E162: Live from Davos! Milei goes viral, Adam Neumann's headwinds, streaming's broken model & more
发布时间 2024-01-19 22:17:15 来源
Alright everybody welcome to the fifty fourth annual world economic form here in davos you guys didn't know this but as elites ourselves we were invited to kick off the festivities surplus of the you know the all in podcast very popular. And so they wanted us to come and represent the pot in our audience there. And it's been amazing if you haven't seen some of the great musical performances this year i mean they're so notable.
大家好，欢迎来到第54届达沃斯世界经济论坛。大家可能不知道，作为我们这些精英的一员，我们被邀请来开启这个盛会。你知道我们很受欢迎的播客“全纳客”的节目超出了预期，所以他们希望我们代表节目和听众出席。这一切都非常不可思议，如果你还没看到今年一些精彩的音乐表演，那真是一大遗憾。
Let's just start off here i mean guys we were here for this live. So get in i mean on the replay. It's so good there's the air flu. Wait wait this is a great moment where she really starts by. Wait for the head shake. I brass regret the head shake comes in about there there it is. I like your mumu i like her mumu. Have you ever played the air flute or just a skin flute? Just a skin flute.
我们就从这里开始吧，我是说，伙计们，我们是为了这个直播而来的。所以快进来，我是说快进入回放。这太棒了，有点像空气笛子。等等，这是一个很棒的时刻，她真的开始了。等待头部摇晃。我真后悔头部摇晃发生在那个地方，就在那里。我喜欢你的mumu，我喜欢她的mumu。你玩过空气笛子吗，还是只玩过皮笛？只玩过皮笛。
But guys guys this isn't it there were other there was a witch doctor or something i'm not sure exactly what's going on here i'm going to just apologize in advance for mocking this. Or for sex mocking. This was incredible. I don't know exactly what's going on here with the blowing of the hair. But it was a long way from that for sure. So they're blowing the covid on each person's forehead here to spread the code. They've all taken the mrna vaccine but you know we each have a speaking gig each of us is speaking and so i thought to kick this off here gentlemen instead of us just telling everybody our schedule i would sing our schedule. And so let me just grab a let me see if i got my guitar here hold on. Just grab it here oh here it is okay hold on it's happened to have the guitar guitar or real guitar oh no real guitar so but i thought you know everybody is really excited about each of our speaking gigs so i thought we would just kick it off here let me just see if it's in tune. You guys hear that. Oh okay. Why was that i think we got it. My lord. Sax is interviewing Putin my lord a kumbaya. In the dictator lounge at noon a kumbaya. Conquering your up kumbaya. And now i'm going to do a little audience participation here besties. I need you each to sing with me. Okay it's we're going to start here it's going to be just listen one time and then you're going to repeat okay here we go. So just oh Davos kumbaya ready three two oh. Okay very good very good okay now go to the next verse here. Yeah. Hosting Steve Bannon at one p.m. a kumbaya. Freeburg's at two p.m. a kumbaya. Billionaire Bunker panel a kumbaya. Oh. At teal just bought one kumbaya. Hunter Biden after party at one a.m. Eight balls and escorts for everyone brought to you by barisima. That's for you sax. And now you all sing. Oh Davos kumbaya. Wow fabulous. You really are the world's greatest moderator. Let your winner ride. Rainman David Satsan. And as said we open source it to the fans and they've discovered the reason. I'm going all the way.
但伙计们，这还不是全部，还有其他的，还有一个巫医之类的，我不确定具体发生了什么，我要提前向这个嘲弄道歉。嘲笑性的嘲弄。这太不可思议了。我不清楚头发被吹飞是怎么回事，但它肯定与那个相去甚远。所以他们正在将新冠病毒吹到每个人的额头上，传播这种感染。他们都接种了mRNA疫苗，但你知道，我们每个人都有演讲，所以我想在这里开始，各位绅士，我们不仅要告诉大家我们的日程安排，我打算用歌曲来表达我们的日程安排。所以让我拿一下吉他，看看我有没有带上，等一下。就抓一下在这儿，噢，在这里，好，等一下，恰好有吉他，真的吉他，噢不，是真的吉他，所以我想，你们知道，每个人都对我们的演讲非常兴奋，所以我想在这里开始，让我看看它是否调好音。你们听见了吗？噢，好的。为什么呢？我觉得我们做到了。我的上帝。萨克斯在采访普京，我的上帝，一起在独裁者休息室唱《和谐》吧，中午的《和谐》。征服你的《和谐》。现在我要请大家参与一下，亲爱的朋友们，我需要你们一起唱。好的，我们要从这里开始，听一次，然后重复唱，好吗？我们开始了，准备好了，三，两，噢。好的，非常好，好了，接着唱下一节。是的。1点钟接待史蒂夫·班农，《和谐》。2点钟接待弗里伯格，《和谐》。亿万富翁庇护所讨论会，《和谐》。哦，在Teal刚买了一件，《和谐》。亨特·拜登的欢迎晚会在凌晨1点，给每个人都带来可卡因和陪伴女郎，由巴里西马赞助。这是给你的，萨克斯。现在你们都一起唱，哦，达沃斯，《和谐》。哇，太棒了。你真是世界上最伟大的主持人。进一步行动吧，Rainman 大卫·萨特森。正如我所说，我们将其开源给粉丝们，他们已经找到了我全程参与的原因。
All right everybody yes the world economic forum is wrapping up in Davos. If you don't know what the WEF is I'll just give you the brief overview. 3000 people five days tons of parties happens in Davos Switzerland. It's run by a foundation. They call these non-government organizations NGOs. I can think of it kind of like the TED conference topic this year was rebuilding trust. It's politicians business leaders economists journalists all the elites. The mission statement of the WF improving the state of the world by engaging business political academic and other leaders of society to shape global regional and industry agendas it's a money printing machine. I'll give you a funny backstory later if you care to know but basically they try to shake it down for about 40 grand a year to go to this thing.
好，大家，是的，世界经济论坛在达沃斯即将收官。如果你不知道世界经济论坛是什么，我给你简单概述一下。3000人，五天时间，很多派对举办在瑞士的达沃斯。这是一个由一个基金会运营的活动。他们把这些称为非政府组织（NGOs）。你可以把它想象成TED大会，今年的主题是重建信任。这个论坛汇集了政治家、商界领袖、经济学家和记者等精英人士。世界经济论坛的使命是通过吸引商界、政界、学术界和其他社会领袖参与，塑造全球、区域和行业的议程，来改善世界的状况。这个活动简直是一个印钞机。如果你感兴趣，稍后我会给你一个有趣的背景故事。
(Note: The translation attempts to convey the meaning in a more readable manner while maintaining the essence of the original text.)
Tons of notable moments that we can get to on the docket here. Free break any highlights for you watching this you know get mocked on social media.
这里有很多值得注意的时刻，我们将在日程上讨论到。当你看到这些时刻被社交媒体嘲笑时，你知道有没有什么特别精彩的瞬间可以分享？
The shear it's it's been a slow unraveling from this being something that people used to flex about going to Davos. Now people are literally apologizing on social media X Twitter etc.
这是一个逐渐变得缓慢而显而易见的事情，人们不再因参加达沃斯论坛而引以为豪。现在，人们甚至在社交媒体上如推特等平台上公开道歉。
Explaining why they're going because they're kind of feeling shame and going to this event. So what are your thoughts on the sort of whole flipping of this from being a flex to requiring an apology in advance.
解释他们为什么要去，是因为他们有点感到羞耻，所以才去参加这个活动。那么，你对这个事件从一开始是炫耀到现在需要提前道歉的转变有什么看法呢？
You guys know Andrew Ross Sorkin the journalist for CNBC. I think he posted on Twitter you know I know I know forgive me I got to go to Davos. It's almost like embarrassing now that you are associating yourself with the elite cabal in the Swiss Alps during a time of rising global populism and all the criticism that's been rained down on Davos in the last couple of years and then Davos is trying to adapt by trying to be more cool and appeal to the the populace notions that have criticized them. Thus the flute playing thus the shamanism you know and and thus I think a lot of what Javier Millet has called a general economic support for what he defines as collectivism which I'd love to talk about but why don't we just say that.
你们知道CNBC的记者安德鲁·罗斯·索尔金吗？我觉得他在推特上发了条推，你懂的，我懂得。抱歉，我得去达沃斯（世界经济论坛）了，现在你与那些在瑞士阿尔卑斯山区的精英集团联系在一起，好像有点让人尴尬，特别是在全球民粹主义兴起以及近几年对达沃斯的批评声浪之中。达沃斯一直在试图改变以迎合那些批评它们的大众观点，因此有了笛子演奏，有了萨满教信仰等等。我认为哈维尔·米勒称之为对“集体主义”的普遍经济支持，我很想谈谈这个，但为什么我们不这么说呢？
So I think yeah there's generally been like a response from the community that attends Davos but there's a lot of conflict here with the fact that folks are flying in on private jets and telling everyone to stop producing carbon the fact that they're all dining and spending lots of money and telling everyone that we should move to more towards socialist conditions and higher taxation it's all a lot of irony wound up in this whole thing. It's almost like a like a like a Simpsons show it's what it's become.
所以我认为，参加达沃斯论坛的社群总体上对此作出了回应，但现实情况与之相冲突。那些乘坐私人飞机而告诉大家停止碳排放的人，他们在用餐和花费大量金钱的同时，却告诉大家我们应该朝社会主义条件和更高税收的方向发展。这些都是种种讽刺聚集在一起的表现。它几乎就像一场《辛普森一家》的节目，这就是它所变成的样子。
Well and the theme rebuilding trust is kind of insulting at its face at least to me like we don't trust you you don't need to rebuild trust with us we're not going to trust you there's no way for you to do that especially after what happened with covid. Saxid you have any sort of reaction to this year's Davos and just how people are reacting to it. You heard Freiburg sort of thoughts on it.
嗯，重建信任这个主题在某种程度上对我来说有点侮辱性，就好像我们不相信你，你不需要与我们重建信任，我们不会相信你，尤其是在发生了疫情之后，你根本无法做到这一点。Saxid，你对今年达沃斯论坛有什么反应？以及人们对此的反应如何？你听到了Freiburg对此的想法。
Well Davos has become a parody of itself and that's why you saw these clips go viral of these ridiculous antics of the priestess doing I don't know what she was doing but the only two sets of marks that actually were taken seriously on their own terms was the speech by Malay from Argentina and then also comments by Jamie Dimon and the reason why they went viral is because they were actually saying sensible things that contradicted the sort of established wisdom or consensus at Davos I mean they were effectively sub tweeting the other elites at Davos I mean Malay gets up there and I think he's introduced by Klaus Schwab and he immediately starts denouncing collectivist experiments and says that the West is in danger because its elites have been co-opted by a vision of the world which leads inexorably to socialism and thereby to poverty so Malay basically says this right in front of Klaus Schwab I mean he's describing the the people at Davos that's why that took off and went viral it was incredible.
达沃斯已经变成了自嘲的一种模式，这就是为什么你看到这些剪辑广为传播，这些剪辑展示了荒谬的仪式，表现出了牧师在做什么，我不知道她在做什么，但唯一两段真正被认真对待的演讲是来自阿根廷的马来和杰米·戴蒙的评论，之所以这些视频广为传播，是因为他们说出了明智的话，与达沃斯的既定智慧或共识相矛盾。换句话说，他们实际上在暗示达沃斯的其他精英。我是说，马来站起来，我想他是由克劳斯·舒瓦布引荐的，他立即开始谴责集体主义实验，并表示西方正处于危险之中，因为其精英已被一个导致不可避免的社会主义和贫困的世界观所接管。马来就是在克劳斯·舒瓦布面前说这番话，我是说，他在描述达沃斯的那些人，这就是为什么事情会变得火爆并传播得如此广泛，真是太不可思议了。
I mean yeah in a similar way any flew their commercial I didn't know that yeah it could us to him. Jamie Dimon gave this interview I think it was on CNBC where he basically went full chamat you know he basically admitted that Trump had been right and that you know a lot of the criticism of Trump and all the derogatory comments for years were basically just lazy and he said that you know Trump was largely right on NATO on immigration on tax reform he grew the economy immigration immigration he was mostly right on China he said Diamond said he didn't always like how Trump said things or talked about people but he said his policies were largely sound and only look better in time since we've abandoned them and and he's basically saying that you know look at where we are right now and he questioned the kind of everything is hunky dory narrative that the Biden campaign is pushing out so he really went off script there and like I said I think Chamat said it first here on this pot three months ago and now Jamie Diamond is accepting that so that was a huge sub tweet you could say of all the elites of Davos and the accepted wisdom and you know the narrative that they're all pushing out so you know that was the other big interview that went viral and I think that's really saying something that you know that the elites now have parodied themselves to the point where Davos has become a joke and the only talks or remarks out of Davos that people pay attention to are the ones talking sense to the people at Davos because they're not listening. Chamat here that's look everything has a season and I think that when there was a much more singular hierarchy of status Davos played a very important role to signal to other people that you had made it but you know these things come and go and I think that this is sort of in the the back half of its usefulness and half life what is it probably more than anything else now a glorified enterprise software sales conference where the reason to go to these conferences for a lot of these companies I suspect is that it allows you to close very big deals multi-million dollar licenses of this that and the other thing where you can get the leaders of that counterparty across the table from you and hammer out a deal and I think you pay 40 grand a ticket for the right to get everybody together to do that.
我的意思是是的，在某种程度上，任何人都可以坐商业航班飞行。我不知道那会对他有什么影响。杰米·戴蒙（Jamie Dimon）在接受采访时，我想是在CNBC上，他基本上做出了充满自信的表态，你知道，他基本上承认特朗普是对的，而且多年来对特朗普的大部分批评和贬低的言论实际上只是懒散。他说，特朗普在北约、移民、税改以及促进经济增长方面在很大程度上是对的，他对移民也基本上是对的，他对中国的看法也基本上是对的。戴蒙说，他并不总是喜欢特朗普的措辞或是对人的说法，但他说特朗普的政策在很大程度上是明智的，而且时间推移后这些政策只会变得更好，因为我们已经放弃了它们。他基本上在说，看看我们现在所处的位置，他对拜登竞选团队所传达的一切都产生了质疑，他真的离开了剧本。我想Chamat在三个月前就在这个节目中第一个说过这个观点，现在杰米·戴蒙也接受了这一观点，所以这在某种程度上可以说是对达沃斯精英群体的大量暗示和接受智慧以及他们所推动的叙述成为笑话的回应。你知道，这是另一个引起轰动的重要采访，我认为这真的很重要，因为它表明精英们已经把自己变得荒谬可笑，达沃斯已经变成了一个笑话，人们关注的只有那些在达沃斯对精英群体说真话的人，因为他们并没有在倾听。Chamat在这里说，一切都有它的季节，我认为当权力地位有更加明确的等级制度时，达沃斯扮演了非常重要的角色，向其他人传达你已经成功的信息。但是，这些事情来来去去，我认为它现在处于其有用性和半衰期的后半段，它现在可能更像是一个过度吹嘘的企业软件销售会议，许多公司出席这些会议的原因可能是为了能够达成大笔交易，比如签署数百万美元的许可协议等等，这样你就可以与对方领导人坐在一起商谈交易，而你需要支付4万美元的门票费用来把每个人聚在一起做这件事。
So I think they want to pretend that it's a lot more than what it is and I think what it is is that and I think whenever you have the ability to convene people to close business that's valuable beyond that I think it's sort of in the eye of the beholder and it used to be that the beholder thought that this was important and now I think we realize it's much of nothing it's shame in and air flutes and all kinds of stupidity which is why people have the courage to go and mock it and I think that Malay's comments and Jamie Diamond's comments exemplify that. The only other thing I would say is that I had heard although I haven't seen it so I don't know because Alex Carp apparently did a very thoughtful speech about anti-Semitism. and which was also which was also very counter-cultural to the established logic that the surplus elites at Davos want to believe which is the anti-Israel propallestine line. I haven't heard of those so I don't know how impactful that was but those are the three things that I've just seen on Twitter just kind of telling.
所以我认为他们想要假装这比实际重要得多，而我认为实际上仅仅是这样，而且我认为每当你有能力召集人们来达成交易时，其价值远远超出这些。我认为这是因人而异，过去人们认为这很重要，现在我们意识到它几乎没有任何意义，只是一种可耻的虚荣而已，充满无聊和愚蠢。这也是人们有勇气去嘲笑它的原因，我认为马来的评论和杰米·戴蒙的评论就是这样的例证。唯一还想说的是，尽管我没有看到，但我听说亚历克斯·卡普（Alex Carp）关于反犹主义发表了一篇非常有深度的演讲，这也完全与达沃斯那些奢侈者们想要相信的反以色列、支持巴勒斯坦的观点背道而驰。我没有听说过这些，所以不知道它们有多大的影响力，但这是我刚刚在Twitter上看到的三件事，简直让人感慨万分。
The Malay speech I think is the one that everybody is keying on and correctly so you know obviously he's the he's the new president of Argentina and this speech was amazing. People might not, people might not also know that he was an economics teacher and so this talk about collectivism leading to suffering and regulatory capture and bloat which we'll talk a little bit about when we talk about Boeing today was incredibly powerful. It's super basic, you know, listen free markets work, there are people opting into either side of it. He went over essentially without saying it the rule of 72 and like 200 years of GDP growth and how GDP growth under capitalism rises everybody up and then collectivism aka socialism is a bit of a disaster but it's well worth watching it. There was a really cool thing that a company called Heijen did HEY-G-E-N with their AI tool they just immediately took his speech, put it in his own words and published it and translated it as if he was speaking English because he was speaking in this native tongue so really worth checking it out and yeah it was super notable.
我认为马来语演讲就是大家关注的一个，确实是这样的，显然他是阿根廷的新总统，这次演讲非常出色。也许有人不知道，他曾是一位经济学教师，所以他关于集体主义导致苦难、监管困境和过剩的讲话非常有力。他表达了超级基本的观点，就是自由市场有效运作，人们可以选择加入其中。他讲述了基本上没有明说的72法则和200年的GDP增长，以及在资本主义下，GDP增长使每个人都有进步，而集体主义（也就是社会主义）则是一场灾难，值得一看。有一家叫Heijen的公司用他们的人工智能工具，立刻将他的演讲转化成他自己的词汇，并且翻译成英语，因为他是用他的母语演讲的，所以非常值得一看，确实引人注目。
It's very basic but I think I think it's everybody wants to hear this right now which is if you're picking collectivism and socialism and redistribution of wealth Argentina has like a really good history of watching this fail and now they're in the process of dismantling it. I don't say something else before Freeberg says something here which I think is going to be very thoughtful.
