AI 智能体正在改变商品价格

救命的坐骑。

Ride savior.

但实际上，美国对价格欺诈是有法规的。

But there are actually regulations around price gouging in The US.

你能解释一下这些法规是什么，以及它们的定义到底是什么吗？

Can you explain what they are and what the definition actually is?

价格欺诈的法律定义其实很简单直接。

The legal definition of price gouging is pretty straightforward.

就是在紧急情况下收取高得离谱的价格——

It's charging unconscionably excessive.

至于怎么界定这个高得离谱，

You know, how you define that varies a

可能有点道德相对主义的感觉，但……

little bit moral relativism there, but...

基本上就是在紧急情况下收不合理的过高价钱。

But it's charging unconscionably excessive prices during an emergency, basically.

通常它只适用于生活必需品。

It typically is limited to necessities.

所以如果你想靠卖铂金包赚大钱，那不会触犯哄抬物价的法律。

So if you're charging a bunch for a Birkin bag, like, you're not gonna run afoul of price gouging laws.

但如果你在飓风之后对食物漫天要价，

But if you're charging a lot for food after a hurricane

铂金包紧急情况。

Birkin emergency.

电动手提包紧急情况。

Electric handbag emergency.

如果你在飓风之后对食物或水漫天要价，或者在大流行病期间对个人防护装备要价过高，很多州实际上在大流行病期间更新或出台了新的哄抬物价法。

If you're charging a lot for food after a hurricane or water, if you're charging a bunch for PPE during a pandemic, many states actually updated or brought new price gouging laws online during the pandemic.

但美国有超过40个州都有哄抬物价法。

But more than 40 states have price gouging laws in the country.

我书的标题当然指的是哄抬物价的法律定义，但也指的是那种被宰、被挤压或被敲竹杠的口语感受，我想现在很多美国人在看自己的购物账单时都会用这个词。

The title of my book is certainly referring to the legal definition of price gouging, but it's also referring to the colloquial feeling of being ripped off or squeezed or gouged, which I think is a word a lot of Americans are using right now when they see their grocery bill.

科学定价的先驱是谁？

Who were the pioneers of scientific pricing?

最早意识到可以利用技术和大数据的人是谁？毕竟我们通过使用设备等等，都在不断产生海量的数据。

Who were the first to recognize that with technology, with the abundance of data, that we're all the exhaustive data that we all admit just by using devices and so forth?

最早认识到这些数据可以用于定价的先驱又是谁？

Who are the pioneers that recognize that this could be used for pricing?

对，我觉得真正的先驱其实是航空业。

Yeah, I really think the OG here is the airline industry.

这背后有几个有趣的原因。

And there are some interesting reasons for that.

首先，航空业显然拥有稀缺资源。

One is obviously they have a scarce resource.

飞机上的座位就那么多。

You only have so many seats on the plane.

所以动态定价是分配稀缺资源的一种有效方式。

So dynamic pricing can be an efficient way to allocate a scarce resource.

所以当你登录看到还剩五个座位时，价格就会偏高。

But it's also why when you log on and there are five seats left, the prices are high.

当只剩下一个座位时，价格就会非常高。

When there is one seat left, the price is quite high.

但航空公司后来被解除管制了。

But the airlines get deregulated.

他们之前是有价格管制的。

They have price controls.

突然之间，航空公司的高管们就懵了：这价格该怎么定啊？

And all of a sudden, the airline executives are like, wait, how do we set prices?

于是他们请了一堆顾问和专家，来开发这个国家最早的收益管理和产量管理系统。

And they hire a bunch of consultants, advisors to build what becomes the first revenue management and yield management systems really in the country.

他们确实是动态定价模式的先驱。

And they really pioneered the dynamic pricing model.

而且之后几十年里，除了航空业，其他地方真的很少见到动态定价。

And it was actually pretty rare to see dynamic pricing outside of the airlines for decades.

2011年，优步首次推出了动态加价，实际是在万圣节那年，2011年，他们说，嘿，今晚会很忙。

It was 2011 when Uber rolled out surge pricing for the first time, Halloween, actually, 2011, they said, hey, it's going be a busy night tonight.

我们预计街上会有很多人。

We expect a lot of people out on the streets.

我们会尝试这个新模式，确保你能平安回家。

We're going to try this new model that's going to make sure you can get home.

同一年，也就是2011年，Ticketmaster也转向了动态定价。

Same year, Ticketmaster 2011 as well moved to dynamic pricing.

