第五十五集：与杰夫·亚斯探讨经济谬误——Susquehanna联合创始人兼管理董事

杰夫，很高兴你再次来做客，真的非常感谢。

Well, Jeff, I wanna thank you for coming back on.

你是我的第一位回头嘉宾。

You're my first repeat guest.

所以，谢谢你抽出时间来。

So, yeah, thanks for taking the time.

哦，这是我的荣幸，阿米尔。

Oh, it's my pleasure, Amir.

能来这儿我特别开心。

Thrilled to be here.

就像我们上一期节目一样，我觉得这一期会跟以往大多数节目不太一样——我们不聊你的个人背景、经历或故事，而是想探讨两个话题，都属于经济误区的范畴：一个是美国的预算赤字，也就是大家常说的美国债务危机；另一个是美国税收体系中的消费者剩余。这两个大方向我们今天都聊聊。

Well, like our last episode, I think this is gonna be different from most episodes I've done in the sense of instead of talking about your background, informative experiences, stories, I think we'll talk about two things that kind of a few economic myths under two umbrellas, one of which being budget deficit in The US, kind of what what people consider The US debt crisis, and then consumer surplus in The US tax system, and I guess these two general umbrellas.

我想先从我们之前聊过的一点说起，我知道你对大多数人眼中的美国债务危机有着更细致的看法。

So I wanna kick it off by we we talked a bit, and I know you kind of have a nuanced way of thinking about what most people treat as kind of the looming debt crisis in The US.

现在美国的国债已经和GDP持平了，很多人对此感到焦虑，担心接下来会怎样，甚至担心美国政府会不会违约。

National debt's now one to one with GDP, and I think a lot of people are are a bit anxious and scared about where it goes from here if the US government might default.

为什么单靠债务与GDP的比率来衡量美国的债务状况是不对的？

Why is measuring debt, like, purely against GDP the wrong way to judge The US?

对。

Yeah.

如果真有问题，你得先准确诊断出问题在哪。

Well, think if we have a problem, you want to diagnose the problem correctly.

不然根本没法解决。

Otherwise, you obviously can't fix it.

我们现在大概有31万亿美元的债务，GDP也是31万亿美元左右，所以才得出100%这个数字。

So we have roughly $31,000,000,000,000 in debt, and we have a GDP of roughly $31,000,000,000,000 which we get the 100 number from.

但美国和其他国家不一样，我们的财富远超GDP。

But The United States, unlike other countries, has a wealth that is vastly superior to its GDP.

我们的总资产大概是GDP的七倍，接近230万亿美元，这是因为我们的股市市值高达80万亿美元以上，超过GDP的两倍半。

So our wealth is probably seven times our GDP, close to $230,000,000,000,000 That's because our stock market is worth $80,000,000,000,000 or more than 2 and a half times our GDP.

而其他国家，尤其是欧洲和中国，股市市值和GDP基本是持平的。

While other countries, particularly Europe, China, their stock market value and their GDPs are roughly one to one.

所以我们的情况跟其他国家不一样。

So we're in a different situation than other countries.

以前人们判断有没有债务问题，都是简单地拿债务跟GDP比。

And the quick way to figure out whether you have a debt problem was compare it to GDP.

这个方法在很长一段时间里都挺管用的。

And that was a pretty good approximation for a long, long time.

但现在不行了，因为我们的财富实在太庞大了。

It no longer is because our wealth is enormous.

假如你借钱给别人，对方说年收入十万，想借一百万，你肯定不敢借。

If you were lending money to somebody and they said they made $100,000 a year and they wanted to borrow $1,000,000 you'd be afraid to do it.

但如果你知道他银行里有五百万，你就不会担心了。

But if you knew they had $5,000,000 in the bank, you wouldn't be afraid to do it.

你根本不会在意他的收入有多少。

You really wouldn't care what their earnings are.

而GDP本质上就是国家的年收入。

And the GDP is essentially your earnings.

你只关心他们真正的资产有多少。

You'd only care what their real wealth is.

我们的实际财富太庞大了，债务根本算不上问题。

So our real wealth is so enormous that the debt really isn't a problem.

债务大约只占我们财富的13%到14%，我认为这是历史最低水平。

It's roughly 13% or 14% our wealth, which is I believe a historic low.