这段话内容很基础，但我认为现在每个人都希望听到这个，就是如果你选择集体主义、社会主义和财富再分配，阿根廷有一个非常好的历史教训可以看到这种做法的失败，而现在他们正在逐步摒弃这种体制。在我之前还没有别的话要说，之后Freeberg要说的话我认为会非常有思想性。
Jason, the other reason why Argentina is a really good example to use is that what does Davos represent at a different level? Well what it is is old Europe getting together in a way that allows them to continue to coalesce power and what's interesting is if you had presented the case of any other country trying collectivism and failing it wouldn't get nearly the same attention as Argentina and the reason is that Argentina has so many ethnic Europeans and I think that's another reason which is like when you present people that are telling you it didn't work that frankly look like you speak the same language as you I think it actually goes further in making the point than if you found somebody in South Asia or Africa that said the same thing to these folks which they have which they've not listened to and so this is why I think Malay is so interesting and important because he looks the part of a Western leader and I think that that unfortunately is what it's going to take for some of these folks to listen.
杰森，阐述阿根廷是个很好的例子的另一个原因是，达沃斯在不同层面上代表了什么？嗯，它实际上代表了旧欧洲以一种让他们继续集中权力的方式聚在一起。有趣的是，如果你提出了任何其他国家尝试集体主义但失败的案例，它不会像阿根廷那样引起这么大的关注，原因是阿根廷有很多欧洲血统。我认为这是另一个原因，即当你向与你看起来相似、说着相同语言的人展示那些告诉你不起作用的人时，这实际上比你找到一个在南亚或非洲说同样话的人对这些人有更大的说服力，尽管他们曾经遇到过这样的人，但他们并没有倾听。所以这就是为什么我认为马来西亚如此有趣和重要的原因，因为他看起来像一个西方领导人的模样。而不幸的是，我认为某些人要倾听，可能就需要这个条件。
Yeah and everyone's acutely aware I mean I'll say three things on this one is just talking to your point some off about the history of Argentina and how it relates to this position that Malay holds in being able to speak credibly to this second is what he said which I think is really important and third is how it relates to the United States but this was clearly to my from my view one of the most important media events of the year I do think that anyone that's listening to us right now should go watch it and go listen to the entirety of the speech it is so important I hope everyone really takes in what he said
是的，每个人都非常清楚。我会在这里说三件事情，第一是关于阿根廷历史以及它与马来在能够具有可信度地发表意见方面的关系，第二是他说的话，我认为这非常重要，第三是它与美国的关系。从我的观点来看，这绝对是今年最重要的媒体事件之一。我确实认为，现在正在听我们讲话的任何人都应该去观看并听完整个演讲，因为它非常重要。希望每个人都能真正理解他所说的内容。
just briefly on Argentina in the mid 19th century Argentina was a colonial nation very agricultural but a lot of free market pioneers in going on businesses were built and an economy flourished in Argentina. This photo I put up here is from 1913 Buenos Aires which at the time was called Paris of the West. That's what I say it looks like Paris right the architecture and everything's beautiful and stunning but here's some statistics a lot of people don't know Argentina at this time was wealthier than France or Germany twice as wealthy as Spain and had one of the top 10 highest GDP per capita of any nation on earth in 1913 and so it was this flourishing vibrant economy with a lot of innovation a lot of arts a lot of building a lot of employment a lot of immigration and then as the series of military coups began. I don't know if you guys are aware but there was a military coup 1930 1943 1955 1962 1966 1976 and in every one of these cases the essence of the coup was one of relativism which is some people have benefited more than others as a result we need to change the way that the government and the social structure is functioning and it has to be taken by force and I think this is the big story of Argentina that says so much more than any other nation of the past century century and a half which is that these cycles happen based on not absolutism but on relativism and I'll just give you what I mean by that.
在19世纪中叶，阿根廷是一个农业国家，但也有很多自由市场的先驱者从事商业，经济在阿根廷蓬勃发展。我在这里贴出的照片是1913年的布宜诺斯艾利斯，那个时候被称为西方的巴黎。你们看它是不是像巴黎？建筑风格很美丽迷人。但是这里有一些人们不知道的统计数据，阿根廷在这个时候比法国或德国富有，是西班牙的两倍富有，1913年阿根廷的人均国内生产总值居全球前十位之一。所以当时阿根廷是一个蓬勃发展的经济体，充满创新、艺术、建设、就业和移民，然后连续发生了一系列的军事政变。我不知道你们是否知道，在1930年、1943年、1955年、1962年、1966年和1976年阿根廷发生了军事政变。每一次政变的核心思想都是相对主义，即有些人受益更多，因此我们需要改变政府和社会结构的运行方式，并用武力来实施。我认为这是阿根廷的重要故事，比过去一个多世纪中的任何其他国家都更能说明问题，即这些周期的发生不是基于绝对主义，而是基于相对主义。我会给你们一个具体的例子来解释一下我的意思。
Millet made this point which is so important from the year 1800 to the year 2020 in the year 1800 we saw 95 percent of the world's population in extreme poverty by 2020 it was less than five percent and this was driven by free market capitalism democracies that allowed people individuals to pursue their own self interest and as a result deliver products into a marketplace that people wanted and were willing to pay for and that incentive that market-based system allowed the entire world to move forward
小米（Millet）在1800年至2020年期间都非常重要地提出了这一观点。在1800年，世界上95%的人口处于极度贫困状态，到了2020年，这个比例已经降低到不足5%。这种变化是由自由市场资本主义和允许个人追求自身利益的民主制度推动的，这使得人们可以提供市场需要并愿意付费的产品，并通过这种市场动力促进了整个世界的前进。
the relativism problem is that some people move forward faster than others and that causes this great cycle of what some people might call envy or jealousy and Millet said it best the west is in jeopardy which is the key statement he was trying to make in his point that countries are no longer defending free markets this is a quote private property and other institutions of libertarianism due to errors in their theoretical framework and ambition for power opening doors to socialism and condemning us to poverty misery and stagnation socialism has failed in all countries where it was attempted
相对主义问题在于，有些人进步比其他人快，这造成了一种被一些人称为嫉妒或羡慕的巨大循环。米勒特别好地表达了这一点，即西方正面临危险。这是他试图表达的关键观点，即各国不再捍卫自由市场、私有财产和其他自由主义机构，这是由于他们的理论框架和权力野心的错误，为社会主义敞开了大门，将我们置于贫困、苦难和停滞之中。在尝试过社会主义的所有国家都失败了。
and then he started to harp on about neoclassical economic theory and the issues with that but I want to show you one last image which speaks so clearly to the point that he's making which is as these governments that are well intentioned and the people that elect the governments and put them in power are well intentioned then try to redistribute wealth by getting the governments to step in and play a market role the market role that they play causes inflation causes degradation and economic opportunity economic mobility and prosperity for most people
然后他开始唠叨新古典经济理论及其问题，但我想向你展示最后一幅图像，它清晰地说明了他的观点，即当这些怀有善意的政府以及选举和扶持这些政府的人们试图通过政府的介入来重新分配财富时，他们所扮演的市场角色会导致通货膨胀、经济机会和经济流动性的退化，以及大多数人的繁荣。
and you can see this in this chart which we've looked at many times but everything on the top of this chart this is a chart that shows the 20 years of price change as of various goods and services in the United States everything that's gone up in price is something that the US government has a role in buying or paying for yeah controlling yeah and everything that's gone down in price is where there is a free market that has allowed people to access goods and services at a lower price over time as opposed to a higher price over time and while the intention is that the government is doing good for people by making education health care and other goods and services available to them the government stepping in and intervening in the free market causes the price to go up and ultimately you end up in a really negative cycle that resolves in this collectivism approach that he's talking about
这个图表显示了20年来美国各种商品和服务的价格变化，我们已经多次研究过。这个图表顶部所显示的一切，都是美国政府在购买或支付方面扮演的角色，也就是说，在价格上涨的所有物品中，都是美国政府有所介入的。而价格下降的一切，则是由于自由市场允许人们以更低廉的价格逐渐获得商品和服务。虽然政府的意图是通过提供教育、医疗保健等商品和服务来造福人民，但政府介入自由市场却导致价格上涨，最终导致一种消极循环，而这正是他所谈到的集体主义方法所解决的问题。
and that's why I just wanted to tie back what he said to what's going on in the US today and the and I just harped on this a lot but the growing role that the federal government is playing and the intention is good but the impact is bad over time and that's really I think why it was such an important speech he was so clear it was so important for me to hear it I'm sorry I harped on but I just really know it's the key of his speeches hey good intentions can lead to a bad outcome here yeah you want everybody to have health care you want everybody to have education the government is providing it and there's no customer and there's no market there's no competition
这就是为什么我想把他说的与当今美国的情况联系起来，我一直强调的就是联邦政府在发挥日益增长的作用，这是出于好意，但长期来看却产生了不好的影响，这也是为什么他的演讲如此重要的原因，他表述得非常清晰，我很重视听到他的讲话，很抱歉我一直强调这一点，但我真的知道这是他演讲的关键，好意可能导致不良结果，是的，你希望每个人都有医疗保健，你希望每个人都能接受教育，政府为此提供了服务，但却缺乏顾客和市场竞争。
and the products and services that you are referring to they include medicine they include college they include tutoring they they don't just include and they include air conditioning they include refrigerators and televisions smartphones all of that and picking which system and which set of problems you want to have I guess is what societies need to do and free markets it's a weird reflexive loop though for governments because these people what he also said was these aren't just well-intentioned people they're also a small class of elites that wanted to feel like they were better than everybody else
翻译成中文，表达意思，尽量易读：
你所提到的产品和服务包括药物、大学教育、辅导等，它们不仅仅包括这些，还包括空调、冰箱、电视、智能手机等等。选择哪种体制和一套困难是社会需要做的，而自由市场对政府来说则是一种奇怪的反身循环。却因为这些人，他还说这些人不只是出于善意，他们也是一小部分精英阶级，想要让自己感觉比其他人更优越。
by implementing things at work and so there is a dark part of this as well which is their desire for power and I think it's important to not gloss that over so this wasn't just a bunch of bumbling do-gooders that screwed things up this was also a bunch of folks that that irrespective of the data had an opportunity to gain influence and power and I think that that's that's an important thing to acknowledge because it created a very negative reflexive loop that governments used meaning if you look at free brooks charts why did that happen well part of what happened was the administrative state became more and more powerful they were able to pass laws they were there to decide who the winners and losers were that is a drug and that drug is very addictive and so what happened as this happened was the laws went and reinforced those dynamics of those people being able to decide winners and losers
通过在工作中实施事物，因此也存在一个阴暗的部分，那就是他们对权力的渴望。我认为重要的是不要掩盖这一点，所以这不仅仅是一群搞砸了事情的好心人，也是一群不顾数据的人有机会获得影响力和权力。我认为这一点很重要，因为它创建了一个非常消极的循环，政府也利用了这一点，也就是如果你看看自由市场的图表，为什么会发生这种情况？发生的一部分原因是行政国家变得越来越强大，他们能够通过法律决定谁是赢家和输家，这是一种药物，而且这种药物非常容易产生依赖。因此，随着这种情况发生，法律加强了那些人能够决定赢家和输家的动力的这种动力。
The thing that it has that has not happened yet though and maybe we're beginning to see it in some of these markets that the government is too involved in is that it is bred a level of incompetence and incapability that we now have to unwind because the average. everyday citizens lives are either at risk or these services are just so expensive that it's just untenable and I think that's where we are now it's a great segue I think into this bowing issue that we've seen because here's an issue of regulation and safety where you want the government and you want safe planes and you want some level of regulation but then you get regulatory capture so maybe but the government the government has not been the supporter of the safety agenda that citizens think yes meaning when you look at what has happened in the u.s. airline industry there are a handful of end user providers but those are all using OEM equipment from one of two vendors bowing or Airbus so it's a duopoly but in many ways it's a monopoly the way that these folks fight with perspective tariffs and imports and incentives so the United States airline industry is a monopoly of one company now if you look at what's happened what they would say is what planes have become safer and safer and safer yes but they've become safer in some ways in in the most simple and obvious ways but they've become unsafe in that you have these fleets of planes that are now behaving very unpredictably and if you look under the hood what happens is bowing as an example and like the last four years how much money do you think they've spent on lobbyists and packs i'll tell you sixty five million dollars how much have they spent just in the last year almost eleven million dollars they're like the 15th most active spender in in politics in washington now what did they use that money for while that's also documented see the crazy thing is this stuff happens in plane in plain sight so they were able to water down the safety regulations what does that allow you to do it allows you to have a situation like this unfold and then on the other side the pilots unions can lobby those same politicians who are taking money from bowing and prevent systems that would actually make these planes safer you can have more improvements in the guide by wire technology you can have more improvements in gps you can have more improvements in a computer's ability to help improve and augment the capability of the pilot unfortunately that would result either in fewer pilots or less pay and so that doesn't happen nearly as fast and obviously as it should it's the same for air traffic control and all of these issues build up because we've allowed monopolies to build up so as much as we think we are a capitalist society we have veered into this collectivism in certain markets and where it's measurable and obvious we need to point at it and say let's go fix yeah
这件事是至今尚未发生的，尽管我们可能在一些政府过度介入的市场中开始看到它，这是由于衍生出了一种无能和无能力的水平，我们现在不得不解决，因为普通市民的生活要么面临风险，要么这些服务价格昂贵到无法承受的程度。我认为这正是我们现在所处的位置，这是一个很好的过渡，我认为与我们所见过的波音问题有关，因为这是一个关于监管和安全的问题，你希望政府和平安的飞机以及一定程度的监管，但是却存在监管机构受控的问题，可能政府并没有支持公众所认为的安全议程的意思。当你看看美国航空业所发生的事情时，有几家最终用户供应商，但他们都使用来自波音或空客这两个供应商之一的原始设备制造商的设备，所以虽然是双头垄断，但在很多方面是垄断，这些人以关税和进口以及激励为手段进行争斗，所以美国航空业就变成了一家公司的垄断。现在看看发生了什么，他们会说飞机变得越来越安全了，是的，但从某些方面来说，它们确实变得更安全了，在最简单和明显的方式上变得更安全了，但它们也变得更不安全了，现在你有一些行为非常不可预测的机队，如果你深入了解，会发现波音在过去的四年里，例如，他们花了多少钱请说客和政治行动委员会，我告诉你六千五百万美元，他们在过去一年里花了多少钱，接近一千一百万美元，他们是在华盛顿政界最活跃的前十五个花钱最多的公司。那他们用这笔钱做了什么，这也是有记录的，疯狂的事情是这些事情在大白天发生，所以他们得以削弱安全法规，这允许你出现这样的情况，然后在另一方面，飞行员工会可以游说那些从波音那里接受钱财的政客们，阻止那些真正能够使这些飞机更安全的系统，你可以在电脑的导航技术上做更多的改进，你可以在GPS上做更多的改进，你可以在计算机提供的帮助和增强飞行员能力方面做更多的改进，不幸的是，这将导致飞行员数量减少或工资减少，因此这个过程不会像应该那样迅速而明显地进行。对于空中交通管制和所有这些问题也是一样，因为我们允许垄断地位的形成，所以尽管我们认为自己是一个资本主义社会，但在某些市场上，我们偏离了这一点，并且在可度量和明显的领域，我们需要指出并说让我们去解决它。
And this would be a let me just tee up a little bit of what you're referring to in case people don't know but everybody probably saw the news that on January 5th the door blew off of one of these Boeing 737 max jets if you've heard that name before it's because this isn't the first time that the max jets have had problems this plane safely landed thank god and there was nobody sitting in the row with the door blew off and this has to do with some bolts on the doors but this is just the start of problems with the 737 max there's an incredible documentary if you haven't seen it we'll put it in the show notes boings fatal flaw and the version before this the 737 max 9 is one that had the the bolts come off the max 8 if you remember there were two really harrowing instances were tragically 346 people died in these two instances because the plane literally the software on the plane which is called max maneuvering characteristics augmentation system which was designed because they were trying to get more fuel efficiency and they had positioned the engines in a weird way on the wings so they had to kind of help pilots level this stuff into your point about regulatory capture there was all this behind the scenes manipulation of the market to try to get these planes built to try to get them out the door because there was so much money at state
这里我只是稍微提一下你所说的内容，以防有些人不知道，但大家可能都看到了1月5日那个消息，波音737 Max飞机的一个门吹飞了，如果你之前听说过这个名字，是因为这并不是Max飞机第一次出问题。这架飞机幸运地着陆了，谢天谢地，门飞掉的那一排没有人。这与机舱门上的一些螺栓有关，但这只是737 Max飞机问题的开始。如果你还没看过的话，有一部非常出色的纪录片，我们会将它放在节目注释中，叫做《波音的致命缺陷》，在这架飞机之前的那个版本是737 Max 9，这个型号的螺栓脱落，如果你还记得，有两个非常惨痛的事故导致了346人死亡，因为这架飞机实际上在飞机上的软件被称为最大机动特性增强系统，旨在提高燃油效率，而且发动机的位置在机翼上有些奇怪，所以他们必须帮助飞行员调整平衡。关于监管的问题，这在背后进行了一些市场操纵，力图让这些飞机建造并尽快投放市场，因为涉及的利益非常大。
well on these two terrible accidents the plane the nose literally dove and the pilots were fighting it in both cases right they just crashed and everybody on board died and for 20 months the 737 max models were grounded and that cost the company over 21 billion dollars so there is no competition to your point and then in a free market if there were 10 providers would this be much different chamois and absolutely yeah so I think that's what you have to realize here is that these duopoly should think there's competition and a duopoly there is in competition no I mean like for example like if you look at the car market how many instances I think the last big incidents that I remember was I think Ford had an issue with the fuel. tanks of some cars that were exploding right yeah but the reality is when that happens there are alternatives one is that there's legal requirements for Ford to just fix these things quickly there are lawsuits that happened they were class actions there was settlements but there's also the ability for folks that can afford it is just a switch vendor and of which there are 50 other vendors to choose from that as a healthy dynamic so today when you look at the auto market what do you see a plethora of choice and when you see fatalities or safety issues they are overwhelmingly driver air yes and we assume that and we get insurance to deal with that when you look at airplanes you have these three sections of risk that each are compounding because there is no competition number one is that the monopoly vendor has zero pressure to actually test these things adequately because on the other side of building something well is shareholder pressure to deliver something sooner and faster so that they can reap more profits then second is you have a regulatory infrastructure that puts rules on top of rules but then will bend the rules if you donate to them right and that's measured and known and then the third are the folks that actually operate the planes who have this actual incentive to not see technical improvements because it defends their job for longer and in all of these cases there isn't enough competition to shine a light on this to say how does society actually want this market to operate this is collectivism it's not working Freiburg you have thoughts on this Boeing regulatory capture and the issue of only having two vendors they are in the complexity of these machines now in relation to that make you can pull this up this is an audit of the business model for a company called Transtime Group.
