E134: Ukraine counteroffensive, China tensions, COVID Patient Zero, RFK Jr reaction & more
发布时间 2023-06-24 02:03:43 来源
So wait a second, you guys, I saw that you were at a co two conference or a TPG conference, you were at some banking conference, SACs. Brad and I were both at the co two summit co two co two is a, and a large investor is in a hedge fund private equity. They're a late stage fund. It's a big late stage fund. Some it's a really big word. Uh, was that a summit or is it more like a meeting? Well, it's like a two day conference in Santa Barbara. Oh, nice. They've done a number of years in a row now. Last year, Brian and I went and we met with SPF. Never tell you that SPF story. No, let's go.
等一下，你们在参加一个CO2会议或者TPG会议，还有一个银行会议SACs。Brad和我都参加了CO2高峰会，CO2是一个大的投资者，涉及对冲基金和私募股权。他们是一个后期基金，规模很大。这是个非常大的词。那是一个高峰会还是更像一个会晤？嗯，是在圣巴巴拉举办的为期两天的会议。哦，不错。他们已经连续几年举办了。去年，我和Brian去了，我们还见了SPF。从来没跟你说过SPF的故事吗？没有，讲吧。
Who's got crazier hair right now? You or SPF, give us a quick. I think it's a, take that hat off for a second, take that monclar off for a second. Let's get a side by side. Oh my God, SACs is using no product. It's not that bad. You're starting to look like the emperor, like Senator Palpatine from Stahlwa. I mean, people are having a field day with this crazy hair. But what was the vibe? If you said there was a vibe two years ago, the vibe was crypto mania. SPF was the bell of the ball. I suppose it would be the bell of the ball when he goes in the Huskau as well. And now it looks like he's getting off. He's getting up. I thought he was getting up. I guess the fix in is the fixes in. Oh, God, I mean, if he gets. I agree. Can you imagine if he gets off? He's almost as protected as Hunter Biden. Oh, here we go. OK, everybody, three birds not here this week. Insert jokes and conspiracy theories for the mids. There's going to be about 8,000 messages on a subreddit about free bird missing this week and SACs missing last week. I'll let you guys all read into it. But what would you say, Brad?
现在谁的头发更疯狂？你还是SPF，快告诉我们。我认为是的，把帽子摘下来，把眼镜摘下来，让我们并排站一下。天啊，SACs没用任何产品。这并不那么糟糕。你开始看起来像皇帝，像Stahlwa的Senator Palpatine。我的意思是，人们对这些疯狂的头发感到非常有趣。但是，那时的氛围如何？如果你说两年前有个氛围，那就是加密狂热。 SPF是当时的焦点。我想当他去霍斯考时，他也会成为舞会的焦点。现在看起来他正在下车。我以为他要起来了。我猜方案已定了。噢，天啊，如果他下车了，你能想象吗？他几乎和亨特拜登一样受保护。噢，我们开始了。好了，这周没有三只鸟。插入笑话和关于中间获得的阴谋论。大约会有8000条关于这周没有三只鸟和SACs上周缺席的帖子。我让你们自己去看看。你怎么说，Brad？
Brad Gersoner back, of course, Fiff Bestie. Brad, what would you say the vibe was at this one? If it was SPF lunacy two years ago, what was the vibe this year? Well, you know, first they put on an incredible event. It's called an E-SMEET West. And it was really about bringing, you know, CEOs and founders from China to the States and connecting them with founders and CEOs in the United States. Listen, I think it's somber, right? There's a recognition that we've seen a bounce in the public markets. You know, off of this devastation in 2022. But I think, listen, they gave a great, tough love speech discussion with the 1400 unicorns that are out there. And they said, do not expect your unprofitable tech company to bounce like one of the magnificent seven, right? Those are highly profitable companies trading at 1920 times earnings. And if you are a burning cash today, you can't come back to the well. So you need to either figure out how to get profitable, figure out how to get fit. Or you need to sell your business. Because, you know, there's not an endless stream of money. So I thought it was a sober view. You know, Larry Summers was there. And I think a lot of the people who call 22 right were looking for a hard landing in Q1 of this year, probably including, you know, Larry was probably more in that camp. And I think everybody still views this distribution of probabilities over the course of the next four quarters.
布拉德·格尔斯纳回来了，当然，是 Fee Bestie 的一员。布拉德，你会说这次活动的氛围如何呢？如果两年前是 SPF 疯狂，那今年的氛围如何？你知道，首先他们举办了一场令人难以置信的活动，名为E-SMEET West。这个活动主要是为了将中国的CEO和创始人与美国的创始人和CEO联系起来。听着，我认为它有些阴郁，对吗？我们认识到公共市场已经反弹了。2022年的破坏。但是，我认为，听着，他们和那1400个独角兽进行了一次伟大的、严酷的交流，并告诉他们，不要期望你们的无利润的技术公司会像那七个庞大的公司之一一样回弹，对吧？这些高利润的公司的股价是1920倍的收益。如果你今天在烧钱，你不能回到井里。所以你需要要么想办法盈利，要么想办法变得适合，要么就卖掉你的企业。因为，你知道，资金不是无尽的。所以我觉得这是一个清醒的观点。拉里·萨莫斯也在场。我认为很多人认为22年的第一季度会出现硬着陆，可能包括拉里在内。但是我认为每个人都认为，在接下来的四个季度中，可能性的分布是不确定的。
And, you know, whether it's Drucken Miller Sternlick this morning on CNBC or whether it's Larry Summers, they're all saying, well, we could 30% chance of a hard landing Q4, Q1. So I would say it was so. Yeah, I could tell it was sober, Zach. Go ahead. You wanted to say something? Well, I would say last year it was somber in a different way. Because you got to remember in the first half of 2022, you had this huge decline in the markets around gross stocks because interest rates said started going up. We had the whole regime change. But I don't think founders had internalized the way that it applied to them. And then the thing that has happened over the past year is that sales have been hit. You know, every software company that I know is reforcasting down. It's so much hard to grow. Customers are consolidating vendors, sharpening their pencils. Seed expansion has been replaced with seed contraction. Negotiations are hard, right? Yeah. So the head went on rapidly. It's hard right now to sell software than it was, let's say, a year ago. You know, 2x is now the new 3x. If you can go to x in this environment, it's basically growing 3x before. It's funny to me that how much the Fed's actions impact buying behavior. That's the thing that I.
大家都在说，无论是CNBC上的Drucken Miller Sternlick，还是Larry Summers，他们都说，我们可能会在Q4、Q1期间有30%的可能性出现硬着陆。所以我认为局势很严峻。是的，我觉得Zach也有同感。你有什么想说的吗？去年的情况有所不同，更令人沉闷一些。因为在2022年上半年，由于利率上涨，股市和大宗股票市场出现了巨大的下滑。我们经历了全面的政策转变。但我认为创业者没有意识到这与他们的关系。而过去一年发生的事情是，销售额受到了打击。我认识的每个软件公司都在重新预测，增长变得困难得多。客户在整合供应商，收紧开支。种子扩张被换成了种子收缩。谈判很困难。是的。所以，这种情况快速发生了。现在，销售软件比一年前更难了。你知道，2倍现在是新的3倍。如果你能在这样的环境中保持2倍增长，基本上意味着你之前实现了3倍增长。有趣的是，联邦的行动如何影响购买行为。我认为这是我关注的事情。
The psychology is distinctly different. Yeah. The psychology really is different. Yeah. I mean, we knew that the Fed's behavior influence valuations and sort of capital markets. But the way that it influences the business outlook and how willing companies are to spend money. And co2 is no different.
心理学显然是不同的。是的。心理学确实是不同的。是的。我的意思是，我们知道美联储的行为影响估值和资本市场。但是它影响业务前景和公司愿意花钱的意愿的方式是不同的。二氧化碳也不例外。
I see they hired Billy McFarland from Fire Festival to do the food. What is this? I mean, co2 should be ashamed of themselves. Look at this focaccia. Some vegetable soup with the broth trained out. Super-stealing. Oh, that is so wrong. That is so wrong. And then look at this. I mean, it looks like a dog went to the bathroom. Why don't I open our lunchbox and we're like, let's go somewhere else. We know down to the. Oh my god, co2 on a budget. Wow. Look, a surprise. Someone put a surprise in our. It looks like Friedberg's dog put a surprise in the co2 lunchbox. Wow. Well, listen, it's good.
我看到他们聘请了来自Fire Festival的比利·麦克法兰来负责食品。这是怎么回事？我的意思是，CO2应该感到惭愧。看看这个意大利扁饼。一些蔬菜汤的汤汁都被过滤掉了，非常的偷工减料。哦，这太不对了。这太不对了。然后再看看这个。我的意思是，它看起来好像是一只狗去上了厕所。为什么我不打开我们的午餐盒，我们就去另外一个地方吃饭呢？我们知道哪里有好的。哦，我的天啊，CO2预算有限啊。哇，看，有个惊喜。有人给我们的...看起来像是弗里德伯格的狗把惊喜放在了CO2的午餐盒里。哇。好吧，听着，这还不错。
Co2 LPs should be very happy looking at that $7 lunch that they put out there. I mean.
二氧化碳（Co2）低碳排放项目的相关人员看到那份价值7美元的午餐时应该会感到非常高兴。我的意思是。
Raj, should we tell the SPF story from last year's summit? I mean, last year we talked about the. Maybe founders hadn't internalized yet, but the markets had corrected. But the one founder who was super bullish and optimistic and talking about how he was spraying money all over the place and he was acquiring companies and who was followed around by minions and had everyone like a beehive surrounding him and trying to talk to him was SPF.
拉杰，我们要讲述去年峰会的SPF故事吗？我是说，去年我们谈到了这个。也许创始人还没有真正理解，但市场已经纠正了。但唯一一个超级乐观、满怀信心的创始人，他在谈论获得财富和收购公司，在他身后有随从跟随着，每个人都像蜜蜂围绕着他，试图与他交谈，那就是SPF。
Tell me. And so I remember. Yeah, so I remember thinking like, who's going to be this year's SPF? You know? Somebody here is waiting for you to optimize. Somebody with an AI company with Sam Altman there.
告诉我。这样我就能记住了。是啊，我记得当时想着，谁会成为今年的SPF呢？你知道的，有个人就在这里等着你去优化。可能是个人工智能公司，那里有Sam Altman在。
So basically the co2 conference went from bullshit to dog shit. Me too.
基本上，二氧化碳会议从胡言乱语变成了狗屎。我也是。
（翻译为生动口语，意思为会议原本没有意义，现在更加糟糕，作者自己也感到烦躁不安）
The great part about this is. I have no idea. Brad is like. Look at Brad is so uncomfortable. Brad's like, I like this invite. So uncomfortable. I got a good invite. Shamoth and I are invited to nothing. We give no shit about co2 or their budget. They do put on a really good event. Incredible firm.
这件事情最好的部分是，我完全不知道。Brad就像，看看Brad多不舒服。Brad说，我喜欢这个邀请。他非常不舒服。但我有一个好的邀请。Shamoth和我没有被邀请参加任何活动。我们对二氧化碳或他们的预算不感兴趣。但他们确实举办了一个非常好的活动。这是一家令人难以置信的公司。
And I think that the message they gave to founders. Actually, this year and last year was great. It was actually really appropriate. Whether founders choose to listen is a different story. But the message they've been conveying is similar to the message we've been conveying for the last year and a half.
我认为他们传递给创始人的信息很好。实际上，去年和今年都很适合。创始人是否愿意听取这些信息另说。但是他们传递的信息与我们在过去一年半传递的信息类似。
Hey, Shamoth. Any more jokes we can make about co2 since you and I get invited to nothing? No, I mean, I'm not making fun of co2. I was just making fun of the fact that we went for literally bullshit with SPF to what looks like dog shit. Yeah, it's interesting. By the way, I bet they would invite you if you wanted to go. I'm pretty sure they would send 10 invitations if I even feigned a desire to go. But I'm in Milan right now. The pod is very popular there, by the way. I know you did a focus group. Tell everybody, can we play the focus group or was that.
嘿，Shamoth。我们还能为CO2制造更多的笑话吗，因为你和我都没有被邀请去参加什么活动？不，我的意思是我不是在嘲笑CO2。我只是在嘲笑我们从防晒霜来到了看上去像狗屎的地方。是的，这很有趣。顺便说一下，如果你想去的话，我敢打赌他们会邀请你的。我敢肯定，如果我假装想去的话，他们会寄10份邀请函给我。但是我现在在米兰。顺便说一下，那里的pod非常受欢迎。我知道你们做了一个焦点组。告诉大家，我们可以播放焦点组吗？还是？
I think we can play it. Well, just a fan came up to me. I mean, when I say fan, this is like a very high-profile person. This woman works at Netflix. She works at Netflix and her husband is the founder of a startup. She says she's a fan of the pod, so I started asking her questions about it. Well, focus group. Because, you know, we've been having this debate over the last couple of weeks about what issues we should be talking about. And certain people on the pod never want to discuss politics.
我认为我们可以进行这个活动。有一位粉丝来找我，不过这个粉丝很有名气。她是Netflix的员工，她的丈夫是一个初创公司的创始人。她说她是这个播客的粉丝，所以我开始问她有关这个播客的问题。我们进行了一个焦点小组讨论，因为我们在过去几周一直在争论应该讨论哪些话题。而一些播客队员从来都不想谈论政治。
It's not like I only want to discuss politics. I just don't want to exclude it. I think we should just be talking about whatever the biggest issues are in the world in any given a week are in events. Yeah, I mean, whether it's business markets or politics. And she confirmed that was basically right. Don't change it. So I don't know why we would want to change the formula for the pod at this point. Every week, Zach, there's a group of people who are like, stop talking about politics. And then there's another group of people and their feedback is, why didn't you talk about 100-robotting Ukraine, Ukraine, Putin, China, whatever. And so the docket is the docket. Just to let the audience know, not that it's like all that big of a deal. It should be fairly obvious.
这并不意味着我只想讨论政治，我只是不想排除它。我认为我们应该讨论世界上本周最重要的问题，无论是商业市场还是政治。她证实这基本上是对的，不要改变它。所以我不知道为什么我们想要改变这个播客的配方。每个星期，有一群人说不要谈论政治。然后有另一群人的反馈是，为什么你们不谈谈100-机器人在乌克兰、普京、中国之间的问题。所以议程就是议程。只是让听众知道，虽然这不是很重要，但应该相当明显。
Everybody has equal input on the docket. So it's not like anybody owns the docket. If you want to talk about something, you can talk about something. But some people want to not talk about politics. Some people want to talk about a lot of politics.
每个人在议事日程上都有平等的发言权，因此并非任何人都拥有议事日程。如果你想谈论某些事情，你可以谈论它。但有些人不想谈论政治，而有些人则想谈论大量的政治问题。
The Magnificent Seven for those people who didn't catch the reference is I think something Kramer's been talking about on CNBC. Seven stocks make up the most of the games this year, Meta Tesla, Nvidia, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and Apple.
对于那些没能捕捉到引用的人，华尔街风云七人组是我想是克莱默在CNBC上一直谈论的内容。今年游戏市场的大部分是由七只股票组成的，它们是Meta Tesla、英伟达、亚马逊、谷歌母公司、微软和苹果。
Can I tell you guys? My welcome back to Milan story. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. So I'm back in Milan for this one. Honest drone. So Chef Stefano. And if you could stay high to all my friends, Butler's everybody. You can tell you're back in Italy because the buttons are gone. I'm working for my office here.
我可以告诉你们吗？这是我回到米兰的故事。非常愉快。我现在回到米兰，来为这个诚实的无人机和斯特法诺大厨工作。请务必代我向我的朋友们和巴特勒打个招呼。你可以看出你回到了意大利，因为按钮都消失了。我在这里为我的办公室工作。
But this morning, I went to Copola, which is my stylist, my hairdresser. Oh. And the thing is, there's like a hierarchy in the hairdressers. And so Roberto, this guy Roberto, he's like the sort of top of the ticket. And Nat has first dibs with Roberto. And I have this other guy who's excellent. His name is Joquino. Yes. You guys will see Joquino in a few weeks. Anyways, the best thing about the haircuts at this place, Copola, is you get a hair fluffer, which means that as Joquino, Roberto cuts your hair. A guy comes in, he just like he like does this. And then he like, you're adding your hair in a very, he loves your hair. He's a very uncomfortable, it's a roughing, but doesn't exist anywhere that will never get disrupted by AI. And it's incredible. A hair styling fluffer, the hair fluffer gets like a 50 euro tip. Doesn't matter what he does. Wow. Wow. When Saks rolls in, you're going to need two fluffers with that hair. You're going to need one on each side. I mean, the tuffs are getting crazy. Saks, tell me if you want Joquino to cut your hair because when you come, because he will do it, he'll do an incredible job. And I'll ask him to bring the hair fluffer.
今天早上，我去了柯波拉，那是我的发型师，我的理发师。哦。问题是，在理发师中有一种等级制度。这个家伙罗伯托就像是头等的。纳特首选这个罗伯托。而我有一个很棒的理发师，他的名字是乔基诺。是的。几周后你们会见到他。总之，在这个地方柯波拉剪发的最好之处在于，你能得到一个理发师助手，这意味着，当乔基诺和罗伯托剪你的头发时，还有一个人进来，就像这样做一样的事情。他就像在抚摸你的头发，让人非常舒服，这是一个粗糙但不会被人工智能打破的奇妙经历。理发师助手会得到50欧元的小费，不管做什么。哇。纳特，你要准备好两个理发师助手才能应付萨克斯的头发了。一个在每边一个。我的意思是，那些草丛已经疯狂了。萨克斯，告诉我你是否想让乔基诺在你来的时候给你剪头发，因为他会做得很好。我会让他带上理发师助手。
All right, listen, I think we just going back to the co-toothing. I know we're in a high interest rate lunch environment. The herb environment is hard right now for everybody, but we did get the feedback. Let's play the feedback. Hey guys, I'm at the co-toot summit and just met a fan here who wants to explain the magic of the pod because you guys keep wanting to change things and mess things up. So, here we go. Good world. Yeah, everyone. My husband and I, we listened to your podcast, Pretty Much from the Gisley. There is this incredible magic that the four of you have, the red partade, the back and the fourth. It's super informative, the world's sort of rooting for characters almost. So, it's almost like a scripted show in some way. So, I have my favorite character. My husband has his favorite character. I want to say who's who. Because I want you all to stay together and keep doing the show, but it's fantastic and you love it. And you work at Netflix, right? I work at Netflix back in the day I put these shows. So, pick up the shows. I was just telling David, trying to get that magic. You can put any numbers flipped together. But once you get the cast on the floor and actually start getting, you know, that comes through going. That's when the magic happens and you guys kind of just nailed it. All right. So, that's a professional right there. So, stop screwing with the formula. Stop protesting.
