All-In Summit: In conversation with Larry Summers

Next up, Larry Summers. Let your winner try it. Brainman David Sats. And it said we open source it to the fans and they've discovered a reason for it. Love you guys, I see Queen of Kidwah.

接下来是Larry Summers，请让你的获胜者来试试。大脑人（Brainman）David Sats也说过我们把它开源给粉丝，他们发现了一个原因。爱你们，我看到Kidwah女王了。

Larry is an absolutely incredible human being. He was the president of Harvard. He was treasury secretary under Clinton. He was Obama's head of the NEC. He's been on the board of some very well-known tech startups like Square, now Bloch. He's been a great friend of mine for about 12 or 13 years. He taught my son calculus.

Larry是一个非常不可思议的人。他曾经是哈佛大学的校长，他曾在克林顿政府担任财政部长，也曾担任奥巴马政府的国家经济委员会主席。他还曾担任一些非常知名的科技初创公司，如现在的Bloch，的董事会成员。他是我的一个很好的朋友已经有12或13年了。他还亲自教导过我的儿子微积分。

But I wanted to start with one very quick story. Larry was staying at my house and he runs into the kitchen and he says, the internet is not working. I have an extremely important Zoom. And I said, oh yeah, no problem. You can just use this thing over here. And he goes, oh, I need you to help me get on the Zoom. So I'm like this IT guy helping him get on the Zoom. And I said, I'll pop the picture of the governor of the DOJ, the bank of Japan. And I was like, what's going on? And he says, come on, if I'm a little peckish, could I just get anything you have over here to eat? So I go outside, my mom's like, what is going on? And I said, Larry Summers has a meeting with the head of the DOJ. She goes, the head of the DOJ. And she stops me on the edge of it. We must making something to eat. And so we made scrambled eggs and orange juice. And then at the end of it, she's like, who is he this person talking to the head of the DOJ? And I said, is Larry Summers blah, blah, blah. And then once she heard that it was Clinton, she hit me on the top of the head again. And then she worked for Clinton. And he said, we should have given him fresh squeezed orange juice. Ha ha ha ha. Okay. He is literally one of the most stimulating intellectual people that I know.

但是我想先讲一个非常快的故事。Larry住在我家，他跑进厨房说，网络坏了。我有一个非常重要的Zoom会议。我说，哦，没问题。你可以用这边的东西。他说，噢，我需要你帮我加入Zoom。所以我就像一个IT人员帮他加入Zoom。我说，我会放一张司法部长和日本银行行长的照片。我有点不知所措，问他发生了什么事。他说，来吧，如果我有点饿，我可以吃你这边的任何东西吗？所以我出去了，我妈说，发生了什么事？我说，Larry Summers要和司法部长开会。她说，司法部长？她拉住了我。我们得做点吃的。于是我们做了炒蛋和橙汁。最后，她问，他是和司法部长说话的人是谁？我说，是Larry Summers咔咔咔咔。她听到是克林顿，就又拍了我一下头。她曾为克林顿工作。他说，我们应该给他新鲜榨的橙汁。哈哈哈哈。好吧。他确实是我认识的最有智慧、最能激发思维的人之一。

So let's start with the most pressing question. CPI is going to come out tomorrow, Larry. You have basically become the shadow secretary of the Treasury and the shadow Fed Governor. Uh, where are we going? Where are we in the cycle? What is happening to the consumer? Give us just the five minute redox on the economy.

所以，我们先从最紧迫的问题开始。明天CPI将出炉，Larry。你基本上已经成为财政部的影子部长和联储副主席。嗯，我们正往哪里走？我们处于周期的哪个阶段？消费者正在经历什么？给我们概括下经济状况的五分钟回顾。

We have a thing in politics, um, Chamaath. It's called the management of expectations. And you have just failed me completely. Right? And, uh, in that regard. Look, there are two kinds of economists. There's those who know they don't know. And those who don't know they don't know. I'm in the first category. So I'll give you my best guesses. But that's what, uh, they are. What Samuel Johnson said about second marriage is true of soft landings. They represent the triumph of hope over experience. There's, there's never been a time when inflation was above four and unemployment was below four and the U.S. economy didn't go into recession before that situation was resolved.