就这两起可怕的事故而言，在这两起事故中，飞机的机头直接俯冲，飞行员们都在奋斗，但事故仍然发生了，机上的所有人都丧生。整整20个月，737 Max系列飞机都被停飞，给公司造成了超过210亿美元的损失。所以，正如你所说，在自由市场中，如果有10个供应商，情况会有很大不同。确实如此，这是你必须认识到的，双头垄断应该算是竞争，但在双头垄断中，实际上是没有竞争的。例如，如果看看汽车市场，有多少次类似的事故，我记得最后一次大事故是福特汽车的一些车辆燃油箱有问题，爆炸了。但现实情况是，当这种情况发生时，还有其他选择。首先，福特有法律要求迅速修复这些问题，还有集体诉讼和和解。但也有人可以选择其他供应商，因为还有其他50个供应商可供选择，这种健康的动态就存在了。所以，现在看汽车市场，你看到了什么？多种选择。当你看到事故或者安全问题时，绝大多数都是由驾驶员导致的，我们都有一个共识，并为此购买保险。但是当谈到飞机时，你面临着由三个风险组成的问题，而这些风险相互加剧，因为没有竞争。首先，垄断供应商根本没有压力来充分测试这些设备，因为在研发方面，股东们的压力更多地是为了更早、更快地交付，以获取更多利润。然后，你还有一个监管基础设施，这个基础设施会制定一堆规章制度，但是如果你向他们捐款，他们会放松规定，这是众所周知的。第三，实际操作飞机的人，他们实际上没有动力去改进技术，因为这样可以更长时间地维持他们的工作。在所有这些情况下，竞争不足以在这个领域投射光明，以表明社会实际上希望这个市场如何运作。这是一种集体主义，而不是起作用的自由市场。对此，你对波音的监管控制和只有两个供应商的问题有什么看法？以及机器复杂性方面的问题，你可以看看这个，这是对一个名为Transtime Group公司商业模式的审计报告。
Transtime Group is a aircraft aerospace parts manufacturer they sell certified regulated aircraft parts to aviation companies as well as to airlines private pilots and also the government and they do about seven billion in revenue three and a half billion in EBITDA so JIMOPT here point a couple weeks ago about what's the appropriate competitive EBITDA margin that a company can ultimately achieve their EBITDA margins 53 percent this company better than Facebook insane on seven billion of revenue and growing Nick if you want to pull up their stock chart and you guys can see how the business has performed over the years and their business model has been relatively simple they've acquired aerospace companies got that have certified parts they dropped the cost and raised the price and they do that over and over again and here's the business over the last 10 years this thing is you know roughly 10 bagger eight to 10 bagger in the last 10 years the market cap is 60 billion today no end in sight.
Transtime Group是一家飞机航空零部件制造商，他们向航空公司、航空公司私人飞行员以及政府销售经过认证和监管的飞机零部件。他们的年营业收入约为70亿美元，EBITDA（税息折旧摊销前利润）约为35亿美元。所以，在几周前，JIMOPT谈到了公司最终能够实现的竞争性EBITDA利润率，而该公司的EBITDA利润率为53%，这比Facebook疯狂得多，市值大约为70亿美元，并且还在不断增长。如果你想看一下他们的股票走势图，你就能看到这家企业多年来的表现，他们的商业模式相对简单，他们收购已获认证的航空公司的零部件，降低成本并提高价格，并且一再重复这一过程。在过去的10年里，这个企业的市值大约增长了10倍，今天市值达到600亿美元，没有止境。
and so there was a government audit done of the business by using uncertified cost. data which is one of the most reliable sources of information to perform cost analysis we found the Transtime or excess profit of at least 21 million dollars on 105 spare parts on 150 contracts so they're selling spare parts into the government the government auditor came in audited them and identified because there's no real audit there's no real accountability in government as purchasers but there is regulatory authority on deciding who are the winners and who are the losers in the market transtime has been elected a winner because they have regulatory approval to make and sell these parts the cost to get approval to make and sell these parts is so high that it makes it prohibitive for startups to come in and compete in this marketplace and now that they're a preferred supplier and they get these single contracts where there's no competition to be a supplier they can raise the price every year multiple audit reports over the last 23 years have highlighted the problem of the department of defense paying excess profits on sole source contracts where cost analysis was not used to determine fair and reasonable prices and this problem continues to occur.
因此，政府对该企业进行了审计，使用了未经认证的成本数据，这是最可靠的信息来源之一，用于进行成本分析。我们发现，在150个合同的105个备件上，Transtime至少获得了2100万美元的超额利润。因此，他们将备件销售给政府。政府的审计员进来审计了他们，并发现因为没有真正的审计，政府作为采购者没有真正的问责机制，但对于决定市场上的赢家和输家的监管机构有权力。Transtime被选为赢家，因为他们具有获得制造和销售这些零件的监管批准。获得这些零件的批准的成本非常高，这使得初创公司难以进入市场竞争。现在他们成为了优选供应商，并且在这些单一竞标合同中没有竞争对手，他们每年都可以提高价格。在过去的23年中，多份审计报告都强调了国防部在独家合同中支付超额利润的问题，而没有使用成本分析来确定公平和合理的价格，而这个问题仍然存在。
now I'm not necessarily saying that this is a negative on transtime it's a fantastic business it's well run it's one of the best run public companies with a multi-ten billion dollar market cap in the world but the condition is that the u.s. government comes in and picks and chooses through its regulatory authority which companies can make products the cost to enter and compete becomes prohibitively high and then the company has complete pricing power and there's very little accountability in the overall system and I think that this plays out not just with this company but obviously also with Boeing and the fact that we've narrowed down the competitive market space to just a few sole source providers that have very little accountability and eventually these sorts of conditions arise either prices get too high quality degrades all the other things that natural market forces would keep a check on yeah.
现在我并不是说这对于Transtime来说是负面的，它是一家非常棒的企业，管理良好，是全球市值数百亿美元的最佳上市公司之一。但问题在于美国政府通过其监管权力来挑选公司能够生产产品，进入和竞争的成本变得极高，使得公司完全掌握定价权，整体体系缺乏很少的问责机制。我认为这种情况不仅仅出现在这家公司，而且还影响到波音公司，我们已经将竞争市场空间缩小为只有几家独家供应商，他们几乎没有什么问责制度，最终会导致出现价格过高、质量下降等问题，而这些是市场自然力量通常能够控制的。
In terms of competition, Chemoff, the I guess the only thing you could say is consumers could potentially maybe try to avoid the 737 max. I know I did when all these accidents happen. I just told you know my person who books the flights hey do not put me on a 737 max period full stop. And you know what, you're going to wind up paying a lot more. You're going to have a hard time getting certain routes. You're going to reduce it because you know most airlines, I think, have these 737 maxes in there. So you when you have such a few number of providers, to your point about it's not like cars, it's not fragmented like that, you can't avoid a certain car type, a plane type the way you can avoid a car type.
就竞争而言，肯莫夫（Chemoff），我想唯一可以说的是消费者有可能试图避免737 Max。当发生所有这些事故时，我知道我这样做了。我只是告诉负责订机票的人，绝对不能安排我坐737 Max。而且你知道吗，你最终会付很多钱。你会很难得到特定航线的机票。因为你知道，大多数航空公司都有这些737 Max。所以当你只有很少的供应商时，正如你所说，它不像汽车那样零散，你无法避免某一种特定的汽车或飞机类型，就像你可以避免某一种汽车类型一样。
So just wrapping up your Chemoff, what changes should we see in terms of late stage capitalism, something the example like air travel and manufacturers, is there any way to unwind this reasonably or is it too late because we're at this? To all, I go back to some of the examples that we've made fun of before. You have to rely on the government to actually be competent in key moments in time. I think this is one of them. The organization that could do something about it, for example, take the FTC or even take the DOJ. We are investigating Amazon's purchase of the portable vacuum cleaner Roomba, right? Critically important issue. And that is apparently for the American people higher than the sclerosis that the government has enabled in the airline industry, which affects everybody.
在回顾您的Chemoff时，以晚期资本主义为基础，我们应该看到哪些变化？例如，像航空旅行和制造商这样的例子，我们有没有办法合理地解决这个问题，或者因为我们到了这个阶段而为时已晚？回想一下我们之前嘲笑过的一些例子。你必须依赖政府在关键时刻表现出良好的能力。我认为这就是其中之一。有一个组织可以采取行动，例如联邦贸易委员会（FTC）甚至司法部（DOJ）。我们正在调查亚马逊对便携式吸尘器Roomba的收购，这是一个非常重要的问题。而这明显比政府在航空业中产生的僵化对每个人的影响都更重要。
So could the right government agencies choose to actually focus on something important here and actually figure out why is this happening? Because I think the door plugs issue is endemic of a much bigger problem. This is a company that's rotting because there is no accountability. And the reason there's no accountability is there's no real functional system. Competition and I have not seen any good answer to accountability other than competition. Yeah, I mean the good news is the FAA really took quick action to ground these 171 Boeing 737-9 max airplanes. But they don't, they do not understand the scope of the problem if they let them back in the fleet. And this is happening the bigger picture problem of lack of competition.
那么，正确的政府机构能选择真正关注一些重要问题，并弄清楚为什么会发生这种情况吗？因为我认为门插孔问题是一个更大问题的典型例证。这家公司正在腐败，因为没有问责制。而没有问责制的原因是没有真正的有效体系。在问责制方面，竞争是唯一我见过的好答案。是的，好消息是美国联邦航空局迅速采取行动，将这171架波音737-9 max飞机停飞。但如果他们重新允许这些飞机重新投入使用，他们并不了解问题的范围。而这正是缺乏竞争所导致的更大问题。
Yeah, they're no no no, my, my point is yeah, my point is like you had to adjudicate the interaction of very complicated hardware and software and that first go around here is just a pure systemic hardware failure. So the point is that whether it's them or their suppliers, there's just some complacency that sets in when you know you will always have the business to Friedberg's point. It is a very corrosive thing in running a business, trying to have motivated employees when they know on the back end of it that they could make anything in the world and they'll just be able to sell it to somebody and they'll have to take it.
是的，他们不不不，我的意思是，是的，我的意思是你必须对非常复杂的硬件和软件的相互作用进行裁决，而这一次的失败纯粹是系统性硬件故障。所以关键是，无论是他们还是他们的供应商，在你知道你将永远有业务的时候，就会产生一种自满情绪。这对于经营一家企业来说是非常腐蚀性的事情，在员工知道在这个过程的后端他们可以做出任何东西，并且只需要卖给某人然后就可以接受的情况下，试图拥有积极进取的员工是很困难的。
That's that example that Friedberg just cited, 20 odd million dollars for just random stuff for it, what is it, 15 pieces? That's crazy, that's just straight up theft.
这就是弗里德伯格刚刚引用的那个例子，仅仅为了它，花了二三千万美元，就是为了一些杂七杂八的东西，是15件吧？太疯狂了，简直就是明目张胆的盗窃。
And so. when you have that how do you expect the employees of that organization to give a s*** i don't see how i don't see how you could expect that and so my point is the FAA has a much bigger problem so for example like the d.o.e. has a loan program to try to create a diverse energy infrastructure in the United States maybe we need to look at some of these sectors and instead of building the administrative state take some of that money instead and just create programs to get more competition all right
所以，当你拥有这样的情况时，你怎么能指望这个组织的员工关心呢？我看不懂你怎么能指望那样做，所以我的观点是，联邦航空管理局有一个更大的问题，比如说，像教育部有一个贷款计划，旨在美国建设多样化的能源基础设施。也许我们需要关注一些这样的领域，放弃构建行政体制的成本，转而将一些资金用于创建更多的竞争项目。
in other news Adam Newman you remember from we work infamy slash fame it has a new startup you may have heard of it flow they've raised a ton of money he started buying a bunch of apartment buildings the idea people can rent nice apartments in cool cities that focus more on social interaction and hanging out in common spaces all that great stuff and there's also allegedly or reportedly some sort of rent to own where renters can receive equity in the company over time and i don't think this has ever been released but the idea would be maybe you own shares and flow
在其他新闻中，你可能还记得饱受争议的亚当·纽曼（Adam Newman），他是We Work的创始人之一，现在又有了一家新的创业公司，你可能听说过它，叫做Flow。他们已经筹集了大量资金，开始购买一系列公寓楼。这个想法是让人们在炫酷的城市租用漂亮的公寓，重点是社交互动和在公共空间休闲娱乐等各种美好的活动。据说，租客还可以随着时间的推移通过某种租购方式获得该公司的股权。我不确定这个消息是否已经公布，但想法是你可能拥有Flow的股份。
flow manages around three thousand units most of which were purchased by Newman after he left we work and you know he took down a windfall as an exit package and so according to the real dl this real estate publication Newman had a 60 million variable rate mortgage on one of these properties in june saks maybe you could explain to us what's going on here since you have a lot of experience in real estate well it's pretty simple he can't make his interest payments okay so the reason is because he had floating rate debt so if he had locked in his debt over say ten years back in when he bought this building in 2021 or whenever it was when interest rates were extremely low you know that was during the the zorp period probably could have locked in long-term debt at maybe even three percent through four percent and instead he got floating rate debt and if you look at where commercial debt is now i mean at seven eight nine percent if you can get it which is pretty hard so he maxed out on debt when he bought these buildings he bought them top of market it sounds like in 2021 because real estate like a lot of things moves inversely to interest rates so when interest rates spiked over the last year or so then real estate valuations went down so he bought a bunch of buildings top of market using a lot of debt that was floating rate interest rates spiked perfect storm now he can't make his interest payments
流动管理约有三千个单位，其中大部分是纽曼离开WeWork之后购买的。你知道他离开时拿到了一大笔股权退出奖励。根据《地产通》这份房地产出版物的说法，纽曼在一栋物业上有一笔6千万可变利率抵押贷款，可能你可以解释一下这其中的情况，毕竟你在房地产方面经验很丰富嘛。这其实很简单，他支付不起利息。原因是他的债务是浮动利率的。如果他在2021年或其他年份购买这栋建筑时选择了固定利率的债务，比如在利率极低时期锁定了十年，那么他可能以3%至4%的利率拿到长期债务，现在商业债务的利率大概是7%、8%或9%，而且很难获得。所以他在购买这些建筑时最大限度地负债，并且在2021年这个市场的高点购买，因为房地产和很多其他东西一样，与利率呈相反变动。所以当利率在过去一年左右上升时，房地产估值下降。他以浮动利率负债购买了一大批处于市场高点的建筑，现在利息支付成为巨大的困难。
crazy part about this when i was watching it happen to moth and we talked about it i think on the program at the time was and recent hero it's put in like over three hundred million at a billion dollar valuation but they didn't do that and be observed they did that in 2022 when the writing was on the wall
当我看到这种事情发生在蛾子身上，并且我们谈论此事时，我觉得在当时节目中，最疯狂的地方是，在他们的最新英雄项目上投入了超过三亿美元的估值，但他们并没有在当时就这样做，而是在2022年，当情况已经明朗时才这样做。
what do you have thoughts on why they would make a bet like that and uh yeah just tech VCs betting on real estate for a second time how does that occur well i don't think it occurs because they cared about real estate i think it allows them to take three hundred million dollars of committed capital and put it out there so that they're three hundred million dollars less available which means that they're three hundred million dollars closer to raising a new fund which means that they can raise they can charge two percent on more money that's why they did it got it yeah so just keep the money train deploying capital it's a place where you can put a big huge check and you can raise your next fund and yeah why not yeah okay well there you have looks i mean let me let me offer i mean i i don't disagree i think that candidly what you've said is exactly how mega funds are thinking about it we have to deploy capital to raise our next fund and if we still have capital in our last fund then we can't put Jason freeberg well if you're gonna have to deploy large amounts of capital wouldn't you feel better deploying that capital with an entrepreneur who's actually run a big business before even though the business failed
你对于他们为什么要做这样的赌注有什么想法呢？嗯，只是科技风险投资公司第二次押注房地产，这是怎么发生的呢？嗯，我认为这并不是因为他们关心房地产，我认为这样做可以让他们使用3亿美元的承诺资本，使其资本减少3亿美元，这意味着他们离筹集新基金的目标更近了，这意味着他们可以在更多资金上收取2%的费用。这就是他们这样做的原因。明白了。所以只要继续投资，资本就会持续流动。这是一个可以投入大额支票的场所，并且可以筹集下一个基金，对吧？好的，你说的很对。天真地说，我认为你的观点正是巨型基金的思考方式，我们必须投资资本来筹集下一个基金，如果我们上一个基金还有资本没有投入的话，我们就不能将杰森·弗里伯格纳入其中。如果你必须投入大量资本，你会不会觉得与之前经营过大公司的企业家一起投入资本更安心，即使那个企业失败了。
No, no if you're if you're if you were not optimized for fees you would do what Peter Teal did and just have the fund and return the money right he and for Peter Teal for that because he's already won but everybody else that's trying to win the only way to win in a world where your your exits are not that great is to actually generate money via fees even though that fees are taxed at current income that's the way to win in venture it's not caring it's by fees
不，不，如果你对费用进行了优化，你会像彼得·蒂尔那样只设立基金并返还资金，我对彼得·蒂尔有敬意，因为他已经获胜了，但是其他所有想要获胜的人唯一的方法就是在不能很好退出的世界中通过费用实际产生收入，尽管这些费用会受到当前收入的税收影响，但这是在风险投资中获胜的方式，而不是关心其他事情，而是通过收费获胜。
And so it's and and i don't blame and reason i think like that's that's smart for them to do and if they have folks that are willing to enable that by giving the money they should do it but are they going to generate huge rates of return probably not because that's not what real estate is known for real estate is known for long steady tax orbs that's slowly compound for the for the owner of the company over 20 or the owner of the business over 25 to 35 years that's not what a venture fund is supposed to be doing for a 10 year 12 year return cycle so obviously they're doing it for fees that's okay i think that's capitalism but what do the lps then think sacks if we look at this you know you're an lp in a technology firm i'll take in dreason out of it for a second but let's just say some giant lp gives giant amounts of money to a venture capital firm and then they deployed in real estate what happens you know in their minds and is there any kind of tension that would occur well just hand it out in the situation you can never judge a vc based on one investment if we were to do that every vc would have a lot of egg on their face because we're supposed to take big swings and swing for the fences and try and hit home runs and grand slams and a lot of them are gonna make you look foolish you have to look at an investment portfolio and track returns over time so i wouldn't judge any particular investor based on one investment so i don't think that's fair.
