说明中附上你的新专辑Albimacker的信息链接，感兴趣的朋友可以查看。我想再次感谢你的参与，真是太好了。能和你见面将是我极大的荣幸，希望能亲自见到你，我想肯定会的，太棒了，非常感谢，我真的度过了一段很愉快的时光。顺便说一下，我希望你会喜欢我们的研究，如果你喜欢，那就太棒了，非常感谢。