但如果用GDP来衡量，现在的债务水平几乎是历史最高，除了二战时期。

Now it's pretty much a historic high except for World War II if you measure it to GDP.

但要是用财富来衡量——这才是真正重要的指标——那债务比例其实非常低。

But if you measure it to wealth, which is really the only thing that matters, it's at a very low number.

现在真正的问题在于我们花钱太浪费了。

Now the problem is the wasteful spending that we have is wasteful.

明明花5万亿美元就能办成的事，我们却花了7万亿美元。

We're spending $7,000,000,000,000 when $5,000,000,000,000 could have gotten the same job done.

每年白白浪费2万亿美元，实在可惜。

So it's a shame to waste 2,000,000,000,000 a year.

但我们不会破产。

But we're not going broke.

我们破产的唯一方式，是那230万亿美元的财富被彻底摧毁，跌到100万亿美元左右——也就是十年前或十五年前的水平。

The way we go broke is if that $230,000,000,000,000 wealth gets annihilated and goes down to $100,000,000,000,000 which is about where it was ten or fifteen years ago.

如果政策搞砸了，这种情况是有可能发生的。

Now with bad policies, that can happen.

但只要增长引擎持续运转，人们保持生产力，不断创办新企业、创造财富，我们就根本不必担心。

But as long as we keep the growth engine going and people are productive and they're making new businesses and they're creating wealth, we really don't have to worry.

所以我们不必担心的是债务问题。

So what we don't have to worry about is the debt.

真正需要担心的，是毁掉那只下金蛋的鹅。

What we do have to worry about is destroying the golden goose that creates the wealth.

是的。

Yeah.

我想你表达的意思是，分析一家公司的时候，如果有人想投资，不会只看资产负债表上的债务和当前收入之间的关系。

And I guess the point you're making is when you're analyzing a company, when someone wants to invest in a company, they don't just measure, you know, debt on balance sheet to what its current income.

这里的收入指的是GDP，但他们实际是拿债务和资产来对比。

An income in this sense would be like GDP, but they measure you're gonna measure debt against, you know, assets.

美国的资产远远超过它的收入。

And so The US's assets are are are far greater than its income.

所以，就像你说的，用这种方式来评估确实不太合适。

And so, yeah, like you said, it's it's not a not not a great way to make an assessment.

这完全说得通。

It totally makes sense.

我想你刚才提到的是，

I guess your point about

就像你说的，是债务与权益的比例。

It's debt to equity, as you said.

对。

Yeah.

而且正如你所说，只要经济持续增长，股市也保持上升，我们就处在非常好的状态，甚至可以说是相当不错。

And and I guess to your point about, like, don't don't limit or as long as the economy keeps growing and the stock market keeps growing, we're we're in a totally good place, if not a great place.

就像你说的，这些数字已经跌到了历史低点。

Like you said, these numbers went on, like, kind of the historical lows.

我想知道，哪些因素一旦被限制，就可能拖垮经济？

I guess what are these things that if we limit, it can kind of kill the economy?

具体来说，哪些政策或措施在某种程度上限制了发展？

What are these, like, general policies or whatever you think are are somewhat kind of limiting?

你可以回看1929年，那时候的情况很可能重演。

Well, you can go back and we might well see this in 'twenty nine.

过于严格的监管，让企业根本没法起步。

Regulation that makes it impossible for business to get started.

税率高得离谱，企业根本筹不到启动资金。

Super high taxes that makes it impossible business to raise the capital to get started.

别忘了，我们的总人口和欧洲大部分地区差不多，但人均收入却高出一半。

Remember, compare us to Europe, we're roughly the same population as most of Europe, and we're 50% richer.

根本不需要什么惊天动地的政策变动，就足以让我们变得穷得多。

So it doesn't take a remarkable policy change to make us a lot, lot poorer.

我们很容易就会变得和欧洲一样，那时候就麻烦了。

We could easily become Europe, and then we will be in trouble.

而且我们好像也在聊，现在美国很多人，尤其是这个时代，人人都有社交媒体，可以随便发表意见，对经济这块，特别是消费者剩余的概念，普遍存在误解——他们觉得那些赚大钱的人，是从社会里榨取价值，是从别人口袋里拿钱什么的。

And it seems like we were also talking about this, that a lot of people in kind of The US, especially in this day and age where everyone has kind of a social platform and can go and talk about these things, kind of have a misconception about this thing that is, like, this economic kind of thing, this consumer surplus in the sense of they think that people who make a lot of money or value extracted from society, they take money from people or whatever.

