E148: McCarthy ousted, border chaos, Cruise's robotaxi "accident" & more
发布时间 2023-10-07 03:50:59 来源
I was your colonoscopy better. Oh, well, that was a talk about Uranus. Talk about my anus. Have you guys had yours recently? Who's had a colonoscopy? I have mine in December. Is that your first one? Yeah, my first one. Yeah, I was delinquent on mine too. They used to be 50 and they moved the age down to 45. Yeah, they didn't move the age down. Free break, have you had one yet? That's a yes. We got a yes. Sax have you had yours. I'm due. By the way, I got a report because actually Sax, you did have one. And they found a bunch of DeSantis merchandise up there. We found a DeSantis hat, a DeSantis pen. Tons of DeSantis stuff right up your ass. At our age, we should be four for four on the colonoscopies. We're one for four. We got to get that stat up every week. I want to check in here. Propefall, shout out Michael Jackson, is the greatest drug ever. I counted 15 seconds. I was knocked out. I woke up and the next thing I know, I was in the recovery area. Were you groggy? I was not groggy. No, I was fine. You literally don't remember anything, no pain, no suffering. I did have- Were you able to have a regular schedule the rest of the day? Not really. So I don't want to dissuade anybody from having this, but you do have to take a drink called prep, which clears you out. And when I say clears you out- I love that. Oh, I love that. It clears you out. Yeah, I would hit a record low weight. I'm 168 now, so that was the one benefit. Well, how did you wait? Did you lose three pounds maybe? Come on. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Were you working when you were prepping? No. I was working when I was prepping. So Monday when I was prepping, but then literally, you take this prep stuff, an hour later, you need to be ready to evacuate at any time. Normally the diary is coming out of your mouth. Absolutely. Absolutely. I don't know what- There's your call it off, but follow us. Let your winner ride. Brainman David Satt says- I'm going home. And it said we open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy. Love you guys.
我是你的结肠镜检查更好。哦，好吧，这是一个关于天王星的谈话。谈谈我的肛门。你们最近做过这个检查吗？谁做过结肠镜检查？我12月要做。这是你第一次吗？是的，是第一次。是的，我也延迟了一会儿再做。他们曾经是50岁，现在把年龄降到45岁。嗯，并没有降低年龄。免费休息，你做过吗？是的，是的。我们得到了一个肯定的答案。萨克斯，你做过吗？我该做了。顺便说一句，我有一个报告，因为萨克斯，你确实做过。他们在那里找到了一堆德桑蒂斯的商品。我们找到了一顶德桑蒂斯帽子，一支德桑蒂斯钢笔。直接塞进你的屁股里的大堆德桑蒂斯的东西。我们这个年龄，结肠镜检查应该是四个里面四个。我们是一个中的。我们必须提高这个统计数据，每周都要检查一次。我想在这里介绍一下普罗泰诺尔，迈克尔·杰克逊的致意，是最好的药物。我数了15秒。我醒来的时候，下一件事就是我在恢复区。你有没有昏昏沉沉的感觉？我没有昏昏沉沉。不，我没事。你真的什么都不记得了，没有疼痛，没有痛苦。我确实-你当天后面的活动日程有规律吗？不是很有规律。所以我不想劝阻任何人不去做这个，但你确实得喝一种叫作准备药物的东西，它会把你清空。当我说清空，我是指-我喜欢这个。哦，我喜欢这个。它会让你清空。对，我体重创下了历史新低。我现在是168斤，所以这是一个好处。好吧，你体重减了多少？也许减了三磅吗？拜托了。哦，对，对，对。你准备的时候还工作吗？不是。我准备的时候还工作。所以周一我准备的时候，然后，你喝了这个准备药物，一个小时后，你随时都要准备排泄。通常情况下，你的腹泻会从嘴里出来的。确实。确实。我不知道-你怎么称呼它，但是我们都会开始。让我们放纵一下，让你的赢家飞驰。布雷曼·大卫·萨特说-我要回家了。它说我们把它开源给粉丝们，他们简直疯了。爱你们。
Alright, everybody. Welcome to another amazing episode of the All in Podcast episode one, four, eight. The docket is absurd. The number of lawsuits and the amount of news that has happened in just the last week has been insane. But we want to, at the top of the show, do a quick correction, right? It's an all-in correction. If we make a mistake here, we don't hide it in the show notes. We just talk about it right up front. Sacks, you were in touch with the air table CEO, Howie Lu, who's been a guest on this week in startups. I'm going to have him on again, actually soon. Maybe you could just discuss what we got wrong and how we got it wrong, and then what the correct facts are about air table, just quickly, here at the top of the show.
大家好。欢迎大家收听 All in Podcast 的第 148 期精彩节目。议程真是荒谬啊，仅在过去一周内，涉及的诉讼数量和新闻数量就超乎想象。但是我们想在节目初期进行一次快速的修正，对吗？这是 All in Podcast 的修正之道。如果我们在这里犯了错误，我们不会将其隐藏在节目说明中。我们会直接在节目中进行讨论。Sacks，你与 Airtable 的 CEO Howie Lu 保持联系，他曾是《This Week in Startups》的嘉宾，在不久的将来，我也会再次邀请他。或许你可以谈谈我们错在哪儿，以及错在哪里，然后简单地介绍一下 Airtable 的正确信息，就在节目开始时说一下。
Yeah, well, we had a segment a couple of weeks ago. We were talking about these high-priced late-stage unicorn rounds, needing to get revalued. And the IPO of Instacart was a good example of this, where, yes, it IPOed at about 10 billion, but the last private round was at 39 billion. So there is a big wave of revaluations or down rounds coming. And we cited some numbers off the internet regarding air table. As it turns out, not everything on the internet is true. And you're talking about specific journalists, might have gotten it wrong.
是的，我们几周前进行了一个节目段落。我们谈论了那些高价位的后期独角兽融资在重新估值的问题。Instacart的IPO是一个很好的例子，它IPO的估值约为100亿美元，但上一轮的私募融资估值为390亿美元。因此，将会有一波大规模的重新估值或下调融资的浪潮出现。我们引用了一些关于air table的网络数据。事实证明，并不是网络上的所有信息都是真实的。你说得没错，特定的记者可能弄错了这些信息。
Well, this was actually a tweet storm on X, that from a financial account that, you know, appeared on the surface to be correct. And in fact, it did have some correct information, but it was outdated. It was stale. So just the quick correction here is that the amount of ARR that we cited, which I think was around 150 million, was accurate as of the time they did the last round. But that was like three years ago.
嗯，实际上这是关于X的一连串推文，来自一个看起来正确的财务账户。事实上，它确实包含了一些正确的信息，但这些信息已经过时了，已经过期了。所以这里需要做一个快速的更正，我们所引用的年度重复销售额（ARR）——我记得大约是1.5亿美元——是截至他们进行最后一轮融资时的准确数字。但那是三年前的数据了。
Furthermore, the growth rate that was cited, which I think was around 15%, that was off. That was off by about a 3X multiple. So when you put all these things together, I wasn't able to get the exact numbers. But if you just do a little bit of napkin math here, my guess is that air table is somewhere in the half a billion of ARR club with pretty decent growth. And if you look at the public comps for that, I think the public comps be something like a Monday, you know, which is doing five to 600 million of ARR coming off a 50% growth rate, maybe forecasting. 30% for the next year. That company has been hovering around the seven or eight billion dollar valuation range. 12X. Yeah, the claim that was made on X was that air table was even worth 1.4 billion that is raised in VC money. I think that's way off. I mean, yeah. And furthermore, you know, what we heard is that air table still has something like two thirds of the money that is raised in the bank. So look, is air table worth the 11 billion that it was valued at at the peak? Probably that's not what the public comps indicate. Would I be a buyer personally at roughly half that price for sure? For sure. And I think it'll have a nice IPO at some point when they decide they want to do it.
此外，我认为提到的增长率大约为15%，这是错误的。实际的增长率可能是这个数字的三倍左右。综合考虑所有这些因素，我无法得到准确的数字。但是如果你简单地做一些粗略的估算，我猜测Air Table的年度再现率可能在5亿美元左右，增长还不错。如果你看一下公开市场上的类似公司，像Monday这样的公司，他们的年度再现率可能在5至6亿美元，增长率在50%，未来可能预计为30%。这家公司的估值一直在七八十亿美元的范围内浮动，大约是12倍。是的，关于X公司声称Air Table的估值甚至达到14亿美元，我觉得这完全不对。此外，我们听说Air Table还有约三分之二的融资款项储备。总的来说，Air Table是否值得其顶峰时的110亿美元估值，公开市场上的类似公司并没有显示出来。但如果价格大致低于这个数额，我个人肯定会考虑购买。我认为他们会在适当的时候进行一次不错的IPO。
So just an important reminder for everybody is, you know, listen, if information is on the intro webs, it may not be correct. But the top news story in the country is unequivocally Kevin McCarthy being ousted as Speaker of the House. On Tuesday, he was voted out in a 216 to 210 vote with eight far right Republicans joining all of the Democrats. So those eight GOP members include or led by Matt Gates, obviously a group of, I guess what would be best described, SACs as Tea Party, S members of the GOP contingent. They care mostly about spending and curtailing spending. Am I correct? Don't forget all the Democrats. Well, yeah, I'm putting the Democrats on. I'm already counting them. I'm just talking about the eight who made this tip over.
所以，我给大家一个重要的提醒，你们知道的，听着，如果信息来自互联网，可能并不正确。但全国头条新闻毫无疑问是凯文·麦卡锡被免去众议院议长职务。在周二的选举中，他以216票对210票被赶下台，其中包括八名极右翼共和党人和所有民主党人的联合。所以，这八名共和党成员包括或由马特·盖茨带领，显然是一个被最好形容为“茶党”的共和党代表团。他们主要关心开支和削减开支。我说得对吗？别忘了所有的民主党人。嗯，我已经把民主党人算在内了。我只是在说这八个人推动这个变故的事。
The media is trying to portray them as these far right, you know, wingers. And I don't think you can necessarily say that because I don't think Nancy Mayce fits in that group. I think she does care about spending, but she's not. Was it far right to hear about spending? I mean, far right to me would be.
媒体试图将他们描绘成那些极右翼的人，你懂的，极右翼分子。但我认为不能这样说，因为我觉得南希·梅斯并不属于那个群体。我认为她确实关心开支，但并不是……对于开支的看法和极右翼立场无关。我的意思是，对我来说，极右翼的看法是另一回事。
Well, that's exactly right. I mean, anything that the media doesn't like, they label far right. But I think, you know, Nancy Mayce is a good example of somebody who is very concerned about spending discipline, but is not like a MAGA type Republican. But is the, and just to just refine this one more time before I keep going, those eight would, the comment thread would be control spending. We have out of control spending is the reason they're voting a no vote for Kevin McCarthy. I think there were a couple other pieces of this. If you listen to Nancy Mayce, some of the other people that were involved here, a lot of the issue comes down to trust. They felt like they could no longer trust Kevin McCarthy. They felt like the things that he had told them in private were not matching up with the things that he would then later do, or that he would say in public, or that he would tell the Biden administration. So I think that.
嗯，这完全正确。我的意思是，任何媒体不喜欢的东西，他们都会贴上极右翼的标签。但是我认为，你知道，南希·梅斯（Nancy Mayce）就是一个很好的例子，她非常关注开支纪律，但并不像一个MAGA型共和党人。同时，再明确一次，在我继续之前，这八人的评论主题是控制开支。我们失控的开支是他们对凯文·麦卡锡（Kevin McCarthy）投票否决的原因。我认为还有一些其他方面。如果你听听南希·梅斯和其他参与其中的人的说法，这一问题在很大程度上涉及到信任问题。他们觉得他们不能再信任凯文·麦卡锡。他们觉得他私下告诉他们的事情和他稍后所做的事情、或他在公众场合所说的话、或他告诉拜登政府的事情不符合。所以我认为是这个原因。
And then the main issues were. Well, I think it's a couple. One was on spending, he had promised that he would stop doing these giant omnibus spending bills, where everything would be lumped into one bill. You get like 24 hours to read it, and then you got to vote up or down on whether you pass this giant spending bill or shut down the government. Everyone feels forced to vote for it. He had promised to do single subject spending bills. So military education, welfare, whatever. Yeah, that goes through a regular budget process. So they felt like he had broken his promise on that. I think also on the issue of Ukraine, there were some trust issues there because what he was telling Republicans in private was not what he was telling the Biden administration in private, where he was telling the Biden administration, don't worry, we're going to get the Ukraine funding through. But then he was sounding different notes with various Republicans. And I think his true feelings on the matter came out in this press conference he did after he was ousted, in which he goes on this long rant about how Putin's the second coming of Adolf Hitler. And if we don't stop him now, he's going to be marching into Paris. And I mean, it was sort of this like unhinged second grade American history style of view of the war, which regardless of what your view is on it, I think it expressed his true feelings on the matter, which is that when push came to shove, he's more hawkish than Joe Biden on the issue of Ukraine. He feels that Biden has not done enough. It's safe to say that that position is now very out of step with the Republican caucus.
然后主要问题是什么呢？我认为有几个问题。其中一个是在支出方面，他曾承诺停止制定这种庞大的综合性支出法案，将所有事项都合并成一项法案。你只有24小时的时间来阅读它，然后你必须投票是否通过这项巨额支出法案或关闭政府。每个人都感到被迫投票支持。他曾承诺制定单一主题的支出法案，比如军事教育、福利等，都可以通过常规预算程序进行审议。所以他们觉得他在这方面违背了承诺。我认为在乌克兰问题上也存在一些信任问题，因为他在与共和党人私下交流时所说的与他在与拜登政府私下交流时所说的不同。他告诉拜登政府，不用担心，我们会通过乌克兰的资金。但是他对不同的共和党人发出了不同的信号。我认为他在被免职后举行的新闻发布会上表达了自己对此问题的真实感受，他在其中长时间地咆哮说普京是阿道夫·希特勒的再世，如果我们现在不阻止他，他将会进军巴黎。我的意思是，这种观点有点像一个失控的小学生对待美国历史的方式，无论你对此有何看法，我认为这表达了他对这个问题的真实感受，即当形势逼迫时，他在乌克兰问题上比乔·拜登更强硬。他认为拜登没有做出足够的努力。可以说，这个立场现在已经与共和党团队格格不入了。
So he is pushing a view on Ukraine that is now very out of step. Moreover, I think that if he had just acted as an honest broker on the issue, which is to say, listen, I'm just going to represent the views of my caucus. My caucus is divided on the issue. I'm just going to let them have an up or down vote on it. Then I think he could have survived on that issue. But instead, again, I think he was trying to manipulate things in a direction of continuing Ukraine funding, regardless of the views of his caucus.
因此，他对乌克兰持有的观点现在已经非常脱节。此外，我认为如果他只是以一个诚实的调解人的身份处理这个问题，也就是说，听着，我只是要代表我的议院的观点。我的议院对这个问题意见不一。我只是让他们就此事进行投票，是支持还是反对。那么我认为他在这个问题上可以幸存下来。但相反的是，我认为他试图在继续提供乌克兰资助的方向上操纵事情，而不管他的议院的观点如何。
Gates wants to end CRs continuing resolutions, those extend the funding deadline from October 1st of the holidays, claiming this bias Congress time to lump all those individual farm version bills into the omnibus bill, as you correctly pointed out, Gates wants to end that practice in return to regular order passage of individual annual spending bills, not the omnibus. The context that I think is important, that I think is that the American public should understand is how is this actually supposed to work so that we don't normalize what these CRs are. So the way that it's supposed to work is that Congress is authorized by law to create 12 spending bills a year. And each of those bills have to map to the large parts of the government. So there's a military bill, there's an education bill, there's a, you know, HHS bill, etc, etc. And those are supposed to be negotiated on the House floor in past. The Senate is allowed to do a version of the same. If those two things are different, meaning the Senate doesn't take the House bill and creates their own, the law says that you have to create what's called a conference and a group of people, half senators and half Congress people sit in a room, hash out and mediate a resolution, and that is what goes to the President's desk to be signed. That's how it used to be done. But about a decade ago, all of that broke down. And now what happens is you have this thing that Saks mentioned, which is called the CR, which is essentially a backdoor. It's this release valve that is supposed to be a in emergency break glass type measure that has become fundamentally normalized. And I think what's important to call out is what happened here isn't getting the just attention because it's being characterized on party lines, and not actually being characterized with how America is legally supposed to work as defined in the Constitution.