在政治中，我们有一个概念，嗯，叫作管理预期。而你刚刚完全让我失望了，对吧？在这一点上。看，有两种经济学家。一种是知道自己不知道的，还有一种是不知道自己不知道的。我属于第一种。所以我会尽力给出最佳猜测。但那只是猜测而已。对于软着陆，塞缪尔·约翰逊关于再婚的说法也适用。它们代表了希望战胜经验的胜利。在通货膨胀率超过四分之一和失业率低于四分之一之前，从未出现过美国经济没有陷入衰退的情况。

That's why I've been kind of a Cassandra on, uh, inflation and the cyclical outlook. For the last couple of years. Here's the way I think about, uh, soft landing. You've got this plane. It's ultimately aspiring to fly very fast and then land on an aircraft carrier. It was way off course and seemingly out of control. The pilot figured out that it was all screwed up. And now the pilots got the plane on a reasonable, uh, course. And that's good. But it's still 300 yards above the deck of the aircraft carrier.

这就是为什么在通货膨胀和经济周期的问题上，我一直有一种类似卡珊德拉的警示态度。在过去几年里，我一直对此保持警觉。我对软着陆的看法是这样的：你可以把这架飞机想象成最终希望以很高的速度飞行并降落在一艘航空母舰上。一开始，它偏离了航道，看起来失控了。然而，飞行员发现了问题并将飞机纠正到了一个合理的航向上。这是好事，但飞机仍然距离航空母舰甲板上方300码。

And it's still going very fast. And it's still an open question whether it's going to hit the aircraft carrier rather than land on the aircraft carrier. Or whether it's going to overfly the aircraft carrier and have to turn around and achieve a soft landing. And I think all of that is still very much at risk. The people who say it's all okay. We never need to worry about inflation. Inflation was nine. Inflation's now three and a half. It's all under control. We're all done. Don't know what they're talking about.

并且它仍然非常快地前进着。至于是否会撞上航空母舰而不是降落在航空母舰上，这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。或者是否会越过航空母舰，需要绕道返回并实现软着陆。我认为所有这些仍然存在很大风险。那些说一切都好的人们，他们从不担心通货膨胀。通货膨胀曾达到九个单位，现在只有三个半。一切都在控制之中。我们已经完成了。我不知道他们在说什么。

It could turn out to be right. But inflation was never on an underlying basis. Anything like eight or nine. It was like five artificially pushed off by used cars and airline fares and a bunch of stuff like that. Gesseling. And the thing about stuff that mean, is that it mean, and so when that stuff was going up real fast, we had eight percent inflation with an underlying inflation rate of five percent. And that stuff collapses. We have an underlying rate of inflation of four or five percent. And we see inflation below that. So that's what happened.

这可能证明是正确的。但是通货膨胀从来都不是以基本情况为基础的。它从未达到八九的水平。它只是通过二手车和航空票价等因素人为地推高到五的水平。格斯林。而且关于这些因素的问题是，它们既是因素，所以当这些因素疯涨时，我们的通胀率为八个百分点，而基础通胀率只有五个百分点。而当这些因素崩盘时，我们的基础通胀率为四到五个百分点。我们看到的通货膨胀率低于这个水平。所以就是这样发生了。

So if you try to measure what's happened to the actual underlying rate of inflation, it's down a little. Maybe it's down half a percent. Maybe it's down a percent. That's more than I would have expected. But it's a long way from where we are now to a soft landing. And I think you've got risks on both sides. I think you've got risks that the consumer's going to slow down hard. That monetary policy operated with a lag. That credit's going to be crunched. And that you're going to see the economy have a bit the Wylie-Chiodi aspect, a bit the ball rolling off a table aspect. I think that risk is there.

如果你试图衡量实际潜在通胀率的变动，它是有所下降的。也许下降了0.5个百分点，也许下降了1个百分点。这个下降超出了我的预期。但从现在到软着陆还有很长的路要走。我认为两方面都存在风险。我认为消费者可能会出现大幅度放缓的风险。货币政策存在滞后效应。信贷可能会受到压缩。经济可能会出现Wylie-Chiodi的特点，球从桌子上滚落的特点。我认为这种风险是存在的。

I think there's a larger probably risk that we don't really have inflation on a secure path down below three and a half. And that the Fed thinks it's got it under control and it doesn't. And it's going to have to go back to raising rates. So you're nervous. Okay, you're nervous.