关于消费者剩余，最大的误解到底是什么？

Like what is the big myth around consumer surplus?

那些拼命贬低亿万富翁的人，到底没搞懂消费者剩余的哪一点？

What are most people who are vilifying billionaires don't understand about consumer surplus?

就连杰夫·贝佐斯这么聪明的人，我也不确定他是说错了，还是真没明白。

Well, even Jeff Bezos, who's a bright fellow, I don't know if he misspoke or he understand it.

他曾经说过，亚马逊值两万亿美元，而他只占了百分之十。

He would talk about how Amazon was worth $2,000,000,000,000 and he only owned 10% of it.

那是好几年前的事了。

This was a while ago.

所以他个人有两千亿美元，另外那一万八千亿，是属于其他投资人的。

So he had $200,000,000,000 and the other 1,800,000,000,000 was made for investors.

所以他意思是，自己只拿了其中的10%

So he said I only took 10% of it.

剩下的1.8万亿美元都归了投资者

The other 1,800,000,000,000 went to investors.

这话说得没错

And that's true.

但亚马逊真正创造的价值，是所谓的消费者剩余——它让生活变得方便多了，省下大量时间，这份价值远超亚马逊的市值

But the real value that Amazon added is what we call consumer surplus, which is it made life so much easier and saved us so much time that that number dwarfs the market capitalization of Amazon.

我觉得至少是五倍以上，光是节省下来的时间，按每小时折算20美元来算，总价值就达到了一万亿美元。所以贝佐斯拿了2000亿，而整个世界创造了超过一万亿美元的财富，他其实只分到了2%

Would say it's at least five times greater that $10,000,000,000,000 worth of wealth was created because it saved, if you measure in how many hours it saved us, and you give that a multiple of 20, it would come to something like $10,000,000,000,000 So really, Bezos made $200,000,000,000 The world made over $10,000,000,000,000 So he really only got 2% of it.

这才是企业家真正该得的份额

And that's a more realistic number of what entrepreneurs do.

一般来说，创业者拿个10%左右就差不多了

I say the typical number is somewhere around 10%.

大部分财富其实都回馈给了消费者，因为你花更少的钱买到了东西，还觉得值

So most of the money, most of the wealth created is just given to the consumer because you bought something at a much lower price and you're willing to pay for it.

最简单的例子就是泰诺。

Think the easiest example is Tylenol.

如果你曾经头疼过，还得花一美元买两片泰诺，我觉得你愿意花更多钱来摆脱这种痛苦。

If you've ever had a headache, and you had to pay Tylenol $1 for two aspirin, I think you would have paid a lot more to get rid of that headache.

所以泰诺赚得不多，但你不再头疼了。

So Tylenol makes a little bit of money, not too much, and you don't have a headache.

你为这一美元所换来的，是避免头疼的代价，你可能根本愿意花一百美元来避免头疼。

What you would pay that dollar versus having a headache, you might easily pay $100 not to get a headache.

所以绝大部分好处都落到了消费者手里，这也说明我们该制定政策，鼓励这些创业者不断创造出好东西。

So the vast majority of benefits go to the consumer, which leads you to policies that would say we want all these entrepreneurs creating these great things.

我们希望有更多像亚马逊这样的公司。

We want more Amazons.

我们希望有更多像泰诺这样的产品。

We Tylenol.

如果我们的税收制度和社会文化反而把这些人当成敌人，那简直是本末倒置。

Want And to have a tax system and a culture that vilifies these people is absolutely upside down.

我觉得很多人其实也没想明白。

And I think a lot of people just also don't.

他们总盯着华尔街那些人，觉得这些人不像亚马逊这类企业那样，能带来明显的实际价值。

They they go and and they they go after, especially people on Wall Street in the sense of there isn't as much like, they don't see as much direct value add to as as as businesses like Amazon and and and these kinds of things.