所以这就是这样，我并不怪罪，我认为这样做是聪明的，如果他们有愿意提供资金的人支持，他们应该这样做，但是他们是否能够获得巨大的回报可能并不是这样的，因为这不是房地产所以知道的，房地产是以慢慢增加的稳定税收为特点的，对公司的所有者或企业主来说，在20到35年的时间里，这不是一只风险基金应该在10年到12年的回报周期内做的事情，所以显然他们是为了费用而这样做，我认为这是资本主义，但是如果我们来看看lps是怎么想的呢，想象一下，你是技术公司的lps，我暂且不考虑投资方面的问题，假设一个巨大的投资方向风险投资公司投入了巨额资金，然后他们把这笔钱投资到房地产中，那么他们的想法是什么，是否会产生某种紧张局势呢，嗯，在这种情况下，你永远不能根据一个投资来评判一个风险投资公司，如果我们这样做，每个风险投资公司都会很尴尬，因为我们应该大胆尝试，努力取得巨大成功，很多时候会让你看起来很愚蠢，你必须看整个投资组合并跟踪长期回报率，所以我不会根据一个特定的投资来评判任何一个投资者，我认为这是不公平的。
Now in the case of this investment if you want me to explain what i think went wrong i think adam newman had a compelling vision his vision was to create a new experience in i guess you call it apartment living and that people will be willing to pay more for that because he would create this national brand in apartments and right now apartments are super local and there's there is no brand in you know apartment living so i think as a entrepreneur as an operator he had a great vision and i think he actually achieved his vision if you read these articles carefully what they say is that his occupancy was high and people were willing to pay at least a little bit more for the experience of being in a flow apartment the problem for adam newman is that at the end of the day his plan to raise rents by creating an experience even though it worked it just didn't raise rents that much and what ended up being much more important were the moves and interest rates and how he capitalized these acquisitions and the price he paid on the acquisitions so there's an old saying in real estate that you make money based on the buy not on the sell meaning that you know when you go and sell your apartment building office building or whatever you're monetizing an acquisition that you did correctly and if you don't buy at the right price you're never going to be able to make money on the sale and i think this is a really good example of this where he bought at top of market his capital stack was over-reliant on debt and he had floating.
在这个投资案例中，如果你想让我解释一下我认为出了什么问题，我认为亚当·纽曼有一个很有吸引力的愿景，他的愿景是创造一种新的公寓住宿体验，人们愿意为此付更多的钱，因为他将在公寓领域创建一个全国性品牌。现在公寓市场非常地本地化，没有品牌存在。所以我认为作为一位企业家和经营者，他有一个很好的愿景，并且实际上实现了他的愿景。如果你仔细阅读这些文章，你会发现他们说的是他的出租率很高，人们愿意为住在一间优秀公寓体验付出更多的钱。亚当·纽曼面临的问题是，尽管他的创造性体验方法起到了一定作用，但租金的上涨并不多。更重要的是，利率的变动和他在收购中的资本化和支付价格。房地产有句老话，“你赚钱是在购买时，而不是在销售时”，这意味着当你出售你的公寓大楼、办公楼或其他物业时，你是在变现你正确的收购决策，如果你不以正确的价格购买，你永远无法在销售时赚钱。我认为这是一个很好的例子，亚当·纽曼在市场的高点购买了物业，并且他的资本结构过度依赖债务，同时还面临着浮动利率的压力。
Rate debt, I mean those are just financial mistakes and timing mistakes that you can't make up for no matter how good an operator you are in real estate. And in a way, I mean this is the same thing that happened with WeWork, which is he delivered an excellent product. I mean people love WeWork offices, absolutely yeah, they pick them over other offices because of the vibes, because of the culture, because of the community. So he is a mastery of that, but to your point, entry price matters and the economics matter. If you look at WeWork, it didn't fail because the product wasn't good, it was because he didn't pay enough attention to the financial aspects of the business. With WeWork, he leased a bunch of offices at the absolute top of the market and then over invested in TI's (tenant improvements).
利率债务，我的意思是那些只是金融错误和时间错误，无论你在房地产方面多么出色，都无法弥补的错误。在某种程度上，这也是WeWork发生的事情，他提供了一种出色的产品。我的意思是人们喜欢WeWork的办公室，绝对的，是因为氛围、文化和社区。所以他在这方面很精通，但正如你所说，入场价格和经济学都很重要。如果你看看WeWork，它之所以失败并不是因为产品不好，而是因为他没有足够注意业务的财务方面。对于WeWork来说，他在市场的绝对顶峰租了一堆办公室，然后过度投资于租户改进。
With Flow, he bought a bunch of real estate at the top of the market and sort of did it with the wrong capital stack. So this is the problem, is that when you get into a real estate business, it doesn't really matter how great you are as an entrepreneur operator if you're not good at like sort of the legacy old-school real estate part of it. And the old-school real estate guys were saying during WeWork, "this is not going to work, you know, this is regis but with a bad capital structure". And the old-school real estate guys were saying something similar about this and you know it just goes to show that if you are going to try and disrupt a legacy industry, you do have to kind of understand the ins and outs of the market.
通过Flow，他在市场高点购买了大量房地产，但使用了错误的资本结构。问题在于，当你进入房地产业务时，你作为一名企业家运营商的出色表现并不重要，如果你在传统的老派房地产方面不擅长的话。在WeWork期间，那些老派房地产人士就说过：“这不会成功，你知道，这就像是带着糟糕的资本结构的里吉斯”。这些老派的房地产人士对此提出了类似的观点，这只能说明如果你想要颠覆一个传统行业，你必须理解市场的方方面面。
That legacy industry and the great paradox of this axe was when he did Green Desk, which was the precursor to WeWork, when he did the first WeWorks in San Francisco and other places, his playbook was find a building that's empty that cannot be leased. So he got 25 Taylor Street like sixth and market, the worst area by the Tenderloin, and we had an office there for a little bit and I have my podcasting studio there for a little bit. This was a terrible area. This was a terrible off this was a terrible area. But he made it hip and cool and it was really cheap and man it sold out and it was packed and the vibes were great. But then as you're saying, then he moved all of a sudden to SoMa and he started opening up these glass-filled ones and he was renting them for less with all their giveaways and six months three and all the stuff then they could have referred. So right, he kind of had mission drift right, the playbook they just they changed the playbook and it economically was not viable.
这个传统行业和这把斧头的巨大悖论，就是当他创办了“绿色办公桌”（Green Desk），也即WeWork的前身时，在旧金山和其他地方开设了第一家WeWork时，他的策略是找到那些无法租出去的空置建筑物。所以他选择了泰勒街25号，位于坦德罗因区最差的地段，我们曾经在那里有过一个办公室，我也在那里有过一个播客录音棚。那是一个可怕的区域，但他让它变得时尚和酷，并且非常便宜，销售一空，人满为患，氛围非常好。但正如你所说的，突然之间他搬到了SoMa区，并开始开设这些充满玻璃的办公场所，他以更低的价格租给客户，并提供各种赠品，有三个月或者六个月的免租期。对，他有这种任务漂移的现象，他改变了策略，经济上是不可行的。
Well, the timing, the timing got really bad and again they didn't pay attention to the financial aspects as much as they should. In this case, I think that if he was trying to execute this play today and doing his acquisitions today he could actually make it where he would need a lot more equity because he wouldn't be able to get as much debt financing. But if he had the equity and could do more of an acquisition based on equity, the prices he'd pay right now would be much lower. And then as interest rates come down, he could ride that wave. He could refi, pull his equity out and put debt on it that is cheaper as the price goes down. So there was a way to maybe make this work but you know with real estate the timing is just so important. Again, your cost basis of when you get in the investment is probably the most important thing in terms of whether you make money or not.
嗯，时机的选择真的很糟糕，而且他们再次没有像应该那样注意财务方面的问题。在这种情况下，我认为如果他今天试图进行这项业务并进行收购，他可能需要更多的股权，因为他将无法获得更多的债务融资。但是如果他有股权，并且能够更多地基于股权进行收购，现在他付出的价格将会更低。随着利率下降，他可以趁势而为，进行再融资，提取股权并降低债务成本。所以可能有办法让这个计划成功，但你知道，在房地产中，时机非常重要。再次强调，你进入投资时的成本基础可能是决定赚钱与否最重要的因素。
Did you see this by chance, the real estate piece in 60 minutes, the package they did last week's acts? It was basically what we were talking about here a year ago, super compelling if you haven't seen it. It's basically the oil and podcast from 12 or 18 months ago.
你碰巧看到了60分钟的这个房地产专题吗？他们在上周所做的报道？基本上就是我们一年前在这里讨论的内容，如果你还没看过，那真是非常引人入胜。它基本上就是12或18个月前的纪录片和播客。
Has anything changed on the field in terms of commercial real estate or is it just continuing to change? I think that the all the commercial real estate guys, the sponsors and the deal makers and so forth, they're all kind of hanging on by their fingernails waiting for interest rates to come down and all the leases are still coming off. Right, like people are still who had 678 year leases that were signed pre-COVID before once on the market.
在商业房地产领域有什么变化吗，还是一直在变化？我认为，所有商业房地产从业者，包括资助方、交易者等等，都在紧紧抓住最后一根稻草，等待利率下降，而所有租期仍在到期。是的，就像那些在COVID前签订了6至8年租约的人们，一旦上市仍然存在。
I mean some of the markets are coming back but again what this Flow news show, this Adam Newman news shows is that you could be fully occupied and you could still default. And the reason is because your capital structure, the interest rates have spiked up, you're now paying all of your operating income is being eaten up by your debt service. The only way to make it through that is you go to your bank, this is one of these regional banks, banks, and you work out a deal to extend, you know they call it pretend and extend, and they let you hang on there, you'll like you know extend the term of your kick the can down the road, yeah yeah. Lower your debt payments in exchange for more term and you just try to get to the other side of these high interest rates and then once you get to the other side, you again you're hanging on, you're not defaulting. That's what everyone's doing so if rates don't come down as expected this year you know I think the market's expecting 150 basis points of of rate cuts if that doesn't actually happen there's a lot of real estate sponsors who are in trouble and in turn there's a lot of regional banks who are in trouble because they're the ones who made all these loans to these sponsors so everyone's trying to like you said kick the can down the road yeah.
我的意思是，部分市场正在复苏，但这个《Flow新闻》显示的，这个《亚当·纽曼新闻》显示的是，即使你全力以赴，你仍然可能违约。原因是你的资本结构，利率上升了，你现在支付的所有运营收入都被债务偿还所吞噬。唯一的解决办法是去你的银行，这是其中一个地区银行，与他们达成一项协议，延长贷款期限，他们称之为"假装和延长"，让你继续挣扎下去，就像你延长了踢罐子的时间，降低债务支付以换取更长的期限，只是努力度过这些高利率时期，一旦你渡过难关，你就能够继续挣扎，没有违约。这是每个人都在做的，所以如果今年实际上没有像预期的那样降息，市场预期会有150个基点的降息，如果真的没有实现，许多房地产赞助商将陷入困境，反过来，许多地区银行也处于困境，因为他们是这些赞助商贷款的提供方，所以每个人都在试图像你说的那样推迟解决问题的时间。
And the 60 minutes piece also talked about how there's some emergency rezoning going on in New York specifically where they take the floor plate in the middle which I think you talked about SACC you have to have windows if you want to convert to residential and they just make an empty space the void they call it in the middle of the building that you know they'll deal with in the future but they just have this empty space in the middle of the building that's not going to get used and then the rest that has windows gets used to be converted into loss etc in New York so people are starting to think creatively if people don't come back to office okay let me ask you a question just based on that the set of comments given Adam Newman's experience as an investor in this space and this general opportunity wouldn't you rather back a known someone who knows and has been through the market and has experienced versus some founder who shows up and has never run a business in this space I mean this guy has more experience than you're else it's such a great point well here's the thing free bird the great point about that is you don't see a lot of founders who are supposed to come out and say I want to build a hundred billion dollar business I want to build a giant business they're so rare that VCs who have a lot of chips they would like to back those you know swing for the fences folks and so I do understand why people would back him again and they've run at it before they've done it to some degree I think they failed to learn from your mistakes and this time around he learned from the same same mistake so therefore they made the bad bad I'm not advocating by the way I'm just asking you know I understand but to your point for you I can understand people want to bet on somebody who is crazy and swings for the fences this entrepreneur clearly does not learn from their mistakes I think both of those things could be true right Shama what I would say is that I think that where I've made the biggest mistakes in my investing career is when I confused what I was investing in for one thing when it was the other and so when I look back and I had a small Daliance and biotech because I thought oh this is going to be more computational biology and I understand computation so this gives me an edge turned out I was wrong there was another time where I have invested in certain sectors of the economy because I thought they were technology businesses and at best they were tech-enabled versions of an existing industry and when I look at those investments the thing that I got wrong was not listening to the very experienced investors in those sectors and why they passed and that has caused me no shortage of headache and grief and so if I had to learn anything from all of this it would be that if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's a duck it's not a tech company and so if that duck means it's a real estate business I would talk to a real estate investor. and wonder to myself why they wouldn't have done this deal similarly you know when it's a biotech business I have to ask myself why wouldn't they have done it they know more than I ever will in this space and so similarly I kind of look at this as an example of that which is could be a very talented person in an industry I think just it gets important for us to be very clear and lucid and intellectually honest about what industry that is.
这60分钟的节目还讨论了纽约正在发生的紧急重划区域的情况，具体来说就是他们拿中间的地板板块，我认为你也提到过，如果你想改建为住宅，必须有窗户，他们就在建筑物中间留出了一个称为空白区域，将来会处理但现在只是空着没用，而拥有窗户的其他部分则被用来改建为办公室等，在纽约人们开始以创造性的方式思考，如果人们不再回到办公室的话。好吧，就基于这个问题，考虑到亚当·纽曼在这个领域的投资经验和这个普遍的机会，你宁愿支持一个已知的、经历过市场并拥有经验的人，而不是一个从未经营过这个领域的创始人吗？我的意思是这个家伙比你更有经验，这是一个很好的观点。唔，FreeBird，关于这个观点的好处是，我们并不经常看到很多创始人会站出来说他们想要打造一个价值一千亿美元的企业，我想创投公司有很多筹码都希望支持那些投向大的企业的人，所以我能理解为什么人们会再次支持他们，并且他们之前曾经尝试过，以一定程度上取得了一些成就，我认为他们没有从错误中吸取教训，而这次他从以前的同样错误中吸取了教训。所以他们也犯了错误，虽然我不是在提倡，只是在问，你明白我的意思吗？好，回到你的观点，我可以理解为什么人们会想要押注在一个疯狂且冒险的人身上。这个创业者显然没有从他们的错误中吸取教训。我认为这两种观点都可以是正确的，Shama。我想说的是，在我的投资生涯中，我犯过最大的错误就是把我投资的东西当成一种而实际上是另一种。所以当我回顾过去，曾经涉足生物技术领域，因为我以为这会更多涉及计算生物学，而我懂得计算，所以我有优势，结果证明我错了。还有一次，我在某些经济领域投资，因为我认为它们是技术企业，最多只是现有行业的技术驱动版本。当我看这些投资时，我犯的错误就是没有倾听那些在这些领域具有丰富经验的投资者为什么选择放弃，这给我带来了种种麻烦。所以如果我从这一切中学到了什么，那就是如果看起来像鸭子，嘎嘎叫声像鸭子，那它就是鸭子，它不是科技公司，所以如果那只鸭子意味着这是一家房地产公司，我会找一个房地产投资者交流一下，问问他们为什么不会做出这样的交易。类似地，当涉及到生物技术企业时，我不得不问自己为什么他们不会这样做，他们比我在这个领域知道得多。所以同样地，我认为这是一个例子，是一个非常有才能的人在一个行业中，我认为重要的是我们要非常清楚、明确和理智地诚实地对待这是哪个行业。
I think it's a great point I mean look I think whenever you're dealing with a tech-enabled business which I would define as a more traditional business model with some sort of software layer you know on top of it you have to kind of assess like how much of a difference does that software really make at the end of the day in this case this is a real estate business with a very thin kind of software slash operating slash technology yeah the experienced layer is a very small part of the overall let's call it P&L of this business.
我认为这是一个很好的观点。我的意思是，当你处理一个技术驱动的企业时，我指的是一个更传统的业务模式上加了一层软件，你必须评估这个软件在最终对业务的影响有多大。在这种情况下，这是一个房地产业务，它有一个非常薄的软件/运营/技术层面，经验层面只占这个业务整体利润与损失表的很小一部分。
Such a great point SACS I mean a perfect analogy would be like if you have if you're taking a flight on United the United app is delightful now it's a really good app I don't use this as a commercial airline it's called United Airlines SACS you pay for one ticket instead of the whole plane but have you been to a McDonald's recently? I actually went to McDonald's yeah you order through an app now and there's a big screen. The point is you walk in there and it's probably not the McDonald's you knew 15 or 20 years ago it's not about waiting in line and ordering and that's not how it works anymore there so the point is is that a tech-enabled business or is that still a restaurant well if you spend a lot of your time intellectually contorting yourself to try to justify why the next version of McDonald's is a tech-enabled business you're just going to lose a lot of money it's a restaurant now all restaurants need technology and what you see by McDonald's is even the oldest and most established are running forward very quickly to implement technology because they know that it creates efficiency which then flows to the bottom line for them yeah.