盖茨希望终止连续决议（CRs）的实行，这些决议将资金最后期限从10月1日延长到节假日。盖茨声称，这个做法使得国会有时间将所有单独的农场版本法案整合到综合法案中，正如你所指出的，盖茨希望终止这种做法，回归按照常规通过单独的年度支出法案的方式。我认为重要的背景是，美国公众应该明白这实际上应该如何运作，以免让这些连续决议变得正常化。按照规定，这是应该如何运作的：国会被法律授权每年制定12项支出法案。每个法案都必须涵盖政府的大部分内容。因此会有一项军事法案，一项教育法案，一项保健与人类服务部法案等等。这些法案应该在众议院的会议上进行协商并通过。参议院也可以进行类似的操作。如果这两件事有所不同，也就是说参议院不接受众议院的法案而提出自己的版本，法律规定你必须举行所谓的会议，一个半参议员和半众议员的团体将坐在一间房间里，协商和调解出一项决议，然后这个决议会交到总统的办公桌上签署。过去就是这样做的。但是大约十年前，这一切都崩溃了。现在发生的情况是，就像萨克斯提到的那样，有一种被称为CR的事情，它实际上是一个后门。它是一种应急措施，本来应该是一个后备措施，但却变得根本是常规化了。我认为要强调的重要一点是，这里发生的事情没有得到公正的关注，因为它被解读为党派之争，而没有真正按照宪法中规定的美国合法运作的方式来解读。
So the Congress is supposed to pass 12 spending bills a year. It's then supposed to get negotiated or approved by the Senate, and then it should go to the President. When you override that with these continuing resolutions, this is the issue that Freeburg's been talking about. You balloon the deficit, you balloon the debt, you have all kinds of pork barrel spending, there's zero accountability, the bullets cost $6,000, the umbrella holders cost $15,000. All of this nonsense that just brings us closer and closer to some sort of default or economic contagion.
因此，国会每年应该通过12个支出法案。然后，这些法案应该由参议院进行协商或批准，然后再提交给总统。当你通过这些延续决议来推翻这个过程时，这就是Freeburg一直在谈论的问题。你会让财政赤字膨胀，债务剧增，各种猪肉项目支出随意涌现，完全没有问责机制，子弹花费6000美元，雨伞架花费15000美元。所有这些荒唐行为都让我们离违约或经济传染的风险越来越近。
So I actually look at this issue, not as Republican versus Democrat, the far right wing. I think that's misguided interpretation by the mainstream media. I think what this is is the first chance in a while where you're not allowed to pass a continuing resolution, where you will have to propose 12 bills the way the law says you're supposed to. And what that'll mean is that you'll have to negotiate a compromise to get those 12 bills passed. Now what's crazy is the Senate actually has six of those bills on their desk and they haven't even negotiated it. And I think the reason is because they know that the CR is always in the offing. But if this continuing resolution is not allowed because you fired the speaker, then they'll have to negotiate those bills. And part of what McCarthy did to get elected was say, we will return to the law and not use the in emergency break class. And I think that's what's not it's not understood well. I think by Americans as that is the actual process. We haven't been doing it for a decade. And I'm not a fan of Gates. But I'm glad that somebody did this because somebody has to draw a line in this end. The Republicans and Democrats equally have been responsible for breaking the way the American government spends money. And so this is the best way to fix it.
所以我对这个问题的看法并不是共和党对抗民主党、极右翼的问题。我认为这是主流媒体错误地解读了情况。我认为这是一个难得的机会，你不能再通过连续支出决议来解决问题，而是必须按照法律规定的方式提出12项法案。这意味着你必须进行妥协谈判才能让这12项法案通过。现在令人疯狂的是，参议院实际上已经拥有其中的六项法案，但他们甚至没有进行过谈判。我认为原因是因为他们知道连续支出决议总是可以使用。但如果由于你解职了发言人而不允许继续支出决议，那么他们就必须谈判那些法案了。麦卡锡为了当选而采取的措施之一就是说，我们将回归法律，不会再使用紧急情况的应急措施。我认为这一点并没有被人们很好地理解。我们已经有十年没有按照这个正常程序来做了。虽然我不是盖茨的粉丝，但我很高兴有人这样做，因为有人必须在这个问题上划清界限。共和党和民主党同样对美国政府开支方式的破坏负有责任，这是解决问题的最佳途径。
Freeburg, you agree with what's gone down here and that that this is worth shutting the government down, etc. Or do you think this is like a where to make the stand? Because you've been very pro controlling spending as I've I. And so do you think that this is the best way to do it, I guess?
Freeburg，你同意这里发生的事情，并认为这值得关闭政府等等吗？或者你认为这像是一个站出来的时刻吗？因为你一直都倾向于控制支出，就像我一样。所以你认为这是最好的方式吗，我猜是这样吧？
It's more about the United States is facing a fiscal emergency national debt reported by the Treasury Department increased by $275 billion in a one day report yesterday, $275 billion in a day. The entire TARP program during 2008 was $400 billion. That's how out of control our fiscal condition is. And this is a function of rising rates, a function of spending. And, you know, as we talked about many times over, there's an arithmetic to this that at some point it becomes ever escalating until you step in and do something dramatic about it.
这更多地涉及到美国所面临的财政紧急情况，财政部报告显示国债在昨天的一份报告中增加了2750亿美元，一天之内就增加了2750亿美元。整个2008年的TARP计划总额为4000亿美元。这就是我们财政状况失控的程度。而这是由于利率上升和支出增加所导致的。正如我们多次讨论过的那样，这是一个算术问题，最终会不断升级，直到采取戏剧性的措施解决为止。
So I'm hopeful and I mean, there's a lot of rhetoric, you can watch all the news channels and see a lot of these Congress people get on camera and talk about different things. I think we're seeing more frequently now people talking about the fiscal crisis that the US is facing and that this action provides a mechanism, as Chamoc points out, for forcing everyone to the table to figure out how do we reduce the impact? How do we chart a path to a solution? Because right now, if you asked anyone in Congress, what's the strategic plan here? There is not going to be an answer from anyone. Everyone's got a different point of view and everyone's fighting over the deck chairs on the Titanic. And we've got a more significant problem. We're hitting an iceberg.
所以我对此持乐观态度，我的意思是，话很多，你可以看所有的新闻频道，看到很多国会议员站在摄像机前谈论不同的事情。我认为我们现在越来越频繁地听到人们谈论美国面临的财政危机，而这项行动提供了一个机制，正如Chamoc所指出的，强迫大家一起坐下来讨论如何减少影响？我们如何制定解决方案的路径？因为如果你问国会的任何人，这里有什么战略计划？没有人会有答案。每个人都有不同的观点，每个人都在为"泰坦尼克号"上的甲板椅而争斗。而我们面临着一个更重大的问题，我们正在撞上一座冰山。
So, yeah, I'm hopeful that this causes hopefully a turning point in the never ending spending spree where everyone gets elected and everyone promises to the folks that they're representing and the folks that funded their political campaigns some amount of money back out from the government and everyone gets that free money. And at some point, something's got to turn around or the whole thing kind of goes down. So hopefully this is that moment. I don't know.
所以，是的，我希望这个能够成为一个转折点，结束那种永远不停止的开支浪费。在这种情况下，每个人当选后都承诺给选民和资助他们政治竞选的人一定数量的政府资金，每个人都能得到免费的钱。但在某一点上，情况必须扭转，否则整个体系就会崩溃。所以希望这一刻能成为转折点。我不知道。
Sacks you. By the way, if the government shut down for weeks and months to try and figure this out and for everyone to get aligned with here's the long-range strategic plan presented to the American people on how we prevent the US from either inflation or bankruptcy, then I think everyone will feel like it was worth it. Sacks has been tons of speculation about what this is. What's what this is actually about? Is it about Ukraine? Is it about out of control spending? Is it about Matt Gates and Kevin McCarthy having some sort of personal grudge against each other? What do you think is at the core of this?
你亏了。顺便说一下，如果政府为了解决这个问题而关闭数周甚至数月，并使每个人都能理解并采取我们的长期战略计划来预防通胀或破产，那么我认为每个人都会觉得这是值得的。关于这个问题已经有很多猜测了。这到底是关于乌克兰吗？是关于失控的开支吗？是马特·盖茨和凯文·麦卡锡彼此有些私人恩怨吗？你认为其中的核心问题是什么？
Sacks? Well, probably all of the above, but I think it's fundamentally a rejection of the status quo. Kevin McCarthy, if nothing else, is a figure of the status quo. I mean, he's worked for 20 years through the system. He's a great fundraiser. I actually attended an event for him down the street here. And of course, all the donors love him.
萨克斯？嗯，可能是上述的所有原因，但我认为它基本上是对现状的拒绝。凯文·麦卡锡，无非就是现状的代表人物。我的意思是，他通过系统工作了20年。他是一个出色的筹款人。实际上，我曾在这条街上参加过他的一个活动。当然，所有的捐赠者都喜欢他。
And look, I like Kevin McCarthy. I've contributed to Kevin McCarthy. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure that Kevin McCarthy is a guy who's going to get us out of this mess. And the final problem is he's just too conciliatory. And the idea that you're going to impose spending discipline and get us out of the budgetary mess that we're in, the idea that you're going to make that omelet without breaking a few eggs, I think is just kind of silly. So I think we need a tougher speaker who's going to actually live up to the promises of stopping these omnibus bills going back to single subject bills, who is going to represent the views of the majority of the Republican caucus on indefinite, infinite Ukraine spending, because he's kind of off the center of the Republican party on that.
看吧，我喜欢凯文·麦卡锡。我也为凯文·麦卡锡做出了贡献。但说到底，我不确定凯文·麦卡锡是否是能让我们摆脱这个困境的人。最后的问题是他太过于妥协。而且，你要实施开支纪律并让我们摆脱预算困境的想法，认为你可以不破坏一些“鸡蛋”来完成这个目标，我觉得有点可笑。所以我认为我们需要一位更坚决的议长，他将真正履行停止这些综合法案，回到单一议题法案的承诺；他将在乌克兰无限支出问题上代表大多数共和党议员的观点，因为他在这个问题上有点偏离共和党的核心立场。
Why can't the Republican party be in unison on this? Explain what the what's the rift inside the GOP right now? Well, the GOP actually has debates in this party. What you see is that Democrats are in total lockstep and they just support whatever is the status quo. But the Republicans actually have debates inside their party. And there is a big debate right now on how we handle Ukraine. And I think there is growing opposition to a blank check as long as it takes policy towards Ukraine, we've already appropriated over 100 billion.
为什么共和党无法在这个问题上保持一致呢？解释一下共和党内部目前存在的分歧是什么？嗯，共和党实际上在这个党内进行辩论。你会发现，民主党完全统一，他们只是支持现状。但是共和党内部实际上存在着辩论。目前有一个关于如何处理乌克兰问题的大辩论。我认为越来越多人反对将政策对乌克兰持续写空白支票，我们已经拨款超过一千亿。
What's the return on investment of that? The counter that's the key. You think that's the key, not the the CRS? I think it's both of those issues combined with the fact that increasingly McCarthy was not seen as an honest broker. Listen, I think McCarthy could have had whatever views he wanted to if he was perceived as somebody who actually represented a majority of the Republican caucus. But what Nancy Mayes, what Matt Gates, what these others who rebelled were saying is, listen, what Kevin told us is not what he did. And I personally witnessed this aspect to McCarthy.
那是投资回报率是多少？关键在于那个反对派。你认为那是关键，而不是CRS吗？我认为这两个问题加上一个事实，就是越来越多的人不再认为麦卡锡是一个诚实的调解人。听着，我认为如果麦卡锡被视为真正代表共和党大多数派的人，他可以持有任何观点。但是，南希·梅斯、马特·盖茨以及其他反叛的人所说的是，听着，凯文告诉我们的和他实际做的不一样。我个人亲眼目睹了麦卡锡的这一方面。
Okay, so when I went to this event down the street here, I heard him gave this whole poutler rant. And then afterwards, I came up to him and said, Kevin, what are you talking about? Do you really want to cause war three? And all of a sudden he backpedaled and he started saying these conciliatory things. And I was like, okay, maybe he just went on this like to where it was kind of off topic. He tuned in. Did you retune it? But after I kind of had this like sidebar with him, I'm like, okay, maybe it's not so bad. Maybe, you know, I think he promised that he would impose. He's in the pocket of special interests. Let's be clear.
好的，所以当我去了这个街上的活动时，我听到他对着麦克风大声唠叨了一番。然后之后，我走到他面前说：“凯文，你在说什么啊？你真的想引发第三次战争吗？”突然间，他开始退缩，并开始说一些和解的话。我当时就有点儿困惑了，我想，或许他只是离题说了一通，注意力不在。你调整了吗？但是在我与他私下交谈之后，我想，也许事情没有那么糟糕。也许，你知道，我想他承诺过会实施一些政策。明确一下，他是特殊利益集团的傀儡。
Well, I think he, well, no, not quite, Jason, because he didn't quote to it. He's quoted it. He just tweeted it. But what I would say is that he was really good in any particular meeting at saying conciliatory things to get somebody to like him and to get his back. He's what you're saying. I mean, I think a lot of politicians are. Not a politician. So he told me what I wanted to hear. I think he promised that he would get an accountant. Would you have been with the eight or with the rest? Well, and guys, the fundamental truth with sacks, would you have voted with the eight or would you voted with the rest as if you would have voted with the eight?
我认为他，额，不，不完全是，杰森，因为他没有引述它。他引用过它，只是在推特上提到过。但我想说的是，他在任何特定的会议上都很擅长说一些让别人喜欢他并支持他的调和性言辞。他就是你所说的那种人。我的意思是，我认为很多政客都是这样的。我并不是政客。所以他告诉了我我想听的话。我想他承诺会找到一位会计师。你会和那八个人一起投票，还是投其他人的票？ 嗯，伙计们，对于付款的基本真相，你会和那八个人一起投票，还是和其他人一起投票，就像你会和那八个人一起投票一样？
I mean, even though I like, look, I like McCarthy. He's a likable guy. But again, I think that press conference he held revealed the truth of it, which is he was BSing me. His real view is that we need to support Ukraine for as long as it takes. And he told me something different. His grand bargain was that he would stop these continuing resolution pork barrel bills. That was the grand bargain. That was the thing that said, and if I don't do it, you guys can bolt me out. Do you guys remember this? Yeah. You know, that was his negotiation. So this really was kind of like a feather complete. The minute he decided to pass and yet another pork barrel bill, you also seem kind of frustrated that he just he seemed like he was spent in dealing with all this.
我是说，尽管我喜欢，看起来，我喜欢麦卡锡。他是个讨人喜欢的人。但是，从他举行的新闻发布会上，我觉得揭示了真相，他在忽悠我。他真正的观点是，我们需要支持乌克兰直到成功。而他告诉我完全不同的事情。他的大交易是停止这些继续决议豆腐渣法案。那就是他的大交易。也就是说，如果我没做到，你们可以把我撤下去。你们还记得这个吗？是的。你们知道，这对他来说真的像是早已完成的事情。在他决定通过又一个豆腐渣法案的那一刻，你们似乎也有点沮丧，他似乎已经筋疲力尽地应付这一切了。
So it seems surprising to me is why the Republican party allowed Matt Gates to get all of the attention and to be like the organizing principle. Because he's such a load, some individual to so many people, both in the Republican party and outside. The guy the guy broke a fundamental promise. And that promise wasn't that provocative. It's just like, yeah, we're going to pass 12 bills. We're just going to follow the law. And he couldn't follow the law. And so why doesn't anybody else stand up? Why does it have to take these eight kind of coalescing with with the Dems? It's it's really nutty, actually.
对我来说，令我感到惊讶的是共和党为什么允许马特·盖茨夺得所有的关注，并成为组织原则。因为他对很多人来说是个负担，无论是在共和党内部还是在外部。这个家伙打破了一个根本承诺，而这个承诺并不具有挑衅性。就像是，是的，我们会通过12项法案。我们只是要遵守法律。而他无法遵守法律。那么为什么其他人不站出来呢？为什么要等到这八人与民主党共同行动呢？实际上，这真是太疯狂了。
Yeah, there's a very strange series of events. And by the way, I think you make just your last point there. This would not have happened if Hakeem Jeffries didn't send down word that all the Democrats were supposed to vote with Matt Gates. I think that this is a vote against their long term interest because the fact the matter is that Kevin McCarthy ultimately was a very client speaker. And he was giving the Democrats what they wanted on spending on keeping government funded and open forever at higher and higher rates of spending. And on Ukraine, they're never going to get somebody who is more compliant.