我认为更大的风险是我们的通胀并不能牢固地降至3.5%以下。美联储可能认为已经控制住了通胀，但实际上没有。它将不得不再次提高利率。所以你感到紧张。好的，你感到紧张。

So if you had Jay Powell's job right now, what is the delta from what he's doing? What would you do differently? I thought Jay Powell was a million miles off course two years ago. I thought he was talking about zero interest rates till 2024. He was talking about inflation being transitory. It was all on a different planet than the one that I thought I was seeing.

那么，如果你此刻担任Jay Powell的职位，与他目前的做法相比，你会有何改变？你会采取哪些不同的行动？两年前，我认为Jay Powell完全偏离了轨道。我认为他在谈论零利率持续到2024年，他在谈论通货膨胀是暂时的。他的观点与我所看到的世界完全不同。

Starting about a year ago, he has recognized that the principal problem is inflation. That the Fed was way behind the curve that he needed to focus on getting inflation back to target. And so my differences would be small and on tactics rather than large and fundamental. I think the Fed probably needs to be investing a bit more in its credibility by emphasizing that it's prepared to raise rates again if it doesn't see inflation decline.

大约一年前开始，他意识到主要问题是通货膨胀。美联储滞后于曲线，他需要专注于将通胀回归目标。因此，我的分歧将是小范围的，关注战略而非根本性的问题。我认为美联储可能需要更多地投资于增强其公信力，强调如果通胀不下降，它将准备再次加息。

I think the Fed should be recognizing that the extraordinary size of the U.S. budget deficit and where it is in prospect is going to complicate the macro policy task and should be more willing to call that out than it is. I think the Fed on matters relating to financial regulation should be giving more attention to market prices and the market values of assets and less to a variety of book value regulatory concepts than it tends to emphasize.

我认为美联储应该认识到美国预算赤字的非同寻常规模及其预期会复杂化宏观政策任务，并对此敢于发出警告。我认为，在金融监管方面，美联储应该更加重视市场价格和资产市场价值，而不是过多强调各种账面价值监管概念。

But again, I think that what we did in 2021, when the Fed, when the government basically infused $2.9 trillion into a rapidly recovering economy, and when the Fed promised it was going to keep interest rates at zero till 2024, and when the Fed bought bonds on a massive scale, that put us way off course. Since then, we've been working our way on the monetary policy side back to course in basically reasonable ways. But that doesn't mean if you get all the wrong answers on the first third of the exam, you can do great on the second two parts, second two thirds of the exam, and you still won't get a very good grade for the overall experience.

但是我认为，在2021年，当联邦储备系统、政府基本上向快速复苏的经济注入了2.9万亿美元，而且联邦储备系统承诺将利率保持在2024年之前的零水平，并且大规模购买债券，这使我们偏离了正确的路线。从那时起，我们一直在货币政策方面以基本合理的方式回归正轨。但这并不意味着如果在考试的前三分之一问题都回答错误，你就能在后两个部分（考试的后两个三分之二）表现出色，并且你仍然无法得到一个非常好的成绩。

So my interpretation of what happened in 2021 is in Q1, they passed that $2 trillion American Rescue Plan, that last COVID relief bill, you absolutely nailed it by warning that this could set off inflation. And the politics of that was that the administration, everyone who won with the bill basically said, Oh, no, Larry, he doesn't know what he's talking about. They sort of poo poo your warnings. And then sure enough, the inflation came that summer, and that's when they almost, I think for political reasons, had to say it was transitory, because they didn't want to admit that you had been right and they'd been wrong three months before.

所以我对2021年发生的事情的解释是，在第一季度，他们通过了那个2万亿美元的美国拯救计划，最后的COVID援助法案，你非常准确地警告说这可能引发通胀。而这背后的政治是，政府中的每个人都赢得了这项法案，基本上都说，哦，不，拉里，他不知道自己在说什么。他们对你的警告有些蔑视。然后果然，通胀在夏天发生了，为了政治原因，他们几乎不得不说这是暂时的，因为他们不想承认你在三个月前是正确的，而他们是错误的。

And as a result of that, the Fed waited another nine months to start raising interest rates. And so everything got delayed, they should have reacted back in the summer of 2021. No, no, that's my interpretation of the politics. You think, you know, in terms of how they behave to to Saxis Point, are they thinking about the politics and the current administration? Or are they acting independently like they're supposed to? Well, I think I'm a spectator and commentator, not the dominant actor by any stretch. I'll leave it to others to speculate about everybody's motives.