但说实话，任何一种商业形态，只要有人用，哪怕是你自己的生意，都在让市场更高效，推动整体福祉——不然早就被淘汰了。

But the truth is any kind of business, you know, people wouldn't use it or or, like, even businesses like your own kind of contribute to making markets more efficient and kind of this this general greater good or else, like, it wouldn't be in business.

你说是吧？

You know?

这些企业能持续生存、发展，根本原因就是人们真正在用，确实从中受益。很多人误解了这一点，就像你刚才说的。

Like, the only reason these businesses still survive and still thrive is because people actually use them because it's beneficial to them, to think because, like you said, a misconception a lot of people don't understand.

既然说到这儿，你觉得人们对超级富豪还有没有其他常见的误解？

And I guess as we're on this topic, do you think there are, like, any other kind of misconceptions people have about the ultra rich?

很多人觉得富人就是想方设法剥削中产和底层，从中捞取利益。

And I think a lot of people think that out to get them, out to get kind of manipulate and extract value from the middle and lower class.

还有别的误解吗？还是说这已经是最大的一个了？

Are there any other misconceptions or do think this is the biggest one or yeah?

我觉得这可能是最大的误解之一，很多人以为埃隆·马斯克有一万亿美元。

I think it's sort of the biggest one that is I mean, big misconception is to many people, Elon Musk has a trillion dollars.

意思是说，他从别人那儿拿走了一万亿。

That means he took a trillion dollars from somebody else.

就像一块大披萨，他一个人把所有切片都抢光了。

One big pizza pie, and this guy came in and took all the slices.

很多人就是这么看世界的。

You know, that is really how many people view the world.

这种误解从卡尔·马克思时代就有了，甚至可能更早。

So that's, that's a misconception that's been going on since Karl Marx and probably way before him.

但我觉得还有一个误解，大家经常提到。

But I think the misconception, and people talk about that.

你看看那些社论，全都在嘲笑这种零和博弈的说法。

I mean, you read editorials and stuff, and they'll all make fun of the idea that it's a zero sum game.

这种想法确实普遍存在。

So that's out there.

这个观念在思想层面是存在的。

It's out there intellectually.

但在政治层面，它其实并不存在。

It's not really out there politically.

但从思想上讲，我们其实一直没搞清楚，因为剩余价值很难衡量，而它才是附加值的主要部分。

But intellectually, I think we really never, because it's difficult to measure, surplus, which is really the most of the value added.

想想优步，他们赚了些钱，但真没赚多少。

Just think of Uber, they make some money, they don't really make a lot.

再想想他们如何改变了生活——你如今能做这么多事，全靠它。

And just think how they change life because you can do so many things.

因为优步太容易被接受了，我们都觉得这事儿本来就是理所当然的。

Because Uber so easily acceptable, and we just take it for granted.

但你猜怎么着？

But guess what?

它以前根本不存在。

It wasn't here.

二十五到三十年前，得有人把它发明出来。

Twenty five-thirty years ago, someone had to invent it.

它彻底改变了人们的生活。

It just changed life.

想想看，你每天都能用上优步，该有多幸运。

Just think how thankful you are that you have Uber all the time.

这家公司本身确实赚钱，但利润并没有那么高。

And the company itself is really, it's profitable, but it's not that profitable.

它的利润只占它为全世界创造价值的一小部分。

And its profitability is a fraction of the value that it added to the rest of the world.

没错，而且正如你所说，创造的价值远大于破坏的，这也是为什么我们的经济一直在增长，才有了今天这种独特的位置。

Yeah, and then and as you said, like, there's more value being created than destroyed, which is also why our economy is growing and has grown and we're in this very unique position.

你之前提到，美国股市规模大约有八十万亿美元，相比之下，大多数国家的股市规模通常和GDP或债务差不多是一比一。

Like you mentioned before, that the kind of US stock market is somewhere around like $80,000,000,000,000, which is in most companies you compare I mean, in most countries, you're comparing the stock market size and it's usually one to one with GDP or debt or whatever.

在美国，可以说我们创造了大量的消费者剩余和巨大价值，这才让经济变得如此庞大且充满活力。

In The US, I guess you could say we've created so much consumer surplus and so much value that we're in this kind of position where our economy is so huge and kind of thriving.

