All-In Summit: Ray Dalio on the rise and fall of nations and the changing world order

So first off, please join me in welcoming Ray Dalio to the stage. Wow! Yeah! Ray Dalio! Thank you. Oh my god, real legit. Thank you, guys. You got Ray Dalio! Thank you. You got Ray Dalio! You let your winner ride. Brainman David Satt. And it said we open-source it to the fans and they've just got crazy. I don't know how we got you to the stage. It must have been the fact that I just said your name 400 times last year.

首先，请大家热烈欢迎雷·达里奥上台。哇！是的！雷·达里奥！谢谢大家。哦天哪，真真正正的。谢谢你们，你们请来了雷·达里奥！谢谢大家。你们请来了雷·达里奥！你们让你的赢家赢得更多。大脑人戴维·萨特。然后我们将其开源给粉丝，然后他们就疯了。我不知道我们是怎么让你上台的。可能是因为去年我说了你的名字400次。

This guy's written the book. But I will say you were by far my top choice as a guest to have at the all-in-sum of 2023, which I took advantage of because I got to produce it this year. You guys have heard me talk about Ray's book, Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order, Why Nations Succeed and Fail on the Pod a lot. And I think it really encapsulates so well why we are observing a lot of the social, economic, and political shifts that are underway in the US and around the world today. Increasing civil unrest, divisive politics, our desire for external conflict, inflation, budget, and debt problems, etc. they've all played out before as nations have risen and fallen. Jason likes to make fun of the term declineists but I think it's more broader than that which is what is the cycle that happens with social systems that we call nation states over time.

这个人写了一本书。但是我要说你是我2023年全盘考虑中最好的客人选择，我之所以这么说是因为今年我有机会制作这个节目。你们听过我在播客中谈论Ray的书，《应对变化中的世界秩序的原则：国家的兴衰》很多次。我觉得这本书很好地概括了为什么我们观察到美国和全世界正在经历的社会、经济和政治变革。不断增加的社会动荡、分裂性政治、我们对外部冲突的渴望、通货膨胀、预算和债务问题等等，这些都是国家的兴衰中曾经上演过的场景。Jason喜欢取笑“衰退论者”这个词，但我认为这个问题更广泛，即我们所称的国家社会体系随着时间的推移所经历的周期。

Ray's book was my content pick of the year in 2021 and I first learned about Ray when he published Principles as a PDF in 2011. You put that out for free on the internet. Thank you. I'm a document you use at Bridgewater and I don't know if anyone else downloaded it and read it but I was a young CEO in 2011. I read that PDF and it made a big impact on me and how I thought about management, prioritization, decision making, and myself.

雷的书是我2021年最喜欢的内容选择，我第一次听说雷是在2011年他将其原则作为PDF发布在互联网上免费供人们阅读。非常感谢您。我是你在布里奇沃特使用的文件，我不知道是否还有其他人下载并阅读过它，但是在2011年我是一位年轻的首席执行官。我读了那个PDF，它对我以及我对管理、优先级、决策以及自己的思考方式产生了重大影响。

As a kid growing up in Nassau, New York, Nassau County, New York, Ray earned money, mowing lawns, shoveling snow, delivering newspapers and caddying for Wall Street tycoons. He later got a summer job with a Wall Street trader that he caddied for and ended up starting at Bridgewater two years after he got his MBA at Harvard in 1973. Make sure I get that right. By 2013, Bridgewater was the largest hedge fund in the world today managing well over a hundred billion dollars in assets. Ray spends much of his time sharing his analyses and thoughts today and his viewpoints openly and freely and for that we appreciate him and thank him and excited for welcoming here today.

雷在纽约州纳索郡纳索附近长大，作为一个孩子时，他通过修剪草坪、铲雪、投递报纸和替华尔街大亨当替身赚钱。后来，他得到了一个暑期工作机会，为一位替身的华尔街交易员工作，并于1973年在哈佛获得工商管理硕士学位后的两年开始在布里奇沃特工作。确保我没记错。到2013年，布里奇沃特已成为世界上管理超过一千亿美元资产的最大对冲基金。雷现在大部分时间都用来分享他的分析和思考，他公开自由地表达自己的观点，我们非常感激他，并期待他今天的到来。

So Ray, maybe you could just very briefly kind of summarize the cycle that you highlight in your book that I mentioned and the five great kind of drivers that you've observed and tell us a little bit about the simple kind of macro picture. I know you've got something you could share on it as well. Yeah, sure. First, I should explain that experience I had of learning that many of the things that surprised me, surprised me because they didn't happen in my lifetime before but they happened many times in history. The first time I was clerking on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in 1971 and the United States mix and defaulted on the promise to deliver gold for money because they didn't have enough money, real money gold and it went down. I went on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange expecting a big down. It went up a lot. That's because I never had a devaluation at the half of that. I found that in March 1933, the exact same thing happened with Roosevelt on the radio. Same thing. So then I studied the 30s. What happened in 1938 in terms of the depression leading to the wars and so on and the interest rates hitting zero is the exact same thing that happened in 2008 and was because I studied that that we were able to make a lot of money in the 2008 financial crisis.

雷伊，也许你可以简要概述一下你在书中强调的那个周期，并告诉我们你观察到的五个重要驱动因素，再给我们简要介绍一下宏观形势。我知道你也有一些可以分享的内容。是的，当然。首先，我应该解释一下我从中学到的经验，很多令我惊讶的事情之所以让我感到惊讶，是因为它们在我的有生之年从未发生过，但在历史上已经发生了很多次。我第一次在1971年担任纽约证券交易所的一名助理时，美国违约了将黄金换成货币的承诺，因为他们没有足够的真正的货币黄金，结果金价下跌。我走上纽约证券交易所的交易大厅，期望它大跌，但它却大涨了。那是因为我从未经历过一次半价贬值。后来我发现，1933年3月，罗斯福在广播中做了同样的事情。完全一样。于是我研究了30年代发生的事情。1938年的大萧条导致了战争等问题，利率降至零，与2008年发生的事情完全一样，正是因为我研究了那段历史，我们才能在2008年的金融危机中赚了很多钱。

So three things started to happen in my lifetime, our lifetimes that never happened before and I needed therefore to study them in history. The first is the amount of debt and money creation. Huge amounts of debt and money creation. Does that matter? What does the rise and decline of reserve currency? How does that all work? I needed to see the cycles for that.

所以，在我们的有生之年发生了三件以前从未发生过的事情，因此我需要在历史上研究它们。第一件是债务和货币创造的数量。债务和货币创造的数量巨大。这会有影响吗？储备货币的崛起和衰退有什么作用？这一切是如何运作的？我需要了解这些周期。

The second was the amount of internal political conflict in particular, populism of the left and populism of the right and a populist is a person who will not accept losing. They fought with their contingency and that dysfunction and that lack of willingness to lose then had January 6th came out after the book and there's a dynamic that we're going on for that.