所以大约在2011年，这些做法才真正开始被广泛使用。

So we really got more widespread usage of these practices around 2011.

优步会说，在万圣节或新年前夜这样的大晚上，或者我猜更常见的是新年早上，价格确实会涨，但你同时需要激励司机在凌晨一点出来接客。

Uber would say that on big nights like Halloween or New Year's Eve, or I guess New Year's morning more typically, that, yes, prices go up, but you also need to incentivize drivers to come out at

对，绝对如此。

one in the morning Absolutely.

在新年前夜。

On New Year's Eve.

这就是高峰定价的目的之一，它能达到的效果之一就是向司机发出信号，让他们上路。

And that part of the purpose that surge pricing does, one of the things that it accomplishes is it sends a signal to drivers, get out on the road.

有一大堆生意在等着

There's a bunch of business for

他们。

it.

没错。

Absolutely.

它把司机从场外拉了回来。

It brings drivers off the sidelines.

就像，你正坐在沙发上犹豫要不要收工，是的。

Like like, you're sitting on your couch deciding whether or not you're gonna call it a night Yeah.

或者再拉一单。

Or pick up another ride.

突然，价格就变得有吸引力了。

Suddenly, the price point gets interesting.

赶紧钻进你的车。

Jump You in your car.

你穿上运动裤。

You put your sweatpants on.

你跳进车里。

You jump in the car.

你去送人回家。

You go drive someone home.

完全正确。

Absolutely.

不过，问题是这样的。

Here's the thing, though.

优步的运营模式已经发生了巨大变化。

Uber's model has shifted dramatically.

好的。

Okay.

那我们怎么知道的？

And how do we know?

我们在Uber、Uber Eats上做过实验，司机端和乘客端都试过。

We have run experiments on Uber, Uber Eats, and we've done it on the driver's side, and we've done it on the rider's side.

结果我们发现……

And here's what we find.

比如你在演唱会外面放一群人，大家同时离场。

You put a bunch of people outside a concert, everyone's leaving at the same time.

你让他们设置完全相同的终点。

You have them set the exact same destination.

上车时间一样。

Pickup time is the same.

终点也一样。

Destination is the same.

但Uber的价格差别很大。

Uber prices vary substantially.

司机的情况也是一样的。

Same is true for drivers.

More Perfect Union 做过一个实验，他们让一群司机待在洛杉矶的一个房间里。

More Perfect Union did an experiment where they put a bunch of drivers in LA in a room.

他们让司机把手机放在会议桌上，同时打开应用，表明自己可以开始接单了。

They had them stick their phones on a conference table and all fire up their app and say, I'm ready to start driving.

订单就上线了。

The rides came online.

他们都选了同一个订单。

They all picked the same ride.

但系统给他们的报价却各不相同。

They were given different price points.

我觉得很明显，优步现在越来越擅长判断每位乘客愿意为一次行程支付多少钱，同时也越来越擅长判断每位司机愿意接受的最低价格。

And I think what is going on here quite clearly is that Uber is getting very good at figuring out the maximum amount each rider will pay for a ride, and they're getting really good at figuring out the minimum amount each driver will accept for a ride.

这当中，有多少是因为公司规模越来越大导致的呢？

How much of this is also a story of companies just getting bigger?

因为这对我来说可能很烦人，但对Joe来说不一定，可替代的交通方式太少了。

Because one of the reasons that this would be annoying to me and maybe not to Joe, but, there are limited alternatives for transportation.

我知道有Lyft、出租车之类的，所以你还是有些选择的。

I know there's Lyft and there's taxis and things like that, so you have some options.

但如果每个人都在同一时间做同样的事情，我...

But if everyone is doing the same thing at the same time, I.

嗯...

E.

比如提高价格或者给你的价格比别人看到的都高，那你的选择就很有限了。

Raising their prices or giving you a price that's higher than everyone else is seeing, then your options are limited.

当然，像食品这样的东西，感觉全世界每家超市都在涨价，而你可能住在一个只有一家大型超市能正常购物的城市，选择就非常有限。

And certainly with something like food, where it feels like every supermarket in the world has been raising prices, and maybe you're in a city where there's only one big supermarket that you can legitimately shop from, you have limited choices.

这在多大程度上是关于规模的问题？

How much of this is about scale?

我觉得这跟公司转向不同的盈利模式有关。

I think this is about companies moving into different profit models.