好的，听好了，我觉得我们只是要回归协同口播。我知道我们现在处于高利率午餐环境，草药环境现在对每个人都很困难，但我们已经得到了反馈。让我们播放反馈。嘿伙计们，我在协同峰会上遇到了一个粉丝，他想解释一下播客的魔力，因为你们一直想改变事情，毁了一切。所以，我们来听听。孩子们，我们听了你们的播客，从头到尾都很好玩。你们四个人有一种不可思议的魔力，它让人们对你们的角色都非常感兴趣。它几乎像一个剧本一样，超级有信息量，全世界几乎都在为你们的角色加油。所以，我有我的最喜欢的角色，我丈夫有他最喜欢的角色。我不想说是谁，因为我希望你们一直在一起，继续做这个节目，但它真的很棒，你们喜欢它。你们在 Netflix 工作，对吧？我曾经在Netflix工作，我推了这些节目。所以，接着做这些节目，我刚刚告诉 David，我们尝试得到那种魔力。你可以把任何数字翻开组合到一起，但一旦你把演员阵容放在舞台上，真正开始制作，你知道那种感觉会升起。你们刚刚掌握了这个魔法。所以，这是一个专业的意见。所以，不要再瞎折腾了，不要再抗议了。
Oh, fantastic. Cool. I mean, the camera really does that 10 pounds, doesn't it? I take two things away from this, Shumoth. Number one, she's much more charismatic on camera than Saks. She stole the show. She's delightful. And then two, that sweater. Oh, my Lord. What's the brand? What's the brand? No, the sweater is fantastic. The shirt's fantastic. I just think they may not have been. I don't think the intention was to mesh the two together, but they're on the list. There are too many buttons for you, Shumoth. No, bro. It's like when you have a cream colored sweater, you can't wear a red checker shirt. It's just not. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. Red striped.
哦，太棒了。酷毙了。我的意思是，这相机确实让她看起来轻了10磅，对吧？从这件事情中我得出了两点，Shumoth。第一，她在镜头前比Saks更有魅力。她突出了。她很迷人。第二，那件毛衣。哦，我的天。牌子是什么？牌子是什么？不，这件毛衣太棒了。衬衫也很棒。我只是觉得它们可能不应该搭在一起，但它们在名单里。对于你来说，Shumoth，扣子太多了。不是，兄弟。这就像当你穿奶油色的毛衣时，你不能穿一件红色的格子衬衫。这样不行。是的。是的，我同意。红色条纹。
Anyways, it's a. Yeah. I mean, it looks like you're wearing an Italian tablecloth under there from a pizza rail combined with like an $8,000 sweater. I agree. But the hair. I mean, the hair is out of control. I think the hair is fantastic. I do. Don't, don't. Do not cut the hair. Don't let Jucchino touch your hair, bro. I'm just going to fluff. That's how I'm just fluffing. Don't just. Don't just fluff it. I'm just fluffing. Don't fluff it. Don't fluff it. Don't let your winter slide. Rain man, David Satson. Don't let your winter slide. Rain man, David Satson. Don't let your winter slide. And it's sad. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you guys.
不管怎样，实际上，“嗯”，我的意思是，从你身上看起来像是穿了一块披在披萨上的意大利桌布加上八千美元的毛衣。我同意。但是头发。我的意思是，头发有些失控了。我认为头发很棒。不要，不要。不要剪头发。不要让朱基诺碰你的头发，兄弟。我只是要抖一下。我只是在抖。不要抖它。我只是要抖一下。不要让你的冬天消逝。雨人，戴维·萨特森。不要让你的冬天消逝。雨人，戴维·萨特森。不要让你的冬天消逝。真可悲。我们把它开源给粉丝，他们玩得很疯狂。爱你们。
I'm going home. Let's talk about the Zuck Elon Cage match. Oh, yeah. Oh, my God. This is a little worried for my friend here. Yeah. Zuck. I don't know if the Elon is completely up to date on what kind of shape Zuck is in. Zuck is in tremendous shape. He's got like a dojo at his house. He's been getting training in, you know, mixed martial arts from the Greysys or whoever, you know, Jutsu. He's been competing in events. Zuck is in tremendous shape. And no joke here.
我要回家了。让我们谈谈扎克·埃隆的笼子比赛。哦，是啊。哦，我的天。我有点担心我的朋友。是的，扎克。我不知道埃隆是否完全了解扎克的身体状态。扎克身材非常好。他在家里有一个道场。他接受了混合格斗的训练，从格雷西或其他人那里获得了训练。他参加了比赛。扎克身材十分出色。这不是开玩笑。
Now Elon's a big guy. Elon's a monster, but I don't think Elon's not in this kind of shape. You don't have time to work out like this. I hope you get some sort of Gracie on your team to train you up for this thing. Also, Elon has a neck injury that he got from the sumo thing years ago. Yes. And he's had to have surgeries on it. So it really suck if that would get re-triggered. Here's the thing though. He did take on a sumo wrestler. We were there for that at his birthday party and he held his own against a giant sumo wrestler.
现在的伊隆身材很魁梧。伊隆是一个巨人，但我不认为他的身材适合这种比赛。你没有这么多时间去锻炼。我希望你能有一个格雷斯（巴西柔道家）来帮你练习。此外，伊隆有颈部损伤，这是他多年前在角力比赛中获得的。是的，他曾经接受过手术治疗。所以如果这个伤再次复发，那真的很糟糕。不过事实上，他曾经挑战过一名力士。在他的生日派对上，我们见证了这一切，他成功地抵挡住了一个巨大的力士的攻击。
Elon does get on top of and do the war on top of Zuck. Zuck has no chance. He will get a warist. You're telling me what he should do is abandon the mission to Mars. Yes. Stop electrifying the world. Totally. And stop free of the internet around the world. So he can beat up Zuck. I mean, if you were to cut that to a vote, I think he's going to be beating up Zuck as number one. This is the dumbest fucking idea I've ever heard in my life. Oh my God.
埃隆会在击败扎克的战斗中处于领先地位。扎克没有机会，他将失败。你告诉我的是，他应该放弃火星探索的任务。是的。停止向世界电气化。完全停止。并且停止免费向世界提供互联网，这样他就能打败扎克。我的意思是，如果让大家投票，我认为他会成为击败扎克的第一人选。这是我听过的最愚蠢的想法。天哪。
I love the banter between the two of them. And let's just say we can all agree out of all the companies, right? There's only one contender to Zuck getting fit, right? Getting that company fit, getting himself fit is Elon. Yeah. 75, 80% of the people gone and product velocity is on fire at Twitter. So this is, this should be a cage match between the two who have defined this era of getting fit.
我喜欢他们两个之间的打闹。而且，我们可以说，在所有公司中，我们都可以认同只有一家公司能与扎克的健身相抗衡，那就是埃隆的公司。是的，Twitter凝聚了75%~80%的人才，产品速度快得惊人。这应该是两位定义了这个时代健身潮流的人之间的擂台赛。
All right. Let's get to the docket here. What the fuck are you talking about? He's using the fitness. This guy burned a quarter trillion dollars and then found a way to stop it. There you go. That's very different than firing on all cylinders and three companies. I didn't say there's fire, not all cylinders. And by the way, I am the only one of anybody I think that knows. Well, maybe Saks.
好的，让我们开始讨论议程吧。你在说什么鬼？他正在运用健身程序。这个人烧掉了一万亿美元然后找到了一种阻止它的方法。你看，这与三家公司都在满负荷运作是完全不同的。我并没有说所有的活塞都在发动。顺便说一下，我认为我是唯一一个知道的人，也许萨克斯也知道。
Well, it's kind of like, you know, if you've got like a faucet running, you know, spilling over the sink and then you turn it off, that doesn't make you a firefighter. Exactly. You just make your plumber. You know, it stops spending money on. There's this feature of bathtub where when you get into it and the water gushes so violently over the, over the outside of it. And then there's a drain at the top as well as the bottom. And so then eventually it just stops. Yes, you could.
嗯，这有点像你开着水龙头，水流泼洒在水槽外，然后你把它关掉，这并不会让你成为消防员。确切地说，你只是变成了管道工人，你停止了浪费金钱。浴缸有一个这样的特点，当你进去，水会猛烈地冲出来，溢出到外面。然后，在顶部和底部都有一个排水口。最终，它会停下来。是的，你可以这么说。
Yeah, but Chamathra is a good point, which is, look, Elon's a big guy. If he got training in MMA, I'm sure he'd do fine, but we don't want Elon spending two hours a day for the next six months or whatever. Because Zucks has been doing MMA, I guess, for a while. A couple years. Maybe years.
是的，但Chamathra说得很有道理。他说，Elon是个大个子，如果他接受了MMA的训练，相信他会做得很好。但我们不希望Elon在接下来的六个月里每天花两个小时时间去练习MMA，因为Zucks已经练习MMA好几年了，或许是几年的时间。
Yeah. All right. Well, listen, there's been some updates. This war between Russia and the Ukraine or the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
是的。好的。听着，有一些更新。俄罗斯和乌克兰之间的战争或俄罗斯对乌克兰的入侵。
You wrote a piece about it in what was it? The Federalist, I think this week, titled The Truth About Ukraine's Falling Failing Counter-offensive and the Peace That Could Have Been. Why don't you give us an overview of what you wrote and what your take is on the state of affairs right now?
你在联邦党人上写了一篇文章，这周吧，标题是《乌克兰反攻失败和本可以实现的和平之真相》。你能否给我们概述一下你写的内容以及你对当前局势的看法？
Well, the thing that's been going on since around June 4th or June 5th is this long-weighted Ukrainian counter-offensive. This has been touted for a long time as is going to reverse Russian territorial gains. Ukraine's going to use all of this modern Western equipment, these leopard tanks that have come from Germany and Bradleys from the United States and a lot of other NATO or American equipment, and they're going to push Russia out of their country.
自6月4日或6日开始，乌克兰一直在进行一场漫长严密的反攻。这场反攻一直被吹嘘为将扭转俄罗斯所占领土的局面。乌克兰将使用来自德国的美洲豹坦克、美国的布拉德利装甲车以及其他来自北约或美国的现代西方设备，他们将把俄罗斯赶出自己的国家。
This has been told to us since the fall of last year, since that sort of car-keaved counter-offensive produced some Ukrainian territorial gains. You've had former generals like Ben Hodges and Petraeus say that this counter-offensive is going to be highly successful.
自去年秋季以来，我们一直听说这种汽车载反攻带来了一些乌克兰领土上的收获。像本·霍奇斯和彼得拉乌斯这样的前将军说过，这种反攻将会非常成功。
Where it stands right now is that around 18 or 19 days into it, it has produced minimal gains. In fact, it's been somewhat of a disaster. It's hard to get conclusive estimates of personnel and material losses, but I think as many as a quarter of the tanks and armored vehicles have already been destroyed. The casualties may be as high as around 10,000 out of an army that was trained up for this purpose of around 50,000.
目前情况是，战争进行了大约18或19天，但收获却非常少。实际上，它有点像一个灾难。人员和物资损失的确切估计不容易得到，但我认为已有约1/4的坦克和装甲车辆已经被摧毁。伤亡人数可能高达1万左右，而这个军队的训练目标是为了应对这种情况，它的规模约为5万。
So far, it has not gone well. The Ukrainian army hasn't even made it to the first line of defense. What the Russians did is they created three fortified lines or belts of defense. In front of that is what they call a gray zone or security zone or crumple zone, which is an area they can test, but it's not technically a fortified line. The Ukrainians are still in that sort of gray zone. They are not punching through, they are not even at the first Russian fortified line.
到目前为止，情况并不顺利。乌克兰军队甚至还没有到达第一道防线。俄罗斯人所做的是建立了三道加强防御的防线或防线带。在那之前是他们所称的灰色区域或安全区域或折叠区域，这是一个他们可以进行测试的区域，但它不是技术上加强防御的防线。乌克兰人仍然处于这种灰色区域。他们没有突破，他们甚至没有达到第一道俄罗斯加强防御的防线。
To give you some idea of what's involved here, the Russians have these obstacles. There's basically trenches of them and dug. There's ditches that would stop tanks or sort of force them to go in a certain direction, steer the traffic. There's extensive minefields. They've got these things called dragon teeth, which are concrete bollards that stop tanks or move them in a certain direction. Then the Russians have massive amounts of artillery. They've got infantry on the ground that help spot the artillery. If all of that doesn't take out these Ukrainian tanks, they've got these attack helicopters that come in almost uncontested because at this point it doesn't look like the Ukrainians have any air defense. They've also got fixed wing aircraft that are capable of dropping precision munitions.
为了让你了解这里面涉及到的一些事情，俄罗斯人有这些障碍。基本上有着沟堑和挖掘的阵地，有着可以阻止坦克或强迫它们朝特定方向前进，掌控交通的沟渠。还有大面积的地雷区。他们还有这些被称为龙齿的混凝土障碍，可以阻挡坦克或强迫它们朝着特定方向前进。然后俄罗斯还有大量的火炮。地面上还有步兵协助发现火炮位置。如果所有这些条件都不能摧毁乌克兰的坦克，他们还有这些攻击直升机，几乎没人能拦截，因为看起来乌克兰没有防空能力。他们还有能够投放精确制导弹药的定翼飞机。
It really seems like the Russians have fixed a lot of the problems that they had last fall in their army. So far, it seems like this counter-offensive is not going anywhere.
俄罗斯似乎已经解决了去年他们军队面临的很多问题。目前为止，这次反攻似乎没有取得任何进展。
We're 16 months into this, Chumath, and clearly fatigue is setting in. It's not commanding the news cycle here in America. On a percentage basis, even the neocons and Republicans are dropping their support for this at a pretty precipitous rate, which is predictable. Americans don't want to be in forever wars. We all know that.
我们已经进行了16个月，Chumath，显然疲劳正在产生。它没有在美国引领新闻周期。甚至新保守主义者和共和党都在相当急剧的速度下降他们对这个的支持，这是可以预料的。美国人不想永远参与战争，我们都知道这一点。
Let's take on how this winds up, especially in relation to A, our budget and B, this upcoming election, which this seems to be will be a major issue if this isn't resolved by the time we get into the 24 election cycle.
让我们看看这件事最终将如何结束，特别是与我们的预算和即将到来的选举有关的因素。如果在 24 年选举周期之前这个问题没有得到解决，这似乎将成为一个重大问题。
As part of answering this, I have a question for Saxe. But is it true that there was a ceasefire like Putin had a press conference where he showed a document that he said was a ceasefire that then the United States apparently sent Boris Johnson over to Russia, Ukraine, to basically blow it, blow up the agreement?
作为回答这个问题的一部分，我有一个问题要问萨克斯。但是，是否真的有停火协议，就像普京举行新闻发布会，展示了一份他称之为停火协议的文件，然后美国显然派遣鲍里斯·约翰逊前往俄罗斯、乌克兰，以破坏这份协议？
Yes, this is a, yes, this is fundamentally correct. This was a ceasefire. This was a peace deal before the war started, correct? No, it was after. So they claim there were rounds of negotiation before the war.
是的，这是基本正确的。这是一次停火。在战争开始之前，这是一项和平协议，对吗？不，是在战争之后。因此他们声称战争之前进行了几轮谈判。
Notably, there was a round of diplomacy between Blinken and Lavrov in January, the month before the war where Blinken said that we cannot compromise on NATO's open door policy that that sort of diplomacy fell apart.
值得注意的是，布林肯和拉夫罗夫在1月份（即战争爆发前一个月）进行了一轮外交交流，布林肯表示我们不能在北约开放政策上妥协，但这种外交交流最终失败了。
But then after the war, there was a meeting of the Russian delegation, Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul under the supervision of Erdogan and Turkey. Now, if Tali Bennett also had a similar process, in both cases, the West rejected a peace deal.
但是战争之后，俄罗斯代表团和乌克兰代表团在土耳其的埃尔多安监督下在伊斯坦布尔进行了会议。如果塔利·贝内特也有类似的过程，那么在这两种情况下，西方都拒绝了和平协议。
Allegedly, we don't, this is Putin we're talking about. Let me come back to the evidence for in a second. But what the deal would have provided is that the Russians would move back to pre-war lines if the Ukrainians would agree not to become a member of NATO. However, the Ukrainians could still receive specified security guarantees from the West. That was the deal.
据说，我们不能相信这个，因为我们谈论的是普京。让我稍后再回来谈论证据。但是，这份交易的提供者是俄罗斯，如果乌克兰同意不加入北约，俄罗斯将回到战前的界线。然而，乌克兰仍可以从西方获得指定的安全保证。那就是这份交易。
Now, nothing. Well, we have now multiple data points. You've got Naftali Bennett saying that he thought a deal was among these lines, but it was rejected by the West. You also have now Putin showing the very document which was signed by the Ukrainian delegation. So this was the document.
现在，什么都没有了。但是现在我们有了多个数据点。你有Naftali Bennett说他认为一个协议是这个方向，但是被西方拒绝了。你现在也有普京展示了乌克兰代表团签署的文件。这就是文件。
It hasn't been released yet. I hope the Russian government releases it for the purpose of history so we can inspect it. But nobody can test this document as real. Remember, if he's just making this up, you would think that Erdogan would basically come forward and say, no, this is fake. There's too many people who are in that room who'd be able to say this document is fake. No one has done that. So I think there's every reason to believe this document is real.
这份文件尚未公开发布。我希望俄罗斯政府可以出于历史研究的目的公布这份文件，这样我们就可以检查它。但是没有人能够确信这份文件的真实性。请记住，如果文件是假的，埃尔多安基本上会站出来说，不，这不是真的。在那个房间里的很多人都可以证明这份文件是假的。但是没有人这样做。因此，我认为有充分理由相信这份文件是真的。
Now, it is not a final agreement. It appears to be a preliminary agreement or an outline. But the outline is that Russia is saying we will move back to pre-war lines if you agree not to become part of NATO. And that deal was rejected when Boris Johnson flew into Kyiv and basically told the Ukrainians, we do not want to make a deal with Putin.
现在，这不是最终协议。它似乎是初步协议或大纲。但大纲是俄罗斯表示如果你同意不加入北约，我们将回到战前的边界线。当鲍里斯·约翰逊飞往基辅并基本上告诉乌克兰人，我们不想与普京达成协议时，这个协议被拒绝了。
We want to pressure Putin. And the source for that is not the Russians. The source for that is a Ukrainian publication called Ukrainian Proveda UP. They ran an article in May of 2022 that I can put it on the screen. And it is the source for saying that Boris Johnson came in and told Zelensky, we do not want to make a peace deal. We the West are not ready to make a deal with Putin. We want you to fight Putin or pressure Putin.