第二个问题是内部政治冲突的程度，尤其是左翼和右翼的民粹主义，而民粹主义者是那些不愿接受失败的人。他们与其应对策略彼此斗争，这种功能紊乱和不愿承认失败的态度，最终导致了1月6日的事件。这在书籍发表后才显现出来，并引发了一种动态。

And the third of course is the great power conflict. In other words, the rise of a comparable economic and military power in the form of China rising and competing with the United States which is also changing that world order. Those three things never happened in my lifetime but are big things that are affecting things. When I went back in history, I said I needed to study how these things work. Sometimes we overlooked the really big things. So I went back and I studied that and I saw that there were two others that had enormous impact. The two others were acts of nature in particular drought, floods and pandemics and they killed more people and they toppled more empires and changed more world orders than anything. And certainly big issue now.

当然，第三个因素是强大的力量冲突。换句话说，中国崛起并与美国竞争，从而改变世界秩序。这三件事在我有生之年从未发生过，但它们是正在影响着事物的重要因素。回顾历史时，我意识到我需要研究这些因素的影响方式。有时候我们会忽视一些真正重要的事情。所以我回去研究了这些，并发现还有另外两个因素对世界产生了巨大的影响。这两个因素是自然灾害，尤其是干旱、洪灾和大流行病，它们夺去了更多的生命，推翻了更多的帝国，改变了更多的世界秩序。现在当然也是一个重大问题。

And then number five is technological changes and how they evolve. So I needed to study those five forces. I saw that there's the cycle that repeats over for good cause effect relationships. I don't believe in a cycle just because it repeats. I started to understand the cause effect relationships. I have a clip here if I can show you just four minutes, just a brief summary of the cycle.

然后第五个是技术变革及其演变。所以我需要研究这五种力量。我发现有一个循环重复的好因果关系。我不仅仅因为它重复而相信这个循环。我开始理解因果关系。我这里有一个片段，如果可以的话我可以给你看，只有四分钟，简要总结了这个循环。

Can you hit it with the clip? I studied the ten most powerful empires over the last 500 years and the last three reserve currencies, it took me through the rise and decline of the Dutch Empire and the Gilder, the British Empire and the Pound, the rise and early decline in the United States Empire and the dollar and the decline and rise of the Chinese Empire and its currencies, as well as the rise and decline of the Spanish, German, French, Indian, Japanese, Russian and Ottoman empires, along with their significant conflicts as measured in this chart.

你能用剪辑打开它吗？我研究了过去500年里最强大的十个帝国和最近三种储备货币，这使我经历了荷兰帝国和盾币的崛起与衰落、英国帝国和英镑的崛起与早期衰落、美国帝国和美元的崛起与早期衰落以及中国帝国与其货币的衰落与崛起，还有西班牙、德国、法国、印度、日本、俄罗斯和奥斯曼帝国的崛起与衰落，以及它们之间的重大冲突，这些都在图表中有所体现。

To understand China's patterns better, I also studied the rise and fall of Chinese dynasties and their monies back to the year 600. Because looking at all these measures at once can be confusing, I'll focus on the four most important ones, the Dutch, British, US and Chinese. I'll quickly notice the pattern. Now let's simplify the form of it.

为了更好地理解中国的模式，我还研究了自公元600年起中国历代王朝的兴衰以及他们的货币情况。因为看完所有这些指标可能会令人困惑，所以我将专注于四个最重要的指标，即荷兰、英国、美国和中国。我很快就会注意到这种模式。现在让我们简化其形式。

As you can see, they transpired in overlapping cycles that lasted about 250 years, with 10 to 20 year transition periods between them. Typically these transitions have been periods of great conflict because leading powers don't decline without a fight. So how am I measuring an empire's power? In this study, I used eight metrics. Each country's measure of total power is derived by averaging them together. They are education, inventiveness and technology development, competitiveness in global markets, economic output, share of world trade, military strength, the power of their financial center for capital markets and the strength of their currency as a reserve currency.

正如您所看到的，这些帝国的兴衰发生在相互重叠的周期中，每个周期大约持续250年，其中有10到20年的过渡期。典型的过渡期常常是大冲突期，因为主要实力国在没经过激烈斗争就不会衰落。那么我是如何衡量一个帝国的实力呢？在这项研究中，我使用了八个指标。每个国家的总实力指标是通过将它们平均计算得出的。这些指标包括教育水平、创新和技术发展、在全球市场上的竞争力、经济产出、世界贸易份额、军事力量、金融中心对资本市场的影响力以及货币储备货币的强度。

Because these powers are measurable, we can see how strong each country is now, was in the past and whether they're rising or declining. By examining the sequences from many countries, we can see how a typical cycle transpires. And because the Wiggles can be confusing, we can simplify it a bit to focus on the pattern of cause-effect relationships that drive the rise and decline of a typical empire. As you can see, better education typically leads to increased innovation and technology development and with a lag the establishment of the currency as a reserve currency. You can also see that these forces then declined in a similar order reinforcing each other's decline.

因为这些力量是可衡量的，我们可以看到每个国家现在的实力有多强，过去是怎样的，以及它们是在上升还是在衰落。通过研究许多国家的序列，我们可以看到一个典型周期是如何发生的。而且由于这些力量可能会令人困惑，我们可以简化一些内容来专注于驱动典型帝国兴起和衰落的因果关系模式。正如您所看到的，更好的教育通常会引导增加创新和技术发展，并稍有滞后地建立该国货币作为储备货币。您还可以看到，这些力量随后按照相似的顺序下降，加强了彼此的衰落。

Let's now look at the typical sequence of events going on inside a country that produces these rises and declines. In a nutshell, the big cycle typically begins after a major conflict, often a war, establishes the new leading power and the new world order. Just no one wants to challenge this power, a period of peace and prosperity typically follows. As people get used to this peace and prosperity, they increasingly bet on it continuing. They borrow money to do that, which eventually leads to a financial bubble. The empire's share of trade grows and when most transactions are conducted in its currency, it becomes a reserve currency, which leads to even more money.

让我们现在来看一下一个能产生这种兴衰起伏的国家内部典型事件的顺序。简而言之，大周期通常始于一场重大冲突，通常是一场战争，夺得新的主导权和新的世界秩序。由于没有人愿意挑战这种权力，随之通常会出现一段和平繁荣的时期。随着人们逐渐习惯这种和平繁荣，他们越来越相信它将会延续下去。他们借钱来进行投资，最终导致金融泡沫的产生。帝国在贸易中所占份额增长，当大部分交易都使用该国的货币进行时，该货币成为储备货币，这又进一步导致更多的资金流入。

At the same time, this increased prosperity distributes wealth unevenly, so the wealth gap typically grows between the rich haves and the poor have nots. Eventually, the financial bubble bursts, which leads to the printing of money, an increased internal conflict between the rich and the poor, which leads to some form of revolution to redistribute wealth. This can happen peacefully or as a civil war.