那我给你举两个例子。

So I'll give you two examples.

克罗格现在不只是卖杂货，还卖你的数据。

Kroger now doesn't just sell groceries, they sell your data.

克罗格30%的净营业收入来自他们所谓的“替代利润”业务。

30% of Kroger's net operating income comes from what they call their alternative profits book of business.

替代利润里有一部分就是出售你的数据。

Part of what is included in the alternative profits is the sale of your data.

克罗格95%的交易都跟会员卡绑定。

95% of Kroger transactions happen attached to loyalty cards.

所以他们建立了非常详细的客户档案，这些档案对外部利益相关者来说相当有价值。

So they've built really sophisticated dossiers on all of us that are pretty valuable, to external stakeholders.

有道理。

That makes sense.

顺便说一句，还有一件事……

By the way, you know, another thing...

我刚刚还在想那杯48美元的鸡尾酒。

And I was just thinking about the $48 cocktail.

我觉得这挺重要的。

I think this is very sort of important.

比如，你买了那杯鸡尾酒。

Like, you bought the cocktail.

是的。

I did.

这真是个有意思的事。

Like, this is an interesting thing.

顺便说一下，那天是我生日。

By the way, it was my birthday.

所以咱们说清楚。

So let's just be clear.

我是在犒劳自己。

Treating myself here.

对吗？

Okay?

这么说吧。

Information.

那确实

That is

很重要，而且……

important and...

生日快乐。

Happy birthday.

谢谢你，乔。

Thank you, Joe.

是昨天，不过

Yesterday, but

谢谢。

Thank you.

大家……

Everyone...

昨天是特蕾西的生日。

It was Tracy's birthday.

所以大家都围着特蕾西转。

So everyone was Tracy

生日快乐。

Happy birthday.

谢谢

Thank you

非常感谢。

so much.

我们国家通货膨胀很严重。

We have a lot of inflation in this country.

至少那些上层的人，他们可没放慢脚步。

At least the people on the top side of the k, like, they're not slowing down.

这就是让我觉得有点奇怪也有点有意思的地方，就是出去吃饭的时候我会抱怨。

Like, that's the thing that's kinda weird and kind of interesting to me, which is like, I go out to eat and I complain.

我就想，哇，培根鸡蛋居然要这么多钱。

I was like, oh, bacon and eggs cost this much.

但这并没有阻止我第二天接着去，第三天还去。

It didn't stop me from going the next day or the next day.

也许是因为股市在涨，大家都对自己的投资账户感觉良好，诸如此类。

Maybe it's because of, you know, the stock market's going up, so everyone feels good about, like, their investment accounts, etcetera.

大家抱怨归抱怨，但还是照常消费。

Like, people complain and then they just keep doing it.

你提到过这种监视定价在美國企业界有点像罗宾汉，对吧？

I mean, you mentioned this idea of surveillance pricing being used as a sort of Robin Hood in corporate America, right?

就像一旦你瞄了一眼他们的钱包，就能狠狠宰富人们一笔。

Like you can really soak the rich once you've had a peek into their wallets.

我完全认为这是可能的。

I absolutely think that is possible.

而且我觉得公司百分之百会这么做。

And I think companies will do that 100%.

我不太确定的是，这种做法会不会用来补贴其他消费者。

I think where I am not so convinced is that that will be used as a cross subsidy for everyone else.

原因有几个。

And there are a couple of reasons why.

首先，支付意愿并不总是等于支付能力。

The first is willingness to pay is not always the same thing as ability to pay.

所以有时候你钱不多，但愿意付很多，因为你别无选择。

So sometimes you don't have a lot of money, but you're willing to pay a lot because you're over a barrel.

比如一个妈妈告诉她的聊天机器人孩子生病了，然后个人助理就去买泰诺。

You're a mom who told her chatbot that her kid is sick, and now the personal assistant goes out to get the Tylenol.

我可能会花15美元买儿童泰诺。

I'll probably pay $15 for the children's Tylenol.

我想给孩子退烧。

I want to break the fever.

有时候你急需某样东西。

Sometimes you need something urgently.

你得赶回家参加葬礼。

You've got to get home to a funeral.

所以我觉得最可能的情况是，公司会利用这些技术从富人那里赚很多钱。

So I think what is most likely is companies will use these technologies to take a lot from the rich.