我们想对普京施压，这个消息不是来自俄罗斯，而是来自一家叫做“乌克兰普罗维达UP”的乌克兰出版物。他们在2022年5月刊登了一篇文章，我可以将它放在屏幕上。这篇文章是说鲍里斯·约翰逊过来告诉泽连斯基，我们不想和普京达成和平协议，西方还没有准备好和普京达成协议。我们希望你与普京斗争或施压他。
And if you do, we will give you advanced weapons systems. And that is when the deal fell apart. If you look at the timing of it, this is this happened on. No, this has been so this has been lightly sourced here. So let's go here. No, no, no, no.
如果你这样做，我们会给你先进的武器系统。但当这个交易破裂时，事情就变了。如果你看看时间，这就是这个事件发生的时候。这个事件没有得到充分证实。让我们回到正题。不，不，不，不。
But you have to consider the source here. The pro-Ukrainian publication writing in May of 2022. Now the tone of the article and what they basically say in this article is that Zelensky accepted Boris Johnson's offer. In other words, he took the gamble.
但是你必须考虑这里的信息来源。这是一份亲乌克兰的出版物，于2022年5月撰写。现在这篇文章的语气和基本表达的意思是泽连斯基接受了鲍里斯·约翰逊的提议。换句话说，他冒险了。
And at this point in time, you got to remember, this is two months after the war started, it looked like the Ukrainians were doing well. So UP was essentially praising Zelensky in this article for taking the West up on this deal to pressure Putin rather than make peace.
在这个时间点上，你必须记住，这是战争开始两个月后的事情，看起来乌克兰人做得很好。UP在这篇文章中基本上是在赞扬泽连斯基采取这个协议，向西方施加压力而不是和平解决问题，以对抗普京。
Now a year later, it looks like this gamble was a disaster. And so that is the real conclusion here. A deal was available, but the West chose not to take it. By the way, Fiona Hill, who is a Russia hawk and you could almost put her, I'd say, Neocon and Jason has basically said that this type of deal was available. The West did not want this deal.
现在，一年过去了，看起来这样的冒险是一场灾难。这就是这里的真正结论。交易是可用的，但西方选择不接受。顺便说一句，弗里奥娜·希尔是一位俄罗斯鹰派，你几乎可以把她归为新保守主义，而杰森基本上说，这种交易是可行的。西方不想接受这笔交易。
I think Jason, maybe to give you an answer, my thought is that this week was a very bad week for establishment politics and institutions. Because on the one hand, if you take the Russia incident and the Ukraine war, what you saw was that there were ample numbers of off-ramps that we chose, frankly, to not take so that we could engage our enemy in some long drawn out war on the hopes that it just depletes their resources.
我认为，也许可以给你一个答案，我的想法是这个星期是建制派政治和机构极不好的一周。一方面，在俄罗斯事件和乌克兰战争中，我们看到有很多减缓风险的方法，但我们选择了不采取，而是选择与敌人长期战争，希望它会消耗他们的资源。
That's kind of rolling the dice, I think, in a very dangerous way. I think this week we also saw some published stuff on COVID and the COVID vaccine, which also debunked a lot of widely held truths and it churned out that folks that may have been conspiracy theorists, quote unquote, were right there as well.
我认为这有点像掷骰子，非常危险。本周我们也看到了一些有关COVID和COVID疫苗的公开文章，它也揭穿了许多普遍存在的真相，并证明那些可能被称为阴谋论者的人也是正确的。
So I think it's just an uncomfortable set of facts that, again, just reinforce that if you're not really thinking for yourself, you're not going to see the totality of what's actually going on. With respect to Russia, Ukraine, everybody has moved on.
我认为这只是一些让人感到不舒服的事实，再次强调了如果你不真正为自己思考，你就无法看到事情的全部情况。关于俄罗斯、乌克兰，现在每个人都已经放手一搏了。
And so sadly, the only people that are left over are the people that have to fight the war, who are still separated from their families. There's the people that are dying.
可悲的是，留下来的人只有那些必须参加战争的人，他们仍然与家人分离。还有一些人正在死去。
There is an article, I think, today they recruit prisoners, right? So obviously some of the prisoners that Russia uses are still pretty crazy. That person went on some rampage inside of a train, killed a couple of people, stabbed some other people, there was just pictures of blood everywhere. I mean, this is just a horrible situation.
今天有一篇文章，我记得，是关于俄罗斯招募犯人的，对吧？显然，俄罗斯使用的部分犯人仍然相当疯狂。那个人在火车里疯狂地杀了几个人，刺伤了其他几个人，到处都是血的照片。我的意思是，这是一个可怕的情况。
And it's still not clear to me why we didn't take the off-run. If in fact, it's real. So I just want to keep putting that disclaimer out there because Putin flashing it out and it doesn't make all this true. It doesn't mean it's not true.
对我来说，为什么我们没有采取另一种方式（关于事件是否真实），仍然不清楚。所以我只是想强调这个声明，因为普京的掌控并不能证明所有这些是真实的。但这并不意味着这个事件不是真实的。
What about you, Rayan, and Pravda? Well, Jason, I would say, what about North Tally Bennett? I am just being clear here that none of this is confirmed. Data points do you need? I would say. But North Tally Bennett confirmed it. What is the Israeli former Israeli leader have to lie about this? Here's what I would say, Jason.
你们三个，雷恩、普拉夫达和你怎么认为？嗯，杰森，我觉得，北塔利·贝内特怎么样？我只是想清楚表示，这些都没有被证实。你需要什么数据证明呢？但是北塔利·贝内特证实了。这位前以色列领导人有什么理由对此撒谎？这是我想说的，杰森。
I think that something like that is so profoundly important that if it were not true, I think it would have been very important for the powers that be to discredit it almost immediately so that they didn't have to look like they were warmongering unnecessarily. Can I also up level and connect to this point about the establishment?
我认为像这样的事情非常重要，如果它不是真的，当权者必须立即予以驳斥，以避免显得他们无谓的渴望战争。我能否将这一点与关于权力机构的联系起来？
Because I think there's been a lot of pushback to even challenging the status quo, even having a conversation about Ukraine or having a conversation about COVID. And I think if there's one thing this pod represents, the fight going on at Twitter represents is the need to have this conversation.
我认为对于挑战现状，甚至就是讨论乌克兰或COVID的话题，都遭遇了很多反对声。然而，我认为如果说这个播客代表着一件事的话，那就是推特上展开的辩论所代表的那份必要性——我们需要进行这样的讨论。
If we look at the wars the U.S. has engaged in since September 11, it's estimated three to four million people have died in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan. We spent $8 trillion. Inflation adjusted, we spent $4 trillion in World War II. $8 trillion represents 25% of our entire national debt. When I've yet to meet a single parent who said to me, I care so much about this Ukraine situation, I would be willing to put my children in harm's way to fight for the defense of Europe. Okay? So those data points tell me at a very minimum, we need more of this discussion, more of this debate, not less.
如果我们看看自9/11以来美国参与的战争，估计在伊拉克、巴基斯坦和阿富汗死亡了三到四百万人。我们花了8万亿美元。通货膨胀调整后，我们在第二次世界大战中花费了4万亿美元。8万亿美元代表我们整个国家债务的25％。我还没有遇到过一个单亲家庭说过：我如此关心乌克兰的情况，我愿意让我的孩子冒险为欧洲的防卫而战。所以这些数据告诉我，至少我们需要更多这样的讨论，更多这样的辩论，而不是更少。
The idea that we could be tiptoeing closer and closer to some land war in Europe unnecessarily and I think the bigger issue is, and you can't trust what you're being told. And I think that that's what's very problematic. That is a bigger picture. And just so we're clear here, I'm not saying I'm on either side of this. I'm just pointing out that this is all still very thinly sourced.
这个想法是我们可能在不必要的情况下越来越接近欧洲的一场陆地战争，我认为更大的问题是你无法相信你所听到的。我觉得这是非常棘手的。这是一个更大的问题。为了让大家清楚，我并不是说我站在任何一方。我只是指出这一切仍然非常薄弱。
No, it's not. Until the West confirms any of this. I think expect the West to do you expect the State Department to issue a press release saying, yep, we fucked up. My theory, what are you going to do? My theory has been, and I've been very clear on this podcast, my theory has been, since the beginning, they want to deplete Russia and they want to deplete their army and keep capabilities and have regime change in Putin.
不是这样的。在西方证实这一切之前，我认为不应该抱有任何期望。你以为国务院会发布新闻公告承认错误吗？我的理论是什么？那你会怎么做？我的理论一直很清楚，就是自一开始起，他们就想削弱俄罗斯，削弱他们的军队和能力，并实现对普京政权的更迭。
I'm not saying I'm for that, just for the people. I'm not. I'm not. No, no, no, no. So that was the crude language. That is what they, that is what they plan on doing. Yes. I think that's what they're doing. And I asked in our secretary of defense said that our purpose was to weaken Russia. Yes. And knock it out. I agree. That's what their purposes. Yes. But I think they want regime change. Yes. That's what Boris Johnson went to keep and said we want to pressure Putin not make a deal with him. So they boarded this war. They prefer to fight a proff choice that was easy.
我并不是说我支持那个，只是为了人民。不是的，不是的，不是的。所以那是粗鲁的语言。那就是他们计划做的事情。是的，我认为他们正在这么做。我问我们国防部长说我们的目的是削弱俄罗斯。是的，把它打倒。我同意。这就是他们的目的。是的，但我觉得他们想要政权更迭。是的，鲍里斯·约翰逊去也是为了压力普京，而不是与其达成协议。所以他们发动了这场战争。他们宁愿打一场易于处理的道德选择。
I'm not endorsing that. I'm not endorsing that. I'm saying that's not the table. This is not about you, Jason. I'm asking no, no, no, but it's just that it was. But Saks just said it was. So I'm just clearing the right. He just said that was your position and I'm correcting. Okay. Fair enough, Jason. That was not my position. I said that's my fear. I actually agree with you. If you're saying that that was our government's objective, which was to weaken Putin, I agree with you. They've posed to fight an optional proxy war of choice that was easily avoid both.
我不是赞成那样做。我不是赞成那样做。我是在说那不是事实。这不是关于你的，杰森。我要问，不，不，不，但事实却是那样。但索克斯刚刚说了。所以我只是澄清一下。他刚才说那是你的立场，我要纠正。好的，杰森。那不是我的立场。我说的是那是我担心的。如果你说我们政府的目标是削弱普京，那我同意你。他们本来可以避免这场选择性代理战争的。
They just take a NATO expansion off the table because they thought it would weaken Putin. But here's the rub on this. It is not we can Putin and as we can the United States and our allies. Any way you want to look at this thing, look at just the weapons and munitions. So we are out of 155 millimeter artillery shells. We cannot produce enough. This is the crazy thing. We spent 800 billion a year plus on the Pentagon and our national defense. We're out of ammo.
他们只是把北约扩张的提议摆在一旁，因为他们认为这会削弱普京的力量。但是这里有个问题，这不仅削弱了普京的力量，也削弱了我们美国和我们的盟友的力量。 无论你怎样看这件事，只看看武器和弹药就知道了。 目前我们已经用完了155毫米炮弹，而我们无法生产足够的弹药。令人惊讶的是，我们每年在五角大楼和国防方面投入的费用超过8000亿美元，但我们却用完了弹药。
I mean, we must be getting so royally ripped off by the military industrial complex. Okay. We cannot produce ammo fast enough. That's why Ukraine is losing this war. The balance of artillery favors Russia. Russia is basically using about 20,000 shells a day. The Ukrainians are using somewhere between three and 6,000. We are out of ammo. We cannot produce enough.
我是说，我们被军工复合体严重剥削了。我们无法快速生产弹药。这就是为什么乌克兰正在输掉这场战争的原因。火炮的平衡倾向于俄罗斯方面。俄罗斯每天基本上使用20,000发炮弹。乌克兰人使用的数量在3,000到6,000之间。我们已经用完了弹药，无法生产足够的弹药。
And this actually dovetails nicely with another story this week. There is a journalist named Matt Yeglesius. Is that his, how do you pronounce his name? No, Yeglesius. Yeglesius. And he said, I mean, he literally said the quiet part out loud. And I'll just quote, because he was criticizing you and Chamath for hosting RFK. We'll get to that in a second. But he basically said, this is actually a really good idea for us.
这与这周发生的另一件事情非常契合。有一位叫马特·叶格莱西斯的记者。这是他的名字怎么读？不，是叶格莱西斯。他说，我是说，他真的把那个安静的部分说出来了。我将引用他的话，因为他在批评你和查马斯为RFK主持活动。我们马上会谈到这个。但他基本上说，这对我们来说实际上是一个很好的主意。
Basically, NATO equipment plus Ukrainian lives are being traded for Russian equipment and Russia lives, which leaves NATO coming out ahead. That's doubly true because NATO is much richer than Russia. So we win a long term game of everyone explode their weapons as fast as they can. Make them again, though, what makes that really true is NATO material is killing Russian soldiers while Russia material is killing Ukrainian soldiers. That's a deal in our favor. I mean, that is a cynical summary of that. Yeah. He wrote that last year in defense of the war.
基本上，北约装备和乌克兰生命被用来换取俄罗斯装备和生命，这使得北约更加获得利益，因为北约比俄罗斯更有钱。所以，我们赢得了一场长期的游戏，让每个人尽可能地爆炸他们的武器。不过，更真实的是，北约的物资正在杀死俄罗斯士兵，而俄罗斯的物资正在杀死乌克兰士兵。这对我们来说是一笔交易。我的意思是这是那个战争的一个愤世嫉俗的摘要。是的，他去年为战争辩护时写了这些话。
Basically, like all the neocons, he's sort of an establishment approved intellectual. They think he's smart. I think he's really foolish. He basically wants to fight the last Ukrainian here for the sole purpose of blowing up Russia's stockpiles. The reason this is so dumb is Russia can always make more. Those lives aren't coming back, but they can always produce more artillery, more weapons.
基本上，和所有的新保守主义者一样，他被视为被政治和社会机构所认可的知识分子。他们认为他很聪明，但我认为他真的很愚蠢。他的主要目的是要打击乌克兰，以便炸毁俄罗斯的库存。这种做法非常愚蠢，因为俄罗斯可以随时再生产。这些生命无法复活，但他们可以随时生产更多的火炮和武器。
In fact, the Russian war machine is now ramping up to full production. They are ramping up the number of people in their army. I think it's estimated that by the end of the year, they're going to have 750,000 men under arms. They've ramped up artillery shells production. They were at something like one and a half million at the beginning of the war. We were only producing 14,000 artillery shells a month, mostly for training purposes in the United States. We've since ramped that up to 20,000, but that's still massively trails what the Russians can do. They're trying to ramp it up to 90,000 a month, but that's going to take until 2028 because it takes time to build it.
实际上，俄罗斯的战争机器正在全面生产。他们正在增加军队的人数。据估计，到今年年底，他们将拥有75万名士兵。他们已经加强了炮弹的生产。在战争开始时，他们有大约150万个炮弹。我们在美国只生产了每月1.4万个炮弹，大多用于培训。我们已经将这个数字提高到了每月2万个，但这仍然大大落后于俄罗斯。他们正在尝试使该数字提高到每月9万个，但这将需要时间来建立。
You've got to build up new factories, new production lines. You've got to issue contracts to suppliers or vendors. It takes time to do this. The Russians have ramped up their war machine. The other thing that's happened is that Russia and China have entered a de facto alliance and including Iran.
你必须建立新工厂，新生产线。你必须向供应商或承包商签发合同。这需要时间。俄罗斯已经加快了他们的战争机器。另外还发生了一件事，就是俄罗斯和中国已经进入了事实上的联盟，包括伊朗。
We now have the cementing of this giant alliance in Asia between China, Russia, and Iran. They're sharing equipment now together. Iran is producing drones for Russia. Russia is now going to be giving advanced fighter jets to Iran. This idea that this war has made the West stronger is depleting the West over an objective. We didn't need to fight. The war was easily avoidable. We have now created the most fearsome opponent that America has ever faced. We have never faced an adversary with a combined manufacturing capacity and raw materials of China, Russia, and Iran. If we were to get in a new world war against this sort of new axis, we could lose.
现在，中国、俄罗斯和伊朗在亚洲建立了一个巨大的联盟，他们正在共享设备，伊朗正在为俄罗斯生产无人机，俄罗斯将向伊朗提供先进的战斗机。认为这场战争使西方变得更强大的想法是错误的，相反，它消耗了西方的实力。我们本来没有必要打这场战争，完全可以避免的。现在，我们已经创造出了美国有史以来最可怕的对手。我们从未面对过像中国、俄罗斯和伊朗这样在制造能力和原材料方面具有强大实力的对手。如果我们打了一场新的世界大战，对于这种新的轴心国，我们可能会输。
They actually have more manufacturing capacity to produce weapons of war and munitions and ammo than the United States does. China has been clear that they're not going to provide weapons to Russia. I'm not sure that that alliance is exactly accurate. They've given us no such assurance. All they've said is they haven't done it yet. It's a theoretical thing that you're talking about here that could be very serious. I think your point, and this is to Brad's point, we should be having a very thoughtful discussion here because if China did pick Russia, which they haven't, and they went to war, it would be war.
他们实际上拥有比美国更多的制造能力，可以生产战争武器、军火和弹药。中国已经明确表示，他们不会向俄罗斯提供武器。我不确定这个联盟是否准确。他们没有给我们任何保证。他们唯一说的就是他们还没有这么做。这是一个非常严重的理论问题。我认为你的观点，这也是布拉德的观点，我们应该在这里进行非常深入的讨论，因为如果中国确实选择了俄罗斯，而且他们走向战争，那就是战争。
There are more than half. There are more than many. What are the many new economy? Well, we should talk about the China relationship actually. Okay. Blinken just went to China. This was the first trip for an American Secretary of State since 2018. Obviously, things have been strained with the inspiable and the visits to Taiwan. Blinken gave some basic goals for this engagement with China, the fentanyl problem, some detained Americans and protecting US citizens working in China. Those were kind of the easy checkboxes, but they wanted to create also an open line of communication between our militaries, which China wasn't super stoked on or wouldn't agree to. Tony did a great job. Yeah.