而且，你之前也提到过，我们聊过一点，觉得现在的美国税制有问题，很多人觉得富人逃税，税负都压在普通人身上。

And yeah, I think you also mentioned this before of, I guess, we've we've talked a bit about how you think the the kind of US the current US tax system is broken in the sense of a lot of people go streaming tax to rich tax to rich.

你觉得，从本质上讲，累进税制在激励创业者创造价值方面，到底哪里出了问题？

What what do you think is, fundamentally broken about, like, progressive tax system when it comes to kind of how do we reward entrepreneurs for creating value, for creating Well,

除了理念上的争议，还有一个实实在在的技术性问题。

besides just the philosophical problem, there's just a literal technical problem.

伊丽莎白·沃伦说过，杰夫·贝佐斯一年到头可能一分钱税都不交，因为他持有亚马逊的股票，只要不卖，就不产生纳税义务。

Elizabeth Warren will say that Jeff Bezos pays no taxes because if he owns stock in Amazon and he doesn't sell it, he may have no tax liability for the year.

他的股票价值在不断上涨，未来税单会越积越多，但眼下确实不用交。

He's building up a huge tax liability in the future as his stock goes up.

不过，亚马逊这家公司本身是缴税的。

But Amazon, the corporation pays taxes.

所以贝佐斯根本不会给政府开一张支票。

So Bezos doesn't write a check to the government.

亲爱的政府，这是杰夫·贝佐斯给您的一张支票。

Dear government, here's a check from Jeff Bezos.

亚马逊替他付了这笔税款。

Amazon writes the check on his behalf.

所以当她说他没交税时，如果亚马逊一年赚一千亿美元，交了三百亿美元的税，其中百分之二十——也就是六十亿美元——其实算他的。

So when she says he pays zero taxes, if Amazon makes $100,000,000,000 a year and pays $30,000,000,000 in taxes, 20% of that or $6,000,000,000 a year is his.

他通过亚马逊每年交六十亿美元，根本不是像沃伦说的那样一分不交。

So he's paying $6,000,000,000 a year through Amazon, not zero like Warren, like Elizabeth Warren thinks.

这只是一个事实问题，不是哲学争论。

Now that's just a factual thing, not a philosophical thing.

如果亚马逊是私有公司，他每年就得自己交六十亿美元的税。

If Amazon was a private company, he would be paying $6,000,000,000 a year in taxes.

他本人没掏钱，但公司替他付了。

He pays zero, but the company pays it for him.

那这中间有什么区别呢？

So what's the difference?

这才是最大的误解。

That's the mega myth.

这根本无可辩驳，说他不缴税完全是胡说八道。

That's just irrefutable, and it's just nonsense to say that he doesn't pay taxes.

这样我们至少能用事实来反驳，不用扯上哲学。

So that we could at least disprove without any philosophy.

这纯粹就是会计问题。

This is just accounting.

另一个常见的误解是沃伦·巴菲特，他说过，我绝不会多缴一分钱税。

And, and then the other the other myth is when you think of like, Warren Buffett, he said, you know, I'm never gonna, I'm gonna pay as little taxes as they possibly can.

他把税法允许的所有合法手段都用上了，就是为了少缴税。

He did everything legal in the tax code to avoid it.

等我老了，我会把所有钱都捐给慈善机构——他实际上也正是这么做的。

And at the end of my life, I'm going to donate it all to charity, which is more or less what he's done.

他选择把钱捐给比尔·盖茨，因为盖茨说服了他，要减轻人类的苦难，最有效的地方就是非洲，那里最需要药品、粮食和疫苗。

And he chose to give it to Bill Gates, because Gates convinced him that if you want to eliminate human suffering, the best place to go is Africa, and bring medicine and food and vaccines, etc, to Africa.

他也就这么做了。

So that's what he did.

所以这么长时间以来，我们一直在指责这位亿万富翁，可到最后，他把钱又还给了社会。

So for all this while we might be billifying a billionaire, at the end, he threw it back into the ocean.

他什么也没为自己留，只想着帮最穷的人过上更幸福、更健康的生活。

He didn't do anything with it, except try and help the poorest people, know, live a happier, healthier life.

可就因为这个，他反而被骂得一无是处。

And for that, he's vilified.

人们却完全忽略了这笔钱的流向。

And then just forget to follow the whole stream of money.

他临终前也没搞什么上十亿美元的奢华派对，你知道的。

He just didn't have a big blowout $100,000,000,000 party, you know, before he died.