他们会对其他人尽可能多收钱。

They'll use it to take as much as they can from everyone else.

但他们会抓住那些我们愿意支付高价的时刻，即使我们可能付不起。

But they'll also be spotting opportunities where our willingness to pay is high even if our ability to pay is not.

我猜保护性特征也适用于购物，就像就业和贷款一样。

I'm assuming that protected characteristics apply to shopping as well as things like employment and lending.

就是说不能依据种族、年龄、性别之类来区别对待。

The idea that you can't discriminate based on race or age, gender, that sort of thing.

不过我们从算法定价中学到的一点是，你可以通过人们居住地的邮政编码来相当准确地推断出他们的年龄、性别和种族，从而判断他们住的是富人区还是穷人区。

However, one thing we've learned from algorithmic pricing is you can you can develop a pretty good proxy for someone's age and gender and race, the ZIP code of the area that they live in so you can tell if it's a wealthy neighborhood or a poor neighborhood.

有没有人在联邦层面关注过这个问题，就是人们是否在某种程度上接近基于受保护特征进行歧视，即使他们没有明确说出来他们在这么做？

Is anyone looking at this on, like, a federal level, whether people are sort of, I guess, getting close to discriminating based on protected characteristics without explicitly saying that that's what they're doing?

我不知道现在有谁在仔细研究这个问题。

I don't know of anyone who's looking into it closely right now.

但是，是的，绝对有。

But, yes, absolutely.

我们所说的统计性歧视。

What we think of as statistical discrimination.

你可能是基于像邮政编码这样的东西进行歧视。

You may be discriminating based on something like zip code.

但实际上，最终的结果是你基于种族进行歧视。

But actually, end result is you're discriminating based on race.

书里最好的例子是普林斯顿评论被ProPublica曝光的那件事。

And the best example of this in the book is there was a big ProPublica expose of Princeton Review.

他们发现，如果一个人从亚裔美国人集中、亚洲人很多的地区的IP地址登录，普林斯顿评论会向他们收取更高的考试准备套餐费用，包括很多小时的辅导、几本手册或练习册之类的。

And what they found is that Princeton Review was charging individuals more for a test prep package, many hours of tutoring, a couple of handbooks or whatever those things are, exercise books, if they logged on from an IP address from a high Asian American neighborhood where there were a lot of Asians in the region.

这里的基本想法是，普林斯顿评论发现有些移民妈妈希望孩子上大学，因此愿意为备考套餐多付一千美元。

And the basic idea here was that the concern was that Princeton Review had identified that there were immigrant moms who wanted their kids to go to college and as a result would pay another grand for the test prep package.

所以，绝对会这样，特别是考虑到美国在地理上按种族划分，当公司使用地理定位时。

So absolutely, I think, particularly given that The United States is carved up geographically by race, when companies are using geolocation.

而这正是所有这些模型中的经典画像工具，对吧？

And that is a classic profiling tool that is in all of these models, right?

你的IP地址、你从哪里登录、通过手机追踪你的位置。

Your IP address, where you come in from, tracking you on your phone to know where you are.

这确实会成为一个真正的问题。

That's going to be a real concern.

现在，彭博社网站的订阅者可以参与彭博广播的讨论。

Now bloomberg.com subscribers can shape the conversation on Bloomberg Radio.

我们有一周的聪明问题。

We got a week of smart questions.

可以是

Can be

成为对话的一部分。

part of the conversation.

向你在广播中听到的专家和嘉宾提交问题。

Submit questions for experts and guests you hear on air.

访问bloomberg.com/askradio向主持人发送问题。

Visit bloomberg.com/askradio to send questions to our hosts.

你可能会在广播中听到这些问题被提出。

You may just hear them asked on the air.

专为bloomberg.com订阅者提供。

Exclusively for bloomberg.com subscribers.

获取关于今日头条、突发财报新闻和重大市场波动的答案。

Get answers on today's headlines, breaking earnings news, and big market moves.

访问bloomberg.com/askradio，就在彭博广播上加入对话。

Visit bloomberg.com/askradio to join the conversation right here on Bloomberg Radio.

让我们再多聊聊你的工作，特别是在智能代理定价和AI服务、AI机器人代替我们去购物这些方面。

Let's talk a little bit more about, you know, your work in the context of agentic pricing and AI services, AI bots, whatever, going out shopping on our behalf.