这是一个很棒的观点SACS，我的意思是一个完美的类比就是，如果你乘坐联合航空的飞机，联合航空的应用程序非常愉快，这是一个非常好的应用程序。我不是常坐商业航班，而是坐的是联合航空。你只支付一张机票而不是整架飞机的费用。但是你最近去过麦当劳吗？我最近去了麦当劳，现在你要通过一个应用程序进行点餐，屏幕上有一个大屏幕。重点是当你走进去的时候，这可能已经不是你15或20年前认识的麦当劳了，不再需要排队点餐了，不再是以前的模式了。那么问题是，这算是一家技术驱动的企业，还是仍然是一家餐馆呢？如果你花费大量时间来思考，试图证明下一个版本的麦当劳是一个技术驱动的企业，那你可能会亏损很多钱。现在它仍然是一家餐馆，所有餐馆都需要技术，你可以从麦当劳看到，即使是最古老、最成熟的餐馆也在迅速推进实施技术，因为他们知道这可以提高效率，从而增加他们的利润。
So the reality is that we have lived in this wonderland where we've looked at these software businesses that have 80 and 90 percent gross margins and imposed that expectation on other markets and then made investment decisions by trying to justify how that it's a tech-enabled real estate business a tech-enabled health care business a tech-enabled energy business without being honest with ourselves that those businesses have over decades because of lots of competition found a consistent and reliable resting place in terms of gross margins far below 80 and 90 percent and so instead of willing tech-enabled businesses to be at 80 and 90 and tricking oneself I think it's more realistic to ask yourself why aren't 80 and 90 percent gross margin businesses decaying to 30 and 40 percent gross margins like every other part of the economy when everything will be technology-enabled I think that that's a very reasonable question and I think the answer is there is no safe place I don't think that you can justify 80 and 90 percent gross margins in software when you can use a model and whip up a competitor I just think that we are all going to a place where everything is a tech-enabled version of some.
所以实际情况是，我们一直生活在这样一个奇妙的世界中，我们看着那些拥有80%和90%毛利率的软件企业，并将此期望强加于其他市场，然后通过试图证明它是一家技术驱动的房地产企业、技术驱动的医疗保健企业、技术驱动的能源企业来进行投资决策，但我们没有对自己诚实，那些企业之所以能在几十年间保持低于80%和90%的毛利率，是因为有很多竞争，它们找到了一个稳定而可靠的盈利水平。所以，我们不应该期望技术驱动的企业能够拥有80%和90%的毛利率，以及欺骗自己，而是更现实地问自己，为什么80%和90%的毛利率企业没有像其他经济部门一样下降到30%和40%的毛利率，尤其是在一切都将被技术驱动的时代。我认为这是一个非常合理的问题，而答案是：没有安全的地方。我不认为你可以在软件领域实现80%和90%的毛利率，因为你可以使用一个模型，就能找到一个竞争对手。我只是认为我们都要走向一个一切都是某种技术驱动版本的世界。
Yeah marketplaces would be a notable exception there with network effects so DoorDash versus the tech-enabled restaurant asset-light marketplaces you and iSACs have been involved in a bunch of different marketplaces together sometimes they're asset heavy sometimes they're asset-light when they're asset-heavy man it's really hard to make those businesses where our costs act.
是的，市场对网络效应有显著的例外情况，所以DoorDash与你和iSACs参与过的一些技术驱动的餐厅轻资产市场不同，我们曾经一起涉足过各种不同类型的市场。有时候，这些市场需要大量资产，而有时则是轻资产。当市场所需资产较多时，要使这些企业盈利真的很困难。
Yeah I mean I think we should differentiate between gross margin and then the net operating margin or profit right and so you know gross margin is what is the cost on the margin of providing one incremental unit and the thing about pure software businesses is that on the margin you can provision another instance of the product almost free I mean there's a little bit of hosting cost at AWS or whatever so on the margins it's you know it's like the perfect gross margin business as opposed to a hamburger as opposed to a yeah a restaurant is going to have very large cost of goods sold or cogs the simple heuristic that I use is just does this company have large cogs cost of goods sold and are they physical world cogs if they are it's not a software business it's at best a tech-enabled business so just look for that you know does this business have large physical world cogs.
是的，我的意思是我们应该区分毛利和净运营利润。所以，毛利是提供一个增量单位的成本，而纯软件业务的一个特点就是在更高的边际上，你几乎可以免费提供另一个产品。我是说，可能在AWS或其他地方会有一点托管成本，所以从边际来看，这就像是一个完美的毛利生意，而不像汉堡或餐厅那样有很大的销售成本（COGS）。我使用的一个简单的启发式规则是，这家公司是否有很大的销售成本，而且这些销售成本是实体世界的销售成本。如果是这样，那它就不是一家软件公司，充其量只是一家技术驱动型企业。所以只要留意这一点，这家企业是否有大规模的实体世界销售成本。
Now what I would say is if the cogs are virtual like you know it could be hosting costs or it could be paying Twilio for telephony or something like that then at least it's still not like as good a business because the margins aren't as good but it's very scalable right because you're not you don't have that like huge friction of needing to scale up physical world infrastructure physical world supply chains that kind of stuff so I like virtual cogs a lot better there are digital cogs a lot better than physical cogs
现在我想说的是，如果齿轮是虚拟的，比如托管费用或支付Twilio进行电话等，那么至少它还不像好的生意那样，因为利润空间不那么大，但它非常具有可扩展性，因为你没有需要扩展实际世界基础设施和实际世界供应链的巨大摩擦力，所以我更喜欢虚拟齿轮，数字齿轮比实际齿轮更好。
I love it when marketplaces though I mean we could speak to that too you know when I had Dara on the pod the other week and when he launches an adjacency hey we're going to sell alcohol hey we're going to sell groceries hey we're going to add this thing that's right next to the already you know portfolio of Uber offerings doesn't. cost them much right they just have to get the supply side up and running but they already have the demand side and I think that's where like these super apps are doing really well or Airbnb adding you know some inventory in a new city that they unlock right well
我喜欢市场而不是我的意思是，我们也可以谈论这一点你知道的，上周我在播客中邀请了达拉，当他推出一个毗邻产品，比如我们要销售酒类、我们要销售杂货，或者我们要添加这个与优步现有产品组合紧密相关的东西时，他们的成本并不高，只需使供应端运转起来即可，但他们已经拥有需求方，我认为这就是超级应用做得非常出色的地方，或者像Airbnb在新的城市中添加一些房源，这就是他们释放的市场。
true true marketplaces are perfect gross margin businesses as well because they don't have a school inventory that they themselves own what you'll see is with a lot of marketplaces they'll cheat by buying the inventory themselves at least to jumpstart the market and then selling it yeah and so when you see that line item on the P&L the you know that they have real cost of goods sold you know wait a second this isn't a true marketplace they're providing the service yeah and so again it's just a way to like catch whether the business is truly one of these great high gross margin businesses or whether it's more of a tech-enabled business that's pretending to be a pure software business yeah
真正的市场是完美的毛利商业，因为它们没有自己拥有的库存。你会看到，在很多市场上，他们会通过自己购买库存来推动市场的起步，然后再将其销售出去。所以当你在损益表上看到这一项时，你就知道他们有真正的成本货物销售额。你知道这不是一个真正的市场，他们只是提供服务的方式。再者，这只是一种判断企业是否真正属于高毛利企业的方法，或者它是否更像一个技术驱动的企业假装是纯粹的软件企业。
direct consumer got people in a lot of trouble during the last cycle venture capital if you look at a lot of these companies even the best SaaS businesses have seen their gross margins erode by about 15 to 20 percent it used to be that best-in-class software business can generate 90 90 1 8 8 high 80s to low 90s gross margins now that's not true you see a lot of these best-in-class companies that are in the high 60s or low 70s so it already just shows you that that pressure has has come upon the market and so is it that the software-enabled business goes towards 85 or is that the 85 percent gross margin business goes towards 30 and looks like it's the latter that's just what the data says well may I'm just categorizing certain costs differently than you are but I don't know why software business would go all the way to 30 right because again sales and marketing don't count in the gross margin G&A doesn't count even R&D doesn't count in the gross margin it has to be you know a unit cost that you can attribute on the margin to that incremental instance of the product so things like again paying Twilio for meter telephony or paying open AI for like meter to API access all of that is definitely in Cox and I think some customer support costs that can be attributed on kind of a per-instance basis that goes in there but if if sales and marketing and R&D and G&A aren't going in there I mean I don't know why I go all the way to 30
直接向消费者销售在上一个风险投资周期中给很多人带来了很多麻烦，因为即使是最好的SaaS企业，其毛利率也下降了约15至20％。过去，最优秀的软件企业可以实现高达80至90％的毛利率，现在这种情况已经不再成立了。你会看到很多最优秀的企业的毛利率只有60%多或者70%多，这已经表明了市场的压力。所以是软件增值业务的毛利率会降至85%还是85%的毛利率业务会下降至30%，看起来更可能是后者，这正是数据所显示的。或许我只是以不同的方式归类了某些成本，但我不知道为什么软件业务会一直降至30%。因为再说一遍，销售和市场营销不计入毛利率，一般管理费用也不计入，在研发方面也不计入。所以必须是你可以归因于产品增量的单位成本，比如支付Twilio进行通话计费或支付open AI进行API访问等，所有这些都是成本，我认为还有一些客户支持成本可以按照每个实例的基础来归属，但是如果销售与市场营销、研发和一般管理费用都不计入其中，我不知道为什么会一直降至30%。
I guess I'm just saying that I still think software businesses and marketplaces for that matter are still the best kinds of businesses on a margin profile basis the problem is that there's a lot of fake software businesses or fake marketplaces out there that are pretending to be pure tech businesses when actually they're they're more like old school businesses that have the veneer of technology and I think to your point they're like the trick of saying I'm an 80% gross margin business but having no profitability is then who cares so yeah that's true when you look at the profitability of these businesses again you'll be in the 20 to 30 percent that's why when you see companies that are in the high 30s to low 50s they're a very unique and B you should expect that there is something fundamentally monopolistic about them and that is a simplest way to filter out these companies because in a highly competitive market you cannot extract those kinds of profit dollars capitalism says you can't do that so you can only do it when when you have an N of 1 or N of 2 kind of competitive dynamic where there's essentially a mutual to talk with your biggest competitor yeah
我想我只是在说，以利润率为基础来看，我仍然认为软件业务和市场是最好的业务类型。问题是，有很多假冒的软件业务或市场在假装自己是纯技术业务，其实它们更像是有技术外表的老派企业。我认为，就像你说的，它们就像是说自己是80%毛利率企业，但没有盈利，那又有什么意义呢？是的，这是真实的，当你看这些企业的盈利能力时，它们通常只有20%到30%。所以，当你看到盈利能力在30%到50%之间的公司时，它们是非常独特的，另外你应该预期它们有某种基本上垄断的特点，这是最简单的过滤这些公司的方法。因为在竞争激烈的市场中，你无法获得那样的利润，资本主义说你不能这样做。所以，只有当你处于一种1对1或1对2的竞争动态中，也就是说你与最大竞争对手之间有一种相互垄断的情况下，你才能做到这一点。
it is it is a good point that just because you have good you in economics who could gross margins doesn't mean that the business is profitable at the end of the day yeah it could be I mean you can have 80% gross margins and still be losing a ton of money because you've got too much overhead you've got too much sales and marketing you got too much R&D yes so you're selling to customers who don't really need it and then they eventually cancel right like we see that a lot
这是一个很好的观点，仅仅因为你在经济方面表现优秀，能够获得较高的毛利率，并不意味着业务最终是盈利的。是的，可能会出现这样的情况，即使你的毛利率达到80％，仍然会亏损很多，因为你有太多的间接费用，过高的销售和市场营销成本，以及过多的研发费用。是的，所以你正在向那些真正不需要你产品的客户销售，并最终导致他们取消购买。我们经常看到这种情况发生。
look at the streamers look at the streamers that's just a big recycling exercise it's just like people come to the top of the funnel they use the product and then they leave and then you have to re-acquire them over and over again and it and it could be the case that SaaS actually looks a little bit like that too at the bottom line when you hit your natural audience it does get challenging yeah
看看那些主播们，这只是一个大型的循环使用过程，就像人们到达漏斗顶端使用产品，然后离开，然后你不得不一次又一次地重新吸引他们，而且情况可能是，SaaS在底线上也有点像这样，当你接触到你的自然受众时，情况确实变得具有挑战性。
Well, this is why in SaaS there's a heuristic called the rule of 40 which is for public market SaaS companies you want to see that they're operating margin plus their growth rate equals 40 or is greater than 40 ideally so in other words you could have a SaaS business with a 20% operating margin and a 20% growth rate and that would hit rule of 40 and that would be a very attractive business or you could have I don't know it could be growing 50% year over year and its operating margin could be negative 10% and that'd be okay too because they're losing money but at least the investment is leading to a well above average growth you know or you could be growing you could you know be growing slower you could have a 10% growth rate and have a 30% operating margin and that would also be hitting the rule of 40 so it's just a simple way of like tracking whether this is a good business at scale I don't think startups have to worry about this until they get to kind of the later growth stage yeah when you're in your BC round you're making 50 100 million yeah you got to be really thoughtful about this and the beginning of trying.
这就是为什么在SaaS（软件即服务）领域有一个叫做“40法则”的启发式方法。对于上市的SaaS公司而言，你希望看到他们的运营利润率加上增长率等于40，或者更大于40，理想情况下。换句话说，你可以拥有一家运营利润率为20%、增长率为20%的SaaS业务，这将符合40法则，且非常具有吸引力。或者，你可以拥有一家年增长率为50%，运营利润率为负10%，这也可以接受，因为它们在亏损，但至少投资导致了远高于平均水平的增长。或者，你的增长速度可能更慢，增长率为10%，运营利润率为30%，这也符合40法则。这只是一种简单的追踪方式，用于判断这是否是一家规模良好的好企业。我认为初创公司在初期发展阶段不需要担心这个问题，但当它们进入后期发展阶段，尤其是在BC轮融资时，就需要仔细考虑了。
to get product market fit and triangulate on something so Shamak just mentioned streaming NBC universal if you didn't know it paid the NFL 100 million dollars for the exclusive streaming rights to one that's right one first round playoff game for the NFL that happened last weekend between the chiefs and the dolphins that was on their service peacock and BC's app basically their version of Netflix or Disney plus it garnered 23 million viewers which makes it the most streamed live event in US history even so that's almost half of what the Packers and Cowboys had about 40 million lines versus Rams same weekend 36 million and so this has brought into question what's going on with streaming have these businesses gotten ahead of their skis just give you a couple of charts Disney plus took off like a massive rocket peaked in Q4 of 2022 at 164 million subscribers are now at 150 million years of chart I mean just amazing how quickly they got to Netflix ish numbers here's Netflix's chart again this is quarterly they're up to now an all-time high 247 million subscribers and the annual growth rate all the way back to 2001 still pretty spectacular and their revenue also very respectable for Netflix however they overspent massively during the peak streaming era 2019 to 2022 and that's when subscriber growth started too slow obviously they were spending way too much and other entrants came in like Apple plus and Amazon prime where they really didn't even think that they had to make a profit they were using streaming maybe to sell more iPhones or to get more Amazon prime subscribers so here is the major problem here's the churn chart basically churn means people cancel right and so as these services have cut what they're offering the number of Marvel shows or Disney you know having Star Wars shows the churn goes way up people are also having subscription overload I don't know how many of these I subscribe to but I think it's all of them or maybe out of these one two three four five six seven eight nine on the chart I think I have seven of these so there is definitely some unbelievable subscription burnout and the streamers in in order to get these businesses above water have raised their prices we all know that you've probably seen your streaming bills you know have three four five bucks added to them every month and at the same time they're cutting how much they're spandering so you're paying more for
为了达到产品市场适应度并找到某种东西（Shamak刚提到），就像他提到的NBC通用公司正在流媒体领域进行努力。如果你还不知道，他们为NFL独家流媒体权支付了1亿美元，其中包括NFL上周末在海亚尼斯和多尔芬斯之间的一场季后赛比赛，由他们的服务——孔雀台和BC应用提供，基本上是他们版的Netflix或迪士尼加。这场比赛吸引了2300万观众，成为美国历史上流媒体播放最多的直播节目。尽管如此，这几乎相当于包装工和牛仔队在同一个周末的比赛中获得的4000万观众的一半，以及与射线队相同周末的3600万观众。因此，这引发了关于流媒体领域正在发生什么的质疑，这些企业是否已经脱离实际。让我给你看一些图表。迪士尼加像一枚大火箭一样起飞，在2022年第四季度达到了1.64亿订户，现在是1.5亿。这段时间的增长速度真是惊人，几乎达到了Netflix的水平。这是Netflix的图表，这是按季度划分的，现在是历史上最高的2.47亿订户，从2001年开始的年增长率仍然非常壮观，他们的收入也非常可观。然而，他们在2019年至2022年的高峰期间超支严重，导致订户增长开始放缓，显然他们花费太多，而苹果加和亚马逊Prime等新进入者进入了这一市场，他们甚至不认为需要盈利，他们使用流媒体可能是为了销售更多的iPhone或获取更多的亚马逊Prime订户。这里出现了一个主要问题，即流失图表，基本上流失意味着人们取消了订阅。随着这些服务减少他们所提供的抱星系列或迪士尼展示出星球大战系列的数量，流失率大幅上升。人们也因为太多的订阅而感到压力，我不知道我订阅了多少，但我想应该是全部，或者在这些九个图表上至少订阅了七个。所以，肯定是有一些难以置信的订阅疲劳。为了使这些业务更有利可图，流媒体平台提高了价格，我们都知道这一点，你可能已经看到你的流媒体账单每个月添加了三四五美元，与此同时，他们还削减了他们的支出金额。所以你付更多的钱，得到的价值也更少。
Last month, your thoughts on this dynamic. If you bring the chart back up, here's the most important thing that's worth noting. Let's take stars as an example. It turns 12% of their users every month, which means that over a year they've turned 144% of their user base. That means that they have to basically turn their entire membership base one and a half times in order just to tread water, right? So if you start with a hundred, it's a lot of money that you have to spend to make sure you end the year at a hundred. Forget about growing.
上个月，你的想法是关于这个动态的。如果你再次看一下这张图表，有一点值得注意。以星星为例，每个月有12%的用户流失，也就是说在一年内，他们流失了总用户的144%。这意味着他们基本上需要将整个会员群体换一遍半才能保持现状，对吗？所以如果一开始有一百个用户，那么你需要花费很多的钱来确保你在年底依然有一百个用户，别提增长了。
If you look at peacock, they're going to lose a hundred percent of their subscribers in a year. If you look at discovery, they're going to lose 75 percent. If you look at max, they're going to lose 50 odd percent. Apple TV same Hulu and Disney Plus will lose 60 percent. Netflix will lose almost 40 percent. So the only winner in all of this is Facebook and Google. The only winners are Facebook and Google because that's where the ads will appear to try to re-acquire these folks, right? So I guess that's a positive indication. But the reality is that money isn't infinite. And so what happens in a dynamic where you have a category where there's just a lot of consumer churn? I think what happens is it evolves in phases.