是的，发生了一系列非常奇怪的事件。顺便说一句，我认为你只是在谈论你的最后观点。如果海基姆·杰弗里斯没有传达消息说所有民主党人应该与马特·盖茨一起投票，这种情况就不会发生。我认为这是对他们长期利益的一次投票反对，因为事实是凯文·麦卡锡最终是一位非常顾客化的发言人。他满足了民主党人在支出上的要求，以及持续提高的更高支出率上，让政府一直得到资助并保持开放。而在乌克兰问题上，他们永远不会得到一个更顺从的人。
To your point, I think what what is really interesting and hopefully beneficial for America is we've broken the seal on unseating the speaker interterm. If they kind of like violate a handful of these defined things, and I hope one of these things is the best thing we could do for America is just force all of these folks in Congress to negotiate 12 bills a year. Keep them busy, focus on those bills, get to like a compromise, get it to the Senate, get it voted, get it to the president's sign it. That's it. If they if they just did that, we would probably spend a third to half of less than we do now. Is Gates the winner and all of us to see it look like?
就你提到的观点，我认为真正有趣且希望对美国有益的是，我们已经打破了期间替换议长的禁忌。如果他们违反了一些明确规定的事项，我希望其中一个最好的事情就是强迫国会议员们每年就12项法案进行协商。让他们忙碌起来，专注于那些法案，达成妥协，将其送到参议院，进行投票，然后让总统签署。就是这样。如果他们只是这样做，我们可能会花费的时间和金钱要少三分之一到一半。盖茨是受欢迎的，我们都希望看到类似的情况。
By the way, just just so you guys know, like when you try to propose elements of a bill, right, in one of those real bills, okay, it has to go to the the CPO and it has to get scored. Right. So for example, we've tried to propose certain aspects of legislation. And no matter whatever we think about it, there at least is an independent body that scores it and says, here's the X year cost, the Y year cost, here's the benefits. And so you get a very clear sense and a transparent sense that's published everybody about what this is. In CR, you can avoid all of that stuff. There is no close study of any of this stuff. And you know, David is right, you get it on a Thursday night at like 8 p.m. and you vote Friday at six, you know, or like at midday. How is anybody supposed to approve a multi trillion dollar package logically? You know, it's riddled with nonsense. It makes no sense that you don't break up the work and do it thoughtfully each time.
顺便说一下，只是让你们知道，当你们试图提出议案的要素时，对于那些真正的法案，它必须经过CPO（某机构）的审议并进行评估。例如，我们曾试图提出立法的某些方面，无论我们对它有什么看法，至少有一个独立机构对其进行评分，并提供了X年度成本、Y年度成本和收益等信息。因此，大家能够清楚地了解并公开地知道这个立法的情况。然而，在CR（某政策）中，你可以避开所有这些。没有严密的研究。正如David所说的，你周四晚上8点拿到这个东西，然后周五中午6点就要投票，你知道，人们难以理性地批准一个数万亿美元的计划。这简直是充满了无意义的东西。你不分阶段仔细地进行工作是毫无道理的。
I guess should they change this ability for one member to propose a resolution to remove the city speaker? Yeah, it's comically easy to make the speaker based on the rules they passed. However, I think it's important to understand why that rule happened. It happened because McCarthy was so desperate to become speaker. If you go back to the history of this thing, McCarthy was actually passed over for speaker back in 2015 when he made this gaff on TV about the Benghazi select committee being set up to hurt Hillary's poll numbers. Obviously, that wasn't an admission that helped Republicans. And he only got the job this year by making it so easy to take it away from him. And remember, they did like 15 rounds of voting. So this is the problem. Frankly, one of the problems with McCarthy is he has a little bit too desperate to have the job. Sometimes when you get a guy who is so desperate for a job, they're not that effective in it, because they're too worried about it being taken away. What you want is a guy who is like, look, take it or leave it. I could do this job or not do this job. That's the only way you're going to get somebody tough in the job. I think the guy they should look to right now would be Jim Jordan. I think Jim Jordan would be excellent because at the end of the day, you want a speaker who's going to be fear or not loved, like Nancy Pelosi, quite frankly, you need a Republican speaker who's going to be tough, who doesn't give a shit if you like him or not. I mean, this is, I think, Kevin's downfall is that he cared too much about people liking him. As a result, in the room, he would always tell you something that you liked. But the problem is that he can't deliver on that.
我认为，他们是否应该改变这一能力，让一个成员提议解除市议长的职位？是的，根据他们通过的规则，这对市议长来说非常容易。然而，我认为重要的是要理解这一规则产生的原因。它的产生是因为麦卡锡非常渴望成为市议长。如果回顾一下这个事情的历史，2015年，当他在电视上谈到班加西特别委员会是为了伤害希拉里的民意调查数字时，他实际上被忽视了。显然，这不是一个帮助共和党的承认。而他今年才得到这份工作，是因为他让别人轻松地从他手中夺走了它。还记得，他们进行了大约15轮投票。这就是问题所在。坦白说，麦卡锡的问题之一是他太渴望拥有这个职位了。有时候，当你有一个非常渴望一份工作的人时，他们在这个工作中并不那么有效，因为他们太担心它会被夺走。你需要的是一个人，他对这份工作可以随便拿或者不要，这样你才能得到一个坚毅的人。我认为他们现在应该关注的人是吉姆·乔丹。我认为吉姆·乔丹非常出色，因为说到底，你需要一个既不被畏惧又不被喜欢的议长，就像南希·佩洛西一样。诚实地说，你需要一个共和党议长，他会坚强，并不在乎你喜不喜欢他。我认为凯文的失败是他太过在意别人喜欢他。结果，在会议室里，他总是告诉你一些你喜欢听的话。但问题是他无法兑现那些承诺。
Yeah. So let's get ready to move on to the topic. But just a final question here. Do you guys think a shutdown in a couple of weeks? Because that's how long the extension is, would be productive for the country if it becomes the backstop against out of control spin. If it stops the CR process, it'll be effective to the tune of above $500 billion. It'll be half a trillion dollars effective. So a couple of weeks of the government not spending money. Meaning if you kill the omnibus bill, and or you have an extremely slimmed down version of that bill, and you revert back to this 12 bills a year process that's supposed to be the law, it'll be more effective. You'd save half a trillion dollars, but yeah. Just finished the point on that.
是的。所以让我们准备好继续谈论这个话题。但最后一个问题。你们认为如果在几周内关停，因为延期只有这么长，这对国家是否有益，是否可以成为抵御不受控制的开支的最后手段？如果停止继续决议程序，将有效节省超过5000亿美元。这将是五千亿美元的有效措施。因此，政府不花费资金的几周时间将意味着什么。这意味着如果取消综合预算法案，或者只采用大幅精简的版本，并恢复到每年通过的12个法案的程序，将更加有效。您可以节省五千亿美元，但是，是的。关于这一点只是到这里。
I think we have to just look at this Wall Street Journal article that came out this morning, where it was called rising interest rates mean deficits finally matter. Finally, there's a recognition. We called it. Yeah. Finally, there's a recognition, both politically and economically, that our deficits and debt are too big. And the key point of this article is it says most of the increase, this is in long-term rates, is due to the part of yields called the term premium, which has nothing to do with inflation or short-term rates. So until now, our interest rate problems have been about the Fed raising short-term rates to combat inflation. Now we're seeing a separate problem, which is long rates are going up. And the long rates are going up because of this concern that the federal government has too much debt. And so bondholders are starting to demand a higher long-term premium to hold that debt. It's what we've been warning about for a long time now, and it's finally happening. So unless the political system gets serious about reducing deficits, even if inflation comes down and even if the Fed cuts short-term rates, you're going to have a problem with long-term rates remaining high, and that is going to keep the cost of capital high, and that is going to reduce long-term innovation in the economy. It's bad for us. It's horrible for us.
我认为我们必须看一下今早刊登在《华尔街日报》上的一篇文章，其中称之为升高的利率意味着赤字最终变得重要了。终于，这个认知出现了。我们早就预言了这一点。是的，终于有一个认知，无论是在政治上还是在经济上，我们的赤字和债务都太大了。而这篇文章的重点是，大部分长期利率的增长是由被称为期限溢价的收益率部分引起的，这与通货膨胀或短期利率无关。因此，直到现在，我们的利率问题一直是由于美联储提高短期利率以抑制通货膨胀而引起的。现在我们看到了另一个问题，就是长期利率上升。长期利率上升是因为联邦政府债务过大而引发的担忧。因此，债券持有人开始要求更高的长期期限溢价来持有这些债务。这正是我们长期以来一直在警告的事情，现在终于发生了。所以，除非政治系统认真对待减少赤字的问题，即使通货膨胀下降，即使美联储降低短期利率，长期利率仍将保持较高水平，这将使资本成本保持较高水平，并减少经济中的长期创新。这对我们不利。这对我们来说是可怕的。
Yeah. Terrible for us. Let's go to another troubling situation. What's happening at the southern border, obviously, videos of migrants crossing the southern border are all over X-Reddit, YouTube, etc. One side saying it's chaos, the other side, arguably been ignoring it. So let's start with the two numbers that we actually put a bunch of time into trying to figure out. If there are any accurate numbers, talk to a bunch of people on Twitter and other places.
是的。对我们来说很糟糕。让我们转到另一个令人烦恼的情况。显然，关于移民穿越南部边境的视频在X-Reddit、YouTube等平台上遍布。一方声称这是一片混乱，而另一方则可以说一直忽略了这个问题。所以，我们先从我们花了很多时间去弄清楚的两个数字开始。如果有准确的数据，我们就会与一些人通过Twitter和其他途径进行对话。
There are only, we have very, very flawed data on what's actually happening there. We do have anecdotal videos. Obviously, our friend Elon went down to the border and did a video himself. The best data with the caveat that it's very flawed is the count of encounters. This is not folks who get through. This is folks who were encountered. So this is the official Sutherland border encounters from the US Customs and Border Protection Agency since 2022, 2020, and 2021. There were obviously COVID issues on the border. So it was much more locked down. Half a million people in 2020, 21.7 and 2021, 2.4 rounding up there. And in 2023, supposedly rounding up 2 million through 10 months, tracking our pace for 2.3, the exact same as last year.
在那里，我们只有非常非常有缺陷的数据关于实际发生的情况。我们确实有一些零星的视频。显然，我们的朋友伊隆亲自去了边境并拍摄了一个视频。最好的数据是遭遇次数，但需要说明的是它非常不完善。这不是指已经通过的人，而是遇到的人。所以这是美国海关和边境保护局自2022年、2020年和2021年以来对苏瑟兰边境的官方遭遇次数。在2020年有50万人，2021年有21.7万人，2023年（四舍五入）有240万人，追踪我们去年相同的步伐，预计达到230万人。
However, it certainly doesn't look like that. It's the exact same. Again, that's from the border patrol. And that is encounters, not actually people who got through. And then the border states are saying that those numbers are wrong. And there's a lot more people getting through. And Eric Adams in New York, where a lot of these people are being sent. And this has obviously been the most politicized issue, I think, of the last decade. Governor Abbott, in August of 2022, quote, New York City is the ideal destination for these migrants who can receive the abundance of city services and housing that Mayor Adams has posted about within the sanctuary city. Here are the clips. And then I'll get your responses from those when we get back. This is horrific when you think about what the governor is doing, the governor of Texas. But we are going to set the right message, the right tone of being here for these families. Before we begin busing illegal immigrants up to New York, it was just Texas and Arizona that bore the brunt of all of the chaos and all the problems that come with it. Now the rest of America is understanding exactly what is going on.
然而，事实却并非如此。是完全相同的。同样地，这是来自边境巡逻的数据。这些只是遭遇到的人数，并不是实际通过的人数。而边境州则表示这些数字是错误的。实际上还有更多的人成功通过了边境。而这个问题显然是过去十年中最被政治化的问题，我认为。在2022年8月，Abbott州长说：“纽约市是这些移民的理想目的地，他们可以得到市内丰富的公共服务和居住条件，这正是市长Adams在庇护城市内宣传的。”以下是相关片段，等我们回来时请您发表看法。当你想到德克萨斯州州长所做的事情时，这真是可怕。但是我们将传达正确的信息，正确的态度，来对待这些家庭。在我们开始将非法移民送到纽约之前，只有德克萨斯州和亚利桑那州承受了所有的混乱和相关问题的重压，现在全美其他地方终于明白了到底发生了什么。
All right. So this is obviously something that New York City is unable to handle. Those are from August of last year when this was flaming up.
好的，显然这是纽约市无法处理的事情。这些是去年八月份发生的，当时形势非常紧急。
According to Abbott, Texas has given bus tickets to 42,000 migrants. And as of late September, 119 migrants have arrived in New York City since the spring of 22. About 30% of New York City migrants have been bused in from Texas.
根据阿伯特（Abbott）的说法，德克萨斯州已经给予4.2万名移民巴士票。截至2022年春季以来，纽约市共有119名移民抵达。其中大约有30%的纽约市移民是从德克萨斯州搭乘巴士运抵的。
I'll stop there and just get your general reactions to what you all believe is happening at the border. Since we're getting a highly politicized take on each of these, it's become super polarized. And the numbers, any accurate numbers do not exist.
我会在这里停下来，只是希望听听大家对边境发生的事情的一般反应。由于每个人的观点都受到了极端政治化的影响，情况变得非常极端两极分化。而且，任何准确的数据都是不存在的。
Saks, I don't think it's hard to understand what's going on with the border. I think there are people who want to understand the numbers of what's going on. I don't even think the numbers are that hard. You have a better source of number. I have some numbers that are similar to yours.
萨克斯，我不认为边境问题难以理解。我认为有人想要了解当前状况的数字。我甚至觉得这些数字并不难理解。你有更好的数字来源。我也有一些与你相似的数字。
But so Sattista goes back to 2019. So the numbers I have are about in 2019, which is when Remain in Mexico went into effect. The number was 851,000. Then it went down to 400,000 because of COVID and Title 42. Then in 2021, we had about 1.7 million, which was a new record. Then in 2022, we are up to 2.7 million, which was a new record. And the question is, what is happening in 2023? Obviously, we don't have a full year of data. But given that we've eliminated Remain in Mexico and Title 42, I don't think anybody seriously doubts that we're headed for a new record.
因此萨蒂斯塔回到了2019年。所以我所拥有的数据是关于2019年的，那是“留在墨西哥”政策生效的时候。那时的数字是85万1000人。然后因为COVID和第42号条款，它下降到40万人。然后在2021年，我们有大约170万人，创下了新纪录。然后在2022年，我们升至270万人，再次创下了新纪录。那么问题来了，2023年会发生什么？显然，我们没有完整一年的数据。但考虑到我们已经取消了“留在墨西哥”政策和第42号条款，我不认为有人会认真怀疑我们正走向一个新纪录。
And in fact, the Washington Post had articles in August and September saying that those months were all time records. And now they're surpassing 11,000 daily migrant encounters of the border just twice last week.
实际上，华盛顿邮报在八月和九月份的文章中指出那些月份是有史以来的最高纪录。而现在，上个星期的两天里每天都有超过11,000次边境非法移民的接触。
So and what what Elon reported from the border. You said that link. He said that link. So we pulled off. Yeah, I'll have to. And then also just, you know, that was amazing news. Okay. I was going to say Sattista is an aggregator. They don't do primary research. You know, so which one? Those numbers were pretty similar to yours. Yeah. Maybe from the same source. We also have the video evidence. We have the fact that, you know, Elon went down there and reported exactly what we're seeing in other contexts, which is new records virtually every day and every week and every month.
埃隆从边境报道了什么消息。你说那个链接。他也提到了那个链接。所以我们进行了核实。是的，我得做一下。此外，你知道的，那是个了不起的消息。好的。我想说萨蒂斯塔是一个汇总网站，他们不进行原始研究。你知道，那些数据与你提供的数据非常相似。可能是来源相同。我们还有视频证据。我们还有事实证明，埃隆去那里报告了我们在其他环境中所见到的情况，即每天、每周、每月都创造了新的纪录。
The Border Patrol agents are basically being overrun. And so you made the correct point that this only measures encounters. It doesn't measure the actual number of people going through. Well, if Border Patrol is overrun, then the number of encounters relative to the people getting through is obviously going to be very understated. So I think we're on track for another huge record in 2023.
边境巡逻人员基本上被压倒了。所以你指出这只是衡量接触次数，并不能衡量实际通过的人数。如果边境巡逻人员被压倒了，那么相对于通过的人数来说，接触次数显然会被大大低估。因此，我认为我们正走在2023年创下又一个巨大纪录的轨道上。
And the point is that the pace is accelerating. Elon gave the simple math. There's 8 billion people in the world. How many of them would want to be in the United States if they could? Probably billions. At least half of them. At least half of them. And I don't blame them. Okay. I want to be in these two. Okay. But obviously we can't handle all the people who want to be here. And the word has gone out via social media, via word of mouth that the border is effectively open.