首先，如果有人发现一个AI机器人实际上并没有追求最优价格，因为结果发现它要么对我没有起到作用，要么是推出它的那家公司，因为我不知道名字，实际上是在向赞助商倾斜。

First of all, if one were to find an example of an AI bot not actually pursuing the best price because it turned out it was either it was not working for me or the company that put it out, since I don't know the name, was actually gearing towards sponsored.

如果这是可以被实证证明的，那应该是一个巨大的丑闻，等等。

That should be a huge scandal if that is empirically demonstrable, etcetera.

但至少在理论上，一家公司可以构建一个真正为客户服务的模型。

But at least in theory, a company could build a model that actually works on behalf of the customer.

而且至少在理论上，一个模型不仅可以为客户服务，而且在模型进行交易的时候，最终的公司并不知道是谁在购买。

And also at least in theory, a model could not only work on behalf of the customer, but that at the point that the model makes the transaction that the end company does not know who's buying it.

这些交易通常是这样运作的：比如说，我把我的信用卡信息加载到Muse或类似的东西里。

The way these things work typically in terms of the transaction is that, let's say, I load my credit card info into Muse or something like that.

但是当Muse进行购买时，如果我没理解错的话，Muse并不是在用我的信用卡。

But then when Muse makes the purchase, I believe if I have this correct, Muse is not using my credit card.

Muse会生成一张即时的一次性信用卡，可能来自像Stripe这样的公司。

Muse is generating an instant one time credit card, maybe from a company like Stripe.

他们进行交易，然后Muse买下它，然后我从Muse那里购买。

They make the transaction and then Muse buys it and then I'm buying from Muse.

所以至少从理论上讲，甚至不仅仅是在理论上，Agent Commerce 有望让人们在购买时，卖家完全不知道真正的买家是谁。

So at least it seems theoretically, more than theoretically possible, that Agents Commerce could allow people to buy something without that end seller having any idea of who the actual buyer is.

对，百分之百。

Yeah, 100%.

我觉得个人助理有很多的用例，

I mean, I think there are a huge number of use cases for personal assistance

在 Agent Commerce 里真的能给消费者带来好处，而且坦率地说，能绕开我书里写的很多问题。

In Agents Commerce that could really benefit consumers and frankly could get around a lot of the stuff in my book.

所以我们在 Groundwork 写过一篇关于“烦恼经济”的文章。

So we've written a piece at Groundwork on the annoyance economy.

美国人每年因为订阅陷阱这些东西，浪费的时间和金钱高达1650亿美元。

The $165,000,000,000 a year that Americans spend in lost time and money and things like subscription traps.

其中一个重要的——哦，

One of the big Oh,

Muse 的广告宣传就是：我要撸起袖子干起来，去帮你取消那些订阅。

Advertising campaigns of Muse is I'm gonna crack my knuckles and go get to work canceling your subscriptions.

当我们看到Muse的指标开始上涨时，那些惯性股票的下跌我们并不意外。

And it wasn't surprising to us to see the inertia stocks plummet when the Muse numbers started ticking up.

因为有很多东西人们因为忘记而丢下，而Muse可以帮你找到并处理。

Because there's a lot of stuff that people leave because they forget about it that Muse can go find and handle for you.

所以我很喜欢人们能获得帮助摆脱订阅的想法。

So I love the idea of folks having help getting out of subscriptions.

我也很喜欢人们能在比较购物方面得到帮助的想法。

I love the idea that folks would have help with comparison shopping.

在这个数字和电子商务时代，比较购物非常棘手，正是因为我之前提到的定价技术。

Comparison shopping is a total bear in this digital and ecommerce age precisely because of the pricing technologies The that I talked

在我看来，问题在于尽职调查。

problem in my mind is the due diligence.

就像，你使用代理很可能是因为你已经时间紧迫，没有时间自己去查看所有这些。

Like, you're using an agent presumably because you're already time strapped and don't have time to go look at all of this yourself.

然后你会审查代理的输出，心想，这真的是最便宜的价格吗？

And then you're gonna review the output of the agent and be like, well, was this really the cheapest price?

我怎么知道这个代理真的帮我找到了最划算的交易呢？

How do I know that the agent is actually finding me the best bargain?

顺便说一句，这就是你提议给AI代理设定信托责任的原因。

Which, by the way, is why you are proposing fiduciary duties for AI agents.

我觉得这个问题并不是新鲜事。

Mean, I don't think this problem is new.