因此，作为结果，美联储再等了九个月才开始加息。所以一切都被延迟了，他们应该在2021年夏季做出反应的。不，不，这是我对政治的解释。你认为，就他们对萨克斯点的行为来说，他们是在考虑政治和现任政府吗？还是像他们本应该的那样独立行事？好吧，我认为我只是一个旁观者和评论员，并不是主导行动者。我将把握由其他人去推测每个人的动机。

It's not only people in political situations who, when they develop a strong view, change it only slowly in response to evidence. I'm basically someone who mostly goes to Washington and explains when I'm in Washington that there are limits to our knowledge and limits to our competence. And so it's often true that the best thing we can do is get out of the way. So I believe that. But I also think that it's a mistake to think whenever anybody makes a judgment that doesn't turn out right in Washington, that it's because they had some bad political motive and were playing politics, rather than they were using their best judgment and they turned out to be wrong. And like human beings in public environments, they change their mind slowly in the face of evidence.

不仅仅在政治局势中，当人们形成强烈观点时，他们对证据的反应往往变化缓慢。我基本上是那种在华盛顿时会告诉人们我们的知识和能力是有限的人。所以通常最好的做法是退让一步。所以我相信这一点。但我也认为认为只要在华盛顿有人做出错误判断，就一定是因为他们有不良政治动机，而不是因为他们以最佳判断行事却出错了。就像在公众环境中的人类一样，他们在面对证据时改变想法的速度很慢。

Look, there's a very broad thing. You all who work in companies experience it. You experience it in your personal lives. We experience it in our relationships. When something isn't going great, you always have to decide. Is it that we need to give it time, persevere with what we think is right, double down and keep going? Or do we need to say we got this all screwed up, you need to suddenly change course? And that's a decision we all are always making. And it's not that it's always the right thing to change course at the first hint of failure.

看，有一个非常广泛的事情。在公司工作的你们都会经历到它。你们在个人生活中也会经历到它。我们在人际关系中也会经历到它。当事情不顺利时，你们总是需要做出决定。是我们需要给它时间，坚持我们认为正确的事情，继续努力下去？还是我们需要承认我们把事情搞砸了，突然改变方向？这是我们每个人都要一直做出的决定。并不是说一有失败的迹象就立刻改变方向总是正确的。

And so I think a little more, I think people obviously made bad decisions and they kept making them and they made them too long and I was on the other side. But I think that it's a mistake, really a serious mistake to go quite so quickly to motive. And I want to say one other thing just because it was struck by what came before.

于是我再多思考了一下，我认为人们显然做出了糟糕的决定，他们继续下糟糕的决定，而且持续了太长时间，而我则站在另一边。但是我认为迅速去探究动机是一个错误，一个严重的错误。还有一件事，我之所以要提及，是因为前面的内容让我很吃惊。

Look, I really do worry a lot about regulation. But it's important to understand that the largest part of the good that cops do is not that they catch people breaking into houses or that they pull people away when they're trying to murder somebody. The large reason why cops are good is because everybody knows that their cops around and they commit far fewer crimes than they otherwise would. And therefore evaluating the police only by the incidents where the police are actively involved gets a judgment about crime wrong. And the same thing is true with respect to regulation. And we do need to recognize that all the things that we take for granted that make this place a very different place to do business than Argentina and a much greater place to do business than it was 100 years ago have to do with institutions and regulations.

看，我真的非常担心监管的问题。但重要的是要明白，警察所起到的最大作用不仅仅是抓住闯入房屋的人，或者在有人试图谋杀时将其制止。警察之所以重要，是因为每个人都知道有警察存在，他们犯罪的可能性远远低于原本的水平。因此，仅通过警察积极介入的事件来评判犯罪是错误的。在监管方面也是如此。我们需要认识到，我们理所当然地享受到的使这个地方与阿根廷迥然不同，并且比100年前更适合做生意的所有条件都与制度和规章制度有关。

And so I think that's a perspective you all need to keep in mind. If there had not been major regulation that was regarded as oppressive to totalitarian, wrong and anti-market beginning of the late 1940s, it would be impossible for this gathering to exist because the smog in Los Angeles would be so profoundly serious. Were there excesses? Was there craziness? Of course there was. But let's also keep in mind that you need frameworks in which freedom can flourish.