重点是速度在加快。埃隆给出了一个简单的数学问题。世界上有80亿人口。如果他们有机会的话，有多少人会想去美国呢？可能是数十亿人。至少一半，至少一半。我不怪他们。好吧，我也想去这两个地方。但显然我们无法处理所有想来这里的人。通过社交媒体、口耳相传，这个消息已经传开了，边境事实上是开放的。
And we've seen numerous videos. It wasn't just Elon when RFK went down there to Uma, Arizona. There's a hundred different countries. There was a big hole in the wall and people are just lining up. But it was a hundred different countries, right? I mean, it was not. And a hundred different countries. And Elon broadcast the exact same thing coming from Eagle Pass. So the point is you've got all of these different points where there is no wall and people are just lining up and being let through. And in some cases, they're just running through because the Border Patrol is overrun. So we effectively have no border. I mean, let's admit the truth.
我们已经看过许多视频了。不仅是埃隆，当RFK去乌玛，亚利桑那州的时候。有一百个不同的国家。墙上有一个大洞，人们正在排队。但是有一百个不同的国家，对吧？我的意思是，不是。有一百个不同的国家。埃隆从鹰派斯传播了完全相同的情况。所以问题是，你有所有这些不同的地方，没有墙，人们只是排队并被允许通过。在某些情况下，他们只是跑过去，因为边境警察已经不堪重负。所以我们实际上没有边境。我的意思是，让我们承认事实。
Now, and I think that the mainstream media and the Biden administration, their policy was basically C no evil here, no evil. And to deny the reality of what was happening. Eric Adams was one of the first Democrats to break ranks saying, listen, we can see the migrants lining up in tents going around the block. We are trying to put them up in hotels. It's costing us $12 billion. We can't afford it. But Eric Adams has always been a little bit of a maverick inside the Democratic Party. We talked about how he was tough on crime during the chase of Budin era, which is why I supported him. He's a moderate, but he was a moderate. But then you had Kathy Hochl, who's the governor of New York, who's nothing if not a machine politician, just in the last week saying we cannot handle this. So she broke ranks, which was, I think, a big news story. And now the latest is that the Biden administration itself might be breaking ranks.
现在，我认为主流媒体和拜登政府的政策基本上是遮住眼睛不看，否认正在发生的现实。埃里克·亚当斯是首批背离的民主党人之一，他说，喂，我们可以看到那些排着队在帐篷外面等候的移民，我们正试图给他们安排住在酒店里，这花费我们120亿美元，我们负担不起。但埃里克·亚当斯一直是民主党内不拘一格的人。我们谈过他在布丁时期坚决打击犯罪的事情，这也是我支持他的原因。他是一个温和派，但曾经是一个温和派。但最近，纽约州州长凯西·霍克尔出面说我们无法处理这个问题，她是一个机器政客，这我认为是一个大新闻。现在最新的消息是，拜登政府本身可能也要背离。
I think, Jamath, you posted a really interesting story that Mayorkas, who's the secretary of DHS, just posted a notice in the federal register, which said there is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the board. I don't want to say wall. Don't say the devil. I just order to prevent awful entries in the United States.
我认为，Jamath，你发布了一个非常有趣的故事。美国国土安全部部长Mayorkas刚刚在联邦登记公告中提到，目前在边境附近急需建造物理屏障和道路，我不想说“墙”，请不要提到魔鬼。这仅仅是为了防止不好的人进入美国。
Now, there was no press conference on this. The way that this got reported is some reporter was doing their job keeping track of the federal register and saw that Mayorkas had posted a notice saying that they need to construct a wall. Now, Biden hasn't said this. No one in the administration said this, but clearly. For obvious reasons. Yeah. For obvious reasons. So, Jason, what do you think the obvious reason is?
现在，关于这个问题没有举行新闻发布会。报道方式是有记者在跟踪联邦公报时发现Mayorkas发布了一则通知，称他们需要建造一堵墙。现在，拜登没有说过这个。政府内也没有人说过这个，但显然是出于明显的原因。是的，出于明显的原因。那么，Jason，你认为明显的原因是什么？
Well, the obvious reason is Trump's entire presidency was predicated on, hey, we're going to build this wall. But I'm saying go back and say that he was right is untenable to this administration. The state of national security. It's like, yes. And so, they're going to do the right thing, obviously, and build the wall, but they don't want to say it. So, it's just ridiculous.
嗯，显而易见的原因是特朗普的整个总统任期都是基于“嘿，我们将建造这堵墙”的前提。但我要说的是，要让这届政府承认他是对的是不可行的，考虑到国家安全状况。就像是，是的。所以，他们显然会采取正确的行动，建造这堵墙，但不希望明说。所以，这就是荒谬的。
But just one important point to what David said, New York City has right to shelter. So, that means every immigrant who comes there, they have to put them in a hotel. And these are like, turns out four or $500 a night hotel. So, this has become cataclysmic. There obviously needs to be a border. And it's ridiculous to say there shouldn't be a border. Nobody believes that. I don't know why this administration just can't admit that there needs to be a border of some kind. And we could talk about what the wall, but some. Well, no, actually, it's a better solution than a wall, but we'll get to that.
但是大卫所说的一个重要观点是，纽约市有住所权。因此，这意味着每一个移民到达那里的人，他们必须把他们安置在酒店里。而且这些酒店每晚的费用是四到五百美元。因此，这已经变成了一场灾难。显然需要设立边境。说不需要边境是荒谬的，没有人相信这种说法。我不知道为什么这个政府就不能承认必须设立某种形式的边境。我们可以谈论一下墙的问题，但也有其他更好的解决方案，不过我们会讨论到的。
What is it?
这是什么？
Well, I don't want to jump to my if he had something to say. So, I'll explain in a second, if you want, or I can jump to it.
好的，如果他有什么要说的话，我不想过早做出推断。所以，如果你愿意的话，我可以稍后解释一下，或者我也可以立即谈论这件事。
No, jump to jump to it.
不，马上开始做吧。
Okay. So, obviously, people are talking about a wall walls are a terrible solution, because there are ladders that can go over them pretty easily. What you really need to have his eyes on it. And the two best solutions, you can see them here. Israel has had a really, they understand borders really well. And so, what you're seeing if you're watching are these towers, which do a great job of monitoring the border.
好的。显然，人们在谈论的是一堵墙，而墙是一个可怕的解决方案，因为有梯子可以很容易地翻过去。你真正需要关注的是眼睛。并且，你可以在这里看到两个最好的解决方案。以色列在边境问题上真的很懂，所以，如果你在观察的话，你会看到这些塔楼，它们非常出色地监控着边境。
And you could put about 2000 of these towers. They have a range of easily a mile. This is next gen border by EBIT systems. It's a Israeli based company. It's 160 foot surveillance tower. Andrull actually has a century tower as well. Our friend, friend of the pod, Palmore luck is company, Andrull. And obviously, oh, the border patrol already has 10 of the towers.
这些塔可以放置大约2000座。它们的射程可以轻松覆盖一英里。这是由以色列公司EBIT Systems开发的下一代边境监控系统。该公司的总部位于以色列。这座高达160英尺的监控塔名为Andrull。我们的朋友，播客的好朋友Palmore Luck的公司Andrull也有一座世纪塔。显然，边境巡逻部队已经有了10座这样的塔。
Why do you see as an either or I'm just curious, like, why would you?
我只是好奇，为什么你将事情看作是非二选一的？为什么会这样思考？
I think that these smart lampposts, as I call them, are the number one first thing to do, because you could deploy these in a fraction of the time. You could answer thousand of these in under a year for $4 billion. And so, these only cost $2 million each. The 10 towers that we're putting, we're putting a 26 million on the pilot. So, if you put 2000 of these towers in, you just picked four different vendors. So, they do 500 reach and you test them. That would be $4 billion. That would be nothing.
我认为这些我称之为智能灯柱的东西是第一件要做的事情，因为你可以在很短的时间内部署。你可以在不到一年的时间内回答上千个灯柱，仅花费40亿美元。所以，每个灯柱只需要200万美元。我们正在为这个试点项目投入2600万美元的10座塔。所以，如果你安装了2000个这样的塔，你只需要选择四个不同的供应商。所以，它们可以覆盖500个区域并进行测试。总花费将是40亿美元。这简直是小钱。
What do you do when you, when the camera spots person, you send intercepts there and then you build the walls where people are crossing most. So, that would be mine. You're making them more than crossing most. They're crossing the holes. Obviously, you build what you look for hotspots, David. So, you would, but we don't, there's hotspots that we don't know about. So, I'd say you deploy these for $4 billion very quickly. And then where there are hotspots, you obviously build walls.
当摄像机发现有人时，你会怎么做？你会发送截获信号，并在最频繁的人员穿越地点建造墙壁。这样，那些人就不只是通过了，他们是通过了洞口。显然，你会建造依照你寻找的热点地区建造墙壁，David。所以，你应该部署这些设施以便快速花费40亿美元。然后，在热点地区，你当然要建墙。
But you're still getting- Can I be frank about this? Sure. Be as frank as you like. Look, regardless of what you think about Trump, this may orchus revelation, completely and utterly vindicates his approach to wanting to build a wall. And there's so many people who won't just admit that he was right, that we need a strong border wall. Not because it's perfect, not because you can't climb over it if you have the right tools, but because a wall is more defensible than an open field.
但你仍然不明白-我可以坦率地说吗？当然可以，尽管尽情地坦率吧。看，不论你对特朗普有什么看法，这个重要的揭示将彻底证明了他建造边境墙的做法是正确的。而且有很多人都不愿承认他是对的，我们需要一堵坚固的边境墙。并非因为它是完美的，也不是因为你不能用适当的工具爬过去，而是因为墙比开放的场地更容易防守。
Now, look, I'm all in favor of these towers and the cameras. And my understanding is that a lot of the parts of Trump's wall did have cameras on them. Yeah, I know. He gets credit from that too. What's the point is that you have video now coming out of thousands of people streaming across running- And the word is out. You need a wall to stop that. You also then need cameras and border guards and all the rest of it.
现在，听着，我非常支持这些塔楼和摄像头。据我了解，特朗普的边境墙的很多部分确实安装了摄像头。是的，我知道。他在这方面也得到了肯定。重点是现在我们可以看到成千上万的视频，显示过境的人们奔跑而来，消息也传开了。你需要一堵墙来阻止这种情况。另外，你还需要摄像头、边境警卫和其他设施。
Just so you know, 2,000 miles of wall is going to be like a decade-long project. So that's how we point. Okay, it's only a decade long if you allow all of these core challenges that are designed to frustrate it.
只是为了让你知道，修建2000英里长的围墙将会是一个长达十年的项目。这就是我们的指向方式。好吧，只有在你容许所有这些旨在让其受挫的核心挑战存在的情况下，它才会长达十年。
The fact of the matter is, and look, we don't need 2,000 miles of wall because there are a lot of natural barriers along the border, you know, where you have deep rivers or mountains or whatever, we're not going to need the wall.
事实是，你看，我们不需要2000英里的墙，因为边境沿线有很多天然屏障，你知道，在那些有深河或山脉的地方，我们不需要墙。
However, exactly. There are pieces of the wall that were literally laying on the ground. They were unfinished from Trump's term. By the way, Trump should have gotten that done. He didn't in any event, whatever. The point is the Biden administration was actually selling those pieces of wall for scrap metal for two cents on the dollar. This was a story that came out. Now they're emitting that we need the wall. That was pure politics. That makes no sense. They had the construction materials. They should have just finished it. That is the American public.
然而，确实如此。墙上有一些碎片实际上就摆在地上。它们是特朗普任期未完成的。顺便说一下，特朗普本应该完成这个项目。无论如何，无论是哪种情况，他没有完成。重点是拜登政府实际上以低于原价的两分之一的价格把这些墙的碎片卖给了废品回收商。这是一个被曝光的故事。现在他们在说我们需要这堵墙。这纯粹是政治手段，毫无意义。他们有足够的建筑材料，本应该把墙修完。这就是美国公众的声音。
Yeah. The American public. Utterly ridiculous. That's like crazy. It's because the American government didn't like who said the right thing. Yes. And the tone in which he said it. Yes. And they didn't like the separating of children from whatever. And they politicized that. Both parties are equally just grossed.
是的，美国民众。真是荒谬至极。简直疯狂。这是因为美国政府不喜欢说对的人。是的。还有他说话的语气。是的。他们不喜欢把孩子们与父母分开并且将其政治化。两个政党都一样令人讨厌。
But I have a positive. It should be a point-based system. You lock the border and you allow people in, you know, as I've said, 10 times on this podcast based on merit, what they're going to contribute to our society, that's recruitment. Some amount of people who are need asylum because they're going to be murdered, i.e. Afghanistan. People who supported us. Afghanis who supported us during the war. And then finally, the orderly process of people applying to come in here. Do your jobs, everybody. It's just a simple. Please Nick.
但是我有一个积极的建议。应该采用基于积分的系统。你关闭边境，允许人们进入，根据他们的功绩来评估，我在这个播客里已经说过10遍了，评估他们对我们社会的贡献，这是一种招募方式。还有一些人因为需要庇护，即将遭到杀害，比如阿富汗。那些在战争中支持我们的阿富汗人。最后，有一个有序的申请过程，让人们申请来到这里。大家请做好自己的工作。这很简单，请尼克（指对方）。
What happens when you get to the border, guys? Do you just get admitted to America? Guys, this is insane. Okay.
你们到达边境时会发生什么？你们只是被允许进入美国吗？伙计们，这太疯狂了。好吧。
The Biden administration started auctioning off what they called spare border wall parts. Okay. I mean, how does Biden live this down? I think this could cost me a lot. Yeah, you're 100% right about that. Yeah. I think this is like, this is a setup for a very bad ad. Absolutely. Yeah.
拜登政府开始拍卖他们所称的边境墙备件。好吧，我是说，拜登要如何消除这个耻辱？我觉得这可能会让我付出很多代价。没错，你说得百分之百正确。是的。我觉得这是一个非常糟糕广告的布局。当然没错。
I mean, I think this is just because it's become so politicized. Point based system, recruitment over chaos, build a wall, build a sensor tower. What do you do in the meantime? There are tens of thousands of people a day hitting the southern border. We have a national guard. We have something called the National Guard. We send them there. They have to be deployed anyway. You just deploy the National Guard. Same more as I do. But same more, same more like you would put the military to basically turn these people around. Of course. Of course you turn them around. Yes, that's it. Well, it's specifically National Guard will be quickest. The towers we second, quickest and the wall is going to take forever. But you need a way.
我的意思是，我认为这只是因为它变得如此政治化。基于点数系统，招聘而非混乱，修建围墙，修建感应塔。那么在这期间你该怎么办？每天都有成千上万的人冲击南部边境。我们有国民警卫队。我们有一支叫做国民警卫队的力量。我们派遣他们去那里。无论如何都必须部署他们。就像我所做的一样，你也一样。但更多的是，就像你将军事力量用于基本上挡住这些人。当然。当然要挡住他们。是的，就是这样。嗯，具体来说国民警卫队是最快的。感应塔是第二快的，而建墙将需要很长时间。但你需要一种方法。
But how do you process the asylum claim? Because isn't the whole point of asylum like, you can't send them back to this country in which they're going to be killed it. And so it's an imperfect process, Tremont, obviously.
但是你们如何处理庇护申请呢？因为庇护的整个意义不就是不能将他们送回可能会被杀的国家吗？所以显然这是一个不完美的过程，特里蒙特。
So Sax and I and a few other folks, we held a fundraiser for Vivek Rama Swami last week. And we talked about this a lot. And one of the things that we learned is that all the people that come to the southern border are trained in YouTube and TikTok and Instagram. Exactly what to say so that you have to accept the asylum claim.
上周，我和Sax以及其他几个人为Vivek Rama Swami举办了一场筹款活动。我们对此进行了很多讨论。我们了解到，所有来到南部边境的人都经过了YouTube、TikTok和Instagram的培训。他们确切地知道应该说些什么，以使你不得不接受他们的避难申请。
And for the asylum, there should be a limited number of them. That's it. Just you have this many per year. I understand. But you don't know whether that person who was helping us in Afghanistan ends up coming in October and not in March. And that's the reason why they can't get in. The thing that I learned is that it's a specific script. It's available in multiple languages. Right. So anybody who gets to the southern border knows exactly what to say so that America is forced to accept you. That's not how asylum should work. The bad news is not everybody's going to get in. Not everybody will get in. That's it.