同时，这种繁荣的增长也不均匀地分配财富，导致富有的人与贫困者之间的财富差距通常会扩大。最终，经济泡沫破裂，导致货币印制、富人与穷人之间的内部冲突增加，进而引发某种形式的革命来重新分配财富。这可能以和平方式实现，也可能演变为内战。

While the empire struggles with this internal conflict, its power diminishes relative to external rival powers on the rise. When a new rising power gets strong enough to compete with the dominant power that is having domestic breakdowns, external conflicts, most typically wars take place. For these internal and external wars come new winners and losers. Then, the winners get together to create the new world order. And the cycle begins again.

当帝国纠结于内部冲突时，它与崛起的外部对手相比，力量减弱。当一个新兴大国变得足够强大，能够与正处于国内崩溃和外部冲突（通常是战争）之中的主导国竞争时，往往会出现外部冲突。在这些内部和外部战争中，出现了新的赢家和输家。然后，赢家们聚集在一起创造新的世界秩序。而循环又开始了。

The book is amazing and the amount of work you put into this is extraordinary and it's just really great intellectually.

这本书太棒了，你付出的努力令人惊叹，它在智力上真的非常出色。

I'm curious when we look at those four groups. Since you wrote the book, China, I think we all agree, has changed significantly. Perhaps I think best described maybe being in decline in many ways, disconnecting from the West. It's also, I believe, when you look at the countries you studied, perhaps one of the only modern authoritarian countries to perhaps have an ability to take the crown if they were to continue.

当我们看这四个群体时，我很好奇。自从你写了那本《中国》这本书以来，我认为我们都同意，中国已经发生了很大的变化。或许我认为最好的描述可能是在许多方面都处于衰退状态，与西方的联系断开。我相信，当你看你所研究的国家时，或许中国是唯一一个现代威权国家，如果他们继续下去，可能有能力夺取王冠。

So, two-part question, how does everything you've learned and studied impact your thinking when one person, an authoritarian Xi Jinping is running China and disconnecting it from the rest of the world in terms of their ability? Then do you consider this, if they did succeed in becoming the dominant power in the world, what do you think that does for humanity? There are a bunch of questions in there. I'll try to remember them and take them once at a time.

所以，这是一个分为两部分的问题。当一个专权者习近平掌控着中国并与世界其他地方断开联系时，你所学习和研究的一切对你的思维产生什么影响？那么，如果他们成功成为世界的主导力量，你认为这对人类意味着什么？这其中有很多问题。我会尽量记住它们，并一次回答一部分。

I think China is going to be a big power for the foreseeable future. I think the basic picture in China, the United States, the emergence of India and so on, is when the world order is going to change in a very profound way. We can't say who's going to be the winner and the loser of this game, but I think we do know that this conflict is going to be with us and it's totally changing the world order.

我认为在可预见的未来，中国可能成为一个重要的大国。我认为中国、美国以及印度的崛起等基本情况，将会引起世界秩序以一种非常根本的方式发生改变。我们无法确定谁将成为这场游戏的赢家，谁将是输家，但我认为我们确实知道这场冲突将与我们同在，并且它正在彻底改变世界秩序。

When you're asking who's going to be the winner of this game, I'll tell you history. In the history of democracy, as Plato described in the Republic, there's a cycle and one of the great vulnerabilities of democracies is the disorderliness, the anarchy that comes from the conflict. You're asking me to compare democracy and also what I'll call capitalism with authoritarianism. Let's call it communism, that version of it. Or quasi-capitalism maybe. We know what we mean. Okay.

当你询问谁会成为这场比赛的赢家时，我将告诉你历史。在民主的历史中，正如柏拉图在《理想国》中描述的那样，存在着一个循环，而民主制度的一个重要弱点就是冲突带来的混乱和无政府状态。你要我比较民主和我所称之为资本主义与威权主义的区别。我们可以称之为共产主义，或者也可以说是准资本主义。我们知道我们的意思。好的。

So, the risk of capitalism is when you have the wealth gap clash and the opportunity gap clash. That produces a risk for democracy. The 30s, four major democracies because of that dynamic, chose to be their parliament, chose to be autocracies. That happened in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan. So the risk, both have risks. I came from, and I've been, we've all been blessed with this amazing environment, that unequal opportunity, the ability to be creative, rule of law, civility. But if we risk those things in both of those, then we have a great risk.

因此，资本主义的风险在于财富差距和机会差距的冲突。这给民主带来了风险。上世纪30年代，由于这种冲突，四个主要的民主国家选择了议会制度，选择了独裁制度。这种情况发生在德国、意大利、西班牙和日本。因此，这两种风险都是存在的。我们来自于这个神奇的环境，拥有不平等的机会、创造力、法治和文明。但是，如果我们在这两个方面冒险，那么我们就面临着巨大的风险。

So on this war, I think it depends more on how we are with our circumstances to be strong and capable and relative to them. It's certainly going to be a test of the systems. Yeah. So in a way, us focusing inward on what we do here in America with our democracy and making it high function is as important as managing our relationship with China.

在这场战争中，我认为更取决于我们如何应对我们的环境，以保持坚强和有能力，并与其相对应。这肯定将是对体系的考验。是的，从某种意义上说，我们专注于美国内部我们对民主的做法，并使其高效运行，与管理我们与中国的关系同样重要。

And if you were to look at China and India, and those two countries specifically, and you were to handicap them as you are uniquely qualified to do, maybe you could just broadly handicap India versus China for us. Because this is a topic we've been talking about, Chamath and I, and the other besties on the show a whole bunch. And it's now the largest population in the world, I guess people don't realize that, that they've, and they're continuing to grow and the birth rate is in decline in China. So maybe a little bit on India and how you look at it. Yeah.

如果你看看中国和印度，尤其是这两个国家的话，根据你独特的资质，或许你能够给我们对比一下印度和中国。因为这是我们一直在谈论的一个话题，包括在节目中的Chamath和其他最亲密的朋友们。而且印度也是现在世界上人口最多的国家，我猜大家可能没有意识到这一点，他们还在继续增长，而中国的出生率却在下降。所以或许你可以稍微谈谈你对印度的看法。是的。

And I should emphasize that every conclusion that I have is a function of measuring statistics and having them as leading indicators. And we have 10-year growth rate estimates for China. Excuse me, India. I'm all the countries, top 22 countries. And you could see it online if you want country by country. And the reasons for it. India has the highest potential growth rate. I think India is where China was when I started to go, I started to go in 1984. So if you look at the complexion, the per capita income, and I think Modi is a Deng Xiaoping. So that you have a massive reform development, creativity, all those elements. There are, of course, issues, risk issues. But India is very, very important. Now, of course, there's a religious internal issue having to do with the population. Has 240 million Muslims. And I don't think that any of these issues is going to stop India. I also, in history, the countries that were the neutral countries did the best. So in other words, better than the winners in wars. So as we have this conflict between the United States and China and its allies, Russia and so on, as we see that line up, countries that are in the middle, like India, are going to be net beneficiaries of that. So at least, again, there's, so there are two big epicenters where things are happening fast and quick and getting better. One of them is, well, let's say three. There's the ASEAN countries, and we can say that Singapore, essentially, is a hub, but the ASEAN countries, which is Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, and all of that, that's going to be a great area. The Middle East, in terms of particularly the Gulf countries. The amount of money and they're making talent magnets, they're attracting people, that's you look at how the change in wealth is taking place. That's certainly it. And India.