因此，我认为这是你们所有人都需要记在心里的一个观点。如果在20世纪40年代末期没有被视为专制、错误和反市场的重大管制，洛杉矶的雾霾问题将会非常严重，那么这次聚会是不可能存在的。是否存在过度和疯狂行为？当然有。但我们也要记住，你需要有一个能够让自由蓬勃发展的框架。

Let me ask you a basic question. We had Ray Dolly earlier yesterday and he was going over the arcs of history and maybe America being, you know, passed into the United States. You know, passed its peak in decline. And I'm curious what you think about the perhaps existential crisis for America in terms of our spending. Trump added a trillion to the deficit, Biden already, four trillion. We've had this debate on the pod. Are we in an existential crisis in terms of how much we're spending debt to GDP ratio? Is that the most acute issue for America? And then what are your thoughts about America on the global stage versus other emerging powers, China and India? There are a lot of parts of that question.

让我问你一个基本问题。昨天早些时候，我们有了雷·多利（Ray Dolly），他讲述了历史的进展，也许美国已经过了巅峰并开始衰落。我很好奇你对于美国在支出方面可能遭遇的存在危机有何见解。特朗普增加了一万亿的赤字，拜登已经增加了四万亿。我们在播客中对此进行了辩论。我们在债务与国内生产总值比率方面是否面临存在危机？这是否是美国最严重的问题？那么对于美国在全球舞台上与其他新兴大国如中囀和印度的地位，你有什么看法呢？这个问题有很多方面。

I think the most important theme in American history is resilience. I'm old enough. I'm not that old. But I'm old enough. I'm old compared to the people in this room, I guess. But I'm old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter declared a crisis of the national spirit and a pervasive malaise. I'm old enough to remember when the country was being torn apart by the Vietnam War and the President of the United States couldn't go speak anywhere in the country pretty much, except on a military base, and where there was gunfire on college campuses. I'm old enough to remember when, I'm not old enough to remember, but I read about, when Joe McCarthy had the country in his thrall and people on university campuses were afraid to express progressive beliefs. If you read the history, almost everyone advised FDR in 1932 that he needed to use his inaugural address to declare dictatorial powers to take the country over, to deal with the depression because democracy wasn't up to it.

我认为美国历史中最重要的主题是坚韧不拔。我够老了。我并不是那么老。但是我够老了。与在这个房间里的人相比，我可能算是老了。但我足够老以记得当吉米·卡特宣布国家精神危机和普遍失落感时的情景。我足够老以记得当国家被越南战争撕裂，美国总统几乎不能在全国任何地方发表演讲，除了在军事基地，并且大学校园上还出现了枪击事件。我足够老以记得当，虽然我年纪不够，但我读过的历史记载中，乔·麦卡锡把国家迷住，在大学校园里人们害怕表达进步信念的时代。如果你研读历史，几乎所有人在1932年都建议罗斯福总统利用就职演说宣布独裁权力接管国家，以应对经济大萧条，因为民主无法胜任。

Patrick Henry said in 1792, that the spirit of the revolution had already been lost. And so I think the theme in American history is the capacity for self-denying prophecy. It is the capacity for the Jeremiah's that generate all this alarm, that set in motion the processes which lead to renewal. And it won't be that way always. They'll come the end, just as there comes, that's come the end for everything great historically. But I'd rather be playing the hand of the United States than the hand that Xi Jinping has played, than the hand that India has played, certainly than the hand that society is in Asia where there are only going to be half as many people a century from now are played, certainly than the societies of Western Europe.