有超过一半的东西。有很多新经济？嗯，实际上我们应该谈谈与中国的关系。好的，Blinken刚刚去了中国，这是自2018年以来美国国务卿的首次访问。显然，台湾的访问使事情更加紧张。Blinken对此次与中国的接触设定了基本目标，包括芬太尼问题、被拘留的美国人以及保护在中国工作的美国公民。这些都是比较容易解决的问题，但他们还希望在我们军队之间建立一条开放的沟通线路，而中国似乎并不是那么热衷或者不会同意。Tony干得很好。
Okay. I think what's really disappointing is that while Tony's over there doing this hard work, which must be tough to do because it must have been a little bit like dancing on eggshells a little bit, right? He had to be intense. He had to be very thoughtful, very measured. But as far as I could tell, he did a fabulous job. Now, we'll disclosure, he's a friend of mine.
好的。我认为真正令人失望的是，尽管托尼在那里做着艰苦的工作，这必须是非常困难的，因为他必须有点像踩着鸡蛋壳舞蹈一样，对吧？他必须非常专注，非常深思熟虑，非常善于衡量。但就我所知，他做得非常出色。现在，我们应注意到，他是我的朋友。
So maybe I'm biased. But then over here, Biden at some mid-level fundraiser in California is calling G a dictator. How hard must it be for you to try to do your job when your boss is just like completely undisciplined.
也许我有偏见。但是这里，拜登在加利福尼亚州举行的中级筹款活动上称G为独裁者。当你的老板完全没有纪律性时，你的工作会变得多么困难。
And here's the problem with that is that if the United States actually thought that G was a dictator, do you think that it might be a big deal? The mid-level fundraiser that we were all invited to in Northern California that none of us had asked to is the place to announce a foreign policy shift like that? Absolutely not. So it just means that again, there's just more evidence about Biden being very undisciplined.
问题在于，如果美国真的认为G是一个独裁者，那么这是否重大呢？在北加利福尼亚的中层募款活动上宣布这样的外交政策转变是否适当呢？当然不是。这只意味着拜登非常不守纪律，又有更多的证据支持这一点。
Now again, that could be an age issue. It could be a mental acuity issue. We don't know because we're not given a chance to really prosecute that problem. Meanwhile, Tony's there trying to do the best job he can and the sand shift underneath him. And he was able to get the trip done before this thing happened is what I think. But that gaff was a very big gaff and a very big problem, I think, because whatever goodwill he built up was practically flushed down the toilet if you saw the reaction from the Chinese, which was to be deeply offended.
现在，这可能是一个年龄问题。或者是一个智力敏锐度问题。我们不知道，因为我们没有机会真正解决这个问题。同时，托尼在尽力而为，但是沙子在他脚下移动。我认为他能在这件事发生之前完成旅行。但是那个错误是非常严重的，也是一个非常大的问题，因为他建立起来的善意几乎被冲垮了，如果你看到中国人的反应，他们深感被冒犯了。
And it makes no difference when he went to C.M.B.S. and they had to negotiate a fist pump versus a handshake like, what is all of this either unplanned or undisciplined theater? Why are we engaging in any of this stuff? It doesn't make any sense. Joe Biden's always been known for being a liability in terms of these statements.
当他去C.M.B.S.时，无论他何时去，他们必须协商拳头碰击还是握手，这有什么区别？这一切都是没有计划或纪律的表演吗？为什么我们要参与这些东西？这毫无意义。乔·拜登一直以来都因这些言论而闻名，成为了一个风险。
When he worked for Obama, he was the VP. He also said things he shot from the hip a lot. You should not be calling him a dictator. When you're trying to do this critical work, it's a stupid move. I think everybody can agree. You were going to say something, Brad?
当他为奥巴马工作时，他是副总统。他经常很冲动地说出一些话。你不应该称他为独裁者。当你试图做这个批评性的工作时，这是一个愚蠢的举动。我想每个人都同意这一点。Brad，你有话要说吗？
Yeah, I was just going to say, market reaction going in. So the K-web, the Chinese index, was up about 20% heading into these series of meetings. Now, notably, Blinken was not scheduled to have a meeting with Xi. And so what happened is on day one, there's a meeting with the foreign minister. And it seems that there was some positive trend lines coming out of these first two meetings with the top diplomat with foreign minister, which led to the meeting.
是的，我只是想说，市场反应已经开始了。因此，中国指数K-web在这几轮会议前上涨了约20%。值得注意的是，布林肯原本没有与习近平会晤的日程安排。因此，第一天有一次与外交部长的会晤。似乎来自外交部长这两次会晤中的一些积极线索导致了这次会晤。
Notably in the meeting, he did say the United States has not changed his policy on Taiwan. We don't support Taiwanese independence. Now the market reaction post-visit was down 10%. And I think this is owing to what Chamath said that people felt like maybe we took a step forward here that we at least had a meeting, but then it was another step back. And so I think where we sit at the moment is there probably going to be some follow on meetings coming out of this. This was not a path back to where we were, but I think it was a stabilizing moment.
在会议中，他明确表示美国在台湾问题上的政策没有改变，我们不支持台湾独立。然而，会后市场的反应下跌了10%。我认为这是因为Chamath说，人们感觉我们可能迈出了一步，至少我们有了一次会议，但是又退回了最初的地方。因此，我认为我们目前的立场是，可能会有一些后续的会议，但这不是回到过去的道路，而是一个稳定的时刻。
And again, we were just at the Eastmeats West Conference where there were a lot of Chinese CEOs and founders who were there. And I think the idea there was like things are stable, like not getting worse. And by the way, six months ago, there was a real concern that things were deteriorating quickly. So I think you can see something constructive coming out of this. Not getting worse was how I felt coming out of it. And then Biden then makes it worse. Really, it is a I agree. It's just a stupid gap.
我们再次参加了东西相遇会议，有很多中国CEO和创始人。我认为他们的想法是情况保持稳定，不会恶化。另外，六个月前真的很担心情况会迅速恶化。我认为你可以看到一些有益的成果。我对这次会议的感觉是情况没有恶化。然后拜登让情况变得更糟。我同意这是个愚蠢的失误。
Let me tell you about some of the reporting from the Chinese side. So after these diplomatic events and you're right, Blinken met with Wang Yi for seven hours, then he got an audience with Xi Jinping. They do these readouts where each side basically produces a public summary of the meeting.
让我介绍一下中国方面的一些报道。在这些外交活动之后，你说得对，布林肯与王毅会面7个小时后，他又得到了与习近平会面的机会。他们进行了简报，每一方基本上都会公开概述会议。
In the Chinese readout, they said that US Chinese relationships are at the lowest point they've ever been. I mean, since I guess diplomatic relations were kind of reestablished under Nixon, so that from the Chinese standpoint, they believe that relationships are at the worst they've ever been. Moreover, the US sought to put Ukraine on the agenda. The Chinese response to that was we are not interested in discussing our relationship with Russia that is none of your business.
在中国官方报道中，他们说美中关系处于历史最低谷。我猜这是自尼克松重新建立外交关系以来，从中国的角度来看，他们认为双方关系是最糟糕的。此外，美国还试图将乌克兰问题放在议程上，但中国的回应是我们不想讨论与俄罗斯的关系，这不关你们的事。
So this idea, there's been this neocon fantasy that somehow China would help us in this war between Russia and Ukraine. And I've said all along that the last thing China wants is for neocons to achieve their objectives with respect to Russia, because then China alone will be in the gun sites of US hawks.
这个想法是，有一种新保守主义的幻想，认为中国会在俄罗斯和乌克兰之间的战争中帮助我们。我一直说，中国最不希望的是新保守主义者实现与俄罗斯有关的目标，因为那样一来，美国鹰派的枪口就只会指向中国。
So China will do what it has to do to support and even prop up Russia if they have to. For China and Russia and specifically Xi and Putin, they're the two leaders who've met with each other more often than any other leader. And they've called each other their best friends or most I think the language they use was most bosom. Well, most bosom friends was what they called it.
因此，如果必要，中国将尽其所能支持和甚至支持俄罗斯。对于中国和俄罗斯，尤其是习近平和普京，他们是两位领导人中会晤最频繁的。他们互相称呼对方为最好的朋友或者是最亲密的朋友，语言可能是最亲密的朋友。
Okay, it's a little weird. Yeah, but yeah, some by a great TV show. Good. Yeah, exactly. Just to give people exactly what happened. I didn't when he was at this campaign fundraiser in NorCal that again, yeah, we were probably invited to people on the show. He was talking about the military Chinese spy balloon and he said she got very upset, quote, that this was a great embarrassment for dictators when they don't know what happened. And he continued to say that she didn't know the balloon had been over the continental US and was off course in Alaska.
好的，这有点奇怪。是的，但是这也是一部伟大的电视节目。很好。是的，确切地说，只是为了让人们知道发生了什么。当他在北加州的竞选筹款活动中谈到军事间谍气球时，我并不知道。再次强调，我们可能会邀请一些人上节目。他说，她非常不满，引用：“对于独裁者来说，当他们不知道发生了什么事情时，这是一个巨大的尴尬。”他继续说，她并不知道气球已经飞越了美国本土，并且偏离了阿拉斯加的航线。
And this is the kind of thing where he's basically saying she is stupid or, you know, whatever, there's some level of incompetence over there. It's exactly the wrong message you want to send calling him a dictator and calling him stupid and saying he was embarrassed. Like, why would you provoke that to raise money or to be a tough guy? It makes no sense. I mean, it sounds like Trump's version of foreign.
这是他在基本上说她很蠢或者说，在某个层面上不够能干。把他称作独裁者、傻瓜，并说他难堪，这恰恰是你不想传达的错误信息。为什么要挑衅他，来筹集资金或者做个强人呢？这毫无道理。我觉得这听起来像是特朗普独特的对外态度。
From the Chinese standpoint, they thought the whole balloon thing was a travesty. I mean, I don't know what the truth of it is, but they feel like it was just this continuous drumming up of outrage on the American side against China. And they wanted to put that behind us in terms of the relationship. I heard Blinken interviewed about this. Chamath, I agree with you. I have no complaint with Blinken in terms of how he handled this meeting. I don't need to complain about how I have a complaint about I handled Moscow, but, but not Beijing. But they wanted to put this balloon business behind them.
从中国的角度来看，整个气球事件就是个耻辱。我不知道实情是什么，但他们感觉这只是美国不断煽动对中国的愤怒。他们希望在两国关系上不要再提这个事件。我听到Blinken被采访时的谈话。Chamath，我同意你的看法。在处理这次会议方面，我对Blinken没有任何责怪。我不需要抱怨我在莫斯科处理的方式，但是没有在北京处理。但他们想把这个气球事件放在身后。
My guess I've always said that it never made sense to me that the Chinese would use such a ham-fisted way of conducting espionage to fly a deliberately fly a balloon over the US. It never delivered. It never made sense to me. Yeah, of course. And it became this cost 11 the US. And I think the Chinese at a minimum wanted to put it behind us.
我的猜测一直是，中国人用如此笨拙的方式进行间谍活动，在美国故意飞行气球，这对我来说毫无意义。它从来没有起到过效果，也从来没有给我留下什么印象。当然，这给美国带来了不小的代价。我认为中国人至少想要将这些事情置于身后。
And then Biden reopened the issue. Like the submarine tragedy, the balloon is like made for network television because it's a live event where you can put live cameras up and you can carve rich 24 seven. It's just like Trump. We've had to be a sub-media. It's just for the media. It's for the media. It's catnip for them. We have to be very careful now, I think, in our relationship with China because, again, you now have this asiatic alliance between China, Russia and Iran. It is the most capable, let's say, adversary the United States has ever faced.
然后拜登重新打开了这个问题。就像潜艇悲剧一样，气球就像是为网络电视制作的，因为它是一个现场活动，你可以放置现场摄像机，24小时不停地报道。这就像特朗普一样。我们必须成为一个子媒体，只为媒体服务。对于媒体来说，这实在是一个诱人的机会。现在，我们必须非常小心，我认为，在我们与中国的关系中，因为你现在有了中俄伊的亚洲联盟，这是美国曾经面对过的最有能力的对手。
Remember that when we face the Soviet Union, their economy was never bigger than one third of the US economy. The Soviet bloc versus the Western bloc. The Chinese economy on a purchasing power parity basis is roughly the same size as the US. And they've got more manufacturing capacities. If you think about the type of manufacturing capacity the United States had during World War II, that now belongs to China, not the US. We have hollowed out our manufacturing.
记住，当我们面对苏联时，他们的经济从来没有超过美国经济的三分之一。苏联阵营对西方阵营。以购买力平价为基础，中国经济与美国规模差不多，并且他们拥有更多的制造能力。如果你想想美国在二战期间所拥有的制造能力，现在属于中国，而不是美国。我们已经虚耗了我们的制造业。
Why our foreign policy, Brad, I'll bring you into discussion. Why our foreign policy isn't being driven by some of the things that we could do together to collaborate on. Like we have global warming, we have issues on this planet that we could collaborate on, and it seems like we're spending no time on those issues and saber-addling Cuba. Another example, why can't we set a goal for the United States to normalize relations with Cuba and get them on our side? Since they are the equivalent of, let's say, Ukraine, David, to America, you've brought it back in Paris.
为什么我们的外交政策没有受到我们可以合作解决的事情的推动呢，Brad，我想请你发表一下看法。比如全球变暖，我们这个星球上有很多问题可以让我们共同合作去解决，但我们似乎没有花时间去处理这些问题，反而在古巴对着剑舞。再比如，为什么我们不能设定一个目标，让美国与古巴建立正常关系并让他们站到我们这一边呢？因为古巴对美国来说相当于乌克兰，David，你之前提到过巴黎。
Why don't we make peace with Cuba? Why can't we have a peace-based foreign policy where we're trying to build bridges? God, Cuba and the United States could do amazing things together. And we should be trying to win that relationship instead of living 50 years in the past over it. I'm not sure. There was legitimate outrage over the past week because we discovered that China was planning on, they already have an intelligence outpost in Cuba, listening out most, but also they were thinking about doing training of troops in Cuba.
为什么我们不能与古巴和平共处呢？为什么我们不能采取以和平为基础的外交政策，试图建立桥梁？上帝啊，古巴和美国一起可以做很多惊人的事情。我们应该努力赢得这种关系，而不是继续活在过去50年的阴影中。我不确定。过去一周，我们发现中国正计划在古巴设立情报前哨站，监听，甚至考虑在那里为军队提供训练，引起了合理的愤慨。
And that would be a violation of Monroe Doctrine, and we should basically get our backs up over that. Monroe Doctrine states that no disengraved power can bring troops, weapons, or bases into the Western Hemisphere. United States spent over 100 years basically enforcing Monroe Doctrine. It would greatly diminish U.S. security if we allowed any foreign gray power to have troops in the Western Hemisphere. So we deserve to have our horns out over that.
这将违反门罗主义，我们应该对此保持警惕。门罗主义规定，没有涉及的大国可以将军队、武器或基地带到西半球。美国花费了100多年来基本执行门罗主义。如果我们容许任何外国灰色大国在西半球部署军队，将会极大地削弱美国的安全。所以我们理所当然地感到愤怒。
The problem is that we have our horns out over everything, and so we're not really taking seriously. We've probably had wolf swimming times. I don't think we're really taking seriously by the Chinese on this. And this should be a teaching moment to the foreign policy establishment because this is Russia's objection.
问题在于我们在很多事情上都表现得很霸道，因此人们不太会认真对待我们。我们可能多次“哭狼”。我认为中国人对我们的反应并不认真。而这应该成为外交政策领域的一次教训，因为这就是俄罗斯的反对意见。
Russia's objection is to having American troops, weapons, and bases directly on their border. This is our objection to what China is seeking to do in Cuba.
俄罗斯反对美国军队、武器和基地直接部署在他们的边境上。这也是我们反对中国在古巴寻求的做法的原因。
Okay, Brad, do you want to add something to that or can we move to Cohen? Just real quick, I would say. There's a real appetite in the business community to be engaged. This idea that we're going to decouple the world, never have to deal with these folks, right, is just a farce. Bite dance bought a billion dollars worth of NVIDIA chips announced this week, right? Like the world is entangled.
好的，Brad，你想要补充一些什么，还是我们可以转到Cohen了？简短地说，我想说的是，商界对于参与感非常强烈。认为我们会断开世界，永远不必与这些人打交道，是一种欺骗。ByteDance本周购买了十亿美元的英伟达芯片，对吧？就像这个世界是纠结的。
And I think we would be better off having our political and business leaders in more sync over how to achieve this long-term safety and prosperity as opposed to what feels like a disjointed foreign policy relative to the global reality around AI and what's happening in the business.
我认为，我们应该让政治和商业领袖就如何实现长期安全和繁荣的问题与全球人工智能现实和企业发展的情况更加协调一致，而不是像现在这样外交政策与AI全球实际发展有些脱节。
I agree. Well said. Yeah. And I mean, it's just so obvious. Why can't we be collaborating on stuff? And we see when you and I made our trip to the UAE and then we see the Saudis bringing movies back, we have certain regions. We're doing a pretty good job of engaging with engagement. You know, reasonable engagement is a good idea.
我同意。说得好。没错。而且，这很明显。我们为什么不能合作呢？我们发现，当你和我一起去阿联酋旅行时，我们看到沙特人带回了电影，我们有一些地区。我们在与参与接洽方面做得相当不错。你知道，合理的接洽是一个好主意。
It's because, and I think RFK has said this, we have created a very dangerous revolving door between our most critical institutions and the largest industrial companies in the United States. And that revolving door creates all kinds of conflicts of interest. And those things get sorted out via revenue and dollars in profits. Incentives. And so those incentives will drive us, if it's the military industrial complex, to go to war. And you're seeing that it'll complicate our foreign policy.
这是因为——我认为肯尼迪曾经说过这个——我们在美国最关键的机构和最大的工业公司之间创建了一个非常危险的轮换门。这个轮换门会造成各种利益冲突，并通过利润和收益的激励机制来解决。这些激励机制将驱使我们（如军工复合体）走向战争，这会加剧我们的外交政策复杂化。
So this is why I've always said the most important thing that we're doing is something that the military industrial complex cannot stop, which is our energy independence. And when you have energy independence and abundant cost us energy, I do think that the biggest thing you get is this peace dividend, you stop fighting these wars, you become much more rational abroad. And you're like, okay, I don't need to fight with all of these people because, you know, things are so great within our borders.