我应该强调，我所得出的每个结论都是通过测量统计数据和将其用作先行指标而得出的。我们对中国、印度以及其他22个国家的10年增长率进行了估计。如果你想要逐个国家查看，可以在线上看到。并对此有相应的原因。印度拥有最高的潜在增长率。我认为印度正处于中国刚开始发展时的阶段，而我从1984年开始关注中国。因此，如果你看到印度的人均收入、国民经济状况，我认为莫迪（印度总理）就像邓小平一样，他推动了大规模的改革发展、创造力等因素。当然，这其中仍然存在问题和风险。但印度非常非常重要。当然，目前印度国内存在与宗教有关的问题，涉及到了拥有2.4亿穆斯林的人口。但我不认为这些问题会阻止印度。而且根据历史经验，那些中立国在战争中表现得最好。所以换句话说，它们在战争中比胜利者做得更好。目前，我们看到美国及其盟国与中国之间的冲突，以及它们与俄罗斯等国的对立，而那些处于中立地位的国家，比如印度，将成为这场冲突的净受益者。所以，至少在这方面，有两个重要的中心国家正在迅速发展变好。其中一个是东盟国家，尤其是以新加坡为中心的东盟国家，如印度尼西亚、菲律宾、越南等。中东地区也是一个重点，尤其是海湾国家。他们正在获得大量的财富以及吸引人才，变成了一个引人注目的地区。如果你看一下财富变化的趋势，就会明白这一点。还有印度。

Ray, can I just ask back on China, you know Chinese leadership, you've spoken and had relations there for many years. Can you share with us your point of view on how they think about their position in the world and how you understand their intentions? Yes. I'll give you my thoughts. I'm not making judgments, I'm just passing along. They think there are two different systems, two different approaches. They would think that an autocratic system, they used to have a committee that would make it, but they would say it would be very much like a company. If you had a company, you have a board, you have the executive committee, and so on and so forth, and make sure you get the leadership. And then they would say that the world should have a competition and that throughout history, there are these competitions in all the various ways we talk about, and there's an emergence of that, and that there's an inevitability, and I think we say that there's an inevitability for a conflict, because there's a containment, and then there's a desire to expand, and it's like almost keeping a lid on a boiling pot, that's the type of situation. I can go on at length about the particulars of their thing. They have a very good historical perspective because their history has been literally 5,000 years, like we think of ours. They remember the particulars and all the leaders study that, and there is a cycle that they're very conscious about. So for example, the big risk that they believe is instability. So she says that the big storm on the horizon, he keeps referring to the big storm on the horizon, and that relates to the conflict with in the world that we're talking about, but it also relates to the fact that they've got a debt problem, they have a debt restructuring problem, and their instinct through history, the learning of history, is that during such periods of time, internal conflict is a big threat, and therefore autocracy, strong controls are the things to have.

雷，我可以问一下关于中国的问题吗？你知道中国的领导层，你多年来已经与他们有交往和谈判。你能与我们分享一下他们对自己在世界中的地位是怎么看的，以及你对他们意图的理解吗？ 是的。我会给你我的想法。我不做评判，只是传递信息。他们认为有两个不同的体系，两种不同的方法。他们会认为，威权体制下，他们过去有一个委员会来做决策，但他们会说这很像一家公司。如果你有一家公司，你会有一个董事会，有一个执行委员会等等，来确保领导层的出来。然后他们会说，世界应该有竞争，而且在历史上，我们谈论的各种方式都有这种竞争的出现，这是不可避免的，而且我认为我们可以说肯定存在一种冲突的不可避免性，因为存在一种遏制和扩张的欲望，就像控制滚烫的锅一样，这是一种情况。我可以详细谈谈他们的观点。他们有非常好的历史视角，因为他们的历史就像我们认为的那样，有着悠久的5000年。他们记得细节，所有领导人都会学习历史，并且他们非常清楚地意识到循环规律。例如，他们相信最大的风险是不稳定。她说地平线上的大风暴是最大的威胁，这与我们讨论的世界冲突有关，但也与他们面临的债务问题、债务重组问题有关。他们根据历史的教训认为，在这种时期，内部冲突是一个巨大的威胁，因此威权主义和强大的控制是他们所追求的。

Okay, now we can explore the relative merits of that internal conflict and so on, but that's basically their perspective. One of the things that I'm struck by is if you look in the past, a lot of these conflicts were started because it's about commerce or some form of capital or some critical resource, and then it just kind of like escalates and then you have these like large retransformations and reallocations of power. But in a world where we are now sort of almost on the precipice closer than we've ever been to this sort of form of abundance, whether it's quasi-costless energy, whether it's food that's available to be printed or made or what have you, what do we fight over in this next great conflict? What is worth fighting over?

好的，现在我们可以探讨一下内部冲突的相对优劣，但基本上这是他们的观点。我被一件事所震撼，如果你回顾过去，许多这些冲突是因为商业活动、某种形式的资本或一些关键资源而开始的，然后它就不断升级，进而出现大规模的权力转移和重新分配。但在一个我们现在几乎接近这种丰富形式的世界中，无论是几乎零成本的能源，还是可以打印或制造的食物等，我们在下一个巨大冲突中争夺什么呢？什么值得我们去争取？

Okay, so let me first deal with the productivity thing. Throughout history, productivity's been the greatest, and so if you take the 20s, we had the productivity, most engines, most patents and so on, in the 20s. You also had a debt problem, and you also had a wealth gap problem. So I believe that in terms of the new technology, we're going to really see new technologies. Now, they can be used for weapons or they can be used for productivity, but we're going to have to have a reorganization of how are we going to redistribute the wealth and opportunities and so on.