关于庇护所的问题，应该有个限定数量。就是说，每年就只有这么多个名额。我明白。但你不知道那个在阿富汗帮助我们的人最终是十月来还是三月来。这就是他们不能进来的原因。我了解到的是，这是一个特定的剧本。它有多种语言版本。是的，所以任何到达南部边境的人都知道应该怎么说，这样美国就被迫接受你。这不是庇护应该运作的方式。坏消息是不是每个人都能进来。不是每个人都能进来。就这样。
J. There's two things we need to do in addition to your point about sending troops to the border because we do need the manpower.
J.除了你提到向边境派遣军队以外，我们还需要做两件事情，因为我们确实需要人力支持。
Yeah, it's obvious.
是的，很明显。
Number one, to Tchmas Point, you can't just say the word asylum and get in. That doesn't make sense. You should have to produce evidence of actually meeting the case for asylum, which is not being economically disadvantaged. It's being politically prosecuted where if you're sent back to your home country, they're going to put you in jail or kill you. And there aren't many countries in the world, quite frankly, where that is going to be a valid claim, just to be honest about it.
首先，在申请避难时，你不能仅凭口头说出避难这个词就能入境。这是没有道理的。你需要提供实际证据，证明你确实符合避难条件，并且不是因为经济不利而寻求避难。避难的真正原因是因为政治迫害，如果你被遣返回你的祖国，他们可能会把你投进监狱或者杀害你。老实说，在世界上并没有很多国家能够认可这样的申请，这是公平的说法。
I mean, if you have a freedom fighter from Iran coming over, who's going to jail or killed, let him in. But that's not most of the people lining up with our border. If you're coming from Mexico, there's a very small chance that you are being political. We've got to do is you got to reinstitute remain in Mexico. That was the policy. Yeah. You can't agree 100% just waiting on this side of the border because they're never going to show up in court.
我的意思是，如果有一个来自伊朗的自由斗士到这里，他要被监禁或杀害，让他进来吧。但站在我们边境排队的大多数人并非如此情况。如果你来自墨西哥，你被政治连累的可能性非常小。我们要做的就是重新实施“留在墨西哥”的政策。是的，你不能百分之百同意就让他们在边境这一边等待，因为他们永远不会出现在法庭上。
Yeah. I mean, listen, we want immigration to this country. It has to be logical. And the fact is, everybody wants to come here. That's a great thing. We should be taking advantage of that, but it can't be chaos. It's got to be orderly. That's what everybody wants. I don't know why, how this became a political issue. Everybody wants orderly. Everybody wants recruitment. Nobody wants an open border.
是的，我的意思是，听着，我们希望有移民来到这个国家。但是这必须是合乎逻辑的。事实上，每个人都希望来这里，这是一件好事。我们应该利用这一点，但不能变成混乱。必须有秩序。这是每个人的愿望。我不知道为什么这变成了一个政治问题。每个人都希望有秩序，都希望有招募。没有人想要开放边境。
But J. Cal, in order for it, not to be a political issue, you need both parties to agree. And they currently don't. I mean, think about it. What's in Biden's interest right now is to do a 180 on this issue before it's too late. He's got to do it. Yes, absolutely. And it's very simple for him to say, which is, but he hasn't done it. Because everybody knows that the border doesn't have a wall. We've seen an increase. There's been a 10x increase. The situation on the field has changed.
但是，为了避免这成为政治问题，J. Cal，你需要两党都同意。而他们目前并不同意。我的意思是，想想看，拜登现在的利益是在为了在为时已晚之前改变立场。他必须这样做。是的，当然。他很容易说出来，但他没有这样做。因为每个人都知道边境没有墙。我们已经看到了一项增长。情况在现场发生了改变。
Therefore, we're going to change. And we're going to do all these things. And if one of them is building a wall and you want to say gotcha, you can say gotcha, but it's the right thing to do because data has changed my opinion. Where do we get to the point where data can't change your opinion? Data should change your opinion. The data is clear that more people are coming through. That's why I made such a point at the top of this is like, we don't even have good data. What these sensor towers would do would at least give us data and we give us clarity. And then you only need a unit every half mile. So you need 4,000 units patrolling the border and they would catch everybody. It isn't as expensive as people think it is.
因此，我们要进行改变。我们将做所有这些事情。如果其中之一是建墙，而你想说"收到"，你可以说"收到"，但这是正确的做法，因为数据改变了我的观点。在哪个点上，数据不能改变你的观点？数据应该改变你的观点。数据清楚地显示，有更多的人通过。这就是为什么我在一开始如此强调的原因，就像是我们甚至没有好的数据。这些传感器塔至少会让我们获得数据，给我们清晰的认识。而且，你只需要每半英里一个单位。因此，你需要4,000个单位在边境巡逻，他们会抓到每个人。这并不像人们想象的那么昂贵。
This could be, I mean, the last amount of money we gave, what was the last appropriation for Ukraine, Saks? And so I'll give you a red mean. Well, we've already appropriated or authorized over 100 billion. And there are 24 billion. So for 3 or 4% of that cost, okay, so for 3 or 4% of that cost, we could have these sensor towers. It's crazy. We're defending Ukraine's border, but not our own. It's a very valid point. Independent about you. The public is Republicans up in arms. It's this combined with the lack of fiscal discipline.
这可能是我们给予的最后一笔钱，对吧，上次为乌克兰拨款的金额是多少，Saks？所以我给你一个明确的答复。嗯，我们已经拨款或授权超过1000亿美元。而还有240亿。所以对于那些费用的3%或4%，好吧，对于那些费用的3%或4%，我们可以建立这些传感器塔。这太疯狂了。我们在保卫乌克兰的边境，但没有保护我们自己的边境。这是一个非常有道理的观点，独立于你的立场。共和党人也对此表示不满。这加上缺乏财政纪律。
Now, the craziness about this is if we were sitting here 20 years ago, the Republicans were trying to open the border to have more low skilled workers to work in restaurants to work in businesses. That's not the place we are today. We have too many people coming in. These are not just it's even worse than that. Low skilled workers to pick vegetables. It's a different group.
现在，关于这件事情的疯狂之处在于，如果我们20年前坐在这里，共和党人试图开放边境，以便让更多低技能的工人在餐馆和企业工作。但现在的情况已经不同了，我们有太多的人涌入国境。这些人不仅仅是低技能的工人去采摘蔬菜，他们是一个完全不同的群体。
There was a point in time, Jason, where the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is really the voice of the GOP establishment. Yes. Supported a constitutional amendment in favor of an open border. This was very much the point of view of the Old Republican Party, which was this libertarian open borders, open trade free markets position. And the results of those policies have been partially disastrous. I mean, I understand the value of free trade and so forth, but and obviously when I have high school immigration, we've talked about that. But it was too much of a good thing. I mean, they didn't draw intelligent distinctions.
在过去的某个时刻，杰森，华尔街日报的社论版曾支持一项有利于开放边境的宪法修正案，这实际上代表着共和党建制派的观点。是的。这非常符合旧共和党的立场，即自由主义的开放边境、自由贸易和自由市场。这些政策的结果部分地导致了灾难。我的意思是，我了解自由贸易的价值，当然，我也谈论过对高中移民的问题。但这是过犹不及。他们没有做出明智的区分。
But we still have, I think this to your point about the battle inside the Republican Party, we still have that old GOP establishment. And now there's this new populist wing that wants to make, I think, sensible changes. Here's the Wall Street Journal story from 2001. Open afterwards. Why not? There it is. Yeah, that was Bob Bartley, who was the longtime editorial page editor. He was kind of like a hero in the conservative movement. When I was in college, I read a great book by him called The Seven Fat Years About Supply Side Economics. And I think he was right about a lot of that stuff. But along with that economic policy came, I think this open borders completely open trade view that I think produced a lot of negative results and has to be revisited.
但是我认为，正如你所说的关于共和党内部斗争的问题，我们仍然有那个旧的共和党建制派。现在还有这个新的民粹主义派别，他们希望做出我认为是明智的改变。这是2001年《华尔街日报》的报道。之后打开。为什么不呢？就在那里。是的，那是鲍勃·巴特利，他是长期担任社论版编辑的人物。他在保守运动中有些英雄般的存在。当我在大学时，我读了他写的一本很棒的书，叫做《七个富裕的年头：供给侧经济学》，我认为他在很多方面都是正确的。但是伴随着那种经济政策的是我认为有关完全开放边境和贸易的观点，我认为这些产生了很多负面结果，需要重新审视。
And by the way, there's a third leg of that stool, which is forever wars. The Wall Street Journal is one of the most pro-Ukraine publications there is both in the news pages and in the editorial page. And they have never revisited the results of our disastrous foreign policy, where we keep intervening all over the world. This is the old Republican Party. There's a new Republican Party that is emerging. And unfortunately, Kevin McCarthy found himself on the wrong side of that divide.
顺便说一下，这个三脚凳还有第三个支柱，那就是长期战争。《华尔街日报》是对乌克兰最支持的出版物之一，无论是在新闻版面还是在社论版面上。他们从未重新审视过我们灾难性的外交政策结果，我们一直在全世界各地干涉。这是老的共和党。正在崛起的是一个新的共和党。不幸的是，凯文·麦卡锡发现他自己站在了分歧的错误一边。
All right, so moving on to our next topic. There was a notable accident with a cruise robo-taxi in San Francisco this week or not. This is being framed by some as the first automated cruise vehicle to get in an accident. But what actually happened is not accurate. So there was a hit and run incident in San Francisco. A woman was struck by a human driver. That human driver fled the scene. The hit and run launched tragically the woman underneath a cruise vehicle. The cruise vehicle, break aggressively according to cruise, but stopped with its rear tire on top of the woman's leg. Police asked cruise to keep the vehicle in place and lock it, which they did. Emergency respondents arrived and used the jaws of life to get the car off the woman's leg. Local media picked the story up. The way the police asked cruise to leave the car, leave the car on the woman's leg. Yes. Why would they do that? Well, I think actually, sometimes moving. No, no, I do think from my time as an EMT, sometimes moving the person can cause more damage than leaving it until you have the emergency services on the scene. So I like to wait for emergency services because moving it because they could have a broken bone, hit your femoral artery, and then you could bleed out. So they just say, stay where you are. Don't make any more movements until the car on top of them. That's ridiculous. It's on the person's leg. So that would mean that they're not in any danger. It might be painful. But if you were to move them, I was taught this when I was an EMT. If you move people, you have to be very careful because you could cause a spine injury that can become paralyzed or you could cut a major artery. You got to be very how long were you? I was the first class of what was called EMT FRs, first responders. And I worked at Bravo ambulance in Brooklyn as on a volunteer one for about three or four years.
好的，接下来我们转移到我们的下一个话题。这周在旧金山发生了一起引人注目的巡航无人出租车事故，是这样吗？有些人将这称为第一次自动驾驶巡航车导致事故。但实际发生的情况并不准确。所以在旧金山发生了一起肇事逃逸事件。一名女性被一名人类司机撞到，该司机逃离现场。不幸的是，肇事逃逸导致女性被巡航车辆的后轮压在腿上。据巡航表示，巡航车辆紧急刹车，但停在女性腿上。警方要求巡航保持车辆位置并锁定车辆，他们也照做了。紧急救援人员赶到现场，使用救生钳将车辆从女性腿上解救出来。当地媒体报道了这个故事。警方让巡航将车辆留在女性腿上。是的。他们为什么这样做？嗯，我认为有时候移动人员会比不移动人员带来更多的伤害，直到急救服务到达现场。所以我喜欢等待急救服务，因为移动可能导致骨折、击中股动脉，然后大出血。所以他们只是说，呆在原地，不要动，直到车辆离开他们。这太荒谬了。车子在人的腿上，这意味着他们没有任何危险。可能会很痛苦，但如果你要移动他们，我在做急救员的时候学到的是要非常小心，因为你可能会导致脊柱受伤，导致瘫痪，或者切断重要动脉。你当时做了多久？我是第一批EMT FR（急救反应者）班级的成员，曾在布鲁克林的Bravo救护车作为志愿者工作了三到四年。
Did you have like a tight outfit like a tight polo? What do you wear? Like skinny jeans. Did you have skinny jeans? You wore green pants and a white collared shirt. And yeah, I never told you guys the first call I ever got. I never told you that story. Were you like, were you like a sexy paramedic or were you just like a paramedic? I can be whatever you want me to be sure my words for your fantasies. He's blushing. What can you tell you my first car? You are sexy paramedic. I was a little sexy as a part of him. Got him blushing.
你有穿得像一个紧身polo衫一样的紧身套装吗？你穿什么？比如紧身牛仔裤。你穿过紧身牛仔裤吗？你当时穿着绿色裤子和一件白色领子衬衫。对了，我从未告诉过你们我接到的第一个电话。我从未告诉过你们那个故事。你当时是一个性感的急救医生还是只是一个急救医生？我可以成为你想要的任何人，用我的话语满足你的幻想。他脸红了。我可以告诉你我的第一辆车吗？你是个性感的急救医生。我对他有一点点吸引力。他脸红了。
Here's my first call. I swear to God, it's the night before Thanksgiving Wednesday night. It's a big night in Brooklyn. I don't know if another place is but the night before Thanksgiving, everybody goes out on parties. So big Wednesday happens.
这是我的第一个电话。我发誓，天主，这是感恩节前夜的星期三晚上。在布鲁克林，这是个重要的夜晚。我不知道其他地方是否也是如此，但感恩节前夜，每个人都会去参加派对。所以重要的星期三到来了。
First call comes in. I was originally the person who picked up the I was the operator at the 911. But then my second job I was on the bus. And so first call, first shift is big Wednesday. Guy gets, we get a call that a guy got stabbed. We go. The guy is outside TJ Bentley's and I kid you not, the guy was in charge of the ambulance says, cut the jacket off. I take my shears and we have these really sharp scissors and boom, we go right up to sleep. We cut his jacket. He goes, Oh, my members only jacket. We cut him open and his giant hairy chest. Blood is pumping out like it's like a little water fountain.
第一通电话进来了。最开始是我接电话的人，我是911的操作员。但是后来我的第二份工作是在公交车上。然后第一通电话，是星期三的新班次。有个人被刺了，我们收到了一个报警电话。我们立刻赶到，那个人在TJ Bentley's酒吧外面。不开玩笑，负责救护车的那个人说：“把夹克剪开。”我掏出我的剪刀，我们有一把非常锋利的剪子，嗖的一声，我就剪开了他的夹克。他说：“天啊，那是我的会员专属夹克。”我们把他剪开，露出他巨大而多毛的胸部。鲜血喷涌而出，就像小喷泉一样。
And the guy who was running the bus, I remember I was yesterday puts his hand up all the eyeshows his guy. He got bigger problems than this member only jacket. He says, get the mast pants. The mass pants are so you know, are used in war. We get trained in them. You never use them. Mass pants are a blood pressure cuff. You put over people's pants to take the blood and their legs, put it into their chest so that they at least survive. The guy says, get the mess. But I said, get the mass pants. The mass pants are packed away. You never use them. I'm getting the mass pants out. We're we're whaling down fourth Avenue to get this guy. And his blood pressure is dropping his part rates dropping blood all over the bus. We're trying to control the bleeding. He survived. You save him. We saved him. Yeah. But that was my first call. First call. Nuts. This was a volunteer gig. A volunteer paid for it.
这个正在开车的家伙，我记得昨天他举起手来给大家看他的眼镜。他有比这件会员制夹克更大的问题。他说，拿来质押裤子。质押裤子是那种在战争中使用的。我们在那上面接受训练。你从来没有用过它们。质押裤子是一个血压袖带。你把它放在人们的裤子上，把血液引到他们的胸部，以至少让他们生存下来。那个家伙说，拿来东西。但是我说，拿来质押裤子。质押裤子已经收起来了。你从来没有用过。我把质押裤子拿出来了。我们踏着第四大道拼命去救这个家伙。他的血压正在下降，心率也在下降，整个公共汽车都是鲜血。我们试图控制出血。他幸存了。你把他救了。我们救了他。是的。但那是我第一个任务。第一个任务。疯了。这是一个志愿工作。一个有酬的志愿工作。
Nope. Not everything's about money. Free bird. Not everything's about money. Free bird. I'm not saying it is. I'm just asking. I'm joking with you. Yeah. I was one to be a superhero. Yeah. That's all I can say.