如果你看看孔雀台(Peacock)，他们在一年内会失去百分之百的订阅者。如果你看看探索频道(Discovery)，他们会失去75%的订阅者。如果你看看Max，他们会失去50%左右的订阅者。苹果电视、Hulu和迪士尼加也会失去60%的订阅者。Netflix将失去近40%的订阅者。所以在所有这些中，唯一的赢家是Facebook和谷歌。唯一的赢家是Facebook和谷歌，因为他们是广告将出现的地方，试图重新获取这些人，不是吗？所以我猜这是一个积极的迹象。但现实是金钱并不无限。那么在一个有着大量消费者流失的行业中，你认为会发生什么？我认为会有不同阶段的发展。
And in phase one, which is sort of where we are now, where there's a bunch of relatively well-established folks, is that they are going to initially overspend on content because they are going to try to differentiate the cost of acquisition based on content, right? Which makes sense. I have a tent pole, come and watch it here, you can't watch it anywhere else. And I think that was the peacock example where they had this football game and all these people showed up, and they thought, "This is exactly why we're paying so much money for these rights because people will show up." I think the problem is that when everybody is doing it, everybody's doing it. And so you don't know how to differentiate. Even in our group chat, look at the number of times when somebody randomly says, "Is there something to watch?" And everybody's got 50 recommendations. Guess what I do? I tune it all out because I'm like, 50 across six different services. I have no way to track it. And then I lose interest and I'm like, "You know, I'll just stick to Youtube."
在第一阶段，也就是我们现在所处的阶段，有一群相对来说比较成熟的人，他们最初会在内容上投入过多，因为他们将试图通过内容来区分获取成本，对吗？这是有道理的。我有一个主要亮点，来这里看吧，你无法在其他地方看到。我想这就是孔雀台的例子，他们有一场足球比赛，很多人都参加了，他们认为：“这就是为什么我们花这么多钱购买转播权的原因，因为人们会参与。”我认为问题在于，当每个人都这么做的时候，每个人都这么做。所以你不知道怎样区分。甚至在我们的群聊中，看看有几次有人突然问：“有什么好看的吗？”每个人都有50个建议。猜猜我做了什么？我对此毫不关心，因为我觉得在六个不同的服务中有50个建议。我无法跟进。然后我失去兴趣，只是继续看YouTube。
So I think what happens is in phase one, folks spend a lot on content. In phase two, they realize that actually what you need to do is spend on a long tail of content in a much more disciplined way. So there's a company that I know about, for example, they just signed a pretty big deal with Amazon, hundreds of millions of dollars. And I was trying to figure out, is that a lot or a little? And it turns out that Amazon's trying to get three or four or five versions of these going, which means that before we probably could have gotten five or six hundred million and instead you get two or three hundred million, still an incredible thing but it just goes to show you that there's a lot of competition. And so instead of having a single mode, right, if you were to graph something where there's a few pieces that just get all the money, now you're smearing this content across all kinds of stuff. And I think that that makes it very difficult to keep folks. So I suspect that you're just going to see a lot of churn.
所以我认为在第一阶段，人们在内容上花了很多钱。在第二阶段，他们意识到其实你需要做的是以更加纪律严明的方式花费在长尾内容上。所以有家公司我知道，他们刚刚和亚马逊签了一个非常大的合同，金额达到数亿美元。然后我在试图弄清楚，这是很多还是很少？事实证明，亚马逊正试图推出三到五个版本，这意味着以前我们可能可以获得五到六亿美元，而现在却只能获得两到三亿美元，虽然依然不可思议，但这只是表明了竞争的激烈程度。所以，不再是单一的模式了，如果你要画一个图表，那么之前只有一些部分可以获得所有的资金，而现在你需要将这些内容分散到各种各样的东西上。我认为这会让保留用户变得非常困难。所以我猜测你只会看到很多人反复变动。
I don't like this category at all as an investor. So clearly there's been an overspend here, but consolidation is coming.
作为投资者，我根本不喜欢这个类别。很明显，这里出现了过度支出，但整合正在到来。
Free burgundy thoughts on the streaming space.
免费提供有关流媒体领域的勃艮第色彩的思考。
意思：在流媒体领域，提供免费的关于此领域的深入思考和见解。
I just think this is the opposite of what we were talking about earlier where there's a free market competing and it's benefiting consumers. I mean, the point that you made is a really good one, that there's a lot of great content to watch. Folks that raise prices, people cancel, so you got to drop prices. You got to offer good content.
我认为这与我们先前讨论的情况完全相反，那里有一个自由竞争的市场，从而使消费者受益。我的意思是，你提出的观点非常好，有很多优秀的内容可供观看。如果提高价格，人们会取消服务，所以你需要降低价格，提供优质内容。
And I actually think this is a really good and healthy thing to see happen, this competition that benefits consumers. And there'll be some set of winners here and some set of losers, but I think ultimately it's just really good to see how it all shakes out. Who's willing to put up the big box? Who's got the smarter algorithm that predicts how fresh your content has to be and how unique it has to be relative to other platforms to keep the audience's attention?
我实际上认为这是一件非常好的、有益于消费者的事情。在这个竞争中，会有一些赢家和一些输家，但我认为最重要的是看到它如何发展。谁愿意投入大量资源?谁有更聪明的算法来预测内容的新鲜度和独特性，以吸引观众的注意力?
I would argue if you look at those numbers and you look at the performance over time, Netflix absolutely rules the roofed in the sense they're an incredible operating team. They have an incredible capability of predicting what content will work, how quickly they have to refresh content, how much they should be investing in content per quarter per month, and they're clearly retaining users and making money. And others maybe that are newer to the game haven't figured that out yet, but it's just very good to see the competition.
我认为，如果你看看这些数字和长期的表现，Netflix绝对可以说是出类拔萃的运营团队。他们有一种令人难以置信的能力来预测内容的成功程度，迅速更新内容的频率，以及每个季度每个月他们应该投资多少钱在内容上，并且显然他们能够留住用户并赚钱。其他一些新进入这个领域的公司可能还没有摸透这些要领，但是看到竞争对手的表现还是很好的。
So I don't know how to predict what's going to happen here, but it's good to see it. It's clearly going to be massive consolidation. Also, these folks are launching an advertising-based version. So you probably saw Netflix has an advertising tier. So a lot of these folks didn't have those. Disney Plus, I think it's going to have one as well.
所以我不知道如何预测这里会发生什么，但看到这些情况很好。显然，将会发生大规模的整合。另外，这些人推出了一个以广告为基础的版本。所以你可能已经看到了 Netflix 有广告会员等级。所以很多这些公司一开始并没有这个功能。迪士尼加也会有一个广告会员等级。
You know what no one's paying attention to is YouTube TV. I don't know, you guys subscribe to YouTube TV? I'm a Hulu person. Yeah, I think it's fantastic. If you look at some third-party data on YouTube TV, the subscriptions are going through the friggin roof and it's really interesting to see because with YouTube TV you're basically rebundling the unbundling that happened in cable except you're doing it over the internet and you can access it anywhere.
你知道有个没人关注的东西叫YouTube TV吗？我不知道，你们有订阅YouTube TV吗？我是Hulu的用户。是的，我觉得它很棒。如果你看一些第三方数据，YouTube TV的订阅量飙升得很厉害，这真的很有趣。因为YouTube TV基本上重新绑定了发生在有线电视中的解绑，只不过这次是通过互联网实现的，而且你可以在任何地方使用它。
So they've basically converted the pipe as the value to the service itself as the value which you can access anywhere you want on any TV in any room without boxes while you're on the road on your phone on your laptop and it seems to be kind of highlighting that maybe it wasn't necessarily the bundling that was the problem but the way that the service was being offered.
所以他们基本上将管道转化为服务本身的价值，这样你就可以在任何电视上的任何房间随时访问，而无需机顶盒，当你在外出时可以使用手机或笔记本电脑，似乎这种做法强调了问题可能并不在于捆绑销售，而在于提供服务的方式。
So who knows maybe bundling versus all of this part and parcel you got to pick five different providers and buy content on the fly maybe that's not what consumers want. Young people don't care about the live channels, old people do. But yeah, Hulu and YouTube TV are really wonderful products because they work really well on Apple TV. The apps work great but they also work great on your iPhone, your iPad.
也许谁知道，在这个整套服务中，将所有的东西捆绑在一起，你就需要选择五个不同的供应商，并随时购买内容，也许这不是消费者想要的。年轻人不在意直播频道，老年人在意。但是是的，Hulu和YouTube TV真的是很棒的产品，因为它们在Apple TV上运行得非常好。这些应用程序不仅在您的iPhone、iPad上运行良好。
So yeah, you know they're really spectacular in that way.
嗯，你知道，从那个角度来看，它们真的是非常壮观的。
Saks well this is conversation back to what you're talking about with margins and sass and tech-enabled versus real software businesses. I personally have never seen a b2c subscription business that works. The turn is just too high. I mean what I've seen is that the monthly churn rates on a software subscription for consumers is somewhere in the five to ten percent range so on a full-year basis you're retaining maybe fifty percent of your customer base.
萨克斯嗯，关于你在谈到利润率、懒散程度和科技驱动与真正的软件企业之间的讨论，我个人从未见过一个成功的面向消费者的订阅业务。换人率太高了。我的意思是，根据我所了解，消费者软件订阅的月度流失率大约在百分之五到百分之十之间，所以按全年计算，你可能只能留住百分之五十的客户基础。
You're effectively rebuilding your business from scratch every two years. It's a very tough place to be. This is why I basically skewed towards b2b sass is because a good b2b sass business will have net expansion. Instead of fifty percent churn, you'll do 120 percent expansion and so you're actually building a subscriber base with long-term value.
你实际上每两年都在从零开始重建你的业务。这是一个非常艰难的位置。这就是为什么我基本上偏向于b2b sass，因为一家好的b2b sass企业将会有净增长。而不是50%的客户流失，你将会实现120%的扩张，这样你实际上是在建立一个具有长期价值的订阅者群体。
Now how did Netflix do it? I mean Netflix avoided that prohibitive level of churn by spending literally billions of dollars on content and original programming and again it goes back to the point this is not a pure software pure tech business it includes an old-school studio which is very capital intensive and they financed a lot of the content acquisition with billions and billions of dollars raised during that zirp period from I think both equity and debt and you have to wonder if that could be done again in this post-zirp period where capital is just a lot scarcer.
现在Netflix是如何做到的呢？我的意思是，Netflix通过花费数十亿美元在内容和原创节目上避免了这种禁入水平的流失率。再次强调，这不仅仅是一个纯粹的软件技术业务，它包括一个资本密集型的老派工作室。他们通过在那个零利率政策期间筹集的数十亿美元的股权和债权来大量资助内容收购，你不禁要思考，在后零利率政策时代，资本是否会更加稀缺，是否还能再次做到这一点。
I think this is going to work really well though for Netflix and Disney. Man, these huge archives that they own, these libraries are going to get them to three four five hundred million global subs and has become money printing machines that I don't think they're going to need a ton of new content. The question is whether you could recreate an archive of that level today given how much more expensive capital is.
我认为这对Netflix和迪士尼来说会非常成功。哇，它们拥有这些庞大的档案库，这些图书馆将使它们获得三四五亿全球订阅用户，并成为赚钱的机器，我不认为它们需要大量新的内容。问题是，今天资本的成本更高了，你是否能重新创建一个如此大规模的档案库呢？
My point is that zirp helped Netflix catch up. Yes, to these studios and create this huge library but still I think that what the streaming services have shown in their churn is that if you don't provide original content.
我的观点是，零利率政策帮助Netflix赶上了这些制片厂，并打造了庞大的影片库，但我仍然认为，流媒体服务所展现出来的客户流失情况表明，如果你不能提供原创内容的话。
And original programming then users will turn off that so you have to kind of have both you kind of have like the library is filler but if you don't have a hot show come along every so often the subscribers will turn off that.
然后，原创节目让用户保持兴趣，所以你必须兼顾两者——你需要像图书馆这样提供内容填充，但如果没有定期出现热门节目，用户可能就会失去兴趣。
Paragraph 1:
You need to have some new content depending on how deep.
根据深度来说，你需要有一些新的内容。
Paragraph 2:
The library feels like Netflix and Disney Plus have done a great job with our libraries just to give you an idea revenue for Netflix for 2023 33.5 billion 247 million subs that's a ARPOU yearly revenue for those folks 136 bucks a year now the reason you're seeing that number not makes sense if you're paying 15 bucks a month is because internationally Netflix is a lot lot cheaper but I love those two businesses I think they're going to be picture ordinary over time.
图书馆感觉Netflix和Disney Plus为我们的图书馆做得很好，给你一个概念，Netflix2023年的营收为335亿美元，拥有2.47亿订阅用户，这是ARPOU年度收入136美元对于那些人，现在你看到这个数字没太大意义是因为国际上Netflix的价格要便宜得多，但我喜欢这两个业务，我认为它们会随着时间的推移成为标志性的存在。
Section 1:
Netflix has to acquire 100 million people a year just to stay even what's their churn rate for 4% a month I think it's fine right so they're turning half their customer base every year that's my point a hundred million people they're rebuilding their customer base from scratch every two years how does that make sense it's totally fine because what happens is you have people coming off their parents plan getting their own people go through a bad beat they don't like. it you know whatever they unsubscribe but they all come back back and forth back and forth and then it just keeps growing over time.
Netflix每年必须获得1亿用户才能保持平衡，他们的每月抛离率是4%，我觉得这个数值还可以，因此他们每年要重新吸引一半的客户群体，这就是我的观点。1亿用户意味着他们每两年就需要重新建立客户群体，这合情合理吗？完全没问题，因为情况是这样的，有些人从父母的账户退出来，然后自己办理账户，有些人经历了不好的使用体验，不喜欢它。你知道的，无论如何，他们会来来回回取消和重新订阅，而且随着时间的推移，用户数量会不断增长。
Section 2:
I think you're describing something that's true I think David is describing why it's a shit business I mean if they if they make more money than they spend and I don't think they need to do a ton of advertising eventually you turn through so much of the market that actually you can't maintain that growth rate I mean if you reactivate maybe you can do it but I think that's. what's happening from a business perspective the only. logical thing that i would do if i was running one of these businesses is attach it to another business where you can think about it in terms of ltv so the only obvious example of that i think is amazon video because you can stick it beside prime and a bunch of other things and now you have a very different way of justifying ltv and minimizing churn and that seems like a i buy that argument Jason i don't buy like a standalone business like. this trying to do it yeah yucky i i sorry real quick have you guys dug in the netflix's business i mean they're still growing top line the ebata margin continues to expand i mean all those facts might be true but that churn engine and that recapture engine seems to be working in a way that they're printing cash and growing it's pretty impressive i don't know if there's a limit there but i mean i haven't looked at the analyst but i think that is the key to the bundling point apple plus which is the tv component not the hardware product is bundled.
我认为你描述的是一种真实的情况。我认为戴维是在说明为什么这是一个糟糕的行业。我的意思是，如果他们的收入超过支出，我不认为他们需要大量的广告活动。最终，市场份额会逐渐饱和，无法保持增长率。也许通过重新激活可以实现，但我认为从商业角度来看，唯一的理性举措是将其与其他业务相结合，可以考虑ltv的概念。我认为唯一明显的例子是亚马逊视频，因为你可以将其与Prime会员和其他一些服务捆绑在一起，这样你就能够以不同的方式来证明ltv，并降低用户流失，这似乎是一个可行的论点。Jason，我不认同你的观点，个体的业务似乎很难实现这一点，感觉很恶心。不好意思，我想请教你们是否了解过Netflix的业务。他们的收入仍在增长，净利润率也在扩大。可能所有这些事实都是真实的，但他们的用户流失和重新获得引擎似乎在运作，使他们产生了现金并继续增长。这相当令人印象深刻。我不知道是否存在限制，但我没有查看分析师的观点，我认为这是捆绑销售的关键之一，捆绑销售的例子是苹果公司的Apple+，并不是硬件产品。
Section 3:
第三部分：数据收集和分析
在这一部分，我们将重点讨论数据收集和分析的方法和步骤。数据收集是任何研究项目的基础，它有助于我们获取必要的信息以回答研究问题。
首先，我们将介绍主要的数据收集方法，包括问卷调查、访谈和观察。问卷调查是一种常用的数据收集方法，通过向参与者提供一系列问题来收集信息。访谈是一种面对面的交流方式，研究者可以直接向参与者提问以获取信息。观察是通过观察参与者的行为和环境来收集数据。
接下来，我们将讨论数据分析的步骤。数据分析是将收集到的数据进行整理、统计和解释的过程。首先，我们需要对数据进行清洗，即去除无效或重复的数据。然后，我们可以使用各种统计方法对数据进行描述和分析，如平均值、标准差和相关性分析。最后，我们可以根据数据分析的结果得出结论并回答研究问题。
在数据收集和分析过程中，我们还需要考虑伦理问题。例如，我们应该尊重参与者的隐私权，并确保他们的个人信息得到保护。我们还应该遵守研究伦理标准，并确保研究结果的可靠性和有效性。
总而言之，数据收集和分析是研究过程中至关重要的一步。通过选择适当的方法和遵循正确的步骤，我们可以获取准确和可靠的数据，并用于回答研究问题。
Paragraph 1:
As part of this apple one program which is kind of like amazon prime and so i think you're seeing a little bundling there netflix also added video games to make it even more sticky so i think there's like a subscription super app coming which the new york times is kind of done right with wordle crosswords the athletic wire cutter and the new york times so i think you're going to start to see honestly you just had a jumble of names that went.
作为苹果一计划的一部分，它有点像亚马逊Prime的服务，所以我认为你会看到一些捆绑服务，Netflix还加入了视频游戏，使其更具吸引力，因此我认为可能会出现一个订阅超级应用程序，像《纽约时报》以及《Wordle Crosswords》、《The Athletic》、《Wire Cutter》等。老实说，你可能刚刚听到了一堆名字。
Paragraph 2:
in one year and out the other i don't remember a single one you said this is my point for most people Jason not at a media efficient i don't like you new york times is doing fantastic doing the bundling some people come for the crosswords and wordle and that's why they subscribe and they like the news other people come for the news they discover crosswords and wire cutter and the athletic and they stay for that so i do think there's going to be an incredible business here i'll take the other side of it yeah they spent a lot on content though during that period where disney plus came in and i think everybody's now has a little more discipline and the budgets came way down if you didn't know the hulk cost 250 million or something the she-hulk rather that cost 225 million for nine episodes what first avengers 225 million wait sorry 250 million for for nine episodes of the she-hulk yeah and people criticize it for having bad cgi so it's i think there's like new discipline coming to us it's.