好的，所以首先让我先谈一下生产力问题。在整个历史上，生产力一直是最伟大的，所以如果你看20年代，我们在那个时期拥有了最高的生产力，最多的引擎，最多的专利等等。当时还存在着债务问题和财富差距问题。因此，我相信在新技术方面，我们将真正看到新技术的出现。现在，这些技术可以被用于武器，也可以被用于提高生产力，但我们将需要重新组织如何重新分配财富和机会等等。

So if we come back, I think we just have to look at what are we fighting for now? What's going on? And I think that of course there's a fight over money. If you have a downturn, if you have a debt problem, and I think there's good reason to believe we will, we can get into that in a minute, but they fight over money and they fight over differences in values. In other words, the differences in values like how do you educate your children? What is transgender issues and education issues and those types of things? And so I think you're seeing those things to fight over. You're seeing plenty to fight over.

如果我们回来，我认为我们只需要看看现在我们为什么在战斗？发生了什么？当然，这当中肯定有钱的争斗。如果发生了下滑，如拥有债务问题，我认为有很多理由相信我们将会有，我们可以稍后讨论这个问题，但他们会为了钱而战，也会为了价值观的差异而战。换句话说，价值观的差异，比如如何教育你的孩子？什么是跨性别问题和教育问题，以及其他类似的事情？所以我认为你会看到这些事情引发争斗。你会看到很多可以争斗的事情。

And let's say we don't fight. Let's pray we don't fight. We need this to come together. But let's say we don't fight. You're still going to have to deal with how do you redistribute not only money, but how do you redistribute opportunities? And that's going to take figuring it out, right? And there's going to be an argument over how they do that.

假设我们不去争斗吧。让我们祈祷不要争斗。我们需要团结一致。但假设我们不争斗。你仍然需要应对如何重新分配资金和机会的问题。这将需要我们去解决，对吧？到时候会出现关于如何做到这一点的争议。

No, I think this is really interesting because I think you're saying if you don't fight over the historic area of battlefields, right, if we're not fighting over resources, we are going to fight over social issues or social constructs or social beliefs. So I can say- But I'm also saying you're going to fight over resources. We have debt and we're operating as though it doesn't matter and we'll continue to have the pile. If you look at history, and we can get into why it is, it is not that that goes on a while. And you can't continue to increase your living standards by borrowing more than you're spending. You can't keep accumulating your debt because it has to matter.

不，我认为这真的很有趣，因为你是在说如果我们不为历史战场地区争斗，对吧，如果我们不为资源而战，我们将会为社会问题、社会构建或社会信仰而争斗。所以我可以说，但我也在说你们将会为资源而战。我们有债务，但我们的操作似乎无所谓，我们将会堆积更多债务。如果你看看历史，我们可以探讨为什么它会这样，这不是长时间以来的情况。你不能靠借更多钱来提高你的生活水平。你不能继续累积债务，因为它是重要的。

So these types of things as they build up, as the debt builds up, as the wealth gaps builds up, and the values gaps build up, and then there's difference in reaction to controls. Some people- so you see the movement. We will have things to fight over at the same time as we hopefully will have a productivity miracle.

这些事情一直在累积，债务累积、贫富差距累积、价值观差距累积，然后对控制措施的反应也存在差异。有些人——你可以看到这个趋势。希望我们在同时拥有一场生产力奇迹的时候，也将会有一些需要争夺的事物。

I think that in the next five years, I think year by year, we're going to go through a time warp. You're going to see radical disorder in the next five years as each one of those things comes to path. First with the elections as we have, then we have the conflict with the geopolitical conflict. Then we have the climate issue, which by the way is a very expensive issue. We should talk about how costly that issue is. And then we're going to have this issue of technology which can provide the greatest miracle, but also is a weapon.

我认为在接下来的五年里，我觉得逐年来看，我们将会经历一个时间扭曲。在接下来的五年中，你会看到激动人心的混乱，因为这些事情一个接一个地发生。首先是我们的选举，然后是地缘政治冲突。然后是气候问题，顺便说一下，这是一个非常昂贵的问题。我们应该讨论一下这个问题有多昂贵。然后我们将面临科技问题，科技既可以带来最伟大的奇迹，也可以成为一种武器。

Just frame for us your thoughts on debt for a second. How do you think about debt as an absolute construct or a relative construct, especially sovereign debt? There is a US debt, but then there are also every other 182 countries who have a ton of debt. So how do you think about debt to GDP relatively and in absolute terms? For any country, and quite often, many countries, because they go through the cycle together as they did in the 30s, what happens is debt rides as relative to incomes. And what that means mechanistically is that debt service payments rise relative to incomes. And so it squeezes out consumption as this compounds. And what happens is there's a realization that they have to print money. So I think you're going to see in the next downturn another move to print money.

简而言之，关于债务的问题，我认为可以从绝对和相对两个角度来考虑，尤其是主权债务。美国有债务，但其他182个国家也有很多债务。因此，您如何相对于国内生产总值（GDP）和绝对价值来思考债务呢？对于任何一个国家，而且通常也是许多国家，因为它们经历了与三十年代相似的周期，债务会相对于收入上升。这意味着债务服务支付与收入之比上升。随着这个问题的复杂化，它会削减消费。而事实上，他们会意识到他们必须印刷钱。所以我认为，在下一个经济衰退中，会再次出现印钞的行动。

There are certain things that are going on now that means that the big risk comes when they don't want to hold those bonds anymore. Because the supply demand, think about that supply demand, it has a deficit, it has to borrow. And so it sells its bonds. Who were the buyers of the bonds? Why did they buy? The buyers of the bonds buy because there's an attractive return. Not only do you have to sell those amounts of bonds, but when they start to realize that I'm not getting good returns on those bonds, they can sell those bonds.

现在有一些正在发生的事情意味着，当他们不再愿意持有这些债券时，面临的最大风险就会出现。因为供需关系，想想那个供需关系，它存在赤字，必须借债。因此，它出售债券。购买债券的是谁？他们为什么购买呢？购买债券的人是因为有吸引人的回报。不仅要出售这些债券的数量，而且当他们开始意识到这些债券的回报不好时，他们可以出售这些债券。

There are 31 trillion dollars of bonds. They always own tangible things. And those things can also be, it could be equities. It could be other many other things. It could be gold. Gold has always been accepted as a money because nobody else is saying gold is the only asset you can have that. Not somebody else's liability. In other words, you're dependent on getting paid. You can have that intrinsic value and for a long period of time it's been valued and you can move it between countries.

全球债券总额为31万亿美元。这些债券拥有有形资产，可能包括股票、黄金等。黄金一直以来被视为货币，因为没有其他人说黄金是唯一可以拥有的资产，也不是他人的债务。换句话说，你不必依赖他人支付你才能拥有黄金的内在价值，它在很长一段时间内都被重视，并且可以在不同国家之间流通。

But also, different countries prosper. So you'll see the countries, some of the countries that we mentioned, they will prosper through that. And the United States made most of its money because it didn't end to the war. It was before, on World War II and World War I, the United States became the richest country because of the money it made before it entered the war. So those countries will prosper and in those countries, then certain real estate will prompt hard assets. But where you have that is very, very important.