因此，这就是为什么我一直说我们正在做的最重要的事情是军工复合体无法阻止的事情，那就是我们的能源独立。当你拥有能源独立和丰富的低成本能源时，我认为你得到的最大好处就是这种和平红利，你停止打这些战争，你在国外变得更加理性。你会认为：“好了，我不需要与这些人打仗，因为你知道，在我们国家内部一切都很好。”
You're so right, Bob, because we actually have stopped those wars. And now we've created two other ones. Russia, Ukraine, we can't help ourselves. China. What's that? We can't help ourselves. And we'll use the scarcity of commodities as a boogeyman to basically incentivize us to go in these foreign misadventures. And it really has to stop.
鲍勃，你说得太对了，我们已经停止了那些战争。可现在我们又制造了两个新的。俄罗斯和乌克兰，我们无法自拔。还有中国，我们又如何自拔呢？我们会把商品的稀缺作为鬼怪，以此激励我们参与这些对外冒险。这样做真的必须停止。
By the way, just two quick points on that on Taiwan. There's an election next year. And it looks like right now that the pro-China party might actually take power. Right now the party that's in power is more of a pro-Western party. And the reason I think is that the Taiwanese are looking at what's going on in Ukraine and they're looking at the corpses of the Ukrainian youth pile up. And they're thinking maybe it's not such a great idea to be an American proxy state.
顺便提一下台湾问题，明年将有大选。目前看来，亲中党派可能会上台。现在执政的是亲西方的党派。我认为这是因为台湾人正在关注乌克兰的情况，他们看到乌克兰年轻人的尸体堆积，他们认为充当美国的代理国家可能并不是一个好主意。
Or in the words of Henry Kissinger, he once quipped that it's dangerous to be an American enemy, but it's absolutely fatal to be an American friend. I think that this war may be backfiring in terms of the incentives is creating around Taiwan. And he said that this war would basically help protect Taiwan by deterring China. It might actually deter Taiwan from opposing China. So we'll have to see how that plays out.
亨利·基辛格曾经说过，成为美国敌人是危险的，但成为美国朋友则是绝对致命的。我认为，这场战争可能会在激发台湾周边地区的动机方面产生反效果。他说，这场战争实际上会通过威慑中国来保护台湾。但它实际上可能会阻止台湾反对中国。因此，我们必须看看它的发展如何。
All an able-bodied person in Taiwan, a voting age, needs to do. Is read the newspaper and understand it in the last two and a half years. We've essentially started a multi-trillion-dollar program to deliver ourselves from all the critical resources that China and Taiwan gives us. And so if you're a Taiwanese citizen, the writing is unfortunately on the wall, which is that we are giving ourselves the optionality to not have to do anything.
台湾所有具备投票权的健康人都需要做的，只是在过去两年半里阅读报纸并理解其内容。我们基本上已经启动了一项价值数万亿美元的计划，以从中国和台湾提供给我们的所有关键资源中解放出自己。因此，如果您是台湾公民，不幸的是，墙上已经写着字，就是我们正在给自己留下不必采取任何行动的选择。
So to your point, David, if you're a rational thinking Taiwanese person, unfortunately you're forced to be in a position where you may have to head your bets. And if the United States can basically have a chip supply that comes from Europe and Mexico, now all of a sudden the criticality of TSMC goes away.
所以说，David，如果你是一个理性思考的台湾人，不幸的是你被迫处于一个需要押注的位置。如果美国可以从欧洲和墨西哥获得芯片供应，现在台积电的关键性就不再存在了。
To wit, I published this tweet yesterday about Buffett and his trades in Japan. He bought these five trading companies. So just a really novel carry trade that I've really fallen in love with, just understanding it. But the code up to that is that when he did this and going long Japan, what he actually also did was he delivered himself from China. He had a long position in TSMC and he said, I'm out. And when they asked him why he sold TSMC, he said, this is a very complicated thing. And he basically said that it's not a bet that's worth making. And I think underneath that, if I had to guess what he's trying to say about Taiwan and directly through his sale of TSMC is the odds are that we are not going to get into a land war over there, which means that that asset and its equity value is in danger and I don't want to own it. And I think that that's a very clinical summation of his rational action.
简单来说，我昨天发布了一条关于巴菲特及其在日本的交易的推文。他买下了这五家交易公司。所以这是一种非常新颖的套利交易，我真的很喜欢它，因为我理解了它。但事实是，当他这样做，并且在日本做多时，他实际上也从中国解放了自己。他在TSMC拥有长期头寸，并表示：“我卖了。”当他们问他为什么卖掉TSMC时，他说这是一件非常复杂的事情。基本上是他在暗示这不是值得冒险的赌注。如果我必须猜测巴菲特通过他卖掉TSMC所试图表达的关于台湾的观点是，我们不太可能卷入一场陆地战争，这意味着该资产及其股权价值有危险，我不想拥有它。我认为这是他理性行动的非常临床的总结。
So to your point, well, here's a blink and speak with their dollars. I think it's very important. And the one China policy says Taiwan is part of China. It's not an independent country, but we've had a very ambiguous intolerance for this ambiguity of Taiwan acting as its own nation while saying we support the one China policy. And that ambiguity has served us very well in the China relationship. Here's a blink and set at the press conference quote, we do not support Taiwan independence. We remain opposed to any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side.
关于你的观点，我认为人们用他们的钱来表达看法，这非常重要。而一中政策指出台湾是中国的一部分，它不是一个独立的国家。虽然我们支持一中政策，但对台湾的自主行为却持有一种模棱两可的容忍态度。然而这种模糊态度在处理中美关系方面非常有效。就像这篇文章所说的，“我们不支持台湾独立，我们反对任何一方单方面改变现状”。
The status quo he's referring to here, Brad, is that they get to be independent in Taiwan, but we don't say they're independent. They are obviously acting in an independent manner, but it is not our business to tell the Taiwanese people that they're independent or not. It's their decision to determine if they're independent or not. Any thoughts on the trade by Buffett and Blinken's comment at the press conference and the same ambiguity? I think we want to maintain the ambiguity. I think we're basically saying to China, don't change the status quo at least for now, right? While we rebuild these chip fabs in Arizona and other parts of the world, I think most of the wealthy families I've talked to from Taiwan believe that five or six years from now the U.S. will no longer be in the position where they will need Taiwan and Taipei as much as they do today.
这里他所指的现状，Brad，是台湾能够独立，但我们不说他们独立。他们显然在独立地行动，但告诉台湾人他们是否独立并不是我们的事情。这是他们决定是否独立的决定。对于巴菲特的交易和布林肯在新闻发布会上的评论以及同样的模糊性，是否有什么想法？我认为我们想保持模糊。我想我们基本上是在告诉中国，现阶段请不要改变现状，对吧？在我们重新建设亚利桑那州和世界其他地区的芯片工厂的同时，我认为我与台湾许多富裕家庭交谈后得出，五到六年后，美国将不再像今天这样需要台湾和台北。
How many years do you think it will take to be independent, say it one more time and explain it? Well, it's not about being independent. It's how much longer will Taiwan have what they believe to be de facto protection from the United States? I was told by one very influential Taiwanese family that they believe when the fifth chip fab comes online in Arizona, which I think is scheduled for 25 or 26, they intended to have most of their family members out of Taiwan at that period in time. Now I think most Taiwanese don't envision this being a violent invasion of Taiwan. It's more of a take under in the same way that Hong Kong was. And so I don't see an American president frankly going to war, nor would I want them to go to war over Taiwan. But I think it's in all of our interest to maintain that status quo, which is why taunting the Chinese over the course of the past few years over Taiwan has seemed like a policy that's not fit with our goals.
你认为还需要多少年才能实现独立？请再说一遍并解释一下？实际上这不是关于独立的问题。台湾还能依靠美国获得实际保护多久？我曾听说过一个非常有影响力的台湾家族，他们认为当亚利桑那州的第五家芯片工厂在25或26年投入使用时，他们计划在那个时候让大部分家庭成员离开台湾。现在大多数台湾人并不认为这将会是一个暴力入侵台湾的过程，而更像是以与香港相同的方式进行收购。因此，我认为没有美国总统会发动战争，同时我也不希望他们为了台湾而发动战争。但我认为保持现状符合我们所有人的利益，这就是为什么过去几年在台湾问题上挑衅中国看起来不符合我们的目标。
Right. Well, if you look at skin in the game, the fact that the chips act went through so quickly, the fact that Warren Buffett as you pointed out, Chamath made his bet and this family that has obviously, you know, skin in the game quite literally are making these decisions. I think we know where this is headed. You can just follow the bets. If you look at the bets and follow the dollars, follow the dollars. And also where people put themselves geographically, everybody left Hong Kong when the turnover happened or before it, they went to Singapore, they went to UAE, they voted with their feet and their dollars. And that's obviously what's going to happen here.
好的，如果你看看他们参与其中的程度，以及筹码行业的快速发展，如你所说的沃伦·巴菲特 (Warren Buffett)、查马斯 (Chamath) 下注，以及那个显然有重大利益的家族做出的决定。我认为我们知道这将会发展到什么程度了。你可以直接跟踪这些下注，观察资金流动。此外，人们在地理位置上的选择也很明显，每个人在香港交接前或期间都离开了，他们去了新加坡、阿联酋，在此用他们的双脚和资金投票。显然，这也将在这里发生。
This is a good pivot because this criticism of the Ukraine policy by Matt that Saks pointed out came because there is a belief on his part and others that the pod here all in is putting its unilateral support behind RFK. That is not true. There are two people on the pod who hosted a fundraiser last week. And here is what Matt incorrectly said because I have not put my support behind RFK. I think he's very interesting and I'm glad he's in the race and neither has Friedberg but Shmoop and Saks did host one and I'll hand it over to them.
这是一个很好的转折点，因为Saks指出的对乌克兰政策的马特的批评是因为他和其他人认为这里的podcast无条件地支持RFK。这不是真的。这里有两个人上周举办了一次筹款活动。马特错误地说，因为我没有支持RFK，但我认为他很有趣，很高兴他参选，弗里德伯格也没有支持过他，但是Shmoop和Saks主持了一次活动，我把话题转给他们。
But here is what Matt said in his sub stack. And even though it's not the subject of this post, I do want to say that I think it's really sleazy and gross for the hosts of the all in pockets to be engaging in this Kennedy boosterism as a bang shot way of harming Joe Biden's reelection prospects, not with saying the recent conversions around Russia policy. Kennedy represents precisely the strand of progressive thought that right of center business people have highly have rightly spent the better part of the century of the morning. His is an anti progress anti technology, ultimately anti human to all of you that stands against bio medical progress against progress and against human flow up as many Ukrainians as possible as an each year.
这里是Matt在他的Sub Stack中说的话。虽然这不是这篇文章的主题，但我想说，我认为“全投入”节目主持人参与肯尼迪支持者运动是非常卑鄙和恶心的，这是为了损害乔·拜登的连任前景，尤其是最近围绕俄罗斯政策的问题。肯尼迪代表的正是右翼商人对进步思想的反对，这种思想在上个世纪的大部分时间里是正确的。他反对生物医学进步，反对技术进步，最终反对人类。他的立场是反对人类进步、反对进步和反对人类发展。比方说他更希望尽可能多地赶走乌克兰人。
Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. This is anti human. Listen, I don't even think we should be giving him this much time. Well, no, but I think it is important because people now have connected this pod with the rise of RFK. This was the first major podcast. What what it glacies is accusing us somehow of do of of supporting RFK, not because of issues, but somehow because it's a bang shot for Donald Trump, which is ridiculous. None of us support Donald Trump. He's not even my preferred candidate in the Republican lane.
是的。完全正确。这是反人类的。听着，我甚至认为我们不应该给他这么多的时间。嗯，不，但我认为这很重要，因为人们现在将这个节目与RFK的崛起联系起来。这是第一个重要的播客。格莱西斯指责我们支持RFK不是因为问题，而是因为这是唐纳德·特朗普的火力支援，这是荒谬的。我们中没有人支持唐纳德·特朗普。他甚至都不是我在共和党内的首选候选人。
Well, what he said was a bang shot against Biden, just to be clear. I prefer I prefer you against. I prefer RFK to Biden. It's that simple. What's wrong with that? He's not even making any arguments here. Look, we've explained in a lot of detail and I explained in my response all the issues where I support RFK, he supports free speech over censorship. He supports civil liberties over the surveillance state. He supports peace instead of war. He supports sealing the Southern border virtually alone among Democrats and talking sense on that issue. And I believe that he's completely correctly diagnosed what we're doing in Ukraine. So on the issues, I support issues, right? You disagree with them on some issues, right? You disagree with them on nuclear. And you may disagree with them in his anti-vaxx stance, if he is in fact anti-vaxx.
他所说的是对拜登的猛烈抨击，这一点需要澄清。我更喜欢你反对他，我更喜欢RFK胜过拜登。这就是这么简单。这有什么问题吗？他在这里甚至都没有表达任何论据。我们已经详细地说明了我支持RFK的各种问题，并且在我的回应中我解释了他支持言论自由胜过审查、支持文明自由胜过监视国度、支持和平而非战争、在封闭南部边境和关注该问题上，他在民主党中几乎是孤军奋斗的，并且我相信他对于乌克兰问题的诊断是完全正确的。因此就问题而言，我支持他的观点，对吧？你在某些问题上不同意他的观点，对吧？你在核问题上不同意他的观点，而对于他的反疫苗立场，如果他确实持有这种观点，你也可能不同意。
I just told him that's tax-finished. I think he was right about COVID lockdowns and I think he was right about COVID, the so-called COVID shot that wasn't even a vaccine, that should not have been required. But what about those two issues? You obviously disagree with them on some things. Do you disagree with them in his anti-vaxx stuff and his nuclear stuff? I don't know enough about those issues to have like a firm stance.
我告诉他税收已完成。我认为他关于COVID封锁的观点是正确的，我也认为他关于所谓的COVID疫苗不应该被要求的观点是正确的。但是这两个问题呢？你显然在某些问题上与他意见不合。你是否在他反疫苗和核问题上与他意见不合？我对这些问题的了解不足，不能有明确的立场。
What I would say is that every candidate represents a bundle of issues. And you support the ones who are aligned with you on the issues that are most important to you. On the issues that are most important to me, which are these questions, the great questions of war and peace and the questions of free speech and censorship. And even I would say the question of the economy and who do we prioritize? Because he wants to prioritize the middle class. On those big questions, I feel like I'm aligned with RFK. Perfect.
我的意思是每个候选人都代表了一系列问题。你应该支持那些在你最关心的问题上与你立场一致的候选人。在我最关心的这些问题上，包括战争与和平、言论自由和审查以及经济和我们要优先考虑谁的问题。因为他想优先考虑中产阶级，所以在这些重大问题上，我觉得我和RFK站在了同一条线上。完美。
So that's why I support him. Let me go to Chema. You think Jack Dorsey is supporting RFK as a bank shot, something or other? No, he's supporting it because he agrees to RFK on these questions of war and peace and free speech. Great. I'm just letting everybody be very clear about their position since this is becoming the support of RFK by this podcast or two of the four people in the podcast is now becoming kind of national news. Like, Laces is even making any arguments here. He's just applying derogatory labels to us.
所以这就是为什么我支持他。让我去找Chema。你认为Jack Dorsey支持RFK是为了间接帮助他，还是有其他原因吗？不，他支持RFK是因为他在战争与和平以及言论自由等问题上同意RFK的想法。很好。我只是让大家非常清楚地表明他们的立场，因为这成为这个播客或其中两个人支持RFK的国家新闻。就像Laces甚至没有提出任何具体的论点，只是给我们贴上贬义标签。
Yeah, I don't know what this is. This is a disciplinary tactic or a shaming tactic by the sort of enforcers for the establishment. Right. Want to prevent independent thinkers from stepping out of law. I agree. That's what this is about. It looks like this outsider went to the Dolphus School in Harvard University. So there you have it. Yeah, you got a $2 million education. Doesn't know what a basis point is. He's the guy with the basis points, right? Oh, boy. He's felt mad. He graduated at the top and at Harvard. Good luck with your sub-stag. Oh, my God.
是的，我不知道这是什么意思。这是一种纪律或羞辱策略，由那些为建立秩序的执法人员执行。对，想防止独立思考者违法。我同意。这是关于什么的。看起来这个局外人去过哈佛大学的多尔福斯学校。就是这样。是啊，你拥有了200万美元的教育，还不知道什么是基点。他是那个关于基点的人，对吧？哦，天啊。他感到很生气。他以优异成绩毕业于哈佛大学。祝你的子公司好运。
Chabat, you are pro-nuclear. You've been very clear about that. Although you're pro-renewables mostly. You've been clear about that on this podcast and many conversations I've had with you. You are also pro-vaccine, but you're anti what happened with the lockdown. So maybe you could expand upon your support of RFK, why you held a fundraiser firm and what things you agree with them on and maybe what things you don't necessarily agree with them on.
Chabat，你支持核能源，这一点非常明显。虽然你大多数时间支持可再生能源，这一点在这个播客和我和你的许多对话中也很明确。你也支持疫苗接种，但你反对封锁所发生的事情。所以也许你可以详细阐述一下你对RFK的支持，你为什么为他们举办了一次筹款活动，以及你赞同他们哪些事情，可能不赞同他们哪些事情。
Well, first I actually did what I think a lot of people haven't done, which is just listened to him, just stop talking, zip the old yapper. And there is an enormous amount of long form content where you can really understand where he stands on some of these topics.
首先，我做了我认为很多人没有做过的事情，就是听他讲话，别再说话了。有很多长篇内容，你可以真正理解他在这些话题上的立场。
He's right about the war on Ukraine. We shouldn't be in it. He's right about free speech, which is we should have it. He's right that the COVID vaccine was not a vaccine. And really what it's done is actually discredit the word vaccine, unfortunately, in a lot of people's minds.
他对于乌克兰战争的看法是正确的，我们不应该参与其中。他关于自由言论的观点也是正确的，我们应该有这样的权利。他认为COVID疫苗不是疫苗，事实上它只是在很多人心中让“疫苗”这个词变得不可信。这非常不幸。
He actually is a person that is pro-vaccine for all these other vaccines. He himself is vaccinated, his children are vaccinated. You would all know this stuff if you just took two minutes to just listen to it. He is against the COVID vaccine.
他实际上是一个对其他所有疫苗持支持态度的人。他自己接种过疫苗，他的子女也接种过。如果你花两分钟的时间仔细听听，你就会知道这些信息。他反对 COVID 疫苗。
And what I would say is I'm very sympathetic to that. I'm very sympathetic to the job the FDA had to do. And I think they generally did do a great job. But we ran something through and we allowed it to be labeled a word that misappropriates what it is.