在一年内进来又出去，我记不起你说的一句话，这正是我对大多数人的观点。杰森，不是每一个媒体都高效，我不喜欢你，《纽约时报》正在表现得非常出色，做好了捆绑销售。有些人因为字谜和Wordle而订阅，他们也喜欢新闻；其他人则是因为新闻而发现了字谜、钢丝切割器、体育场等，然后一直留下来。所以我确实认为这里会有一个非常好的商机。我持相反观点。是的，他们在那段时间里在内容上投入了很多，当迪士尼+推出时，我认为每个人现在都有了更多自律，预算大幅下降。如果你不知道《绿巨人》成本2.5亿美元，或者说《她-绿巨人》成本2.25亿美元9集，第一部《復仇者聯盟》成本2.5亿美元，等等。人们批评它的CGI效果差。我认为新的自律正在向我们逼近。
Paragraph 3:
a netflix show a disney plus show a disney plus show yeah i don't i don't know about you guys i've been rewatching the sopranos i find some of the content on hbomax to be the best content out there oh my god i've i've i've watched it so much more watchability on it disney doesn't have that much rewatchability i don't know the only reason i keep my max description is i'm waiting for house of the dragon season two i mean if they didn't have that one show i'd be like yeah i cut it you know yeah i do think this could help netflix because a lot of these streaming services came along we had way too many right we got saturated with streaming services and most of them you subscribe to you may now even remember subscribing you may just subscribe to a free trial to get an nfl game and then you get billed because you forgot to cancel it by the way yeah have you guys ever gone into apple i cloud settings and looked at your subscriptions oh boy yeah get in there guys just go go if you have like an extra five minutes you will say that so much money like going into subscriptions in your settings and just turning them all off i was shocked i was shocked i mean this is part of your austerity measure absolutely you know how many subscriptions to disney plus i had how many this is what's so gross is why they even let me do this i had three what three how's it even possible one for the plane one but i had i had three i had two hbos i had two netflix oh no netflix keeps sending a message saying hey you need to update your payment information but then i'm watching netflix on my apple tv so i'm like i'm clearly playing for paying for it somehow it's so confusing and i have the perfect solution for you there are credit cards now where you can set a spending limit and so what i do is every year i just turn off the limit on that credit card i just take it from unlimited or uncapped down to zero and i do this for business as well and then all the subscriptions time out you're all that what jeff jeff does that for me jeff does it but i mean having somebody go in there and i have a jeff i have a jeff do you know but it's very simple you only use one card for subscriptions and then you turn it off every year see which one you want to keep going it works really well and then you move the other ones to a new point
第三段：一个Netflix的节目，一个Disney+的节目，还有一个Disney+的节目。唉，我不知道你们怎么样，我一直在重温《黑道家族》，我觉得HBO Max上的一些内容是最好的内容。天哪，我已经看了好多遍了，它的可观性更高。迪士尼没有那么多可观性，我不知道唯一让我保留HBO Max的原因是我在等《龙之家》第二季。我的意思是，如果没有那个节目，我可能会减掉它，你知道的。对，我确实认为这可能有助于Netflix，因为很多这些流媒体服务推出来后，我们太多了，我们被流媒体服务淹没了，你可能订阅了很多，现在甚至都不记得自己有订阅了，你只是订阅了一个免费试用来看NFL比赛，然后因为忘记取消而被扣费。顺便说一句，你们有没有进入苹果的iCloud设置，看看你们的订阅？哇哦，进去吧，朋友们，如果你有多余的五分钟，你会省下那么多钱的，只需进入设置中的订阅，然后把它们都关掉，我当时很震惊，这绝对是你节俭的一个措施，要知道我订了多少Disney+的订阅，多少个啊，很恶心的是，为什么他们都让我这么做呢？我有三个！三个！为什么会有三个，这怎么可能？有一个是飞机上看的，但是我确实有三个，还有两个HBO和两个Netflix，天哪，Netflix一直发消息说：“嘿，你需要更新支付信息”，但是我却在我的Apple TV上看Netflix，所以我显然是在支付一种方式，这太令人困惑了，我有一个完美的解决方案，现在有一种信用卡，你可以设定一个消费限额，所以我每年都会把这张信用卡的限额关闭，从无限制或没有额度降到零，我在工作中也这样做，然后所有的订阅都会到期。你们这些都知道，杰夫会为我做这个，杰夫会的，但是很简单，你只需要用一张信用卡来支付订阅费用，然后每年把它关掉，看看你想继续哪一个，这个方法效果非常好，然后把其他的转移到一个新的账号上。
Paragraph 1:
i don't really want to say how many thousands of dollars i was wasting on like dual lingo i was like i'm paying for dual lingo and then i was paying your Italian it's still terrible yeah terrible and then i i had i had like you have a case against that no then i had dual lingo and i had babble and i had rosetta stone so i'm like my Italian is not improving because of any of these three apps but i was paying them collectively like four hundred dollars
第一段：
我真的不想说我花了多少千美元在像Dual Lingo这样的应用上，我付费使用Dual Lingo，然后我还在付费学习意大利语，但我的意大利语仍然很差，真的很糟糕。然后我试过Dual Lingo、Babble和Rosetta Stone这三个应用，但我的意大利语没有任何一款应用有所改善，而我竟然为这三款应用共付了四百美元。
Paragraph 2:
i had a whoop subscription i don't even have a loop when rick tomsen started manscaped i was i signed up for manscaped i get all this bald deodorant i've never used it once we know we see next year in poker we know it's not working bro just a message to manscaped i have tried to cancel i have called i have emailed i took it upon myself to try it's impossible to cancel they won't even let you reset your account so you can get a link to cancel it's so hard and still your balls are terrible yeah my balls are phenomenal i've sat next to you in poker man not okay let's get into plastics and get off chamauch balls i mean how did we get here uh subscription services subscription services yes streaming is at a crosswords across roads apparently so they're really trying to make that bald deodorant happen aren't they
第二段：
我曾经订阅过Whoop，但当Rick Tomsen开始创办Manscaped时，我甚至没有一个取消订阅的机会。我当时决定订阅Manscaped，结果却收到了一堆我从未使用过的光头除臭剂。我们都知道在扑克游戏中，它并不有效，兄弟。我给Manscaped发了取消订阅的请求，打过电话，发过邮件，我自己试图去取消订阅，但根本不可能。他们甚至不让你重置账户，以便你可以收到取消链接，取消订阅太困难了。可是，你的蛋蛋还是很糟糕。是的，我的蛋蛋都很棒。我在扑克游戏中坐在你旁边，你应该知道不太好吧。我们来谈谈订阅服务吧，订阅服务。看来流媒体服务已经到了一个关键时刻，他们真的很想让光头除臭剂出名了。
Paragraph 3:
they're trying to make it happen well they're trying to make fetch happen bald deodorant's not happening i'm sorry i mean what are you supposed to do squat and swipe what has the work i mean is it a spray are you lifting and spraying is it a chat i'm trying to create like a new thing but yeah i was trying to support my friend in signing up for a subscription service and now i can't cancel that's my problem that's my predicament could you also take a shot oh you're so i don't know i just put it out there i i'm trying it's the it's going on there chamau doesn't have to do with the product i signed up because rick was the venture investor that seeded it and started i supported my friend yes and now i want out and i cannot get out every time i try to get out they pull me back in i'm just going to say when it comes to manscaped no testimonials please no testimonials the worst part is like you you know it comes to the house and oh somebody opens your bald deodorant and puts it on your desk they do and no they not be tired staff no as you have sticky balls what that's what's so funny they put it right on the kitchen counter so as i walk through them everybody but i think i think i've walked a i grab it and i'm like who's seen this bottle out there it is what is it there is bottles going oh my god oh man how do you apply it is it just a little dab will do you yeah no i mean you know not a spray it's apparently an oatment sax it's an oatment this is far too much information
第三段：他们试图让它发生，他们试图让bald去味剂发生，不过这件事没有发生，对不起，我的意思是你应该怎么办？蹲下来，滑动屏幕。这个办法行得通吗？我是说，是喷雾剂吗？你是把它提起然后喷吗？还是有什么对话框？我试图创造一种新的东西，但是是的，我本来是想支持我的朋友注册一个订阅服务，但是现在我无法取消，这就是我的问题，我的困境。请你能不能顺便帮我解释一下？你很懂的，我只是说出来而已。我正在努力，是关于宣传，与产品无关。因为Rick是投资的风险投资者，开始创业，我支持我的朋友，是的，现在我想退出，但我无法摆脱，每次我试图离开，他们都把我拉回来。我只是想说，说到manscaped，不要给我推荐啊，不要给我推荐，最糟糕的是，当他们送到家里的时候，有人打开你的bald去味剂并放在你的桌子上，他们真的这么干，不，不会是劳累的员工，你的球都湿湿的。这才有趣，他们把它摆在厨房台面上，所以当我走过的时候，每个人都看得到，但我想我已经习惯了，我拿起来，就像问谁把这个瓶子丢在那里，它是什么东西，这就是发生的事情，哦天哪，啊，我的天，怎么使用它，只需要涂抹一点吗？不，我的意思是，你知道不是喷雾剂，显然是一种药膏，太多信息了。
Paragraph 4:
yeah i'll try it don't you guys exactly i'll try it get out of the camera you know what i'm going to give you my my prescription it's going to drop oh fall to you why not oh mr promo coach mop for 10 off your use the promo go dictator you get deficit okay you can never cancel but this d i c k tater tater yeah you stick promo dictator oh get 10 percent off your bald deodorant at manscave all right preberg it's your turn to shine no not bald deodorant we wanted to talk about micro plastics a study came out it's terrifying we've known plastics have been terrible for years obviously turned into some sort of political discourse with straws and everything but plastics are horrible we shouldn't be using them but the study confirms a bunch about drinking micro plastics educate us on this study that everybody's talking about right now
是的，我会试试看。你们知道我会试试看的。走开，别挡着相机。你们知道吗，我要给你们我开的处方，价格会降低。为什么不呢？噢，先生，推销教练，可以使用促销代码获得10%的折扣。好吧，你可以永远不能取消，但是拿着这个促销代码，你可以得到10%的折扣，是的，你们这些坏东西。噢，还有促销独裁者，你用促销代码，可以得到墨西哥洞穴男士无毛团体的10%折扣。好了，现在轮到你发光了，不是给无毛团体的折扣，我们要讨论一下微塑料，最近有一项研究出来，非常可怕。我们多年来一直知道塑料是有害的，显然关于吸管等一切都变成了政治话题，但是塑料真的很可怕，我们不应该使用它们。但是这项研究确认了关于饮用微塑料的一些问题，请向我们普及一下现在大家都在谈论的这项研究。
Paragraph 1:
dr freeberg i wouldn't start with the statement that plastics are awful plastics are polymers which are long chains of what are called monomers this is hydrogen carbon and oxygen that comes together to form these specific molecules and then we can kind of bake them into crystal like structures and the reason the plastic industry took off is because it ended up being very cheap to create materials that we could turn into chairs that we could turn into bottles to move stuff around a lot of applications everything from solar photovoltaics to our computers to our laptops to our phones everything has some form of these polymers in it the polymers that are commonly used for making bottles that we consume beverages out of or a pet plastics these pet plastics are made from a combination of natural gas and crude oil so we kind of have a production process where we get the carbon hydrogen and oxygen that's naturally found in natural gas and crude oil converted into these molecules that we turn into long chains and we turn them into bottles and fill those bottles and they end up being a lower carbon footprint than using glass about 5x the carbon footprint to use glass instead of plastic and in making a bottle to store stuff and move liquids around 40% cheaper and a lot of other kind of reasons why the industry and the world adopted plastics not just for bottle beverages but for other applications.
我认为我们不能先说塑料很糟塑料其实是聚合物，也就是由所谓的单体组成的长链结构，这些单体包括氢、碳和氧，它们结合在一起形成特定的分子，然后我们可以将它们制成类似晶体的结构。塑料行业之所以蓬勃发展，是因为制造这些可以用来制作椅子、瓶子等物品的材料非常便宜，几乎适用于各种应用，从太阳能光伏到电脑、笔记本以及手机等都包含了这些聚合物的某种形式。制作我们饮用的瓶子常用的是PET塑料，它由天然气和原油混合制成。我们的生产过程中，将天然气和原油中自然存在的碳、氢和氧转化为我们制成的这些长链分子，然后制成瓶子并将其装满。相比使用玻璃，使用塑料制造瓶子的碳足迹要低约5倍，而且在存储液体和运输液体方面成本要便宜40%。此外，塑料还有很多其他应用，因此塑料行业和世界采用塑料的原因不仅仅是瓶装饮料。
Paragraph 2:
So in bottle beverages because these are polymers there are these long chains of little molecules that are stuck together some of those chains break and then some of those little chunks of those molecules end up floating around in the liquid that we're consuming and what this study did that kind of highlighted a set of data that hadn't really been studied well before is they used a form of spectroscopy so kind of a multi spectral light system shining light at different wavelengths on the liquid in a bottle in a plastic bottle to figure out how many of these little plastic particles there were in the liquid and in doing that they found that there was on the order of 10,000 little plastic particles per liter of water or per liter of soda or drink or gatorade or whatever the beverages that you're drinking the real question then is well how risky is that so if you look at a lot of the health agency studies the kind of well adopted and well researched efforts on is there toxicity associated with PET plastics on its own they find that there's very little genotoxicity or no genotoxicity meaning each other doesn't change your DNA there's no carcinogenicity so it doesn't cause cancer but there are other studies recently that have shown different mechanisms by which these little tiny microplastics might end up in your cells because they absorb into your body and they're small enough that they can cross into barriers they can get into your brain they can get into your cells when they're in your cells there are other mechanistic studies that are done in a petri dish as opposed to being studied in the body where they've demonstrated that they could actually disrupt the function of organelles like mitochondria endoplasmic reticulum so all these little things that operate in your cell they can cause irritation they can trigger chemicals to be produced that might cause allergies that might cause inflammation and so on and so forth so while the general molecule of PET itself isn't known or shown in any way to cause cancer or to cause changes in your DNA there are other mechanisms by which these little tiny plastics might be disrupting cellular function might be causing other health issues and that's now going to open up a big area of research that that's going to be predicated I think on the fact that this study now shows that there are thousands hundreds of thousands of little pieces of tiny plastic in these plastic bottles that we're drinking water and soda and juice from that are getting into our body and into our cells two hundred and forty thousand.
因此，在瓶装饮料中，由于它们是聚合物，其中有许多小分子组成的长链被黏合在一起，其中的一些链会断裂，然后其中的一些小分子碎片会漂浮在我们饮用的液体中。这项研究所做的是突出显示之前尚未充分研究过的一组数据，他们使用了一种光谱学的方法，即使用不同波长的光在塑料瓶中的液体上照射，以确定液体中有多少这些小塑料颗粒。通过这样做，他们发现每升水、苏打水或饮料中大约有10,000个小塑料颗粒。然后真正的问题是，这有多大的风险，如果你看一下许多健康机构的研究，那些对聚对苯二甲酸乙二醇酯（PET）塑料进行了广泛采纳和深入研究的努力，发现PET塑料本身几乎没有遗传毒性或没有遗传毒性，这意味着它不会改变你的DNA，也不会导致癌症。但最近还有其他研究显示了这些微小微塑料进入细胞的不同机制，因为它们会被吸收进入你的身体，而且它们足够小以越过屏障，它们可以进入你的大脑，进入你的细胞，当它们在你的细胞中时，有其他的机制研究是在培养皿中进行的，而不是在身体中进行，他们证明了它们实际上可能会扰乱线粒体内质网等细胞器的功能，所有这些在你的细胞中运作的小东西，它们可能会引起刺激，触发产生化学物质，可能会引起过敏反应，可能会引起炎症等等。因此，虽然PET本身的分子并没有证明会导致癌症或改变你的DNA，但这些微小塑料可能以其他方式干扰细胞功能，可能引起其他健康问题，这将开启一个大的研究领域，我认为这个研究现在表明了我们饮用水、苏打水和果汁的塑料瓶中有成千上万的小塑料颗粒进入我们的身体和细胞。
Little pieces in the average one liter plastic bottle. That's a pretty scary statistic when you see that number. Enough to cross the blood brain barrier.
在一个一升的塑料瓶里有许多小碎片。当你看到这个数字时，这是一个相当可怕的统计数据。足够穿越血脑屏障了。
In rats and mice, they've shown that these little micro plastics can actually accumulate in the brain if they consume enough of them. Now the reason this hasn't been well understood or studied in the past is we kind of look at the aggregate amount of plastic that's in a liquid and it's like oh the amount is so small it doesn't matter. But when you start to look at how small these little pieces of plastic are and add them up, the cumulative effect over time, that they can actually cross into cells, cross the blood brain barrier, maybe are not getting removed from the body.
在老鼠和小鼠身上，他们已经证明，如果它们摄入足够多的微小塑料，这些微小塑料实际上可以在大脑中积累起来。过去我们没有很好地了解和研究这个问题的原因是我们只会关注液体中塑料的总体量，认为数量如此小不会有影响。但当你开始看到这些微小塑料的尺寸有多小，并把它们累加起来考虑时，随着时间的推移，它们实际上可以穿过细胞、穿透血脑屏障，可能无法被身体排出。
That's opening up a whole lot of research because there's no easy way to just scan a body and say is there plastic in it, how much plastic is there because there isn't a good chemical signature for it. And what these guys did is they use light to look in the liquid to find the plastics, which we can't easily do in the body today.
这开启了大量的研究机会，因为没有一种简单的方法可以仅仅通过扫描身体来确定是否有塑料，并且有多少塑料，因为它没有一个良好的化学特征。这些人使用光线来观察液体中的塑料，这是我们今天在人体内很难实现的。
So Freiburger, you're not going to drink plastic bottle water anymore? I'm not okay Jamal, I've already stopped. This started for me about four months ago. My wife basically said we're getting rid of all plastic and at first, I really pushed back and I'm like this is crazy. And she just kept talking to me about it and showing me all this data, and yeah about a month ago I would say I switched. So now I use glass and a craft like this, yeah much better. We got rid of all of the plastic in our house, in the gym no more bottles, it's wasteful anyway, like why not if you have beautiful filtered water at home put it in a craft sure, but the scary thing, I mean it's a little bit more inconvenient I'll be honest with you but it is very scary and I think that it does alter the phenotype of the human body over time and I think you'd have to be insane to bet against that. And I suspect when you look at the rates of depression and autism and Alzheimer's and dementia and autoimmune diseases crones rheumatoid arthritis to think that all of these environmental factors have no impact I think is is taking a very scary bet.