而且，不同的国家也会繁荣发展。所以你会看到我们提到的一些国家会通过这种方式繁荣发展。美国之所以赚了大部分的钱，是因为它并未参与战争。在第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战之前，美国成为最富有的国家，是由于它在战争爆发前赚取的财富。所以这些国家会繁荣起来，而在这些国家，某些房地产会被视为有价值的资产。但是你拥有这些资产的地理位置非常重要。

There's something about wealth inequality that they just wanted to get your thoughts on as well. I saw a chart in The Economist recently that showed on a purchasing price parity basis, normalized across all the Western countries that US median income, so median. So not thinking about means is now $45, almost $47,000 doing much better than Britain, most of continental Europe, et cetera, et cetera. So on a functional purchasing power parity basis, a lot of Americans are doing much, much better. There was a UPS renegotiation for their labor contracts. Drivers can now make 180 grand a year. I mean, there's a lot of money to be made, but then there's this real but also hyper perceived imbalance.

他们只是想听听你对财富不平等的看法。最近我在《经济学人》看到一张图表，以购买力平价为基础，在所有西方国家进行了标准化，结果显示美国的中位收入（即中位数，不考虑平均数）已经达到了近45万美元，远远超过英国、大部分欧洲大陆等地。所以从功能性购买力平价的角度来看，很多美国人过得好得多。联合包裹服务公司（UPS）进行了劳动合同的重新谈判，现在司机每年可以赚取18万美元。我的意思是，可以赚很多钱，但同时存在实际的、但也是被过度夸大的不平衡现象。

And I just want to get your sense of how much of this is the social media phenomenon of just never having enough? And how much of it is true when you look at data like that? There's a huge wealth gap. And the nature of our economy is producing this so I can rattle up a bunch of statistics. What happens as happens in these cycles is that when you have the type of situation we have, the government will take on the debt and it'll send out the money. So the mechanics of that were that there was more checks and more money sent than there was loss of income by a lot. So a lot of money went out. And as a result of that, the financial conditions of the household sector improved, generally speaking, while the financial conditions of the government sector, the government got into a lot more debt. That's very classic at the end of the cycle.

我只是想了解一下，这种情况在多大程度上是社交媒体现象导致的，即永远不满足的现象？当你看到这样的数据时，这种情况有多少是真实存在的？财富差距巨大，我们的经济性质导致了这种现象，我可以列举一大堆数据。在这种周期性情况中，政府会承担起债务，并发放资金。因此，实际情况是，发放的支票和资金远远超过了收入损失。因此，大量资金被发放出去。结果是，总体上家庭部门的财务状况得到了改善，而政府部门的财务状况恶化，并且负债增加。这在周期结束时非常典型。

Because there's an imbalance between demand and purchases of bonds, there is the central bank buying those bonds, that monetization. Okay, so now that's what the wealth gap looks like. And also that also creates more of the inflation because the household sector buying large benefits. But when you look at the differences, I'll tell you a personal case so that I can understand. I live in Connecticut and Connecticut's usually one, two, or three in the richest states in the country. Twenty-two percent of the high school students in Connecticut either have dropped out of high school or are failing classes with absentee rates of greater than 25%. The $600 million a year goes to incarcerations. There is a level below which no human beings should be allowed to let alone raising kids and families.

因为需求和债券购买之间存在失衡，央行购买这些债券，实施货币化。所以，这就是财富差距的现状。同时，这也导致了更多的通胀，因为家庭部门获得了巨大的利益。但是当你看到这种差异时，我可以告诉你一个个人案例，以便你能够理解。我住在康涅狄格州，康涅狄格州通常是全国最富裕的州之一、二或三。康涅狄格州有22%的高中学生要么辍学，要么学习成绩不及格，缺勤率超过25%。每年有6亿美元用于监禁。有一个界限，在这个界限以下，任何人都不应该被允许生活，更不用说抚养孩子和家庭了。

I live in Greenwich, Connecticut, a wealthy place. My number won't be up to date, maybe five years old. Per capita students in high school, costs would be 24,000 a person. In Bridgeport, Connecticut, up the road, $14,000 a person. There were 60,000 kids in Connecticut that didn't have computers. How were they going to get education? The state wasn't going to pay for it. We philanthropically bought them. So now we don't create a bottom, an acceptable bottom. The idea of equal opportunity, I mean I was blessed with it. I think we probably won't. We're blessed with equal opportunity. All you need is parents will take care of you. Go to a public school, come out to a world of equal opportunity and learn civility. If you have those things. So if you take all those measures and so on, the gaps in those things are greater than they have ever been. Right.

我住在一个富有的地方——康涅狄格州的格林尼治。我的电话号码可能已经过时了，可能是五年前的。在高中每位学生的人均费用是24,000美元。而在康涅狄格州的布里奇波特，这个数字是14,000美元。在康涅狄格州有6万个孩子没有电脑。他们要如何接受教育呢？州政府不打算为此付钱。我们慈善购买了电脑给他们。因此，我们没有创造一个能够接受的底线。平等机会的理念，我觉得我们可能不具备。我们被赋予了平等的机会。你只需要有父母照顾你，上公立学校，进入一个有平等机会和学习文明的世界。如果你拥有这些东西的话。所以，如果你对这些措施进行评估，你会发现这些差距比以往任何时候都要大。对，没错。

So Ray, I think I'd funnily agree with your critique that America is looking more and more like a late stage empire. Like a late stage Roman Empire, we have this massive debt and we're debasing our currency. Like the Roman Empire, we have all these far flung military wars which we lose all over the world. We're racked by internal division. So I think I agree with that part of it. At the same time, we do seem to be really good still at technological innovation. In the last year we've had this breakthrough with AI with large language models. I'm wondering, is that a mirage or do you agree with that? And then if you do agree that we're still really good at technology, is there anything in the historical pattern that's like that where you have an empire that's declining in every visible way except for the one that really undergirds our power which is technology?

所以Ray，我很有趣地同意你对美国越来越像一个后期帝国的批评。就像后期的罗马帝国一样，我们有巨额债务，并且正在贬低我们的货币。就像罗马帝国一样，我们有遍布世界各地的军事战争，结果都失败了。我们内部充满了分裂。所以我认为我同意这一方面。与此同时，我们似乎在技术创新方面仍然非常出色。在过去一年中，我们在人工智能和大型自然语言模型方面取得了突破。我想知道，这是一种幻觉还是你也同意这一点？如果你同意我们在技术方面仍然非常出色，是否有类似的历史模式，即一个帝国在所有可见的领域都在衰落，只有技术这一支撑我们力量的方面仍然强大？

Well, the late 20s in the United States was such a classic example. We had more innovations, more technology, all of these cycles. If I was to go back to the industrial revolution, late 1800s, and then you turn, men, you create it when there's a lot of debt and a big wealth gap. You have the 1907, you have the panic of 1907. Boom, you have this internal conflict and you had the First World War.