帕特里克·亨利在1792年表示，革命的精神已经失去了。因此，我认为美国历史的主题是对自我否定预言的能力。正是那些像耶利米一样引起恐慌的人，引发了导致复兴的进程。这种情况不会一直持续下去。最终会有终结，就像历史上所有伟大事物一样。但与习近平所扮演的角色、印度所扮演的角色、亚洲社会在一个世纪后只有现在的一半的角色相比，我宁愿选择扮演美国的角色，当然也比起西欧社会的角色。

That doesn't mean that those of us who are financially minded don't need to be terribly, terribly, terribly concerned that the government's finances are not on a sustainable path and won't be on a sustainable path until we figure out how to raise the revenue that a society facing grave national security threats and aging population and a rising price of medical care and education relative to flat screen TVs and houses needs to finance its government. That doesn't mean that there aren't huge challenges as well as opportunities associated with everything that's coming out of information technology. That doesn't mean that I'm not fearful of so much that's happening in our educational system.

这并不意味着那些有财务头脑的人就不需要非常非常非常担心政府的财政是否能够持续，并且在我们找到如何筹集足够资金来支持政府之前，也不会朝着可持续的方向发展。这个社会面临着严重的国家安全威胁、人口老龄化以及医疗和教育价格上涨，而相对而言，电视和房屋价格趋于平稳，因此我们需要为政府提供资金。这并不意味着与信息技术有关的一切带来的挑战和机遇都不存在。这并不意味着我不担心我们的教育体系中正在发生的很多事情。

And I think that we have in our educational system and this is true of our great universities and it's true of our unionized elementary schools. We have gone from thinking that self esteem comes from achievement, to thinking that achievement comes from self esteem. And that is a embarrassment that the grade point average of the average student at Harvard University is above 3.7. That by far the most common grade is A and that the big education reform idea of the moment is to eliminate standardized tests that actually measure what people know.

我认为在我们的教育体系中存在一个问题，这同样适用于我们的顶尖大学以及已经建立工会的小学。我们已经从认为自尊来自成就，转变为认为成就来自自尊。这是令人尴尬的是，哈佛大学普通学生的平均绩点平均超过了3.7。最常见的成绩是A，而当前教育改革的主要想法是取消实际测量人们知识的标准化考试。 （尽量易读版）我觉得我们的教育体系存在一些问题，这不仅适用于我们优秀的大学，也适用于工会化的小学。我们过去认为自尊来自于成就，现在则认为成就来自于自尊。这是一种令人尴尬的情况，因为哈佛大学普通学生的平均绩点超过了3.7。而且A成绩是最常见的，而当前教育改革的主要想法是取消实际测量人们知识水平的标准化考试。

And so this kind of moves away from traditional values of excellence, achievement, the importance of learning is something that I think is very much a problem. So yeah, I worried about the national sociology problem represented by the fact that we used to be a country 60 years ago where 4% of men between 25 and 54 were not working. And now we're a country where 14% are not working at any point in time and a quarter of them don't work for more than three months within a two year period. Am I worried about that? Yeah, I absolutely am. Am I worried about the finances? Am I? Yes. Am I worried about our inadequate investment in technology leadership? Am I worried about a kind of broad constipation?

因此，这种情况偏离了传统的卓越价值观、成就感和学习的重要性，我认为这是一个非常大的问题。所以是的，我对国家社会学问题感到担忧，因为我们在60年前是一个有4%的25至54岁男性没有工作的国家。而现在，我们是一个有14%人口在任何时间都没有工作的国家，其中四分之一的人在两年内有超过三个月的失业期。我对此感到担忧吗？是的，绝对是。我是否担心财政问题？是的。我是否担心我们对技术领导力的不足投资？我是否担忧整体上的停滞不前？

There's as many of you have probably been to Harvard Square. There's a bridge. The bridge goes over the Charles River. It's 362 feet long. It had been around for 100 years. It needed to be fixed. 62 months, five years and two months with one lane of traffic closed in order to renovate a 362 foot bridge to put that in perspective. Paton built a bridge over the Rhine 3000 feet in one day. But, but they're better things about spending their life hanging around any university. And so I wandered over to the classics department one day and I learned that Julius Caesar built his bridge over the Rhine 3000 feet, not 300 feet in nine days. And this is what it took us. So do we have huge problems? Yes. Is this the first time we've had huge problems? Hell no. Is there the prospect that we can solve those problems? Yes. I think there is. Do I think we all things considered have a more solvable set of problems and a more dynamic society for solving them? Yes. I do. Then the other places. And never forget this. Oh, we always forget it when we make policy in the relevant area. The best one is to say that. The best test is we are the place that people from every part of the world want to come to.