那么弗莱堡，你不再喝塑料瓶装水了吗？不行了，贾迈勒，我已经停了。大约四个月前，这对我起了作用。我妻子基本上说我们要摒弃所有塑料制品，起初，我真的很抗拒，觉得这太疯狂了。但她一直与我谈论并向我展示了所有这些数据，大约一个月前我就改变了。所以现在我使用玻璃或者类似这样的容器，这样好多了。我们家里的塑料制品都消除掉了，健身房也不再使用瓶装水了，反正这本来就是浪费，如果在家里有美味的过滤水，为什么不将其放在容器里呢？但可怕的是，我得诚实地说，虽然有点不方便，但这是非常可怕的，我认为它会随着时间改变人体的表型，我认为如果你打赌说它没有这样的影响，那你肯定是疯了。我怀疑当你看到抑郁症、自闭症、老年痴呆症和自体免疫性疾病(如克罗恩病和类风湿性关节炎)的发病率时，如果认为所有的这些环境因素对其没有影响，那是非常可怕的赌注。
Here's what I do, I buy these glass bottles on Amazon, you know two or three cases of them, I have the best water filter system at home, we fill them, we put them in the refrigerator and we have them block plastic in years. Sash in years. Only because I care about the environment because I'm a good person.
这就是我平常做的事情，我在亚马逊买这些玻璃瓶，通常是两三箱，我家有最好的水过滤系统，我们把玻璃瓶装满水，放进冰箱里，几年来都没有再使用塑料瓶。我这么做是因为我关心环境，作为一个好人。
For you, yeah Jason, I'll also say like that that application is a pretty small like I think on the order if I'm right, 80 percent of bottled beverages are drunk outside the home so people are buying stuff at convenience stores at gas stations at markets taking them with them to work and that's how a lot of plastic bottles are consumed, by the way remember to have us as such a small percentage of the global population, you go to Africa, you go to Brazil, you go to China, there isn't a great like people don't have these amenities that we have in our upper and middle-class America that plastic bottles have provided access to products that consumers around the world otherwise wouldn't be able to afford, so there's a reason they exist.
对于你来说，是的，杰森，我也会这样说，这款应用程序相当小，就像我认为的一样，如果我没记错的话，80％的瓶装饮料是在家外面喝的，所以人们会在便利店、加油站、市场购买产品，带到工作地方，这就是很多塑料瓶被消耗的方式。顺便提一下，记住我们在全球人口中只占很小的比例，你去非洲、巴西、中国，人们没有我们在美国中上层阶级拥有的这些便利设施，塑料瓶提供了世界各地消费者本不负担得起的产品，所以它们存在是有原因的。
But by the way, I also want to just be really clear, there isn't conclusive evidence or science that shows these plastic micro particles or nanoparticles are causing these health effects, there's certainly a lot of questions that it brings on, well what is the cumulative effect of these little things getting into cells and they get into cells why do i do when they're either why would anybody bet that it's zero, right? So that's the research website right?
顺便说一下，我还想说得更明确一些，目前没有确凿的证据或科学研究表明这些塑料微粒或纳米粒子会导致健康问题，但它引发了很多疑问，比如这些微小物质进入细胞后的累积效应是什么？它们为什么能进入细胞？如果它们根本没有任何问题，为什么会有人赌这个？所以这就是研究网站的内容，对吧？
Well, the outside is that people get to access cheap beverages on the street that otherwise people that are living on 13,000 dollars a year that can buy a you know a plastic soda for 25 cents you can also buy it yeah so that's definitely an alternative they're a little more expensive generally, plastic. just became the cheapest container saks your thoughts sorry guys I stepped out to get a drink here I missed anything? It would be better if you had put a straw in your water bottle than we drinking profiled plastic bottle now I understand your level of depression it's just causing it saks you're just killing those arrow water bottles yeah did I miss something yeah that's a high score I stepped out also I I use these beautiful contigos I think some people use yetis or other kind of things and uh I actually carry them with me only because I try to like think about the environment just the amount of plaques is being created I don't know if you've seen this but like you go to Whole Foods now or you go to any supermarket and you see this wall of salads freiburg like this is unconscionable like they were literally giving people salad in a giant plastic box i don't know yeah let me just say a couple things about this because there's this conception that this is just awful awful awful but plastics there there is a degradation
嗯，外面的情况是人们可以在街上买到便宜的饮料，否则年收入为13000美元的人可能只能花25美分买一个塑料苏打。塑料容器通常会更贵一些，但也是一种选择。抱歉，你们有没有漏掉什么？如果你在水瓶里放根吸管，比直接喝塑料瓶水要好一些，现在我明白你有多痛苦了，只会导致塑料瓶堆积如山。我有没漏掉什么？我也刚出去了，我用的是这些美丽的Contigo杯子，我想有些人用Yeti或其他类似的东西。我之所以随身携带它们，是因为我想到环境问题，塑料垃圾的数量真的太多了。不知道你有没有见过，现在你去Whole Foods或其他超市，都会看到一整面塑料盒子里堆满了沙拉，这真是太不可思议了。让我谈谈关于这个问题的几点，因为人们普遍认为这很糟糕，但实际上塑料会自然降解。
Of these petes when they're exposed to sunlight there is a recycling system that many of much of this material ends up in much of it yeah i mean i don't think that's actually correct not a lot but what would the alternative be right so the alternative is you put it in a glass thing and you charge people $15 for a couple pieces of lettuce the reason the reason plus the plastic industry emerged is because it provided a low cost way to transport materials and that we're we're all very wealthy so we have to just step outside of our bubble for a second and recognize that most people you know the dollar difference is a huge difference for most consumers they're not going to make that dollar leap so you know the fact that plastics emerged is to support a consumer market that's grown up all over the world yeah but how does this make sense look at these bananas just as an example to give people an idea bananas already come with a case called that's crazy and they're literally wrapping bananas in plastic now and you know i think this is where regulation makes sense no there must be a gas in here or something because they're trying to keep the bananas from going dad that's why i want to shout out like this is where i think regulation actually do work france spain a lot of countries now are just saying you know what for fruits vegetables like yeah don't put them in plastic please we're not going to allow you to do that and i think i'm not pro plastic by the way i'm not drinking plastic from plastic bottles but we have to be cognizant of where this industry emerged from what the science says about it like i don't want to just be flipping about it like what it's doing to all plastics and that is you're in the oceans freeburg is unconscionable like this this is not like a do-gooder thing it's just thoughtful there's no reason that we need to have plastic as a family i'll give you some good optimism around this there's a lot of efforts right now to develop microbes that can actually biodegrade these pet plastics so there's uh so we're engineering these microbes that will produce enzymes these are little bacteria that'll produce enzymes those enzymes can then be made in the plastic itself so then the plastic will biodegrade within a year after you use it so there's a lot of this kind of effort on how do you make naturally biodegrading plastics using biosources and biological molecules as part of the production process and a lot of big plastic packaging companies and industrial biotech companies are investing in this area this is where collectivism can do good you know like if we actually as a society say we want to do sustainable.
其中有许多宠物塑料在暴露在阳光下后进入了循环系统，一大部分材料最终会进入这个循环系统。是的，我的意思是我不认为这样是正确的，虽然不是很多，但还有其他替代方法吧？所以替代方法就是把它放在玻璃容器里，然后向人们收费15美元来买几片生菜。塑料产业涌现是因为它提供了一种低成本的材料运输方式，而我们都非常富有，所以我们必须站在自己的泡泡外面一些时间，认识到对大多数消费者来说，每一美元的差距都是巨大的，他们不会选择花费那一美元，所以塑料的出现是为了支持全球范围内不断壮大的消费市场。是的，但这怎么说得通呢？就拿香蕉来说吧，只是举个例子给大家一个概念，香蕉本身已经有一层外壳了，这很疯狂，他们竟然还在把香蕉包装在塑料里，我认为这就是监管有意义的地方，不是吗？可能里面含有一种气体或者什么东西，因为他们试图防止香蕉变坏，所以我就想大声呼吁，这就是我认为监管真正奏效的地方，法国、西班牙等许多国家现在都在说，对于水果和蔬菜，就请不要用塑料包装了，我们不会允许你们这么做，我并不是支持塑料，我不喝塑料瓶里的水，但我们必须认识到这个产业的起源，以及科学对此的认知，我不想漫不经心地对待这个问题，塑料对所有塑料制品造成的影响已经不可容忍了，它们进入海洋是不可想象的，这不是做好事的事情，这只是深思熟虑而已，真的没有理由让我们作为一个家庭使用塑料。我给你一些关于这个问题的乐观看法，目前有许多努力正在开展，尝试培养能够降解这些塑料宠物瓶的微生物。我们正在改良这些细菌，使其产生酶，这些酶可以制造在塑料本身中，然后在使用一年后，塑料将会自然降解。目前在如何利用生物资源和生物分子作为生产过程的一部分来制造可生物降解塑料方面，已经有许多大型塑料包装公司和工业生物技术公司在进行投资。这就是集体主义能够发挥积极作用的地方，如果我们作为一个社会真的说我们要可持续发展。
Packaging like because of the tragedy of the commons like you're saying freeburg because it's cheaper capitalism like there's no floor here you know to stop people from doing this and stop from using plastics unnecessarily like wrapping bananas etc
好像因为大众悲剧以及像你所说的自由市场因为比较便宜的缘故包装物品。就好像没有止境一样，资本主义使得人们不断地进行这种行为，不停地使用不必要的塑料，例如把香蕉包起来等等。
all right listen it's been an amazing episode of the all-in podcast for the dictator wish me luck today boys wish me luck use the promo code dick we'll be following the live stream on the chat following the live stream use promo code dick to get 20% off your baldie order
好吧，听着，这是一期令人赞叹的 "全情投入" 播客节目。希望今天运气能棒棒哒，伙计们祝我好运。使用优惠码 "dick"，我们将在聊天窗口跟踪直播。跟随直播使用优惠码 "dick"，可享受你的秃头产品订单 20% 的折扣。
hey what do you guys think about actually like running some poker tournaments through the year called all-in 100% that would be super fun no 100% I think we can replace the WSOP pretty quick I mean it'd be pretty annoying so I'm not kidding we have still help you with on our show I think Jason's right I'm not just help me if I think you can get all the pros
嘿，你们觉得我们是否可以在一年中举办一些名为“All-In 100%” 的扑克锦标赛呢？这将会非常有趣，不会100% 我觉得我们可以很快地取代世界扑克大赛（WSOP），尽管这可能有点烦人，但是我是认真的。我们节目愿意帮助你，如果我觉得你可以得到所有的职业选手。
because I think the problem is like those championships have been so watered down right there's 52 of them just in Vegas in June and July and then now you have like these circuit rings so that there's bracelets and rings and then there's the European one then there's this one there's the the hauling all the amazing you you can't have I think in order to be a world champion can you really have like 150 winners a year sex are you bored with hold them well I'll play with you guys but yeah I'm kind of bored with it
我认为问题就在于这些冠军赛的水准被稀释得太厉害了，就像六月和七月在拉斯维加斯就有52个冠军赛。然后现在还有这些巡回赛的戒指和手镯，再加上欧洲的冠军赛，还有这个那个。靠，太多了！你怎么可能每年都会有150个冠军呢？说实话，你们对德克萨斯扑克（Hold'em）还有兴趣吗？嗯，我可以跟你们玩，但我有点厌倦了。
yeah I played a tournament yesterday big oh 37 players I came in first I don't know if you play where did you play
昨天我参加了一个大型比赛，有37个选手。我取得了第一名的成绩。不知道你是否也玩过比赛？你是在哪个地方参加的呢？
I had a speaking gig yesterday in LA after the speaking gig I was going to the airport had a little time and I just stopped by Hollywood Park where you went to New one you're the best and I don't know there's nothing more boring than playing a tournament with people you don't know oh it was great it was great there was like a fight forever I mean I did the WSOP a couple of times and you know I think I lasted like three days it's a long time to be playing poker at table some people chamom I got to the final table and they wanted to chop and I was the short sack
昨天我在洛杉矶有一个演讲的机会。演讲完毕后，我准备去机场，有点时间，于是顺道去了好莱坞公园，那是你去过的地方。你真棒，我不知道还有什么比和陌生人参加比赛更无聊的了。但那真是太棒了，比赛一直持续下去，我参加过世界扑克锦标赛好几次，我记得我曾经坚持了三天，这在扑克桌前玩也是相当长的时间。有些人坚持到了决赛桌，他们想要瓜分奖金，而我是最短的一堆筹码。
I was like well you know my flights in for a couple hours I'd rather not chop and this woman I got in a fight at the casino almost this woman was wearing a mask and she goes this mother f-ber won't chop and I said ma'am it's my option to not chop madam madam. madam madam whatever they them and she went crazy and the floor came over said ma'am you have to sit down she called me a mother effort twice to my face you went on a win I was the short stack and I went on to win the tournament I kid you're not how much did you win 1400 bucks so what is your what is your early rate on that you make like 14 dollars an hour
我当时就说嘛，你知道我要飞上几个小时，我宁愿不玩牌。然后我和一个女人在赌场吵了起来，这个女人戴着口罩，她说这个混蛋不愿意玩牌。我说夫人，不玩牌是我的选择，夫人夫人。她变得疯狂，赌场工作人员走过来说夫人，请坐下，她当着我的面两次骂了我个娘胎坏了的家伙，然后我一口气赢了比赛，不是开玩笑，你赢了多少钱？1400美元，那你的小时收入是多少？大约14美元吧。
it was a hundred dollar buy and so yeah it was 200 bucks an hour but here's what happened so I had this guy massively for seven hours six hours maybe it was awesome it was great I was I had the time of my life it was the first time I played in the tournament for like since we played the one drop that time I haven't played in the tournament since it was so much fun
购买的价格是一百美元，然后呢，每小时200美元，但是接下来发生了什么，我和这个人一起玩了七个小时，也许是六个小时，太棒了，真是太棒了，我度过了一段美好的时光，这是自从我们上次参加那次大赛以来，我第一次参加锦标赛，我之后一直没有参加过锦标赛，太有趣了。
Jason goes from playing the hundred K. hundred dollar I had a time of my life because I've never played big O before it's where you have five cards and it was high low it was so dynamic oh yeah big O yeah big O is so fun I've never played whole cards and it's high low so I was like I'll learn big O I've never I've literally not played one orbit of big O I won the tournament it was awesome and so then it's me and this one guy and you know I've got like I've got him like three to one or whatever and he's like listen I got to go please I got my kids I was like no problem I'll chop it with you if we take 400 off the top for the dealers
杰森从玩百K美元的德州扑克转变为玩哈萨克扑克，我玩得非常开心，因为我以前从未玩过这种玩法。它是一种五张牌的游戏，而且是高低牌制，非常有趣。我从未接触过完整扑克牌的游戏，所以我决定学习哈萨克扑克。我从未玩过完整比赛，但我赢得了锦标赛，太棒了。然后只剩下我和一个人，我领先他三倍。他告诉我他要离开，因为他要照顾孩子。我说没问题，如果我们从奖金中扣除400美元给庄家，我愿意与你平分奖金。
a dealer cried she was like what and I was like yeah just I'll chop it with you evenly and so I won and I just chopped it up and gave a big tip
一个销售员叫喊着说她怎么了，然后我说，没事，我会与你平均分配它，于是我赢了，并且我把它分成了均等的部分，还慷慨地给了很多小费。
what did you did you get like a certificate or like I think they put you on the website or something like that like yeah it's on the poker classic website that I or I don't know if it's called the poker classic whatever it is but my point is we would have a great tournament
你拿到了什么，比如证书或者他们把你放在网站上之类的，是在扑克经典赛的网站上，我不确定它是否被称为扑克经典赛，不管怎样我的意思是我们将会有一个很棒的比赛。
we do each of the games each of us gets a free role into the game and then everybody else buys it and I like it sacks you like PLO or you just like chest
我们每个人都会玩每个游戏，每个人都能免费参与游戏。然后其他人都会购买它，我喜欢它放松你喜欢PLO，或者你只是喜欢棋类游戏。
now no I like hold them but I'm just saying I wouldn't play with a bunch of strangers yeah I like playing with friends you know but to goof off and have fun
现在不是我不喜欢和陌生人玩，只是说我不会和一群陌生人玩耍。是的，我喜欢和朋友一起玩，你懂的，就是为了闹腾和开心。
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah like sitting the problem with tournaments your RSVP to my game show up at six and show at eight thirty yeah and then listen to yourself on the pod and then leave
是的，是的，是的，是的，是的，就像解决比赛的问题一样，你确认出席我的游戏，六点出现，八点半出发，然后听自己在播客上的发言，然后离开。
yeah there's a lot of things you can do while at a poker game you can watch your podcast you can edit your podcast for the Sultan of Science the king of David Freiberg and yeah definitely the rain man himself we're live from Davos we'll see you next year bye bye
在扑克游戏中有很多事情可以做，你可以观看你的播客，可以编辑你的播客，以供科学的苏丹和大卫·弗雷伯格之王，以及绝对的雨人本人使用。我们现场直播从达沃斯，明年再见，拜拜。
wait did you give me the shout out am I I did for the dictator himself use the promo code dict no chairman dictator
等一下，你有没有给我喊出来？我会为独裁者亲自使用优惠码“dict”，不是“主席独裁者”吗？
chairman dictator use the promo code chair man or dick get 10 20 or 30% off can somebody from Manscaped please let me cancel please please it's like ten bucks a month it's just ten bucks a month I'll give you the money I just don't want to get I want to be able to get you ten bucks a month to not send all the order
主席独裁者，请使用促销代码"chair man"或"dick"享受10％、20％或30％的折扣。可以有人帮我取消Manscaped的订单吗？拜托了，请，请，每个月只是10美元而已。我会给你这笔钱，我只是不想再收到订单。
let your winners ride rain man David's and it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy like a lumpy west ice queen of kinwah besties are gone oh my god this is my dog taking a wish you driveways
让你的胜利者继续前行，雨人大卫说，我们把它开源给粉丝，然后他们像疯了一样变得疯狂，就像肯瓦最好的朋友们突然消失了，哦天呐，这是我的狗带着愿望开车上了车道。
we should all just get a room and just have one thing huge or because they're all just like this like sexual tension but they just need to release them out
我们应该找个房间，只做一件大事，或者因为他们都这样，充满了性紧张感，他们只是需要释放出来。
what your that be what your fear of feet what we need to get merges are YEAH
你害怕双脚是什么，为了完成合并，我们需要做些什么，是的。