嗯，美国的二十世纪末就是一个典型例子。我们有更多的创新、更多的技术发展，所有这些循环。如果我能回到19世纪末的工业革命时期，你会看到，当债务累积和贫富差距巨大时，这尤其明显。例如，1907年就发生了金融恐慌。接着，内部冲突不断加剧，第一次世界大战爆发了。

In the 20s you had the same kind of late 20s. It was an era of great inventiveness. The other things matter. So just because we're really great innovation isn't going to save us if all these other things are broken. It's a wonderful thing. But ultimately we as a society and an aggregate are spending a lot more money than we're earning. So if we're doing such a good job on that technology, whatever it is, why is that happening?

在二十世纪，你经历了与现在同样的后期二十多岁。那是一个伟大创新的时代。其他事情也很重要。所以，如果所有这些其他事情出了问题，再好的创新也不能拯救我们。创新是个美妙的事情。但是，归根结底，作为一个社会和整体，我们花的钱比我们挣的钱多得多。所以，如果我们在技术方面做得这么好，无论它是什么技术，为什么会发生这种情况呢？

We're still, so now when you look at the debt, do you want to own the debt? Do you want to own that? When those who don't want to own it, then you have a financial problem. When you have a financial problem at the same time as you have a wealth gap and populism, that's a dangerous combination. At the same time as you have an external. So it's a very risky, you know, with you.

我们还在这里，所以现在当你看着债务的时候，你想要拥有这个债务吗？你想要拥有它吗？当那些不想要拥有它的人存在时，你就会有一个金融问题。当你在经济上遇到问题的同时，还有贫富差距和民粹主义存在，这就是一个危险的组合。同时，外部环境也存在问题。所以这是一个非常冒险的情况，你知道的。

Let me just follow up there. So you mentioned populism. I mean, I think I have a slightly different definition. I don't want to debate semantics with you. I think populism is a reaction to the failure of elite. So all the people managing our fiscal situation and our foreign policy who've gotten us into all these industry conflicts who've debased our currency, I see populism as people rising up to reject their leadership. Now it's a bad thing that they're not willing to accept the results of elections. I agree with your definition. Okay. I agree with your definition.

让我接着回应一下。你提到了民粹主义。我的意思是，我对它的定义可能稍微有些不同。我不想和你就语义问题争论。我认为民粹主义是对精英失败的一种反应。那些管理我们财政状况和外交政策的精英们已经把我们卷入了各种产业冲突，贬值了我们的货币，我认为民粹主义是人们为了抵制他们的领导而起来的。现在他们不愿意接受选举结果这是一件坏事。我同意你的定义。好的，我同意你的定义。

But then also at the same time that that's happening, they'll win it or cost. They won't compromise. They will win. They will fight for that so I didn't win. Okay, fair enough. And that's not good. But I mean, I guess my question is why don't you have more criticism for our elites who are running all these institutions who are making these decisions?

但与此同时，他们将赢得胜利或承担后果。他们不会妥协。他们会争取胜利。他们会为此而战，所以我没有获胜。好吧，公平。但这并不好。不过我的问题是，为什么你对我们管理这些机构、做出这些决策的精英们没有更多的批评？

I do. I mean, it depends what you're. I wrote a piece about four years ago which says why and how capitalism needs to be reformed. And I believe that on these issues of equal opportunity and that we've got a big structural problem and that everything needs to be reformed. I'm not against capitalism but it needs to be reformed. And part of the big problem just analytically, mechanically is that the profit system alone does not direct resources adequately. Let's say if we take climate, for example. There are costs, terrible costs that come from climate.

我同意。我的意思是，这取决于你所说的是什么。我在四年前写了一篇文章，说的是为什么以及如何需要改革资本主义。而且，我认为在机会均等和我们存在一个严重的结构性问题的问题上，一切都需要改革。我并不反对资本主义，但它需要进行改革。而且在分析上，从机制上来说，利润系统无法充分有效地引导资源。举个例子，我们来看看气候问题。气候问题会带来可怕的代价和成本。

It's not built into the system education. Look at the gaps in education. The structural system means that the central government, the state government controls education. Then you get to the town and at the town level, it's the town that controls the education, how much they pay. And so then you create wealth gaps with rich people being able to take care of their kids in a way that other people can't take care of their kids. And that creates an opportunity gap. That's a structural problem. It has to be taken on full, looked at, reformed, and in order to pull this thing off, we have to do it together. We cannot do it with one side fighting the other side where there are reconcilable differences.

这并不是内建于教育体系中的。看看教育中存在的差距。结构性体制意味着中央政府、州政府控制着教育。然后你到了城镇，在城镇层面，是城镇控制教育，包括他们愿意支付多少。这样一来，有钱人能够为他们的孩子提供其他人无法提供的照顾，从而形成财富差距。这就产生了机会差距。这是一个结构性问题。我们必须全面地、审慎地考虑它，进行改革。为了实现这个目标，我们必须共同努力，而不能让一方与另一方争斗，特别是可以和解的分歧。

Right. Before we run out of time, I'm wondering what an amazing conversation. If we were to get prescriptive here in the last couple of minutes we have, if America wants to continue to be the leader or at least in the lead position here in the free world, what should we focus on? What would you say are the top three biggest?

没错。在我们时间不多之前，我想说这是一场令人惊叹的对话。如果我们在最后几分钟内提出一些建议，如果美国想要继续成为自由世界的领导者，或者至少保持领先地位，我们应该关注什么？你认为最重要的三个方面是什么？

Let me add one question to that. Yeah. It connects these two. Is there a political solution in the US to avoid the end of empire? Or is it a function of physics? And I think this is a big part of like Sax's point of view that there's a solution we need to change these people, or are there too many conflating forces, social forces, economic forces that all kind of rise and fall together that progress? It's inevitable. And it becomes an inevitability that there's a cycling.

让我在此基础上再提一个问题。是的，这个问题将这两个问题连接了起来。美国是否有政治解决方案来避免帝国的终结？或者这是一种物理规律？我认为这正是萨克斯的观点的一部分，他认为我们需要改变这些人，或者是否有太多的相互关联的社会力量、经济力量，它们都会同时上升和下降，取得进步？这是不可避免的。这变成了一种必然性，存在着循环。

There are pre-existing conditions that represent challenges. So for example, the amount of debt that we're in represents a, you can't pretend it exists. So it represents a challenge. There are a lot of these challenges, but it is not inevitable.

存在一些已有的状况，它们带来了挑战。例如，我们所负的债务金额无法假装不存在。因此，它是一种挑战。虽然有很多这些挑战存在，但并非不可避免。

What is needed is first of all, a strong middle, okay, to bring the country together in terms of rather than to have this fighting. Because if we continue the way we will, we're going to have a conflict. And then there needs to be a good engineering exercise that's going to produce, but has to be bipartisan. It has to be bipartisan with that strong middle, taking control of the extremes, because neither side is going to win.