我们通常会认为，新技术需要一套全新的考虑或政策。

We often, I think, with new technologies, think we need a whole new set of considerations or a whole new set of policies.

但这其实只是经典的代理问题。

But this is just the classic agent question.

你的代理是为谁服务的？

Who does your agent work for?

如果它自称代理，特别是自称你的个人代理，那它应该为你服务，而不是为Muse或者赞助内容、出价最高的人服务。

If it's calling itself an agent, and particularly if it's calling itself your personal agent, it should probably work for you and not Muse or whoever is offering sponsored content and and the highest bidder.

它也不应该在你的邮件里翻找信息来对你不利。

It should probably not be rooting around in your emails to work against you in a setting.

所以一直以来，我们对代理人施加了最佳利益标准或者信托责任。

And so, you know, we have imposed a best interest standard or a fiduciary duty on agents throughout time.

在奥巴马时期，我们试图强化这些规则，对财务顾问和提供金融产品的人强加更严格的信托责任，确保他们的利益与你的利益一致。

We tried to strengthen those rules under Obama with a stronger fiduciary duty for financial advisors and people who offer you financial products to make sure that their interests are aligned with yours.

看，我觉得如果这些代理人不是为你的利益工作，那也许没关系。

Look, I think if these agents aren't gonna work in your interest, maybe that's fine.

但关键是你得知道。

But, like, you have to know.

别叫它们代理人。

Don't call them agents.

它们不是你的代理人。

They're not your agent.

它们不是你的私人助理。

They're not your personal assistant.

如果它们返回的是赞助产品，那基本上就是谷歌。

Like, it's basically just Google if they're returning sponsored products.

你能提醒我一下那场争执……

Can you remind me the fight...

奥巴马执政期间那场关于受托责任的争执？

The the fiduciary fight during the Obama administration?

因为我记得当时有个团体声称他们不应该被归类为受托人。

Because I remember there was some group that claimed that they should not be categorized under fiduciaries.

你能稍微提醒我一下那场争执是怎么解决的，最后谁必须承担受托责任？

Can you remind me a little bit of, like, how that fight settled out and who ended up having to have that fiduciary responsibility?

这有点年头了。

I mean, it's been a minute.

这有点老旧了，但其实我当时给沃伦参议员工作，她是那时帮助奥巴马和当时领导劳工部的汤姆·佩雷斯的主要参议员，确保受托责任规则最终落地。

It's it's just like a kind of an oldie, but I actually worked for senator Warren at the time, and she was the major senator who was helping Obama and Tom Perez, who was running the labor department at the time, make sure they got the fiduciary duty over the finish line.

基本想法是，比如你来找我，说，乔，这里有一些选项，给你孩子的529计划存大学学费。

The basic idea is, it's like, if you're coming to me and saying, Joe, here are some options for your child's five twenty nine plan to save for college.

我想有点信心，你不是从这三只基金拿回扣，把我引到其中一只，而且当你把它们呈现给我时，并不是因为卖掉其中一只能让你得到额外奖金。

I wanna have some confidence that you are not getting a kickback from those three funds to get me into one of them, and that when you present them to me, that actually it's not because you're gonna get paid an extra bonus if you sell one

其中一只。

of them.

这正是那条规则所做的事。

That's exactly what the rule did.

当时其实挺有意思的，我觉得这和我们今天的谈话也有关系。

It was actually really interesting at the time, and this, I think, is related to our conversation today.

其实是那些机器人顾问和新的金融科技公司，奥巴马把他们当作白帽公司，因为他们站出来说，对。

It was actually the robo advisors and the new fintech companies who Obama, held up as the white hat companies because they came in and said, yeah.

我们可以建立一个符合这项法律的系统。

We can set up a system that complies with this law.

我们可以提供最符合客户利益的财务建议。

Like, we can provide financial advice in the best interest of customers.

我们只需要把它编程成那样。

We can just program it to be such.

而那些在商场里的嘉信理财的夫妻店财务顾问却跑来说，等等。

It was the mom and pop financial advisers from the Charles Schwab in the strip mall who were coming in and saying, wait.

比如，我以前卖了三十万美元的年金之后，还能去苏格兰的城堡旅游一趟。

Like, I used to get a trip to a castle in Scotland after I sold $300,000 worth of annuities.

你是说，我拿不到超级碗风格的戒指，还有那些福利、免费赠品和公费旅游了？

Are you telling me that, like, I won't get my Super Bowl style ring or my my perks and freebies and junkets?