我想说的是，我非常同情这种情况。我非常理解美国食品药品监督管理局所做的工作。我认为他们通常做得非常出色。但是我们通过了一些东西，并允许将其标记为错误地描述了它的单词。
It's not a vaccine. And the problem with that is that it now makes people mistrust the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. That's crazy. You shouldn't mistrust the MMR vaccine or DTAP. But because those things are lumped in with the same thing as a COVID vaccine that is at best 30 or 40% efficacious, we have these problems.
这不是疫苗。问题在于现在人们开始不信任麻疹、腮腺炎和风疹疫苗，这很疯狂。你不应该不信任MMR疫苗或DTAP疫苗。但是由于这些东西与COVID疫苗合并在一起，而后者的有效性最多只有30%或40%，所以我们出现了这些问题。
He calls that out. But honestly, so I like the fact that he actually speaks in nuance. I like the fact that when I listen to him, I find that the talking headthink police are generally lying. It confirms what I believe about them because he just says things in a very plain spoken intelligent way.
他说出了那个问题。但是老实说，我喜欢他实际上表达细微差别的能力。当我听他讲话时，我发现那些口吐芬芳的专家通常都在撒谎。这证实了我对他们的看法，因为他用非常简单明晰的方式讲述了问题。
And I think that there are a lot of folks who don't want to think, who want to be given the simple answer, who want to just reject what he stands for and just take the establishment view and the hopes that they'll get, I don't know, maybe accepted by the establishment. The establishment just wants to curate power. And I just think that people should be thinking for themselves.
我认为有很多人不想思考，希望得到简单的答案，想要反对他的观点并只接受建立的观点以期望能够被建立接受。建立只想获取权力。我认为人们应该自己思考。
If you listen to the Rogan podcast, if you listen to the Jordan Peterson podcast, there are millions and millions and millions of links and page views and discussions and thoughts. And there's probably thousands of minutes of RFK explaining what he thinks on basically any topic you can imagine, you can get to your own conclusion.
如果你听过罗根(Rogan)的播客，如果你听过乔丹·彼得森(Jordan Peterson) 的播客，那么会有数百万的链接、页面浏览量、讨论和想法。而RFK在基本上你能想象到的任何主题上阐述了他所持的观点，可能有数千分钟，你可以得出自己的结论。
And now I think what I think you'll find, and this is true for me, is there's 10% of stuff you are just vehemently supportive of, 70% of stuff that's like quite reasonable and fair. And then there's the rest, which is a spectrum of things I disagree with. But then you're left with a blended expected value where you're like, man, this guy is really better than all the other alternatives.
现在我认为你会发现，对于我来说是真实的，有10%的东西你是坚定支持的，70%的东西是相当合理和公正的。然后剩下的就是我不同意的事情的一系列。但是你最终会得到一个混合的期望值，你会感觉到，这个人真的比其他所有人都更好。
Brad, I'll let you go and then I'll give my position. What I find most insidious about the opposition to this discussion is people are upset that you're not swearing an allegiance to a dogmatism. Right? The truth of the matter is this group has hosted dinners for Rokana, for Senator Manchin, who hosted dinners for DeSantis.
布莱德，我先让你离开，等你走了我再说我的立场。我对这次讨论反对意见最阴险的地方在于，人们生气的是你没有对教条主义发誓效忠。是吧？事实上，这个团体曾经为Rokana和参议员Manchin举办过晚宴，而Manchin参议员还为DeSantis举办过晚宴。
Had I been here, I would have put my name on the dinner for Kennedy because I want to gather information. I'm an analyst. I want to think for myself, how can we spend trillions and put ourselves into potentially harm's way without having a real conversation in Congress and on these pods about the risk of war? Why can't we have an authentic post-mortem about the efficacy of the COVID vaccine without being shamed?
如果我在这里，我会在为肯尼迪的晚宴上留下我的名字，因为我想收集信息。我是一名分析师。我想自己思考，我们如何花费数万亿美元并将自己置于潜在的伤害之中，而在国会和这些专题节目中没有真正的对话来谈论战争的风险？为什么我们不能就COVID疫苗的有效性进行真实的验后分析而不受指责呢？
The revolution going on in this country, which is fantastic from my perspective, is that there is no longer a monopolistic control over the discussion. And that's why this podcast and this friendship and the conversation we all had here is resonating with people because they also want to hear all the different sides because most people are capable, are way smarter than the elites on the coast think.
我觉得这个国家正在发生的革命是非常棒的，原因是讨论已经不再被垄断控制了。这就是为什么这个播客、这个友谊以及我们在这里进行的对话能够引起人们的共鸣，因为他们也想听到不同的观点，因为大多数人都比沿海的精英们聪明得多。
I'm from Indiana. Lots of smart folks who think for themselves in Indiana, but they're told by coastal elites what to think. And they reject this. And that's what you're seeing in this discussion and so many of these others. It's not about vaccines. It's not about a war. It's about their control over how you think and them wanting to force you to swear to an orthodoxy.
我来自印第安纳州。印第安纳州有很多聪明的人，他们会自己思考，但是沿海精英却告诉他们该怎么想。他们拒绝这种思想控制，这也是你们在这次讨论和其他许多讨论中看到的。这不是关于疫苗的问题，也不是关于战争的问题。它关乎他们对你思想的控制，并且他们想要强制你信奉一种正统。
I think that's really well said. Yeah, that is well said. But the way they try to control what you think is by labeling candidates so as to exclude them or make them sound crazy. So, J Cal, I mean, you kind of introduced RFK as an anti-vaxxer. I don't think that is the correct way to describe his position or the singular way that he should be labeled.
我认为这说得非常好。是的，那说得非常好。但他们试图控制你的思想方式是通过标签化候选人，以排除他们或使他们听起来疯狂。所以，J Cal，我是说，你有点把RFK介绍成反疫苗者了。我认为这并不是正确描述他的立场或应该给他贴上的唯一标签。
No, I don't believe that. I said, here are the things he believes that we agree with. And then I gave the things that the media is saying, you know, so I was trying to present the totality of it. And I said, he is obviously in favor of the middle class and all this stuff.
不，我不相信那个。我说，这里有他相信的一些我们同意的事情。然后我列举了媒体所说的事情，我试图呈现整体情况。我说，他显然支持中产阶级和所有这些事情。
So, well, I would be clear on my position here. So I am in support of vibrant long-form debate like we have here. And I'm in support of anybody who takes on the establishment because there are crazy incentives as we talk about here incentives matter. And we are long overdue for discussion on vaccines.
所以，我想在这里表明我的立场。我支持有活力的长篇辩论，就像我们在这里所做的那样。我支持任何挑战权威的人，因为正如我们在这里讨论的那样，激励是很重要的。我们对疫苗进行讨论已经拖延太久了。
It's very important that everybody understand here that everybody on this podcast took the COVID vaccine and everybody here, our kids have been vaccinated. It's not a vaccine. It's not a vaccine. Exactly. So they took the COVID- We were injected with an experimental mRNA treatment because we got hoodwinked by the media into thinking it would prevent us from ever getting COVID, which it did not do. I think it's very sad. Two months later, I got the variance. Vaccines are good and the COVID thing was not very good. And it reduced death in older people and probably was the only group of people. And we'll know when we do a postmortem. But do not take. Now we got this mRNA, like flowing through our bodies. Who knows? It might be a time bomb.
在这里，每个人都要明白的是，我们所有在这个播客上的人都接种了COVID疫苗，包括我们的孩子。但这不是疫苗。不是疫苗。他们接种了COVID的实验mRNA治疗方法，因为媒体欺骗我们认为这将防止我们感染COVID，但事实并非如此。我认为这很悲哀。两个月后，我得了变异病毒。疫苗是好的，而COVID并不好。它减少了老年人的死亡率，可能是唯一的一群人。等进行尸检时，我们就会知道。但不要接种。现在我们的身体里有这个mRNA，谁知道呢？它可能是一个定时炸弹。
Well, and then for people who are wondering like if we should even be having these discussions, the hypocrisy of the media I think is very important to look at here because the media is going to be attacking this podcast over and over again, not that it matters. But when we moved into the top 100, top 50, top 10, that's when the knives came out. And I would like to remind the media of the long history of investigative journalism and debates.
然后，对于那些想知道我们是否该进行这些讨论的人，我认为看看媒体的虚伪非常重要，因为媒体会一遍又一遍地攻击这个播客，虽然这并不重要。但是当我们进入前100、前50、前10名时，攻击就开始了。我想提醒媒体注意调查新闻和辩论有着悠久的历史。
What was once a conspiracy theory often goes on to win a Pulitzer Prize. And the hypocrisy here is crazy because if you look at some of the greatest stories and investigative journalist pieces, they started with these debates, rumors, et cetera. Abu Ghraab. That was the New Yorker. Ralph Nadev unsaved and defeated. That was so harsh as reporting. That was so harsh as reporting. And he can't get the time to day. And now they're discretting him. Right. He can't get the time of day for his report on who really destroyed Nord Stream. The Catholic Church, sex scandal, the Boston Globe.
曾经被认为是阴谋论的事情，往往最终会赢得普利策奖。这里的虚伪是疯狂的，因为如果你看一些最伟大的故事和调查记者报道，它们都是从这些辩论、传言等开始的。阿布格莱布监狱事件。那是《纽约客》报的报道。拉尔夫·纳迪夫未能当选。那是如此严厉的报道。但他却得不到关注。现在他在报道谁真正摧毁了北溪输气管道时，却被人们怀疑。天主教会性丑闻事件，波士顿环球报。
The mainstream media does not perform the function that you're describing anymore. They act as the bodyguard for the elite, for the establishment. They actually have even of late gun. There's stenographers for the people in power. Not exactly true. They have actually done incredible reporting, but there is a group of them, which is towing the party line because you have the New York Times and their Exposite on the Taxi Commission. That won a Pulitzer in 2020. What? And then you look at.
主流媒体已经不再扮演你所描述的职能。它们现在像是精英和建制派的保镖。他们甚至最近还为枪支辩护。他们像权势人物的书记员。这并不完全正确。他们实际上有出色的报道，但有一部分媒体只是在拍马屁，因为你看到纽约时报在出租车委员会的揭露报道赢得了2020年的普利策奖。这是什么意思呢？
Taxi caps? I know you don't follow Pulitzer as your investigative journalism. In 2020, Brian Rosenthal at the New York Times did a massive expose on the predatory New York City taxi industry. And that at the same time, this anti-Huler and I lived. That might be important to New York. There's a few other issues that might be more important to the nation. It was an example of protectionism and rent-seeking. The Enron scandal, Big Tobacco, 60 Minutes. What about the Pretzum monopoly in the South part of the Bronx? What about that hot dog vendor on Fifth Avenue? No, you guys are uninformed.
出租车运营牌照？我知道你不像普利策奖获奖者那样从事调查新闻工作。2020年，《纽约时报》的布莱恩·罗森塔尔进行了一项大规模曝光，揭示了纽约市的出租车行业的掠夺性行为。同时，我也是反对保护主义的。这可能对纽约很重要。还有其他一些问题可能对整个国家更重要。这是保护主义和寻租行为的一个例子。恩伦丑闻、大烟草事件、《60分钟》。那南布朗克斯地区的普雷楚姆垄断呢？第五大道上的热狗小摊呢？不，你们都不知情。
Didn't have all those licenses up to date. I thought there was a whole lot of fanfare. What about the Big X-Pose? People watching on that. You guys are shooting on the bus. The fact is, at the same time that the New York Times, CNN, were attacking what Uber was doing. The New York Times won a fucking Pulitzer for their coverage of predatory loans by rich, powerful people in New York City. I bet they also did a great story on the guy selling trinkets outside Penn Station without a license. For somebody who's a man of the people like yourselves, you should actually be more informed.
我没有更新好所有的牌照。我以为会有很多的宣传。那Big X-Pose 怎么样了？很多人都在关注。你们在巴士上进行拍摄。实际上，就在纽约时报和CNN攻击Uber的时候，他们自己也有报道。纽约时报因为其关于纽约市富有、有权势人物的勒索性贷款报道而获得普利策奖。我打赌他们也有关于在宾州车站外售卖首饰且没有牌照的人的优秀报道。对于像你们这样的人民公仆来说，你们应该更加了解情况。
Well, what they should be reporting on, for example, if the pullerches work the way they should is where patient zero came from on COVID. Because Michael Schomurg just reported this over the last week and it got picked up by the Wall Street Journal, that patient zero, it turns out, was a researcher at the Wuhan Lab who was performing gain of function research. Yeah, shocker. Another conspiracy theory proven true. And we'll wind up being a Pulitzer. He deserves a Pulitzer.
他们应该报道的内容是，比如如果Pullerches（病毒核酸样本收集设备）发挥了应有的作用，那就是COVID病毒的零号病人来自哪里。因为迈克尔·肖莫格（Michael Schomurg）在上周刚刚报道了这个，并被《华尔街日报》采用了。原来零号病人是武汉实验室的一名研究人员，正在进行功能加强研究。是的，惊人的是，又有另一个阴谋论被证实是真的了。他应该获得普利策奖。
He does. And the crazy thing about this quote unquote conspiracy theory to turn out to be true is like it brought together the most odd bedfellows, Rand Paul and John Stewart. When Rand Paul and John Stewart can be in a room and agree on basically the totality of the topic, we should all just pay attention because it's not a normal world in which these two guys would otherwise get along. And both of them nailed it from day one. Right. They have the same name. But now connect the dots further. Okay. Why was the truth suppressed?
他是这样认为的。而这个所谓的阴谋论变成了真相的疯狂事情，让最奇怪的搭档兰德·保罗和约翰·斯图尔特走到了一起。当兰德·保罗和约翰·斯图尔特能够在一个房间里并就这个话题基本上达成一致时，我们都应该注意了，因为这不是一个他们两个本来能相处的正常世界。而且他们从一开始就深入了解了事情的真相。对。他们有相同的名字。但现在再进一步串联起来。好的。为什么真相被压制？
Why did it not come out? Because Fauci had funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Lab via EcoHealth Alliance. So he knew that if at the beginning of this pandemic, it turned out that he had been partially responsible for the creation of this virus that had now turned into a pandemic around the world, his career would have been over.
为什么病毒泄漏的消息没有传出来呢？因为福奇通过EcoHealth盟友资助了武汉实验室的功能获取研究。因此，他知道一旦这个大流行病开端时被发现他部分地造成了这个病毒的研制，而且现在这个病毒已成为全球性的疾病，他的职业生涯将无望。
And it's worse, Max. It's even worse than that, 46% of the advertising on TV news comes from pharma. And we did not always allow pharma spending. And this is may not be one to one. It may not be that a specific person doing a report at CNN or Fox or any of the networks is saying, Oh, I'm going to lose my job if I write something critical of pharma. But they're not doing the investigative pieces on.
马克斯，情况更糟糕了。真的比那更糟，电视新闻中有46%的广告来自制药公司。并且我们以前并不允许制药公司的支出。这可能不是一对一的。CNN、福克斯或其他电视台的某个特定人员不会说：“如果我写制药公司的批评性文章，我会失去我的工作。”但他们没有进行调查报导。
I can tell you this on the people who have 46% of their advertising revenue, unless it really gets to the final ending on something. And that is something that we need to question. The media is funded 46% by pharma companies and pharma companies were given a pass. And if you criticize any of the pharma companies, the media is going to come for you.
我可以告诉你，只有占广告收入百分之四十六的人会这样做，除非真的能最终决定一些事情。这是我们需要质疑的事情。媒体的46%资金来自制药公司，而制药公司又被豁免了。如果你批评任何制药公司，媒体就会攻击你。
And so listen, I'm not a tin foil, but you do have to look at it. I'm not a tin foil. Listen, the media is funded by big pharma and its primary sources are these high level government employees who've been there forever who leak them information. That is why the New York Times was carrying water for Fauci and big pharma. This is the marriage of state power and corporate greed that RFK junior denounces.
所以听我说，我不是一个信奉阴谋论的人，但你必须看看这个问题。我没有信奉阴谋论。听我说，媒体是由大制药公司资助的，其主要信息来源是那些长期在高级政府职位上的人，他们向媒体透露信息。这就是为什么《纽约时报》为福奇和大制药公司助阵。这就是RFK Junior所谴责的国家权力和企业贪婪的联姻。
Yeah. Well, there you have it, folks. So and now he believes he could be assassinated by the CIA. No, he didn't say it like that. He didn't say it like that. He was asked, what is his strategy on campaigning and all of that stuff? And he said, look, I'm going to do as much as possible.
嗯，就是这样，伙计们。现在他相信自己可能会被中央情报局暗杀。不，他没有那样说。他并没有那样说。他被问到，他在竞选和其他方面的策略是什么？他说，看，我会尽可能多地做。
But one thing that I'm going to avoid are like these open air parades just because there's just a lot of folks that we can't control, crowd control. Yeah. Okay. Reasonable. Yeah.
但我要避免的一件事就是像这样的露天游行活动，因为有很多人我们无法控制，人群控制是个问题。是的。好的。
I mean, the conversation on Rogan went something like this. Rogan was asking questions about the Kennedy assassinations and RFK believes like something like 60% of the American public believes that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. Then Rogan asked him, well, do you ever feel afraid running for office? And his answer was basically, no, not really. It's not something that I'm preoccupied with. But yeah, I'll take precautions. Does that mean he thinks the CIA is going to assassinate him? No, that's not what he said.
我的意思是，在Rogan的谈话中，大概是这样的，Rogan问到有关肯尼迪暗杀和RFK的看法，RFK认为，像60%的美国公众认为李·哈维·奥斯瓦尔德不是独自行动的。然后Rogan问他，你是否担心竞选的安全？他的回答基本上是，不，没有。这不是我过于关注的事情。但是，是的，我会采取预防措施。这意味着他认为中央情报局会暗杀他吗？不，他没有这么说。
But that is how the media reported it, including Fox News. That became the soundbite. Well, the soundbite from this podcast was that he believes his uncle was and his father were, that the CIA was involved in the nations. A lot of people. Yeah. Yeah. A lot of people. I am not giving my opinion. I'm giving his opinion on it. He said it on this podcast and the CIA won't release all the information to this day, even though they've been commanded to do so. So you make your own decision, folks.
这就是媒体如Fox News所报道的，它已经成了新闻里的短语。那么，这个播客的短语是他相信他的叔叔和父亲以及许多其他人国家存在CIA的关系。我不是在表达我的观点，而是在传达他的观点。他在这个播客中这样说，并且CIA至今仍未公开所有信息，即使他们已经被命令这么做。因此，你们自己可以作出决定。
According to Bloomberg, there is a ton of action for startup shares in secondary markets. If you don't know what a secondary market is, that's when one investor buys shares in a company that's not yet public directly from another investors on the cap table. So if Stripe, which is not yet public or Reddit, there are shares floating around in those companies, either previous employees or previous investors, one firm might see an opportunity there and buy them.