首先需要的是一个强大的中间势力，让国家团结起来，而不是继续争斗下去。如果我们继续这样下去，就会导致冲突的发生。同时，我们需要进行一次良好的工程操作，但这必须是两党合作的。这必须是在中间势力的领导下进行两党合作，以控制两极，因为任何一方都不会取得胜利。

A great reformation. So and that reformation has, I think should take the form of like if I was president of the United States, what I would do is I'd have to- It's on the table by the- By-partisan cabinet. I'm not, I'm not going to present it. But a bipartisan cabinet, bipartisan cabinet. And then have an engineering exercise, much like the Manhattan Project, in which those bipartisan people get together and properly engineer important changes that need to be made. They have to be structural.

一场伟大的改革。对于这场改革来说，我认为应该采取的形式是，如果我是美国总统，我会将其纳入党派的内阁中。我不会亲自提出，但是应该是由党派内阁提出的。然后，组织一个类似曼哈顿计划的工程项目，让这些党派人士共同策划并正确地设计需要进行的重要变革。这些变革必须是有结构性的。

We will not agree with each other ever. We're going to kill each other, fighting over these things. So structural changes have to be made, and you need to have the countries a whole do those things. Do you guys think that's naive or is it feasible?

我们永远不会达成一致。我们会因为这些事情而争斗而彼此伤害。所以必须进行结构性的改变，而且你需要让整个国家来做这些事情。你们认为这是天真的还是可行的呢？

I think that the way politics works is that you don't somehow come together in the middle. I think one side has to win in the eyes of voters. Voters have to choose a path. And that's- I'm with you. That's what's going to happen. We've had- We're going to have an interesting two years. We're going to have a different path between where we are now and, let's say, almost a few years. And let's say early 2025. Okay.

我认为政治运作的方式是不能以某种方式在中间达成一致。在选民眼中，一方必须获胜。选民必须选择一条路。这就是- 我和你一样。这将会发生。我们已经- 我们将会迎来有趣的两年。在现在和大约几年后之间，我们将会经历一条不同的道路。假设是2025年初。

And not just interesting because we're going to have unbelievable elections and we'll see whether- how power- how we can come together. We're going to have an interesting on how China-US relations are. We're going to have an interesting financial conflict. And we're going to have radical technology changes. Plus climate's going to be an issue. So- Right. You've- Mr. Dahlio.

并且不仅仅因为我们即将举行令人难以置信的选举，我们将看到权力如何，我们能否团结一致。我们将对中美关系的发展产生兴趣。我们还将关注金融冲突的发展。此外，我们将见证激进的技术变革。气候问题将成为一个重要议题。所以- 是的。您- 席尔瓦先生。

Right. You've accomplished more than anybody could ever expect in life financially with your company. And intellectually, obviously, you've given this tremendous amount of thought. And you said you're not running for president. I wonder, there's not much time left. You should maybe consider running for president. And why not do it? Why not? Why- what's the argument to be so successful, so rich, so intellectually curious, and not do what the country needs you to do? Just get in the arena. We need you, Mr. Dahlio. Get in the arena. Who wants him in the arena? Let's go. Right. Thank you, Alme.

没错。在财务上，你的公司取得了超出任何人的预期的成就。而且从智力上来说，显然你思考了大量的问题。你说你不会竞选总统，但我想，时间已经所剩无几了。或许你应该考虑竞选总统。为什么不呢？为什么-成功到如此程度，财富如此丰富，智识如此求知，就不为国家做出贡献呢？加入竞争的舞台。我们需要你，达利奥先生。加入竞争的舞台。谁希望他加入竞争的舞台？加油。没错。谢谢，阿尔梅。

This is the same speech- Very complicated. Very complicated. Very nice and generous compliment. Thank you very much. Seriously, I have a personal level. Take me through it. Well, okay. Mario, drop up. I would give up my life for the country. Okay. But Mario Draghi in Italy, if you know the story, he knows the system and how it works. And that if you don't have unitedness and operating in that way, everybody's going to be torn apart. And so I think whatever thoughts I have, if these are helpful thoughts, I think my best role is to pass along whatever helpful thoughts I have. And then the population as a whole deals with those thoughts. So I'm making my best contribution that I can, I feel. That's my best capacity. And then let's up to the people.

这是同样的演讲-非常复杂。非常复杂。非常美好和慷慨的称赞。非常感谢。真诚地说，我有个人层面的想法。带我经历一下吧。好的。马里奥，抛开吧。我会为了这个国家而舍弃自己的生命。好的。但是马里奥·德拉吉在意大利，如果你了解这个故事，他知道系统以及运作方式。如果没有团结一致并按照这种方式运作，每个人都会被撕裂。所以，我认为无论我有什么想法，如果这些想法有帮助的话，我认为我最好的角色是传递我所拥有的任何有帮助的想法。然后整个人口来处理这些想法。所以我感觉我正在做出我最好的贡献。这是我最大的能力。然后还是由民众来决定吧。

You're so vibrant. People, please join me in thanking Rondolio for its contributions. Amazing. Give it up. That was incredible. Thank you for following our questions. Incredible. Wow. Look at that. Standing out. First standing on the page of all these designs. I'm going on a year. Let your winner ride. Brainman David Sattice.

你真是充满活力。大家，请加入我一起感谢Rondolio为我们做出的贡献。太神奇了，大家鼓掌。太难以置信了。感谢你们对我们问题的关注。不可思议。哇，看着那个。与众不同。首次在所有这些设计中脱颖而出。我已经经历了一年。让你的胜利继续延续下去。大脑人David Sattice。

And it's said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone for easy. I'm going on a year. What, what, everyone are trying. Besties are all comfort. Let's play a dog. Take it in. Wish you a drive. Wait a minute. Oh man. My half a day has your old media voice. We should all just get a room and just have one thank you George because they're all like this like sexual tension that we just need to release and out. What, you're the beat. What, you're the beat. What, you're the beat. What, you're the beat. What, we need to get merges. Besties are back. I'm going on a year. I'm going on a year. I'm going on a year.

据说我们向粉丝们开放源代码，他们只是选择了容易的方式。我已经这样持续一年了。什么，什么，大家都在尝试。最好的朋友们都是慰藉。让我们一起玩一只狗。接受吧。祝你驾驶顺利。等一下。哦，天哪。我的一天中有你的旧媒体声音。我们应该一起找个地方，说声谢谢乔治，因为我们都像这样有一种性紧张感，我们需要释放出来。什么，你是节拍。什么，你是节拍。什么，你是节拍。什么，我们需要交汇。最好的朋友们回来了。我已经这样持续一年了。我已经这样持续一年了。我已经这样持续一年了。