他把钱全都捐给了非洲。

He gave it to Africa.

光是这一点，我就觉得他是个了不起的人，是社会真正的宝贵成员。

Now that makes me think he's a pretty good guy and a pretty valuable member of society.

可有些人却只想把这笔钱没收。

But to some, they want to confiscate that money.

他们想拿这笔钱去买选票，根本不在乎非洲穷人的死活。

They want to use it to buy votes for themselves, and they really don't give a shit about poor Africans.

尤其是在你这种情况，大家都知道你签了捐赠誓言之类的，但据我了解，你其实还参与了很多大规模的慈善项目。

And especially in in in your case, I guess, like, people know about the giving giving pledge and things like this, but there's also, like, from what I've read, you you have some, like, massive philanthropic kind of endeavors.

我想知道，在你个人看来，你最关心的是什么？

I guess like what do you in your specific case, what do you care about?

你主要支持哪些事业？

What do you give to?

我知道你关注教育选择权，那你具体都在支持哪些方面？

I know you care about school choice and like what are these things that you give to?

我觉得在美国，减轻苦难最有效的办法就是改革教育体系。

Well, I find the biggest lever to relieve suffering in America is legalize the education system.

如果学校之间有竞争，孩子们会更快乐、更自由，教育质量也会大幅提升，而且费用还能减半。

That if there was competition in schools, kids would be so much happier, they'd be so much freer, they'd be so much better educated, and they'd do it at half the price.

我常举的例子是，纽约市每个学生的教育经费高达四万三千美元。

The example I often give is $43,000 per kid in New York City.

最好的天主教学校，费用还不到这个数的一半。

The best Catholic schools cost less than half that.

你可以给孩子们发教育券。

You can give a kid a voucher.

他们可以选择去天主教学校、特许学校或者私立学校，这笔钱还能存进银行账户。

He can go to the Catholic school or the charter school, the private school, and you can put that money in a bank account.

等他们毕业时，账户里就能有三十万美元。

And when he graduates, he'd have $300,000 a year.

这说明教育系统里有多少浪费和欺诈。

That's how much waste and fraud there is in the education system.

只要放开教育管制，就能一举解决所谓的负担不起的问题，别再让政府垄断教育了，他们只会不断加钱，却一点成效都没有。

So you can eliminate the so called affordability crisis in one fell swoop, just legalize education, take it away from this ridiculous government monopoly that just spends more and more and more and doesn't get any results.

所以我觉得，在我的慈善事业里，这个想法真的很棒。

So I find that you know, in my philanthropy, it's like, this is a great idea.

但更重要的是，这个想法实现的可能性有多大。

But it's also idea times the probability that it's actually doable.

我觉得这个在政治上是可行的。

And this I think is politically doable.

还有其他一些想法，可能同样宏大，但根本没希望。

Have other ideas that may be just as big, but they have zero chance.

是的。

Yeah.

或者希望非常渺茫。

Or very little chance.

所以我根本不担心。

So I don't worry about it.

这个方案，如果你把教育选择权算进去，它能通过吗？

This one, when you multiply the parlay, if school choice, then will it pass?

我觉得这个能带来最大的好处。

That I think yields the greatest benefit.

毫无疑问。

For sure.

所以，按照你刚才说的，为什么没人这么做呢？

And I guess kind of to your points here, why aren't people doing this?

政府或者大家为什么不推动这些措施呢？根本原因是什么？

What's like the root cause of why the government or like, why aren't people kind of making these things?

我觉得大家根本不清楚这要花多少钱。政府特别擅长的一点就是，从来不给你寄学校的账单。

I think people to have no idea what it costs, you know, one of the things that government does very effectively is they don't send you a bill for school.

你上七年级的时候，根本不会收到一张四万三千美元的账单，所有费用都混在其他税里，由别人默默承担了。

When you go to you know, seventh grade, you're not getting a bill of $43,000 You know, it's all smooshed in and other taxes or other people.

你根本不知道真相。

And you don't know.

要是真给你寄账单，你肯定要疯了。

They sent you a bill, you would go nuts.

到时候，大家的行为肯定会改变。

And people would would change their behavior.

但正是这种隐瞒，才让这个骗局能一直持续下去。

But that's largely what what keeps us the fraud going.