不。并不是一切都与金钱有关。自由的鸟儿。并不是一切都与金钱有关。自由的鸟儿。我不是说一切都是这样。我只是在问。我和你开个玩笑。是的。我曾经想成为一个超级英雄。是的，这就是我能说的全部。
Yeah. I texted Jamie Jason's brother. And I asked him if this was true. And I asked for a photo. Hey Nick, you want to you want to put up the photo? Oh, no. Please. Oh, there I am. If you're a hard stop, this is the guy you want to come restarting. Yeah. I'm doing it. Dave, did your heart stop? Did your heart stop? Dave? I'm going to resuscitate it. Nick, show the other one. This is the original outfit that when he became a parabola. It's better not be x rated. Oh, God. Oh, there. I like the second one better. Yeah, we know which one you like better Dave. No, I was on a nurse. Is that a thermometer? He's got what was the oven? That's a needle. It's a thermometer. I think that's like a Coke bottle. I think that could be a thermometer. We might need to check your temperature, David. It's like a Pepsi bottle. What the hell? We're going to take your temperature, Dave. I don't know if you're going to like this would be a temperature does that take for you? Well, I know it's going to be really hot. Jason, you did great. Oh, God, we really appreciate your contributions. Wow, great job. All right, back to the story about Cruz, this terrible accident. Wow, we got derailed. Yeah. Well, thanks for the work you did, J. Kell. Thanks for your service. Okay. So I'm going to take your vitals.
是的，我发短信给杰米的兄弟了。我问他这是真的吗？我还要他发照片。嘿，尼克，你要把照片发上来吗？噢，不要了。噢，我在那里。如果你的心脏停下来了，这个家伙就是你要去重启的人。是的，我正在这样做。戴夫，你的心脏停了吗？戴夫？我要复苏它。尼克，给我们看看另一张。这是他变成一个拋物面的原始装扮。最好不要是限制级的。哦，天啊。噢，那里。我更喜欢第二个。是的，我们知道你更喜欢哪一个，戴夫。不，我曾经是一个护士。那是温度计吗？它是什么？那是一根针。是温度计。我觉得那可能是个可口可乐瓶。我们可能需要检查一下你的体温，戴夫。就像是百事可乐瓶。该死，我们要测一下你的体温，戴夫。我不知道你会不会喜欢这样的体温。好吧，我知道它会非常高。杰森，你做得很棒。天啊，我们非常感谢你的贡献。干得好。好了，回到关于克鲁兹的那个可怕事故的故事。哇，我们跑题了。是的。嗯，感谢你的工作，J. 凯尔。感谢你的服务。好的，我要开始检查你的体征了。
Okay, local media picked up. You have that eagle tattoo on your arm too. That was that was removable. Local media picked up on this reporting that Cruz was responsible for the incident. Director of news for the San Francisco Chronicle, which is a lunatic publication.
好的，本地媒体报道了这件事。你的手臂上也有那个鹰纹身，那个是可以去除的。本地媒体报道称克鲁兹对这起事件负有责任。旧金山编年史报的新闻主任，这是一份疯狂的出版物。
Woman run over by Cruz self-driving car on Market Street in downtown San Francisco, pulled from under rear axle circumstances under investigation.
旧金山市中心市场街，一名女性被克鲁兹自动驾驶汽车撞倒，被困于车辆后轴下，目前正在调查事故原因。
The San Francisco standard posted on X a woman suffered traumatic injuries after being trapped under a Cruz robot taxi in downtown San Francisco, Monday night. Fire department spokesperson said a few weeks ago, as you know, a video circulated on X, formerly known as Twitter, of 20 or so Cruz vehicles causing a massive traffic jam and an intersection in Austin. The robot taxi provider issue has become very divisive here in San Francisco. There are now multiple companies working on your that emotional in San Francisco will put. They come to brick the car. Yeah. Yeah. Why would they do that? Because they're lunatics and it represents technology.
周一晚上，在旧金山市中心，一名女子被一辆克鲁斯机器人出租车困住后，遭受了创伤性伤害，旧金山标准网站X发布了这则消息。消防部发言人表示，几周前，正如你所知，旧金山标准网站X（前身为Twitter）上流传着一个视频，显示大约20辆克鲁斯车辆在奥斯汀一个十字路口造成了一次巨大的交通堵塞。机器人出租车供应商问题在旧金山已经变得非常分裂。目前有多家公司正在努力解决旧金山的情绪问题。他们试图破坏这种新型出租车。是的。是的。他们为什么要这样做？因为他们是疯子，他们不接受科技。
That's the real story here. The real story is the very deep disdain for technological progress. And the second story, I think, that's so important is the total lack of assumption of risk generally in the US, which limits progress in meaningful ways. Let me just pull up some data that I shared here. So, Nick, if you pull up this first chart, I'll give you guys some numbers.
这才是真正的故事。真正的故事是对技术进步的极度蔑视。第二个故事，我认为非常重要的是，美国普遍缺乏承担风险的假设，这在许多方面限制了进步。让我找一些我在这里分享的数据。因此，如果你能打开这个第一个图表，我会给你们一些数字。
For every 100 million miles driven in the US, there's about one and a half deaths, car accident deaths. There's about 3.2 trillion miles driven per year in the US. So about 45,000 people died from auto accident each year. This is a crazy number. 2.3 million people have auto accident related injuries in the US each year. And there's 6 million car crashes each year in the US. That's one crash for every half million miles driven. Pretty incredible statistics.
在美国每行驶1亿英里中，大约有一个半人死于车祸。每年在美国行驶大约3200亿英里。因车祸每年约有45000人死亡，这个数字令人震惊。每年在美国有230万人因车祸受伤，并发生600万起车祸事故。这意味着每行驶50万英里就会发生一起事故，这些统计数据相当令人难以置信。
So, if you look at this chart, it kind of shows the car fatalities over time. Now, what's the leading cause of car fatalities? We'll go to the next chart. Distracted driving. Number one, I should have done this as a quiz. Number one DUI. Jesus, that is unbelievable that even today. Yeah. Number two, speeding. Do you have a degree? Not using your seatbelt. So, by the way, all three of those are the same. Yeah.
所以，如果你看这张图表，它显示了随着时间的推移，车祸致死人数的变化。那么，什么是导致车祸致死人数最多的原因呢？我们看下一张图表吧。分心驾驶，排名第一，我本应该把这作为一个问题来问。太不可思议了，即使在今天。是的。排名第二的是超速驾驶。你有学位吗？不用安全带。所以，顺便说一下，这三者是同样的原因。是的。
So, 80% of those, 80% of deaths are DUI speeding and seatbelt non-use. Now, go to an autonomous driving world. In other words, those are all opt-in. So, now go to an autonomous driving world. You won't see DUI's. Those things are programmed to not speed. Obviously, they're not going to run if you don't put your seatbelt on. And then the fourth one is distracted driving. The real question is what incremental accidents or what incremental errors do autonomous cars make that might kind of cause new deaths or new accidents? But the net is that we have an incredible number of car accidents, 6 million accidents a year, 2.5 million injuries a year, 45,000 deaths a year, most of which can be prevented by things that are just basic human stupidity. The first three are all opt-in.
那么，80%的人死于酒驾超速和不系安全带。现在，我们进入一个自动驾驶的世界。换句话说，所有这些都是可选择的。所以，在自动驾驶的世界里，你不会看到酒后驾车。这些车辆都被程序设定成不会超速。显然，如果你不系安全带，它们是不会启动的。然后第四个原因是分心驾驶。真正的问题是自动驾驶车辆会出现什么增量事故或错误，可能导致新的死亡或事故？但总体来说，我们每年发生的车祸数量惊人，每年有600万起事故、250万人受伤、每年有45000人死亡，其中大部分都可以通过简单的人类愚蠢行为来避免。前三个原因都是可选择的。
So, what you're saying is Warren Buffett and Geico are probably responsible for lobbying and creating this mess in San Francisco. Do the insurance companies even need to exist? This? Chama. Conspiracy corner.
所以，你的意思是沃伦·巴菲特和Geico也许对于在旧金山进行游说和制造这种混乱负有责任。保险公司真的需要存在吗？这是什么？柴马（指代口口相传的阴谋论）。
Well, I actually think there's a very different driver for why these things. So, I just want to make the case, first off, that if you zoom out and you don't take the anecdotal story of the woman trapped under the cruise car, it's an awful story. But that anecdote allows people to heighten their fear and heighten their emotion and create a response to autonomous driving as if that is a cause of a problem. But if you zoom out and you ask the question, dude, 50,000 people are dying because of human stupidity that we can just completely take off the streets. It's such a no-brainer that this technology should progress. And I'll give you guys another story.
好吧，实际上我认为这些事情有一个非常不同的驱动因素。所以，首先，我只想说明一下，如果你放大视角，不考虑那个被困在自动驾驶汽车下的女人的个别案例，这是一个可怕的故事。但这个个别案例让人们恐惧和情绪高涨，对自动驾驶产生了反应，好像这是一个问题的原因。但是如果你放大视角，问问自己，朋友，因为人类愚蠢而导致5万人死亡，我们完全可以防止这种情况。这项技术应该继续发展是显而易见的。我给大家再讲一个故事。
In 1999, there was the clinical trials for gene therapy had begun. And there was a guy named Gelsinger. He was a young kid. I think he was 18 or 19 years old and he passed away from the gene therapy. And it turns out that there was actually doctor malpractice that was primarily responsible for his death. After that happened, the FDA and the regulator stepped in, and they basically put a halt to all gene therapy clinical trials for about seven years. The number of lives that were lost during that seven years that went on that we did not make progress on getting gene therapy programs to market is significantly higher than the number of people that would have lost lives, which by the way, it turns out when you go back to this this particular death was driven by doctor malpractice, not by the gene therapy technology necessarily itself. And a lot of the stuff was understood.
1999年，基因疗法的临床试验开始了。有一个叫做Gelsinger的人，他是个年轻的孩子。我记得他当时只有18或19岁，但是他因为基因疗法而去世了。实际上，这是由医生的过失造成的。此事件发生后，美国食品药品监督管理局和监管机构采取行动，基本上停止了所有基因疗法的临床试验，持续了约七年时间。在这七年期间，失去生命的人数要远远超过本来可能会因基因疗法而失去生命的人数。顺便说一句，回顾这个特定的死亡事件，发现主要原因是医生的过失，而不是基因疗法技术本身。许多相关事项都已经得到了理解。
And I think we've heard Peter Thiel and others speak a lot about how the US has lost our appetite for risk. We say that if anyone dies or if any bad thing happens, a new technology should not progress. But when we look at the benefit of new technology relative to the cost of it, many of these technologies should progress at an accelerated pace, not at a decelerated pace. And the stepping in to stop these things from moving forward because number one, we're really afraid of new technology. Number two, we want to, there's a lot of regulatory capture and incumbency that wants to see these things not succeed. I think we're really denying ourselves in many cases the opportunity to realize progress because we're so concerned about any loss.
我认为，皮特·蒂尔和其他人经常谈到美国已经失去了对风险的胃口。我们说，如果有人死亡或发生任何不好的事情，新技术就不应该继续发展。但是当我们将新技术的好处与成本相比较时，许多这些技术应该以加快的速度而不是减慢的速度发展。我们之所以阻止这些事物向前发展，一是因为我们非常害怕新技术，二是因为有很多监管困扰和利益保护者希望这些事物不成功。我认为在许多情况下，我们正在否定自己实现进步的机会，因为我们如此担心任何损失。
Nuclear fission is a really great example of this. Three Mile Island accident and Fukushima. If you look at the total number of lives off, and there's incredible statistics, which I should probably not pull off the top of my head, I should probably make sure I get the right numbers. But Chernobyl is another good example. If you look at the total number of incremental cancers and the total number of lives that were lost from Chernobyl, you look at Three Mile Island, you look at Fukushima.
核裂变是一个很好的例子。三里岛事故和福岛事故。如果你看一下因此而失去的总人数，有一些令人难以置信的统计数据，尽量不凭记忆说，我应该确保拿到正确的数字。但是切尔诺贝利是另一个很好的例子。如果你看一下因切尔诺贝利事故而造成的癌症发病数和失去的总人数，以及三里岛事故和福岛事故。
You can actually make a statistical argument that even with those extraordinary cataclysmic disasters, the number of lives that could have been improved, the number of lives that could have been saved, the progress that people have been, could have been, could have made the number of people that could have been pulled out of poverty, if we made cheap abundant energy available at an accelerated pace rather than at a decelerated pace, it could have had a much more significant effect.
事实上，你可以提出一个统计论点，即使面对这些非同寻常的灾难性事件，如果我们以加速的速度提供廉价而丰富的能源，而非以减速的速度，人们可以改善的生活数量，可以挽救的生命数量，人们已经取得的进展，以及可以摆脱贫困的人数都会更多。这可能会产生更为显著的影响。
So I view this in the lens, this autonomous driving backlash in the lens of what we see with a lot of new technologies, which is we lose our appetite for risk, we lose our tolerance for any sort of incremental loss, and we lose perspective on the fact that that loss is far, far, far outweighed relative to the gains that you gain if you can get that technology into market faster, not slower. And I think that's just such a real kind of storyline that's not told very often about how technology and progress is limited, particularly in the modern age, because once you have enough stuff, you're not willing to take as much risk.
所以我从这个角度来看，自动驾驶引发的抵制反应与我们在许多新技术中所看到的情况相类似，即我们对风险的胃口减退，对任何形式的逐渐损失容忍度降低，而且我们忽视了一点，即相对于慢慢推进的损失，这些损失实际上远远被技术带来的收益所超越。我认为这是一个真实而又不常被讲述的情节，说明了技术和进步在现代社会受到的限制。因为一旦拥有了足够的东西，人们就不愿意承担太多风险。
Meanwhile, you see China building 450 nuclear fission stations and the US building none. And I think that that's part of the story of where the US is today. Yeah. I mean, I know that was a big rant, but for me, I'm just like so sensitive to this stuff, you know, like all of this like anti tech stuff and anti progress stuff, because you then pick an anecdote and you focus on the anecdote and you missed a bigger fucking picture.
与此同时，你会看到中国正在建造450个核裂变站，而美国却没有建造任何一个。我认为这是美国现今处境的一部分故事。是的，我知道刚才我发表了一大段抱怨，但对我来说，我对这些事情非常敏感，你知道，所有这些反科技和反进步的言论，因为你们只挑选了一个片段，而忽视了一个更大的整体情况。
Well, what's so funny about San Francisco is it's the city that both is the first to approve the testing of it. And then where there's a small fraction of citizens who try to go and sabotage it.
嗯，旧金山有个有趣的地方，它是第一个批准进行测试的城市。而在那里，只有一小部分市民试图破坏它。
I guess the next issue is how close are we to having these at scale cruises currently in San Francisco, Austin and Phoenix, Waymo, very expensive cars, by the way, they're currently in San Francisco and Phoenix 24 seven and they're going to launch an LA soon. And Tesla has been working on this.
我猜下一个问题是，我们离在旧金山、奥斯汀和凤凰城使用大规模无人驾驶出租车有多近。顺便说一句，Waymo的车非常昂贵，它们目前在旧金山和凤凰城全天候运行，并且很快会在洛杉矶启动。而特斯拉一直在致力于这个项目。
You know what's another example of this space X, some shrapnel got blown into the uninhabited desert lands around Boca Chica, Texas. You're talking about Starship? Yeah, Starship. The big one. Yeah. And they come in and they're like, shut the whole thing down. You can't have shrapnel flying around. Think about the risk tolerance equation here. So if you delay SpaceX by six months to make sure that shrapnel doesn't fly through the desert, that's six months longer till humans can perhaps inhabit the moon, go to Mars, do all these extraordinary things. This is what I mean about the lack of tolerance for risk.
你知道另一个这种情况的例子吗，就是一些碎片被吹到了德克萨斯州博卡奇卡附近的无人居住沙漠地带。你在说星舰吗？是的，星舰。那个大家伙。是的。然后他们过来，关停整个计划。不能让碎片乱飞。想想这里的风险容忍度问题。如果为了确保碎片不会飞过沙漠，而延迟SpaceX六个月，那就要再等上六个月，人类也许才能登陆月球，去火星，做这些非凡的事情。这就是我所指的对风险容忍度的缺乏。
We have to assume that there is a cost in moving things forward. There has to be a cost in progress. You don't go fight a war and try and move the front lines of a battlefield further into the enemy territory and assume you're going to have no loss. And all of human progress needs to be thought about in a similar way. We have to have some degree of loss and some tolerance for risk as we try and make progress with our species. And technology always is going to have setbacks. It's always going to have mistakes. But if the net benefit far outweighs those mistakes, we have to be willing to accept it and gets everyone to kind of take a broader perspective on what we're doing. That this isn't just about maintaining status quo and not getting hurt. This is about the great benefits we get from moving things forward. And we've lost that in such a profound way over the last 50 years in Western culture.