很多人可能去过哈佛广场。那里有一座桥，它横跨查尔斯河，长度为362英尺。这座桥已经存在了100年，但需要修理。为了翻新一座362英尺长的桥梁，我们关闭了一个车道，历时62个月，也就是五年零两个月。帕顿在一天内建造了一座3000英尺长的莱茵河桥。然而，他们更喜欢花时间在大学附近闲逛。于是，一天我走到了古典系，了解到朱利叶斯·凯撒在九天内建造了一座3000英尺长的莱茵河桥，而不是300英尺。而这是我们所花费的时间。所以，我们有巨大的问题吗？是的。这是我们第一次面临巨大问题吗？当然不是。我们能解决这些问题的前景又有多大呢？我认为是有的。我认为相比其他地方，我们拥有一套更可解决的问题以及更具活力的社会来解决这些问题。然后，永远不要忘记这一点。哦，在我们制定相关政策时，我们总是忘记了这一点。最好的测试就是我们是全世界每个地方的人都想要来的地方。

I want to ask you a question. Let's just actually go to that quickly, which is you were the president of Harvard. There was a very, let's call it important to visit foundational case that just went through the Supreme Court on affirmative action. You wrote actually a pretty interesting op-ed about all of this. Give us your thoughts about what is working inside of higher education. What you think about that ruling, just society in general as a reflection of that?

我想问你一个问题。实际上，让我们迅速回到一个很重要的访问基础案例，即你曾经担任哈佛大学校长。最高法院刚刚通过了一项与平权行动相关的重要案件。你实际上写了一篇相当有趣的专栏文章，对此发表了你的看法。请告诉我们你对高等教育内部的运作有什么想法？你如何看待那个判决，并将其作为整个社会的反映？

I wish that ruling hadn't happened. I wish that great universities were in a position to set their course and to compete with each other and to admit students as they. I think that ruling is clear what the right theme should be. That theme is opportunity. The great strength of our universities should be that they make it certain that everyone has an opportunity to succeed and get to the top of the world. I think that there is much more that our great universities can do and there are things that are much more important than arguing about diversity policies that could get us there. Here are some of them.

我希望那个判决没有发生。我希望顶尖大学能够制定自己的规划，相互竞争，并按照他们的意愿录取学生。我认为那个判决明确了正确的主题，即机会。我们大学的伟大之处应该在于确保每个人都有机会成功并登上世界之巅。我认为我们的大学还能做更多的事情，而这些事情比争论多样性政策更为重要。下面是其中一些建议：

Whatever the right way to think about this was 40 years ago, the time for legacy admissions is over. If there are scarce spots in our great universities, having your father hire a fantastic coach to teach you to play a country's club sport at an extraordinary level should not be a path to admission to our leading intellectual institutions. Let's end athletic recruiting for aristocratic sports. It's really a nice thing. It's a nice thing. It's a good thing. It has a lot of good things for most of the people in this room that there exists early decision and early action. But it basically works to help the privileged. It basically prevents the underprivileged, less privileged from shopping their financial aid authors and getting the deals they should. We would not permit Goldman Sachs to make exploding offers to our MBA students. Why should great colleges make exploding offers to admitted students?

无论40年前如何正确地思考这个问题，传统录取的时代已经结束了。如果我们的优秀大学中有少数的名额，让你的父亲雇佣一位出色的教练教你在某个国家俱乐部的体育项目上达到非凡水平，并不应该是进入我们领先的知识机构的途径。让我们结束针对贵族体育运动的招生。这真的是件好事。这是一件好事。这是一件好事。对于这个房间里的大多数人来说，存在早申请和早行动确实有很多好处。但它基本上是帮助特权阶层的。它基本上阻碍了弱势群体、较不富裕群体去竞争他们应有的财政援助和优惠交易。我们不会允许高盛向MBA学生提供过期的招聘。为什么顶尖大学要给已录取的学生提供过期的录取通知呢？

You guys, it's like the word. I didn't really know until I got involved with Silicon Valley that scale was a verb as distinct from a noun. I thought it was something you stepped on in the bathroom. If you think about it, any institution, almost any other institution in the society, nearly a tenth as successful as Stanford or Harvard, we have far more customers today than it did 50 years ago. And yet our universities have not grown their size of their students on campus. And they have moved only glacial to use the incredible opportunities that technology presents to provide education, which this is what's remarkable about educational technology if you think about it. It can be much faster scale. And at the same time, be much more personalized. You can go at your own pace. You can hit me in hyperlanking, go deeper in the things that you're interested in. And so scale plus personalization creates incredible possibility. And our great universities have only scratched the surface of what's possible. So there's an immense amount they can do.