是的，这种隐藏和分摊的方式确实很高明。

Yeah, there's a very good way of hiding it and spreading it out.

而且这完全说得通。

And yes, it makes total sense.

所以我才想把这些点连起来。

That's why I want to connect the dots.

如果你跟大家说，我们能找出浪费和欺诈，赤字就能从两万亿美元降到一万亿美元。

It's like, if you say to people, we can find waste and fraud, and the deficit is gonna go from 2,000,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000.

人们只会说，哦，挺好，挺好，但我无所谓。

People are like, well, good, good, I don't care.

反正跟我也没关系。

Know, my life.

你得把这一万亿美元实实在在地交到他们手里。

You got to give them that trillion dollars.

我们在教育选择上想传达的核心理念是：清除浪费和欺诈，提供更好的教育，同时把省下来的钱直接还给家长，这样大家才有动力去参与。

And the idea that we're trying to get through in something in school choice is we're going to get rid of the waste and fraud, we're going to get you a better education, and we're going to give you the savings so you're actually motivated to do it.

是的。

Yeah.

我想最后再问你一个问题。

And I guess I want to kind of ask one final question to you.

我们刚才已经澄清了一些经济迷思，也揭穿了当今美国社会很多根深蒂固的误解。

We've gone through some we've kind of debunked some some economic myths or missed a lot of the kind of US beliefs in this day and age.

这个问题是你之前建议我问的。

And this is a question that that that you've kind of recommended I ask.

我通常会在播客里问嘉宾。

I may ask my guests on the podcast.

那我们就从这个问题开始吧。

And so I guess we'll start with this one.

这是第一个问题。

This will be the first.

但说了这么多，如果你要选一个最能让美国更自由、更繁荣的主意，你会选哪个？

But all this being said, if you were to pick one or your best idea to make America freer or more prosperous as a country, what would it be?

最好的办法，虽然根本不可能实现——那就是认真对待宪法第九和第十修正案，它们的意思是：只要宪法没明确授权政府做的事，政府就不能做。

Well, the best idea, which has zero chance of happening, first, that would be listen to the ninth and tenth amendment of the constitution, which basically says, if we didn't say it, if we didn't explicitly state that the government can do it, you can't do it.

正是这个原则让美国得以建立，让政府保持小规模，也比其他国家的政府更少腐败。

That's what built America, that it kept the government small, kept it less corrupt than other governments.

不过现在这根本不可能了。

Now that ain't happening.

但我觉得，我们至少可以让人明白，下次搞福利项目时，直接发代金券就行。

But I think we can convince people that the next time we're having a welfare program, just make it a voucher.

政府根本没必要自己去拥有农场和超市，他们也没这么做。

There's no reason the government doesn't own the farms and the grocery stores, so they didn't.

他们只是发食品券。

They give out vouchers for food stamps.

政府也不该直接办学校。

The government should not run the schools.

他们只需要发教育代金券就行了。

They should just give out vouchers.

政府不该操办医疗体系。

The government should not run the medical system, the healthcare system.

应该给每个人发一张代金券。

They should just give everybody a voucher.

那样才算得上是福利国家。

Now that would be a welfare state.

但至少那会是一个比现在高效得多的福利体系。

But at least it would be a vastly more efficient welfare state than the one that we have now.

虽然这远非完美，但我觉得这已经是咱们能做的最好的办法了。

And while it's far from a perfect solution, it's I think about the best that we can do.

我说了，代金券，代金券，还是代金券。

I would say voucher, voucher, voucher.

如果有人更倾向政府直接运营，而不是让政府发代金券，那我实在想不出他们还能有什么正当理由。

I don't think anybody could be acting in good faith when they prefer a government run system versus just a system where the government gives out a voucher.

完全同意。

A 100%.

我完全同意。

I couldn't agree more.

杰夫，这次再和你聊真是很愉快。

Well, Jeff, it's been a pleasure doing this again with you.

我很期待大家能听到这次对话，从中有所收获。

I'm super excited for kind of people to to hear and learn from this.

希望将来我们还能再做一次。

And, hopefully, at some point in the future, we do it again.

好的。

K.

谢谢你，萨米尔。

Thanks, Sameer.

挺有意思的。

It was fun.