我们必须假设推动事物前进会付出代价。进步必须是有代价的。你不可能去打一场战争，试图把战线推进到敌方领土深处，然后期望没有任何损失。而人类的所有进步都需要用类似的方式思考。当我们努力推动我们的物种进步时，我们必须承担一定程度的损失和风险容忍度。而技术总是会遇到挫折，总会犯错。但是如果总收益远远超过这些错误，我们必须愿意接受，并让每个人对我们所做的事情有一个更广阔的视角。这不仅仅是为了保持现状和不受伤害，而是为了我们通过推动事物前进所获得的巨大好处。在过去的50年里，我们在西方文化中深深地失去了这一点。
Another great example of this to add to your tirade is challenge trials. These have been banned for a long time. And if you don't know what a challenge trial is, introduce something like, let's say, COVID into a person who has had a COVID vaccine. And yeah, they're assuming some risk in doing this. But if it was a young person, as we saw, it probably wouldn't be that much risk. And there are people who would do it. And there are this whole concept of challenge trials could reduce in the long term a massive amount of deaths. But it's not allowed because of ethics issues.
你 tirade 中可以添加的另一个很好的例子是挑战试验。这些试验已经被禁止了很长时间。如果你不知道什么是挑战试验，可以举一个例子，比如，把新冠病毒在接种过新冠疫苗的人身上引入。是的，他们在这样做时要承担一定的风险。但如果是年轻人，就像我们所看到的那样，风险可能并不是那么大。而且有些人会愿意这样做。挑战试验的整个概念在长期内可能能够减少大量的死亡。但这种做法是不被允许的，因为涉及到伦理问题。
What are your thoughts on that, Freberg, challenge trials? I mean, it's look, there's so many examples. We could just keep going through this. And from energy markets and nuclear technology to biotechnology to space technology, to I've lived it.
你对这个有什么想法，弗雷伯格，挑战试验？我的意思是，看起来有很多例子。我们可以继续说下去。从能源市场和核技术到生物技术和太空技术，我都亲身经历过。
I mean, like GMO technology and bioengineering and food systems, there's a fear and a concern. And like Rob Henderson said in our summit, I've always viewed those to be luxury beliefs that this idea that I don't want to have my precious things changed when the benefit really accrues mostly to the poorest people in the world. The people that is, by the way, because that's an important point that people don't realize.
我的意思是，像GMO技术、生物工程和食品系统这样的领域存在着恐惧和担忧。正如罗布·亨德森在我们的峰会上所说，我一直认为这些都是奢侈的信仰，认为自己珍视的东西不应该发生改变，但实际上这些技术的好处主要来自世界上最贫困的人群。而人们并没有意识到，这一点非常重要。
When you make things more productive, whether it's an acre of land to make more food or a unit of energy and the cost comes down per unit of energy, those of us who already have a lot of stuff and have all of our basic needs met, we have housing, we have shelter, we have food, we have energy, we can afford it, we live in a great environment, we live in a place that we can do whatever the heck we want anytime we want. We don't care if the price goes up by 30%. I'm happy to go down to whole foods and feel good to plop down an extra 50% to buy an organic banana.
当你增加生产力时，无论是增加了一英亩的土地用于种植更多粮食，还是降低了每单位能源的成本，对于我们这些已经拥有很多东西并满足了基本需求的人来说，我们拥有住房、庇护所、食物和能源，我们负担得起，我们生活在一个优越的环境中，我们可以随时随地做任何我们想做的事情。如果价格上涨了30%，我们并不在意。我乐意去Whole Foods（一家有机食品商店），买一个有机香蕉时额外支付50%的费用，感觉很好。
Someone who only makes $8,000 a year cares very deeply about that cost delta. They need to see the cost of food go down, the cost of energy go down, the cost of medicine go down, the improvement that's driven by technology and has been for 10,000 years, mostly accrues to the poorest people in society first. That's the problem. That's a we all who are in charge. Those of us who are rich, who are elite, who have power, who have control, who have influence, who run the fucking government, we all get to raise our hand and say, I don't want to take any more risk as one person died. Meanwhile, a million people are starving to death over the next three months. And you can make that same story and you can connect those dots in every area of technology that humans have lost their risk tolerance for in the wealthy industrialized West.
一个年薪只有8000美元的人非常关心成本差距。他们希望食品成本降低，能源成本降低，医疗成本降低。过去的1万年来，技术进步大多惠及最贫困的人们，这就是问题所在。这是我们这些掌权者共同面对的问题。我们这些富人、精英、有权有势、控制力强，甚至那些他妈的政府在运行的人，我们都可以举手说，只因为一个人死了，我不想承担任何更多的风险。与此同时，下个三个月将有一百万人饿死。在富裕的工业化西方国家，人类已经失去了对各个技术领域的风险容忍度，这个故事在每一个领域都可以延伸。
We are largely, I think, not just hurting ourselves because of the economic costs and all the other stuff that's going on that we're now seeing is very apparent, but we're also limiting the intelligence and the energy to make technology and progress it that could benefit the whole world. We're limiting its ability to diffuse. And I think it's really profoundly sad. And I hope that we one day look back at this era as almost like a pseudo dark ages and we wake the fuck up someday and recognize that we need to take some degree of risk and have some tolerance for making progress. Listen to family, whatever. It's a family program. Yeah. It's a little passionate about the whole anti-text stuff. Hey, we like it. We like it.
我认为，我们在很大程度上不仅会因为经济成本和其他正在发生的事情而受损，这一点现在已经非常明显，而且我们还在限制能够造福全世界的技术和进步所需的智力和能量。我们在限制它的传播能力。我真的非常难过。我希望有一天我们能回顾这个时代，将其视为一种准黑暗时代，然后有一天醒过来，意识到我们需要承担一定的风险并对取得进展有一些容忍度。听取家人的意见，不管怎样，这是一个家庭节目。是的，我对整个反文字信息的事情感到非常热情。嘿，我们喜欢这一点。
Hey, and listen, 35 people died building the Golden Gate Bridge, right? Like the people wanted to see that progress. People took risk. That's it. No risk, no reward. To that point, I think it took two years to create the Bay Bridge in 17 years to do the repair to it. I mean, that's how crazy things have gotten. Two billion dollars to build those suicide nets on the side of the Golden Gate Bridge and some fraction of that to build the whole friggin bridge. And even on a dollar adjusted basis, it's ridiculous. It's five. It's interesting. You said a 550 million to build the bridge in US dollars. And then, yeah, it was the same amount to build the nets. So,
嘿，请听着，是的，有35个人在修建金门大桥时死亡，对吧？就像人们希望见证这个进展。人们冒险去做。没冒险就没有回报。在这一点上，我认为创建湾桥花了两年时间，而修理它则花了17年时间。我的意思是，情况已经变得如此疯狂。花费20亿美元在金门大桥边上修建自杀防护网，只有其中的一小部分用于修建整个桥梁。即使按照美元的购买力调整，这也是荒谬的。这是五倍的差距。有趣的是，你说修建这座桥花费了5.5亿美元，然后，是的，修建防护网的费用也是同样的数额。
They cast a question about the cruise thing. So, do you believe that cruise will have a good solution to self-driving? I'm just like a little bit skeptical. Are they owned by GM now? Yeah. But didn't they raise money from SoftBank? Isn't there some like independent funding as well that happened? I thought it was sold to GM. It was part of GM. It was sold to GM. And then they set it up as a sub and they like alphabet did with Waymo. Also, that's raised five billion and outside money into Waymo. And I think that cruise or GM tried to do the same thing where they've got SoftBank and a bunch of institutional investors in cruise. Which majority owned by GM? I'm pretty sure that's right. But it was spun out because GM didn't have the ability to bankroll it.
他们对这个邮轮自动驾驶的事情提出了一个问题。那么，你相信邮轮会有一个很好的自动驾驶解决方案吗？我有点怀疑。他们现在是GM的所有吗？是的。但他们不是从软银那里筹集了资金吗？难道还有其他独立资金吗？我以为它被卖给了GM。它是GM的一部分。它是卖给GM的。然后他们把它建立为一个子公司，就像Waymo和Alphabet一样。此外，Waymo也筹集了50亿美元的外部资金。我认为Cruise或GM也试图做同样的事情，他们有软银和一些机构投资者投资Cruise。大部分是由GM拥有的吗？我很确定是这样的。但是它被剥离出来是因为GM没有能力资助它。
It's obvious that these are getting there. The question is, I think it's more like 10 years before this is fully deployed. Also, you have to build all the cars. If Elon does get out this robo taxi vehicle for 25k, which he seems like as well on the way with the Model 3 to getting to. This was an early mock up from Walter Isaacson's book, which looks pretty sharp. And it doesn't have it's like a two seat car. So these things zipping around San Francisco, etc. at a reasonable speed 25 35 miles an hour. I think it's pretty close to having this. I use the self driving beta, a full self driving FSD. I use it all the time. I used to only use it on highways. Now I use it on side roads. I disengage it when it's on roads that are not clearly marked.
显然，这些技术正在取得进展。问题是，我认为还需要大约10年才能完全实现这一目标。此外，你需要制造所有的汽车。如果埃隆能够推出这辆售价为2.5万美元的自动驾驶出租车，这似乎也是他的目标，从他推出的Model 3来看，他已经在朝这个方向努力了。这是沃尔特·艾萨克森的书中的早期模型，看起来非常精美。而且它不是一辆单座车。因此，这些车很可能会在旧金山等地以合理的速度（25到35英里/小时）快速穿梭。我已经开始使用自动驾驶测试版（FSD），我经常使用它。以前我只在高速公路上使用它，现在我也在普通道路上使用它。但在标志不清晰的道路上，我会停止使用自动驾驶。
Have you guys taken the cruise or Waymo road? I haven't taken either. I got invited to the beta though for cruise. You guys want to take one? Personally, I would not trust the cruise ride. I don't believe they were responsible for this accident as it turns out. But I'm just skeptical that some of these initiatives are going to pan out. I think Tesla's getting it. Why are you skeptical? Yeah. I think it's a hard problem to solve. And I'm just dubious about GM's ability to develop tech at this level of sophistication. Tesla will get there. I think Tesla's already there.
你们有没有乘坐过豪华游轮或者 Waymo 的自动驾驶车？我都没有。不过我收到了参加豪华游轮测试的邀请。你们想去试一试吗？就我个人而言，我不太信任豪华游轮的乘坐体验。尽管事实证明他们并不对这起事故负责。但是我对某些这类尝试的成功程度持怀疑态度。我认为特斯拉就做得很棒。你为什么怀疑呢？是啊，我认为这是一个很难解决的问题。我只是对通用汽车公司在这个复杂程度上开发技术的能力持怀疑态度。特斯拉会成功的。我觉得特斯拉已经做到了。
Well, if an autonomous Tesla drove up and picked you up, would you do that? Would you take a ride to that? Not today, but when they get there, which I don't think it'll be 10 years, it seems like Tesla's this way ahead of everybody else. Timoth, where do you think the tech is? I think this is an inference problem for Tesla and it's a learning problem for everybody else. So I think in order to build level five autonomy, you have to have good reasoning. I think in order to have good reasoning, you just need to have enough training data where you literally see every potential branch and node in a decision tree. And so it's one thing to be able to scan a light, know that it's green and then go forward. But when you multiply that by every intersection, every light in every city, it's a massive, massive learning problem. So the thing that GM and crews don't have, in my opinion, is a path to acquire enough data to be credible.
嗯，如果一台自动驾驶的特斯拉开来接你，你会搭乘吗？你会坐上去吗？虽然现在不行，但当他们实现这个目标时，我认为这不会是在10年之后，特斯拉似乎在这方面远超其他所有人。提莫斯，你觉得技术发展到什么程度了？我认为这对特斯拉而言是个推理问题，对其他所有人而言则是个学习问题。所以我认为，要构建五级自动驾驶需要有良好的推理能力。而要有良好的推理能力，就需要足够的训练数据，以至于你能够看到决策树中每一个可能的分支和节点。所以可以扫描交通灯、知道灯是绿色然后前进这一步骤再简单不过了。但是当你将这个步骤乘以每个交叉口、每个城市中的每盏交通灯时，这将是一个巨大的、巨大的学习问题。因此，我个人认为通用汽车和Cruise所面临的问题是他们没有获取足够数据的途径，因此缺乏可信度。
Could they solve a limited set of streets in San Francisco? Yeah. Yes. And so if you have the city sort of block off certain parts of the neighborhoods and say, no more human driven vehicles in these sections, only these three or four licensed providers can be inside of it, I think that crews and Waymo could work. But if you're going to live in a world where there's autonomy, meaning like humans can drive wherever they want, I think Tesla is the only one because I think they've acquired and they are acquiring so much training data that for them, they're fine tuning reasoning. And it's exactly what Jason just described. Jason is a perfect example of a consumer now who has adopted it, call it 70% of his use cases, and is incrementally kind of like getting towards 90% or 95%. And I think that that's impressive. I would agree with Jason. I use FSD 100% on the highways. And depending on where I'm going, so like this weekend, when I came to David, your house, saxis house, full FSD the whole way. Yeah, two way 101. It's bulletproof. Bulletproof and then in the city. Yeah. And navigating to get into David's house. I thought it was pitch perfect. And there was one or twice where I'm actually the person that's panicking and disengaging FSDs, like intersections, right? Left turns. And also just on the highway, like I get a little skittish at times if it goes if it speeds up or whatever. My point is, Tesla is so close to it. So I do trust that they'll have a credible solution in the next four or five years. And these other companies, I think that they need to have a solution for training. And I don't see it.
他们能解决旧金山一部分的街道吗？是的。是的。如果你让城市封锁某些社区的一些区域，规定只允许这三到四个获得许可的供应商进入，我认为克鲁斯和Waymo可以实现。但是如果你要生活在一个自动驾驶的世界中，也就是人们可以随意开车的意思，我认为特斯拉是唯一的选择，因为我认为他们已经获得了很多训练数据，他们正在对推理进行精细调整。这正是杰森所描述的。杰森现在是一个完美的例子，他已经使用了自动驾驶，可以称作是他日常使用的70%，并且逐步地接近90%或者95%。我同意杰森的看法。在高速公路上，我百分之百使用全自动驾驶。根据我的目的地不同，比如这个周末我到达戴维和萨克斯家的时候，全程都使用了全自动驾驶，一直走101号公路。简直就是完美的。而在城市里，导航找到戴维家的时候，我觉得也非常准确。只有在一两次的左转和交叉口的时候，我才会有一点担心，会手动解除全自动驾驶。在高速公路上，如果速度加快或者出现其他情况，有时候我也会有些胆怯。我的观点是，特斯拉离实现这一目标非常近了。所以我相信在接下来的四到五年中，他们将会有可靠的解决方案。而其他公司，我认为他们需要解决训练的问题，但是我看不到他们的办法。
Yeah, the point is there's over a million cars recording. Because when you buy a Tesla, you turn on self-driving. It's in every car. And so every car is recording data all the time, as opposed to GM GM doesn't take the time to put the $10,000 $20,000 package. Half a million new sensor collecting millions of miles a quarter, a quarter being added to the network. Exactly what Tesla did years and years ago is even before self-driving was a thing, they put all the cameras in the cars to collect the data. And you're right, GM doesn't do that. If GM did that to their legacy gas cars and then funneled that into cruise, I think they would have a decent shot, but they're not doing that.
是的，重点是有超过一百万辆汽车在记录。因为当你购买一辆特斯拉时，你会打开自动驾驶功能。每辆车都有这个功能。所以每辆车都在不断地记录数据，而通用汽车则没有花时间投资10,000到20,000美元的套餐。每个季度有五十万个新传感器收集数百万英里的数据，不断增加到网络中。特斯拉是在很多年前还没有自动驾驶的时候，就在汽车中安装了所有的摄像头来收集数据。你说得对，通用汽车并没有这样做。如果通用汽车对他们的传统汽车也这样做，然后将数据传输到自动驾驶系统，我认为他们就有一定的机会，但是他们没有这样做。
Here's a map of Waymo in, and I brought this up because I think there's two different strategies going on here. Tesla's going for the whole McGilla. They want to be able to do dirt roads you've never been on. Waymo and crews are working from constrained areas that they can perfect. And Phoenix is the perfect area because that's a grid based system, very wide highways, and it was planned. And so if you have a planned community, it's not like a city in Italy or France where the roads have been there for 800 years. When you have some modern city where it's a grid based system, Austin falls into this as well for a large portion of Austin, it's going to be fairly easy to do those. And so that's what we'll see. My prediction is we'll see this also. It's very flat, obviously no hills and also weather. So the Northeast will be the last place when you go to Boston or you're in other places that don't have a grid based system and you have ice and snow. This stuff is 10 plus years out, but in a dry place with consistent weather like California, Phoenix, etc. It's now, right? It's now, I think. Okay,
这是Waymo在某个地图上的位置，我提到这个是因为我认为这里有两种不同的策略。特斯拉的目标是全面发展。他们希望能够行驶在你从未去过的乡间小路上。Waymo及其团队则致力于在限定范围内进行完善。而凤凰城就是一个完美的地方，因为它是一个基于网格系统、有着宽阔高速公路的规划城市。因此，如果你有一个规划良好的社区，它就不像意大利或法国的城市那样，那些道路已经存在了800年。当你在一些现代的基于网格系统的城市里，奥斯汀也是其中之一，这些相对容易实现。因此，这就是我们将要看到的。我的预测也是如此。显然它比较平坦，没有丘陵，还有天气问题。所以东北地区将会是最后的地方，比如波士顿或其他没有网格系统、有冰雪的地方。这些事情还需要10多年的时间才能实现，但在像加利福尼亚、凤凰城等干燥、气候稳定的地方，现在已经可以实现了，对吧，我想。
In Bill Gurley's regulatory capture corner, we have an interesting story about JSX. If you don't know JetSuite X, that's what the JSX stands for. This is an airline that offers hop-on public charter flights out of FBOs, tiny airports usually reserved for private jets and they get passengers the private jet experience for the cost of roughly a first class ticket at major airlines, maybe double the cost of a coach ticket, 700 bucks one way from Westchester to Miami, $1,400 round trip, not a bad deal. By comparison, United on the same day are between $5,800 for first class from Newark to Miami. JetSuite X has 47 airplanes with 1200 crew members.