你们啊，就像这个词一样。在我接触到硅谷之前，我并不真正了解规模这个词作为动词和名词的区别。我曾以为它只是浴室里踩到的东西。如果你仔细想想，与斯坦福或哈佛这样成功的大学相比，几乎其他任何机构在社会中都有十分之一的客户。然而，我们的大学并没有扩大校园内的学生规模。而且，他们使用科技所提供的教育机会的进展极其缓慢，这令人惊讶的是，教育技术有着巨大的规模潜力。它可以实现更快的扩张，同时也可以提供更加个性化的教育。你可以按照自己的节奏学习，深入研究你感兴趣的事物。因此，规模和个性化的结合创造了令人难以置信的可能性。而我们伟大的大学只是触及到了可能性的表面。所以他们还有许多可以做的事情。

Last question, because we're running out of time. I just want to make sure you touch free speech on campuses and how it's actually affecting the rest of society as well. A vigorous argument in which all ideas can be put forward and in which no idea gains its authority from who said it or some fashion rather than its merit in open debate. That is the essence of liberal society. That is the essence of great universities at their best. It is the essence of a great university at its best that when I was President of Harvard and I was teaching a freshman seminar, some freshman could come in and read my paper and explain how it was kind of an interesting paper by President Summers, but it was really pretty completely confused. That was a fantastic thing. He wasn't right. But it was a fantastic thing. And yet so much of what we should be able to argue about and discuss is off limits. Some of that is the speakers who get disinvited and that's terrible. But much more of it is a culture that there are only certain views you're allowed to have on questions about identity, that there are only certain views you're allowed to have on questions about markets and redistribution, that there are only certain views you're allowed to have about how children should be raised. There shouldn't be any views you're not allowed to have. Academic freedom should be an absolute, but academic freedom does not mean freedom from criticism, freedom from debate, freedom from challenge. That is the essence of the most successful human institutions. And our university should be modeling and demonstrating that rather than leading a charge as it too often seems they are towards an orgy of mutual self regard, respect and care, rather than getting closer to the truth in the most excellent way. He's a gentleman. Larry Summers. Thank you Mr. Summers. It's fun. I don't think this is our thing. Besties are all over the field. We should all just get a word on it and have one big huge orgy because they're all just like this like sexual tension, but they just need to release that out. I'm going all over you.

最后一个问题，因为我们时间不够了。我只想确保你谈到了校园言论自由以及它如何实际影响社会其他方面。一个充满活力的辩论环境，所有的观点都能被提出，没有观点因为说话者的身份或某种时尚而获得权威，而是通过公开辩论来评价它的价值，这就是自由社会的本质。这也是最优秀的大学的本质。当我担任哈佛大学校长时，我在指导新生研讨课时，有些新生会读我的论文并解释说，这是一个有趣的论文，来自萨默斯校长，但是实际上真的相当混乱。这是一件很棒的事情。他并不正确，但这是一件很棒的事情。然而，我们应该能够进行争论和讨论的很多内容都是禁忌的。其中一部分是遭到取消邀请的演讲者，这是可怕的。但更多的是一种文化，认为在身份问题上只能持有特定观点，在市场和再分配问题上也只能持有特定观点，在如何教育儿童的问题上也只能持有特定观点。实际上不存在不能持有的观点。学术自由应该是绝对的，但学术自由并不意味着不受批评、不受辩论、不受挑战。这是最成功的人类机构的本质。我们的大学应该以此为模范和示范，而不是像它们经常表现出的那样，向着一场互相关注、尊重和关怀的狂欢进发，而不是以最卓越的方式接近真相。他是位绅士。谢谢你，萨默斯先生。这很有趣。我觉得这不是我们的事情。最好的朋友全都在这个领域内。我们应该都直言不讳地陈述自己的看法，大家一起融为一体，因为他们就像是一种性紧张感，需要释放出来。我会跟着你。