据彭博社报道，初创企业股票在二级市场上活跃异常。如果您不知道什么是二级市场，那么它指的是一个投资者直接从股票表上的另一投资者手中购买尚未上市的公司的股票。因此，如果Stripe或Reddit有股票在流通，无论是之前的员工还是投资者，某个公司可能会看到机会并购入这些股票。
As this process of bottoming me out has occurred, PitchBook reported Tiger Global told secondary investors, and that's a class of people who like to buy these that they could bid on any individual private company in its portfolio. They tried to sell a bundle of these shares, about 30 startups at a time, but they couldn't find buyers according to the reports. So now they're allowing people to bid on a poor company basis. Some of these are being marked down a third, 50%, et cetera.
在将我底部化的过程中，PitchBook报道称Tiger Global告诉二级投资者，通常喜欢购买这些股份的投资者，他们可以对其组合中任何一个私人公司进行竞标。他们曾试图一次出售约30个初创公司的股份，但根据报告称，他们没能找到买家。所以现在他们允许投资者按独立公司竞标。其中一些公司的股价被降低了三分之一，五成等。
Here's the quote from Bloomberg. As of May 31st, shares of startups were trading at a median discount of 61% compared to valuations at their latest funding rounds, according to a report by Forge Global Holdings. A16, according to the report, is actively buying shares in secondary, Excel, Bain, Bessemer, and Kleiner are also using secondary to grow stakes in their existing investments, doubling down. As it were, cross over firms like Co2, Tiger Global and even Brad's altimeter are actively searching for deals.
以下是彭博社的引语。根据Forge Global Holdings的一份报告，截至5月31日，初创公司的股票以中位数折价61％的价格交易，相比于它们最新一轮融资的估值水平。报告称，A16正在积极购买次级股票，Excel、Bain、Bessemer和Kleiner也正在使用次级市场增加对其现有投资的持股，加倍重仓。类似Co2、Tiger Global甚至Brad的海拔计也在积极寻找交易机会。
So Brad, your thoughts on this? Is this a sign of a bottom? And why are you doing this? It's for the tree. You're doing it. Yeah, it is true.
布拉德，你对这个有什么想法吗？这是市场的底部信号吗？你为什么要这么做？这是为了树。你正在做到了。是的，没错。
I mean, our job is to look at all these companies and understand their value. I'm sitting here looking at a list that I was given this morning, 125 companies, secondary.
我是说，我们的工作就是审视所有这些公司并了解它们的价值。我现在正在看着今天早上给我的一张列表，里面有125家公司，是次要的。
The Goldman Sachs Unprofitable Tech Index in the public markets is down 64% as of this one. Unprofitable public companies. They put together a basket. They track unprofitable public companies down 64% off of its peak as of this morning.
高盛公司无盈利科技指数在公共市场上下跌了64%。它们将无盈利公共公司组合成一篮子，追踪这些公司，截至今日，指数已较峰值下跌了64%。
So you just quoted the Bloomberg article saying, yeah, these unprofitable tech companies in the private markets are down about 60, 61%. That smells right to me. The repricings have to occur. These have to occur. Right?
所以你引用了彭博社的文章，说私人市场中这些不盈利的科技公司下跌了60%至61%左右。这对我来说很有道理。重价定价的调整必须发生，这是必然的。对吧？
There are 1400 unicorns at the end of 2022 and 100% of them will likely do a down run. And if you said, what is the average that they're going to be down? It's over 50%.
到2022年底，预计将有1400只独角兽企业，其中100%可能会出现退募。如果你问它们平均下跌的幅度是多少，那么这个数字将超过50%。
You saw the repricings out of some of the best ones, like a Canva or a Stripe, where it was down, let's go 30%, 40%, 50%. But there are going to be companies like in the public markets that are down 80% or 90% and disappear altogether. So we didn't see the repricings. Okay? And by the way, when we say that article quotes forage, that is what the sellers are offering to sell shares for. That is not where transactions are clearing. Right?
在某些最优秀的公司中，比如Canva或Stripe，你看到了它们的重新定价，下跌了30％、40％甚至50％。但是，一些公司在公开市场上下跌了80％或90％，最终消失了。所以我们没有看到重新定价。顺便说一句，当我们说文章引用了Forage时，那是卖方所提供的股票出售价格。但这并不是实际交易价格。
So why hasn't altimeter purchased any of this because the prices aren't low enough to induce me to get off the sidelines to purchase the shares? But we're within kind of, we're starting to get into zone where we can underwrite to a margin of safety competitive or better than the public markets for companies that we think are great companies.
那么为什么高度计公司没有购买任何股票呢？因为价格还不够低，不能诱使我离开观望状态去购买股票。但我们正在进入一个区域，在这个区域里，我们可以为我们认为是优秀的公司提供具有竞争力的或更好的安全保障来承保。
Now out of those 1400 unicorns at the end of 2022, there are probably less than 5% of those companies I would even want to own at the right price. Right? So it's a small subset of companies. The price has to get to this clearing point.
到2022年末，这些独角兽中可能只有不到5%的公司我愿意以正确的价格去购买。因此，这只是少数几家公司。价格必须达到这个交易的点。
But I think over the course of the next 18 months, we're going to see an acceleration of market clearing events as these companies need to raise capital, as their employees want to get liquid on shares. And it's probably see some great opportunities.
我认为在接下来的18个月内，我们会看到市场清算事件的加速，因为这些公司需要筹集资金，员工也想把股份变现。这很可能会带来一些好的投资机会。
But most of these things that get put on sale should not be purchased. Right? Most of them, even the first sale price is never the last sale price. The markdown on the black T-shirts will continue.
但是，大多数打折出售的东西都不应该购买，是吗？它们中的大多数，即使第一次促销价格也不是最后的促销价。黑色T恤的折扣将持续下去。
Trimoth or Sax, any thoughts? Are you buying in secondary? Are you looking at this? Yeah. We'll look at secondary deals. It's not primarily what we do, but we're open to it.
Trimoth或Sax，你们有何想法？你们在二级市场购买吗？你们考虑这个吗？是的。我们会考虑二级市场交易。这不是我们主要的业务，但我们也接受。
But Brad, if you were to categorize the 1400 unicorns into one of three categories, what do you think the percentages would be? Those three categories being zombie corns, like unicorn companies that just don't deserve to exist that are a product market fit and they're going to go away. Category two would be viable companies that are just overpriced and are headed for a down round. And then number three would be the ones that are actually headed for an up round. Yeah.
布拉德，如果你要把这1400只独角兽分成三个类别，你认为百分比分别是多少呢？这三个类别分别是僵尸独角兽，例如，那些只是没有存在的市场适配性的独角兽公司，它们会消失的。第二类是有生存力的公司，只是过高的价格，将会进入下轮融资。然后第三类是那些真正将进入上轮融资的公司。是的。
I'd say 30 to 40% are these companies that were valued over a billion dollars that don't have product market fit. They'll disappear. Every company that will disappear. Right.
我认为有30%到40%的公司是那些被估价超过10亿美元，但却没有产品市场适配性的公司。它们将会消失。每个公司都会消失。是的。
Listen, now just to be fair, let's explain. Most of these companies have less than 200 million of preference preferred shares that venture capitalists invest into the company. And many of those companies in that 30, 40%, there's a team, there's some asset of value. They may be able to sell the talent of the team and recoup David, let's call it 30, 40% of the prep stack, right in that transaction. We're starting to see some of those occur.
现在来说一下，为了公平起见，让我们解释一下。这些公司中有大多数仅有不到2亿的首选股份，这些股份是由风险投资家投资的。在其中有30%、40%的公司中，有一个团队，有一些有价值的资产。他们也许能够将团队的才华卖出，收回达到30%到40%的首选股份，这是在这笔交易中的。我们开始看到一些这样的事情发生。
Then I think the lion's share of the companies that are left, let's call it another 40%. These are companies that should never have been marked at these prices, right? But they do have a business and they're going to be marked down 50 to 80%. But none of those have been able to grow through it.
我认为剩下的公司中，大部分可称为另外40%的公司。这些公司本不应被标价这么高，对吧？但是它们确实有一个业务，并且将会被贬值50%到80%。但是，这些公司没有一个能够通过这个困境实现增长。
Then there's less than 10% of the companies, right? Whose growth has been so robust through this period that they've actually grown into or within 10, 15% of those prior prices. And if you do all of that work, it puts us back on trend line, right? The only thing unusual here is how far off trend line, we had 1400 unicorns, right? In 2020, we had I think 145 IPOs. In the last two years, we've had four. Okay. So there's a huge backlog. These companies aren't getting public. Why? Because public market buyers like ourselves, we're not willing to pay the prices that were in the private market.
那么，只有不到10%的公司，是吧？它们的增长在此期间非常强劲，以至于它们实际上已经增长到或增长了10%至15%左右的先前价格。如果你做了所有这些工作，我们就回到了趋势线上了，对吧？唯一不同寻常的是，我们有了1400个独角兽，它们距离趋势线有多远。在2020年，我认为我们进行了145次IPO。在过去的两年中，我们只进行了四次。好的。因此，有一个巨大的积压。这些公司没有上市。为什么？因为像我们这样的公开市场买家，我们不愿意支付私人市场价格。
So the first step is to just have these clearing events. And as David, you and I heard sober talk over the course of the last couple of days, I think they said to founders very clearly, you need to sell your businesses or you need to get profitable. There is no middle ground.
所以第一步就是进行这些“清理事件”。正如David和我在过去几天里听到的那样，我认为他们对创始人非常清楚地说，你需要出售你的企业或者你需要盈利，没有中间地带。
In other news for it has been issued a conditional $9.2 billion loan from the US Department of Energy to build out three 123 EV battery factories, specific loans coming through the Department of Energy's LPO. That's the loan program's office. They've got about 400 billion to lend out. You might remember this from 2010 when they gave Cylindra a 123 batteries, which eventually went bankrupt and got bought by a Chinese company, I believe, and Tesla. A $465 million loan, Tesla paid it back. The other two didn't.
另外，最近美国能源部发布了一项条件性的92亿美元贷款，用于建造三座123电动汽车电池工厂，具体贷款来自能源部的贷款项目办公室。该项目办公室有约4000亿美元的贷款可供发放。大家可能还记得2010年那个给了赛林德拉（一家电池公司）12.3亿美元贷款的事件，最终赛林德拉破产并被一家中国公司收购，而特斯拉获得了4.65亿美元贷款并已还清。而另外两个公司则没有偿还。
It tested back with interest. Jiggersha, the director of the loan program office, described the lending moves as a way to onshore and reshore manufacturing. The goal of the program is not innovation, but to get more of the supply chain to be manufactured in the US. I guess some people are criticizing this just out of the gate with why should we be giving these loans to companies? This would be the private sector doing it. Jmoth, what are your thoughts here? Is this a good idea, a great idea, a neutral idea?
这种贷款方案引起了广泛关注。贷款方案办公室主任Jiggersha将放贷行动描述为本土化和重新定位制造业的方式。该计划的目标不是创新，而是让更多的供应链在美国制造。我想有些人会对此提出批评，他们认为我们为什么要将这些贷款给予公司？这应该由私营企业自己完成。Jmoth，您对此有何想法？这是一个好主意、伟大的主意还是中立的主意？
It's a great idea. Explain. It's us using our balance sheet to make sure that we get to energy independence. This is actually a perfect role for government. It's shaping incentives so that capitalism can do its job. What this does for Ford is a partnership with SK. SK has a lot of capability in Korea, but they can bring that know-how now domestically onshore to the United States. You'll be hiring thousands of people. You'll be building battery factories. Ford needs batteries. Their forecast is they'll be selling 2.5 million electric vehicles by 2026, 2027. Whatever Ford does, you can expect GM will also do. You can expect all of the other big companies to do. This is all just great.
这是一个很好的想法。这意味着我们利用自己的资产负债表确保我们达到能源独立。这实际上是政府的完美角色，它可以塑造激励措施，使得资本主义能够发挥作用。对于福特来说，它与SK合作是一个很好的选择。SK在韩国拥有许多能力，但现在他们可以将这些技术转移到美国国内。这将会为福特雇佣数千名员工，建造电池工厂。福特需要电池。据他们预测，到2026年或2027年，他们将销售250万辆电动汽车。无论福特有什么行动，你都可以期待通用汽车也会采取行动。你可以期待所有其他大公司也会这样做。这一切都是非常美好的。
At the end of the day, for people to not over-this is 9.8 billion, I guess it sounds like a lot, but we're probably spending 9.8 billion dollars a day fighting wars. This is a day of just taking a pause on all these dumb wars and actually becoming energy reliant, carbon neutral, fixing the climate. It's great. Jobs, energy independence, and less dependency on autocratic nations. It seems like a good idea.
在一天的结束时，为了让人们不过度消耗，这个数字是98亿美元，我猜听起来很多，但我们可能每天花费98亿美元来打仗。今天暂停所有这些愚蠢的战争，并开始变得能源自给自足，碳中和，修复气候，这是非常棒的。这会创造就业机会、能源独立性和减少对专制国家的依赖，看起来是个好主意。
Everything should be. How about instead of thinking about it in terms of wars, let's think about it in terms of. If the DOD budget is 800 billion dollars per year, what is that? 2.6 billion a day, 2.7 billion a day. We're talking about three days, four days. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. You want to sign Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday? I'll take you on the side of it.
一切都应该如此。我们为什么不换一种思考方式，不再以战争的角度来看待这个问题，而是从另一个角度思考呢？如果国防部的预算是每年8000亿美元，这意味着什么呢？每天2.6亿或2.7亿美元。我们仅仅需要三天或四天的预算。星期一，星期二，星期三，星期四。如果你想签个星期一到星期四的合同，我可以帮助你解决这个问题。
We've got to be doing this for private. Private, should private. Why is it extremely doing that? I agree with Tamath about the wars, but this is all money we don't have. We shouldn't be spending the money on wars and we shouldn't be spending it, I think, on industrial policy. First of all, one of our friends who's an energy investor, we should beep his name, but f*** was telling me that the energy subsidies that were in the misnamed inflation reduction act, it is like the biggest bonanza of all time. He said that the energy sector is going crazy now trying to figure out how to do it.
我们必须私下进行这项工作。保密很重要。为什么非要这么做呢？我同意Tamath关于战争的看法，但这些都是我们没有的钱。我们不应该把钱花在战争上，我认为也不应该花在工业政策上。首先，我们的一个朋友是能源投资者，我们应该保密他的名字，但是该死的，他告诉我在那个被错误命名为通胀削减法案中的能源补贴，是有史以来最大的财富之源。他说，现在，能源行业正疯狂地尝试着如何去做到它。
How to exploit these incentives. His view is that although I think it was supposed to cost about $350 billion, he thought that it would ultimately cost the government somewhere around a trillion. Because the way these subsidies work is that you just qualify for them and then you get the subsidy, it's not like the credits run out. If you qualify, you get it. This could end up costing the government way more than what was originally projected. The question is, what are you going to get for all of this money? In this article on Ford, they were talking about these 7,000 jobs that are being created at a cost of $440,000 per job.
如何利用这些激励措施。他的观点是，尽管原本应该花费大约3500亿美元，但他认为最终政府可能会花费约1万亿美元。因为这些补贴的工作方式是，你只需要符合条件，然后就能得到补贴，不像抵扣额度有限。如果你符合条件，就能得到补贴。这可能最终会比最初预计的成本更高。问题是，你会为这些钱得到什么？在这篇关于福特公司的文章中，他们谈论到花费44万美元创造的这7,000个工作。
It's great that the jobs are being created, but if you look at the efficiency of that, that spend per job doesn't really make sense. I don't understand how you get that number. You take that for the article. That's the article said it. The article said 440,000 per job. Do you take 9.8 billion and divide it by 7,000? What do you do? I'm just quoting that paragraph for the article. The job creation is good, but you got to look at the efficiency of the job creation.
虽然创造就业岗位的消息是好事，但如果你看一下效率，每个岗位的花费并不合理。我不明白这个数字是怎么来的。你要从文章中看。文章说了这个数字是440,000美元每个岗位。你是将98亿美元除以7,000吗？你要做什么？我只是引用了文章的那一段。创造就业岗位是好的，但你必须看看创造就业的效率。
The other thing is, the question I would ask you guys actually is, who wants one of these Ford EVs? Do you want an EV by Ford? I think there are a lot of people that drive a Ford pickup truck. We talked about this before. That's $150 coming. Yeah. Very popular. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago which talked about the brand consideration cycle that has been going on. There was a large, we're friends with Elon, but we should acknowledge there's a large number of people that are frankly a little bit turned off by him. They've been very clear that they want an alternative to Tesla because they don't want to buy Tesla because they don't necessarily prefer him as a brand ambassador for their car.
另一件事是，我想问问你们，谁想要一辆福特的电动车呢？你们想要福特的电动车吗？我认为有很多人开福特的皮卡车。我们之前就谈过这个。那个会得到150美元的交易。这个交易非常受欢迎。几个月前，《华尔街日报》刊登了一篇文章，讲述了品牌考虑周期正在发生的情况。虽然我们与埃隆是朋友，但应该承认有很多人对他有点反感。他们非常清楚地表示，他们想要一个特斯拉的替代品，因为他们不想购买特斯拉，因为他们并不喜欢他作为汽车品牌大使。
The reality of life is that even if you're maximally incredible, unless you find some clever way of creating a monopoly, in which case you can be a douche or evil, you're only ever going to capture 30 plus 40% maybe of a market. Coke Pepsi is a good example. There's always going to be long tail alternatives. I had a chance, for example, in Vegas to drive a Rivian. I was surprised at the quality or drive in a Rivian. I was surprised at the quality of a Rivian, only because I've been so focused on Tesla my whole life. Yeah, I think there are a lot of people that will buy Ford's. I don't take anything away from what Elon's doing, but I do think there are a lot of people that will buy it.
生活的现实是，即使你非常厉害，除非你找到一些聪明的办法创造垄断，否则你只能占据市场的30到40%。Coca-Cola和百事可乐就是一个很好的例子。总会有一些长尾的替代品。比如说，在拉斯维加斯，我有机会开一辆Rivian。我惊讶于Rivian的质量和驾驶感受，只是因为我一直专注于特斯拉。是的，我认为会有很多人会购买福特。我不会否认埃隆正在做的事情，但我确信会有很多人会购买。
My problem with industrial policy is this. You think about that EV Summit that the White House did. They didn't even invite Elon. That was for political reasons. Union reasons, yeah. Partly because of his views on speech, but I think mostly because he's not at Union's shop. That's the real reason why Ford is being doled out this sort of 9 point something billion dollar loan is because they're politically connected with the right people in this current administration. That's the problem with industrial policy is that the money gets handed out by government to the politically connected. But in this case, Tesla did. As opposed to the companies that may be producing the best products. The fact is Tesla did get one of his loans in 2010 when it was a very nascent company. You got to give them some credit. They took a big risk there.