在比尔·加利的监管摄取角落，我们有一个关于JSX的有趣故事。如果你不知道JetSuite X，它就是JSX的缩写。这是一家提供FBOs的点到点公共包机航班的航空公司，这些小机场通常是为私人飞机预留的，它们以相当于主要航空公司头等舱机票价格的成本为乘客提供私人飞机体验，可能是普通经济舱机票价格的两倍，例如从韦斯切斯特到迈阿密的单程700美元，往返1400美元，相当划算。相比之下，同一天美国联合航空的头等舱机票从纽瓦克到迈阿密价格约为5800美元。JetSuite X拥有47架飞机和1200名机组成员。
Let me cut in and give me my anecdote. On Saturday, I took a JSX flight from Vegas to Oakland. What were you doing in Vegas? I went to the opening night of the YouTube concert at the sphere. Opening night at the sphere? At the sphere? Yeah, the sphere. I looked at the photos in the video as I wasn't super impressed. Is it impressive in person? Because it didn't come across in the videos. Yeah, it's incredible. You got to go see it. I think it's the first live experience that I think you have live analog elements like a band and this incredibly immersive digital experience because it's a 360-foot-tall dome and the entirety of the interior of the dome is a digital screen. There were these seinscapes that they created that were like dynamic video on these walls that it's hard. I don't think the videos do it justice. Like when you're in this room during this shot right here and I was kind of sitting center, I went down on the floor for a while. Looks like you're in the desert or something. It's like you're there. Dude, I mean, it's inexplicable. It's more real than VR. It's like you're in this world. And they even did these amazing integrated scenes where they had helicopters flying overhead and then they had spotlights coming out of the ceiling while the helicopters were flying in the video above you. They did like a hot air balloon flying above you and they dropped like a rope down. So it was this total integration of like physical and virtual content. And I think like you two to be honest, as great as the concert was, is almost like the most boring thing you could probably do with that setup. Over time, you could probably integrate a lot more things. You could have giant sets and giant scenes and people doing stuff physically. A Star Wars movie. Star Wars movie. In real life, you could have like the siege of Carthage and you could have ships on the ground and then you could see the battle scene behind you and you'd be like in the middle of it. The whole thing was really incredible. What about the sound? I heard about the sound. Hundreds of speakers. So when I was down on the floor, I went right by the stage on the floor. The sum of the sound is actually distorted down there and it's not that good. When you're in the seats that set back where the sound is really designed, hundreds of speakers like built into the wall. I heard each seat. There's seat speakers. But it really comes from the dome. The dome sound when you're sitting in the seats is really immersive and incredible.
让我插一句，给我讲个轶事。周六，我坐JSX航班从拉斯维加斯飞往奥克兰。你在拉斯维加斯做什么呢？我去了球体的YouTube音乐会开幕夜。球体的开幕夜？在球体？是的，就是球体。我看了视频中的照片，没有很深刻的印象。亲自体验会有很大的声势吗？因为在视频中没有表现出来。是的，简直不可思议。你必须去看看。我认为这是我认为你有真实的乐队和这种非常沉浸式的数字体验的首次现场体验，因为它是一个360英尺高的圆顶，整个圆顶的内部都是数字屏幕。他们创造的这些场景就像是墙上的动态视频画面，很难用言语表达。就像你在这个镜头拍摄时所在的这个房间，我坐在中间，有一段时间我坐在地板上。看起来像是在沙漠或者其他地方。就像你在那里一样。兄弟，我是说，这是无法言喻的。比虚拟现实更真实。就像你置身于这个世界。他们甚至做了这些令人惊叹的集成场景，他们有直升机在你头上飞过，然后天花板上有探照灯射出光束，而直升机在你上方的视频中飞行。他们还让热气球飞过你的头顶，然后放下一根绳子。所以这是物理和虚拟内容的完美融合。而且我想说，尽管音乐会非常精彩，但从建筑结构来看，这可能是你能够做的最无聊的事情。随着时间的推移，你可能会集成更多的东西。你可以有巨大的布景和巨大的场景，人们可以在物理上做很多事情。像《星球大战》电影一样。在现实生活中，你可以像参与迦太基的围攻一样，你可以看到地面上的船只，然后你还可以看到你身后的战斗场景，你就仿佛置身其中。整个体验真的非常惊人。声音怎么样？我听说声音很好。有几百个扬声器。当我在地板上的时候，我就在舞台旁边。那里的声音有些失真，效果不太好。当你坐在后面设计好的座位上，墙上有数百个内置的扬声器。我听说每个座位都有扬声器。但真正有震撼力的是来自圆顶的声音，当你坐在座位上时，真的非常沉浸和惊人。
You took Jet2X back. By the way, my prediction on the sphere, I think there'll be dozens of these things soon enough because this can become a new form of live entertainment venue. It's not just a stage where someone stands on it. It's a new model and more than musical artists, I think you'll see new kinds of art and new kinds of things happening on these things.
你把Jet2X拿走了。顺便说一下，关于球体的那个预测，我认为很快将会有很多类似的东西出现，因为这可以成为一种全新的现场娱乐场所。它不仅仅是一个舞台，有人在上面表演。它是一个全新的模式，不仅会有音乐艺术家，我认为你会看到各种新形式的艺术和各种新奇的事情在这些地方发生。
Anyway, there's also video on the outside. So you can do advertisements or make it look like a pumpkin or make it look like a basketball. I saw that. And you'll get cheaper and cheaper over time. The first one was what? Two two two and a half billion dollars. They'll make smaller versions of it. It'll be a couple hundred million. It's almost like I'm Max theater. So roll them out all over.
无论如何，外面也有视频。所以你可以做广告，或者让它看起来像南瓜或篮球。我看到过这样的情况。而且随着时间的推移，这种产品会越来越便宜。最初的成本是多少？22亿到25亿美元。他们会制造更小型的版本，成本会降低到几亿美元。这几乎像是我是Max剧院一样，将其推向市场。
So back to Jet2X. 240 bucks. You drive up just like an FBO, like a private terminal. Drive up walk in no security, no lines, no check in, get on, get off. It's like flying a with some check in so they know your name and stuff. Yeah, you give them the ticket and then they do a gate side check in. They take your bag and they put it all they're using it under the plane. She save an hour on either half hour. Oh my god, dude. It's so free. It's ridiculous. And like when my mom comes to visit, she takes it. She loves it. But obviously there's got to be some catch. I don't really know these regs, but there's some kind of here. I'll explain that now.
回到Jet2X。240块钱。你像FBO一样开车进去，就像是一个私人货运终端。开车到达，走进去，没有安检，没有排队，不需要办理登机手续，上飞机，下飞机。就像坐飞机一样，但有一些手续，他们需要知道你的名字之类的。是的，你把票给他们，然后他们会在登机口办理手续。他们会带走你的行李并放在飞机下面。这能节省一小时或者半小时的时间。天啊，伙计。真是太自由了，简直不可思议。我妈妈来参观的时候，她也坐这个。她喜欢它。但显然肯定有一些限制。我不太清楚这些规定，但现在我来解释一下。
So they have 47 airplanes, 1200 crew members, American and Southwest and several major aviation unions are choosing JSX of exploiting a regulatory loophole that they can hire pilots who are too old to fly for commercial airlines and who don't have the requisite 15 hour 1500 hours of flying experience because they are a smaller airline. Jet2X says it's captain's average over 8000 flying hours. And first office average over 3000 flying hours. So they're blowing past the regulation. So that's obviously a red herring.
所以他们有47架飞机，1200名机组人员，美国航空公司和西南航空以及几家主要航空工会选择利用法规漏洞，他们可以雇佣那些年龄太大无法在商业航空公司飞行的飞行员，也可以雇佣那些没有必要的1500飞行小时的飞行经验，因为他们是一家规模较小的航空公司。Jet2X公司称他们的机长平均飞行时间超过8000小时，而副机长平均飞行时间超过3000小时。他们明显违反了规定。所以这显然是一个甩手掌柜的借口。
According to Jet2X, two huge US airlines and their labor unions want companies like Jet2X, small air carriers that actually care about providing you with much needed choice and high quality service to be legislated out of existence. And by the way, Jet2X has a couple of the other airlines I think United as an investor. So the other airlines actually want this.
根据Jet2X的说法，两家美国大型航空公司及其劳工工会希望像Jet2X这样的小型航空承运商被立法禁止存在，而这些小型承运商实际上致力于为您提供丰富的选择和高质量的服务。顺便提一下，我想Jet2X还有一些其他航空公司，比如联合航空，作为投资者。所以其他航空公司实际上希望如此。
There obviously is a difference in security. The one difference is not how many hours the pilots have obviously it's going through TSA. So the ability to not go through TSA is such a key part of this experience and to not go through a big terminal. JetBlue and United support JSX and I think they're exploring doing this themselves. So regulatory capture had its best, I guess.
显然，安全性存在差异。一个显而易见的差异在于不需要经过空中交通管制局（TSA）的检查，而不是飞行员飞行时间的长短。可以不经过TSA检查，同时避免进入繁忙的航站楼，这是这种体验的关键部分。JetBlue和United支持JSX，我认为他们正在考虑自己开展类似的服务。因此，可以说监管机构已经有了最好的抓手。
I'll take the unpopular side of this. I think it's easy to blame this regulatory capture bogeyman here. I think Jet2X seems like an amazing service. It has Starlink, a bunch of my friends have taken it. They seem to enjoy it a lot. But here is the the clever arbitrage that JetSuite X is taking, which is that they fly under what's called part 135 of the FAA. And that is when you take a private plane and you charter it. The airlines fly under what's called part 121. And the rules are very different if you're 121 versus part 135. And the biggest rule is the training of the pilots, which is that there are minimum hour requirements to be a commercial airline pilot, which is about 1500 hours versus 250 hours for a part 135 charter pilot.
我会站在这个不受欢迎的立场上。我认为在这里过于容易将责任归咎于监管捕食的妖怪。我认为Jet2X似乎是一项令人惊叹的服务。它拥有Starlink，我的一些朋友都尝试过它。他们似乎非常喜欢。但是JetSuite X正在利用一个聪明的套利机会，那就是他们按照FAA的第135部分飞行。这表示当您租用一架私人飞机时，他们将会提供您服务。而航空公司按照FAA的第121部分飞行。而如果你是121，与第135部分相比，规则会有很大不同。最大的规则是飞行员的培训，即商业航空飞行员有最低飞行小时要求，大约为1500小时，而第135部分包机飞行员仅需250小时。
So I think the question is, is that it's one thing where you charter a plane with two or three of your friends. That's a part 135 license in a small plane. But when you take a large plane with nobody else you don't know, I think there's a pretty credible argument that that's a commercial airline. And I do think that it's reasonable that if you're running a commercial airline through a loophole, at some point, if you get big enough that loophole is going to be obvious enough that people will ask it to be closed.
所以我认为问题是，当你和两三个朋友一起包租一架小型飞机的时候，那只是一个第135条规定下的小型飞机包机。但是当你乘坐一架大型飞机，没有认识的人与你同行，我认为很有说服力的论点是这是一家商业航空公司。而且我认为，如果你通过一个漏洞来运营一家商业航空公司，当你的规模足够大到这个漏洞变得显而易见时，人们会要求关闭这个漏洞，这是合理的。
I think what you want to have is this loophole closed, or you decide that part 135 where there are so many people, the pilots should be at a certain flight training standard. And to JetSuite X's defense, they reported their captain's average over 8,000 flying hours. So that is a magnitude more 5x, more than five times the rules and first office average over 3,000. So why not just up at number of hours to 500 or 1,000 or just make everybody 15 or your point, just like say, go to the FAA and say, look, we're going to continue to fly part 135. But here are the exact we promised to never hire a pilot that is not under this 1,500 hour threshold, etc, etc. There's all kinds of ways to go around it.
我认为你想要的是关闭这个漏洞，或者决定在第135部分（在那里有这么多人）的情况下，飞行员应该达到一定的飞行培训标准。而且就JetSuite X而言，他们报告了他们机长平均8000小时的飞行时间。所以那是比规定的副机长平均3000小时多出了5倍以上。那为什么不将飞行时间增加到500或1000小时，或者只是让每个人达到15小时呢，或者就像你说的，去找FAA说：“看，我们将继续执行第135部分的飞行。但这是我们的承诺，我们绝不会雇佣低于1500小时飞行时间阈值的飞行员”，等等。有各种各样的解决方法可以绕过这个问题。
But I do think it's important to acknowledge that they're basically running a United. Yes. They're pretending that it's a private plane. And I think that they're all. It's a mini United. Yeah, it's a mini United. Yeah, somewhere between the two. No, because United runs those regional legs as well. Yes. In equivalent size planes. So I do think it should exist. I just think that it should exist on a relatively level playing field. I don't want somebody else to use a loophole. So I would not want them to use a loophole either. Part 135 exists. I'm actually in agreement to take a private plane in charge of it, not to run an airline.
但我确实认为承认他们实际上是在运营一家航空公司是很重要的。是的，他们假装这是一架私人飞机。我认为它们都是一家迷你版的航空公司。是的，一家迷你版的航空公司。是的，介于两者之间。不，因为联合航空也经营这些地区航线。是的。我确实认为它应该存在。我只是觉得它应该在相对公平的竞争环境中存在。我不希望其他人利用漏洞。所以我也不希望他们利用漏洞。135条例确实存在。我实际上赞成由私人飞机负责，而不是运营一家航空公司。
All right, everybody. This has been another amazing episode of the all in podcast. Thank you to from his fear of influence, David Freiberg, the Sultan of science and the rain man himself. Hot water burn, baby. David Sachs and the dictator himself, Maf poly hump it. Love you, boys. Hi, yep. The world's greatest moderator. And we'll see you next time. Bye. Bye. Bye. Let your winners ride. Right. Rain man, David Sachs. And it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy. Love you, guys. I'm the queen of kinwah. I'm going home. I'm going home. I'm going home.
好的，大家。这是另一期精彩绝伦的“全员参与播客”节目。感谢来自他的恐惧之源，David Freiberg，科学苏丹和雨人本人。烫水会烧伤，宝贝。David Sachs和独裁者Maf poly hump it。爱你们，伙计们。嗨，没错。世界上最棒的主持人。我们下次再见。再见。再见。让你的胜利者飞翔。没错，雨人David Sachs。据说我们将其开源给粉丝们，他们简直疯了。爱你们，伙计们。我是金华女王。我要回家了。我要回家了。我要回家了。
What? What? You're going to fly. Besties are gone. I'm going to go first. That's my dog taking a mission. Drive away. Set. I'm going home. Oh, man. My ambitage will meet me at once. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just like this like sexual tension that they just need to release. I'm going home.
什么？什么？你要飞了。最好的朋友们都走了。我要先走。那是我的狗去执行任务。开车离开。就这样。我要回家了。哦，天啊。我的理想对象立刻就会遇到我。我们都应该找个地方，大家一起玩个大型聚会，因为他们之间有这种性紧张气氛，需要释放出来。我要回家了。
What? You're the bee. What? You're a bee. You're a bee. Bee. What? We need to get merges. I'm going home. I'm going home. I'm going home. I'm going home.
什么？你是蜜蜂。什么？你是一只蜜蜂。你是一只蜜蜂。蜜蜂。什么？我们需要找到融合点。我要回家了。我要回家了。我要回家了。我要回家了。