我对产业政策的问题在于，政府向那些政治关系密切的公司发放贷款，而不是那些生产出最优秀产品的公司。例如，福特公司之所以被向其发放90亿美元的贷款，是因为他们与当前政府密切关系。而特斯拉在2010年获得了一笔贷款，这是一家很新的公司，他们冒了很大的风险，这点需要我们给予肯定。而在白宫举办的电动汽车峰会中没有邀请埃隆·马斯克，这是政治因素的影响，主要原因是他的言论观点，并且缺乏工会背景。
But let's think about that for a second. I know that example comes up a lot. And A123 and Cylindra. So Elon was basically a fluke. I mean, you get like a once in a generation entrepreneur who have to be working on this EV problem and he got that loan. If you're to take Elon out of that government portfolio, it all looks like Cylindra. So the question is like, what is this portfolio going to look like? Is there really going to be another Elon in there? Because if not, there's going to be a lot of Cylindras. Well, even if they break even, there's going to be a lot of subsidies to companies like Ford, which are politically connected. And I think a point Freberg would make if he were here is that at some point you're going to have to turn off the subsidies because we can't afford it. And then at that point, is that factory give me self-sufficient?
让我们仔细想一想。我知道这个例子经常被提到。像A123和Cylindra。因此，埃隆基本上是一个偶然。我的意思是，你需要像他这样的创业者，世上只有一个他在解决电动汽车问题，他得到了那笔贷款。如果你把埃隆从政府的投资组合中拿出来，一切看起来都像Cylindra。所以问题是，这个组合会是什么样子？是否真的会出现另一个埃隆？因为如果没有，就会有很多Cylindras。即使它们达到了盈亏平衡，也会给像福特这样与政治有牵连的公司提供很多补贴。如果弗里伯格在这里，他会指出，在某个时候，你必须停止补贴，因为我们负担不起。那么在那个时候，那家工厂会变得自给自足吗？
Brad, you've heard the two sides of the story here? You know, and listen, while generally against industrial policy, I come down on Jamaz side. I think this is a once in a generation opportunity to reduce our national security risk profile and to achieve what is really a national security imperative, which is energy independence. It's not going to happen just according to the invisible end of the market. We see our great power competitors who are using this against us, frankly, and have robust industrial policies. So I'm willing to stipulate that there will be those inefficiencies in this system. But I was lucky enough last night I was having dinner with the deputy secretary of the Treasury, Ali Adiyama, who was out here meeting with founders, including battery founders in Silicon Valley on this very subject. And I know some of the companies who are getting checks from the US government to scale up, right, innovative battery technologies, innovative chip manufacturing. And I have to say this is the best of America.
布拉德，你听到了这两个方面的故事吗？你知道，虽然通常反对工业政策，但我分站在贾马兹这边。我认为这是一个千载难逢的机会，可以减少我们的国家安全风险，并实现真正的国家安全必要，即能源独立。这不会仅仅按照市场的无形之手发生。我们看到我们的大国竞争对手在利用这一点来对付我们，坦率地说，他们有强大的工业政策。所以，我愿意声明在这个系统中会有这些低效率的因素存在。但昨晚我很幸运，我与财政部副部长阿里·艾迪亚玛一起吃晚餐，他在这里与硅谷的电池创始人会面，包括电池技术和芯片制造的创始人。我知道一些获得美国政府支票扩大规模，实现创新电池技术和创新芯片制造的公司。我不得不说，这是美国最好的地方。
I see some really great public-private partnerships that are onshoring vital national interests in chips and batteries. And so I'm happy to see it happening. But I also know there will be grift and there will be waste along the way.
我看到一些非常棒的公私合作伙伴关系正在实现芯片和电池的本地化，这对国家利益非常重要，我很高兴看到这种事情正在发生。但我也知道，在这个过程中将会有欺诈和浪费。
But compare that, David, to the 8 trillion we've spent over the last 20 years, a war policy and what we've gotten from that. So you know, you'd rather see us take chances here on innovative battery technologies that will still change our ways, but not as wasteful as a war gun.
大卫，把这个与我们在过去20年里花费的8万亿相比，我们的战争政策所带来的成果。你知道，我们宁愿在创新电池技术上冒险，这将改变我们的生活方式，但不像战争那样浪费。
Well, of course, I mean, the first thing we got to do is turn off all these crazy wars. But that can't be the bar because that's a very low bar.
当然，我是说我们首先要做的是停止所有这些疯狂的战争。但是这不能成为目标，因为这个目标很低。
I mean, anything is more productive than wasting the money blowing up other countries that we don't need to be involved in. I mean, remember, we do have a $32 trillion debt.
我的意思是，任何事情都比浪费钱在我们不必涉足的其他国家上更有生产力。我的意思是，记住，我们欠32万亿美元的债务。
I think a great thing to do here is what they should have done with Tesla, which is when they give that $500 million loan to Tesla, they should have gotten 10% of that in warrants to buy Tesla shares at the IPO.
我认为在这里可以做的一件很棒的事情，就是他们本应该在投资特斯拉时采取的做法，也就是在为特斯拉提供5亿美元贷款时，应该获得10%的认股权，在特斯拉IPO时购买其股票。
50 million at that IPO would have gone, what, 200x. And that would have been an incredible payday. So if they give this $9.2 billion to Ford, why not get $900 million in one?
如果当初他们在那次 IPO 上募资了 5000 万美元，那么回报将会达到 200 倍。那就是一个不可思议的收益。所以如果他们将这 92 亿美元给了福特，为什么不从中获得 9 亿美元的收益？
So you want to think I'm going to become a VC? No, I want them to get a little participation in the upside of the company. I don't want them to own it. I want that. That's a VC. I want to have a potential participation.
你想说我要成为一名风险投资家吗？不，我希望他们在公司的未来成功中能有一些参与。我不希望他们拥有这家公司，而是想我自己拥有。这就是风险投资家的角色。我希望能够有可能的参与。
Well, I'm giving a modest number here. So right now they're a VC without participation, but right now they're a loan that gets paid back with interest. And I'm saying give them some upside in the equity, even if it's a small piece, would you object to that sex?
嗯，我提供了一个适度的数字。现在他们是一家没有参与的风险投资公司，但实际上他们只是提供带利息的贷款。我建议给他们一些股权回报，就算只是很少的一部分，您有意见吗？
You basically want to make them a venture debt provider, like SVB. Basically, yeah, like venture debt, like give them a pot sweetener. Yes. Give them a pot sweetener.
你基本上想让他们成为类似SVB的风险债务提供者。基本上就像风险债务，给他们一个甜头。是的。给他们一个甜头。
解释：此段是在讨论如何让某些人成为风险债务提供者，提供一些甜头来吸引他们。
Why not? Get the pot sweetener. You may not remember that, but it would have worked out incredibly well with their pressing data.
为什么不呢？让我们请客吧。你可能不记得了，但这将极大地促进他们的紧急数据问题得到解决。
Jason, it doesn't solve my problem. You might drive a better deal for the US government in that case, which is fine with me, but it doesn't solve my objection, which is at the end of the day, these decisions are going to be made based on political criteria.
Jason，这并不能解决我的问题。如果你能为美国政府争取到更好的交易，我当然是支持的，但它不能解决我的反对意见——最终决策将基于政治标准。
The current, yeah. Got it. Okay. So, I think that's a great capitalism as opposed to entrepreneurial capitalism. Well, this is in support of that, because this is a deal where that 9.8 billion does come over, but these are basically like loans and loan guarantees, and you still have to put up the equity yourself.
目前的状况，嗯，我懂了。好的，所以我认为这是伟大的资本主义，与创业资本主义相对立。这是支持这种观点的，因为这是一个协议，那98亿确实会到位，但实际上这些基本上像是贷款和贷款保证金，你仍然需要自己提供股权。
That doesn't solve anybody's problem, meaning you need to still be entrepreneurial, and there needs to be risk capital. In this case, the risk capital is coming from Ford and SK. And I think that that's my understanding of this.
这并不能解决任何人的问题，也就是说，你仍然需要具有企业家精神，并且需要有风险资本。 在这种情况下，风险资本来自福特和SK。 我认为这就是我的理解。
I understand this really suspicious. This is like 90% of the cost or 95% of the cost. So, there's not much risk capital here from Ford or SK. I mean, it might be opportunity costs, but it's not the full cost of these three factories is almost $13 billion.
我对这个非常怀疑。这相当于成本的90%或95%。因此，福特或SK在这里没有太多的风险资本。我的意思是，可能会有机会成本，但这不是三个工厂的全部成本，几乎达到130亿美元。
So there's still a non-trivial amount of risk capital that has to get put to work here. Man, I would love to only have to put up 20% on the dollar, but 30% on the dollar, my investments.
这里仍然需要投放一定数量的风险资本。我希望只需要投入每美元的20%，但实际上是30%。这是我投资中的风险。
I think Brad does make a good point about the security of our supply chain. I'm more willing to use this sort of industrial policy when we're talking about something that is vital to the security of the United States.
我认为Brad在关于我们供应链的安全性方面有一点说得很好。当我们谈论对美国安全至关重要的事情时，我更愿意使用这种工业政策。
I think you can make- Like chips, you were scoring the challenge. The chips. I don't think electric vehicles rise to that quite that level. Batteries might? I don't know. I wouldn't say batteries do, but I think obtaining a secure supply of the rare earths that are needed to make batteries, there's maybe a role for government in that.
我认为你可以制造出像筹码一样的东西，像筹码那样，在挑战中得分。但是电动汽车似乎没有达到那个水平。电池可能可以吗？我不知道。我不会说电池可以，但我认为获得稀土元素的安全供应，以用于电池生产，这方面政府可能有一定的作用。
The reason batteries must is because the only way to wean ourselves off of the dependence we have on fossil fuels around the world, and even though we produce and we're now an exporter of oil, the reality is we're still in entanglements around the world because the world is dependent upon those fossil fuels. I do think that that is a national security interest, energy independence, not only for ourselves, but for others. If Germany was energy independent and kept their nuclear running and didn't have Nord Stream, we'd have a different situation here right now. We'd have a much different situation. We've got plenty of oil and gas over here.
电池必须使用的原因是因为我们迫切需要摆脱全球化石燃料的依赖。尽管我们已经成为石油出口国，但现实是，由于全球对这些燃料的依赖，我们仍然处于与世界各国的纠缠中。我认为这是国家安全利益，实现能源自主，不仅是为了我们自己，也是为了其他国家。如果德国实现能源自主，保持核电运行并不使用北溪，那么我们现在的情况将会不同。我们这里有足够的石油和天然气。
All right, everybody, there you have it from the architect drill bit trigger warning. I like your Greta Thunberg tweet show off. That was a really good tweet. Shout out to my screen. Oh my God, the number of people. I mean, did the mids like it or the mids hated it? What happened?
大家好，听到建筑师钻头提示的建议了吗？我很喜欢你发的那条关于格雷塔·桑伯格的推文，真的很不错。向我的屏幕喊话。天啊，有多少人看到了！这个观众群体是喜欢还是讨厌呢？发生了什么？
Can I just address what this means? So when I think of somebody as a mid, it's somebody that is just a hapless, impotent cuck that can't think for themselves. Amatic laseous. Also, what I don't mean is that you have a bill in there. You know what this is? It's the all in podcast for clicks. If you 10 people have started, can I finish? Yes, it has nothing to do with your financial status. It's just everything to do with your open mindedness. And there are these people that are just so reactive on Twitter. I feel a little bit sad because in a few years, they'll still be very unaccomplished and yet still be wondering who they can blame now and it'll just be them. Blame themselves. So I would just encourage these people to just fucking do some work. Put your head down. Do the work. My God. Build something, make something.
我可以说一下这意味着什么吗？当我说某人是 "mid" 时，意思是这个人是个不幸、无能的人，无法自主思考。Amatic laseous。另外，我不是说你会有账单在里面。你知道这是什么吗？这是 Podcast 为了点击率。如果有10个人已经开始，我可以完成吗？对，这与你的财务状况无关，只与你的开放态度有关。还有那些在 Twitter 上如此反应过度的人，我感到有点悲哀，因为几年后，他们依然会很无成就感，但他们会想知道现在应该怪谁，其实只怪他们自己。所以我想鼓励这些人，去做点工作，集中注意力，做点实事。我的天啊，去建立一些、制造一些东西。
So anyways, most of the comments were really great and interesting. And then there's a couple of people who were like, Oh my God, how dare you? You know, and it's like, how dare I what? How dare I what exactly? You can tell that the spark has truly become successful when the mainstream media fights up and punches up to try to get us to respond to them to get more people to subscribe to their sub stack while playing Matt. I'll tell you the funniest thing. The funniest thing was I did this tweet about Buffett and then people are like, Oh, but I thought you compared yourself to Buffett.
总之，大部分评论都非常好而有趣。然后还有一些人说：“我的天啊，你怎么敢？”你知道的，就好像，我怎么敢干了什么？我究竟怎么敢了什么？你可以看出，当主流媒体努力并打击我们试图让我们回应他们、以获取更多人订阅他们的 substack 时，火花真正成为成功。我告诉你最有趣的事情。最有趣的是，我在推特上发了一个有关巴菲特的推文，然后有人说：“噢，但我以为你是和巴菲特相比呢。”
And I was like, no, no comparison. Just benchmarks. And then they get tweaked about the word comparison versus benchmark. And then Carson block jumps in and I texted Carson on the side. I was like, bro, I'm just trolling the mids. Just don't worry. This is all bullshit. It's all just for shits and I do it. I do it when I'm either pooing or I have jet liked one of the. It's on ambient or while taking a dump or both. No ambient for the dictator, the architect and bestie Brad, the fifth bestie and our mass, our new mascot, Matt the mascot, who'll be writing three more sub stacks about us.
我说，不，没有比较，只是基准。然后他们因为用词“比较”和“基准”起了争执。然后卡森•布洛克加入了进来，我私下给他发了个短信，我说，兄弟，我只是在戏弄那些中级员工，不用担心。这一切都是胡言乱语，我只是在乐呵。我在上厕所的时候或者在飞机上时喜欢这么做。对于独裁者、建筑师和最好的朋友布拉德，第五个朋友，我们的主角马特，我们新的吉祥物，没有环境声音。他会写三个郵件给我们。
I am the world's greatest moderator. Can we make that shit bread logo or logo? Yes. Make to co twos. austerity measure lunch. We salute you. The all in lunch will not be a steady measure. By the way, you guys touch it. Do you know what it was? Was it bread? Did you touch it? I didn't touch it. No. What wasn't I abandoned it immediately is a vegan pretzel.
我是世界上最棒的管理员。我们可以把那该死的面包标志或标识改一下吗？可以。把它们做成两个。节俭的午餐。我们向你致敬。全力以赴的午餐不会是一个稳定的措施。顺便问一下，你们摸了它吗？你知道那是什么吗？是面包吗？你摸了它吗？我没有摸过。不是。那是一个素食脆饼。如果我发现了它，我会立即放弃。
I don't know. Is that what they call dog poop now a vegan pretzel? Is that what they call it? Greenberg was going to be there a vegan. Well, the WF once is eating insects. So this is I think that's probably what it looks like a vegan donut slash a doodoo. It's it looks like a friend. He just struck it around. I thought my seven year old had played it for me because he's a types of like. What are those big doodos? The rubber ones.
我不知道。他们现在把狗屎称为素食椒盐脆饼了吗？他们是这么称呼它的吗？格林伯格打算做一个素食主义者。嗯，WF曾经吃昆虫。所以我想这可能看起来像一个素食糕点/便便。它看起来像是朋友扔过来的。我以为是我七岁的儿子给我玩的，因为他的打字方式很像。那些大便便是什么来着？橡皮的那种。
I'm going to buy some fake doodoo. Actually you know what they should do. They should put that coach who should make fake doodoo and put it in the gift bag for all in summit. That would be a great little merch item.
我要去买一些假粑粑。其实你知道吗，他们应该做的是把那个教练安排去制作假粑粑，并将其放在峰会的礼物袋里。这将是一个很棒的小商品。
All right. We'll see you on next time. Bye bye. Love you, boys. Bye. Let your winners ride. Brain man, David Satsang.
好的，下次再见。拜拜。爱你们，男孩们。再见。让你们的胜利者继续前进。 Brain man ，David Satsang。
意思：好的，下次见。拜拜。喜欢你们，男孩们。再见。让你们的胜利者继续前进。 Brain man，David Satsang。
We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with them. Love you.
我们将其开源给粉丝们，他们对此感到非常兴奋。我们爱你们。
Nice queen of kinwam. What? What? What? What? What? Your winners ride.
美丽的kingwam女王。什么？什么？什么？什么？什么？您的胜利者正在前进。
意思是一个人正在称赞kingwam女王的美丽，并告诉她，因为她的胜利者正在前进，所以有人在喊叫“什么”。
Besties are gone. I don't think they're gonna be. Besties are gone. Besties are gone. I don't think they're gonna be. Besties are gone. Besties are gone. Besties are gone. Besties are gone. Besties are gone.
最好的朋友已经不在了。我不认为他们会回来。最好的朋友已经不在了。最好的朋友已经不在了。我不认为他们会回来。最好的朋友已经不在了。最好的朋友已经不在了。最好的朋友已经不在了。最好的朋友已经不在了。最好的朋友已经不在了。
What?
什么？（此处需要上下文才能确定表达意思，请提供更多信息）
They are like a dog. They're gonna be Colcanorn. I invite them to actually take a picture of this for frequently.
他们像是一只狗。他们将成为Colcanorn。我邀请他们经常拍照。
这句话的意思可能需要更多上下文才能确定，但从句子结构和单词含义来看，它可能是一种贬低和挑衅的说法。它暗示这些人像狗一样跟随某个主人，他们将成为某种不可救药的事情，而邀请他们拍照可能是讽刺或让他们知道自己的愚蠢行为已经被记录。
I'm listening to this productions a little bit in the music hall and show you how this all ends up we'll do the Top 10 things written for short pants.
我现在在音乐厅里听这些制作，稍微展示一下这一切的结局，我们将为短裤写的前十件事。
I'm going only.
我只是一个人去。这句话表达的是，我打算独自一人出行，没有其他人和我一起去。