他们对此反对得更厉害。

I mean, they were much more opposed to it.

我觉得关于智能体商务的问题在于，如果这些公司不能完全控制智能体的行为，他们怎么能保证智能体会为你的最大利益服务呢？

I think the the question with agentic commerce is, could these companies even guarantee that the agents will work in your best interest if they don't actually have full control over what the agents do?

另外我还想问你一件事，假设智能体确实能在一定程度上擅长找便宜货。

The other thing I wanted to ask you on this is, I mean, let's assume the agents do get good at finding bargains to some extent.

你会不会觉得像亚马逊或沃尔玛这样的公司，可能会开始调整他们的API，或者重新筑起一些价格信息的壁垒，试图削弱那种信息的获取？

Would you expect companies like an Amazon or a Walmart to maybe start, I guess, tweaking their APIs or reconstructing the walls around some of their pricing information such that they try to erode away that that information?

这已经发生了。

I mean, it's already here.

价格战已经打响了。

The price wars are here.

或者说，智能体之间的竞争已经开始了。

Or the agent wars, I guess, are here.

所以，亚马逊已经宣布阻止Muse。

So we have Amazon announced that it's blocking Muse.

也就是说，Muse进不了亚马逊。

So Muse can't go into Amazon.

但顺便提一下，Alexa购物助手能帮你上亚马逊购物，但也能离开亚马逊的平台。

But Alexa for shopping, by the way, helps you with Amazon, but also leaves Amazon's walls.

所以，他们并没有打算对Muse实行同样的规则。

So they're not playing by the same rules that they're going to apply to Muse.

我们知道沃尔玛正在搭建一些独立的设施，基本上，你可以注册你的智能体。

We know that Walmart is building up sort of separate infrastructure so that you can register your agent, basically.

听起来挺疯狂的。

And it sounds crazy.

但你登录后就可以说，嘿，我其实打算让Muse来沃尔玛。

But you would log on and say, hey, I actually am going to let Muse come to Walmart.

他们会建立一个系统，基本上可以给这个行为开绿灯，这样他们就能授权你的代理，知道这个代理是代表你在购物。

And they're going to set up a system that sort of green lights that so that they can authorize your agent so they know that this agent is shopping on your behalf.

但这引发了一系列棘手的问题，比如如果你的代理买了一些你不想买的东西，谁该负责呢？

But it raises all sorts of thorny questions about who's going to be holding the bag if your agent buys something you didn't want it to buy, for example.

沃尔玛可能会说不。

Walmart is going say no.

但是Muse也会说不。

But Muse is also going to say no.

所以很多顾客已经在经历这样的情况：有人用口语表达说，比如“给我找一根花园水管”。

So a lot of customers already are experiencing situations where someone uses a colloquialism like, go find me a garden hose.

然后代理就真的去买了一根花园水管。

And the agent goes and buys a garden hose.

而你说“找”是因为你想看看有哪些选择。

And you said find because you wanted to see some options.

有

There's

这儿有款复古花园水管，要200美元。

a Here's this heritage garden hose for $200.

真漂亮。

It's beautiful.

或者，如果你告诉你的智能代理去帮你找一根花园水管，而它没有去买水管，那会发生什么？

Or what happens when you tell your agent, go find me a garden hose, and it doesn't buy the garden hose.

它黑进了家得宝的网站。

It hacks into homedepot.com.

篡改了他们的数据库。

Messes with their database.

然后就成了，谁犯了……

And then it's like, who committed the...

有个……

I mean, there's a...

那算是犯罪了。

That's a crime.

那是盗窃。

That's theft.

他们只是……

And they're just get...

我确定这一定会发生。

I'm certain this is going to happen.

而且会有一些非常有趣的法律问题，比如，你犯法是因为你让你的代理做了这件事吗？

And there are gonna be some pretty interesting legal questions about, well, did you commit the crime because you told your agent to do this?

还是说Meta犯了法？

Or did Meta commit the crime?

这些都是我们所有人很快都会面对的大问题，在……

Like, these are huge questions that we're all gonna be facing within the

……接下来。今天Axios上有一篇关于银行的报道。

coming There's a story today in Axios about the banks

哦，是的。

Oh, yes.

我看到了。

I saw that.

他们开始看到银行账户里有来自智能体和私人助理的高度异常活动。

Who have said they have started to see highly unusual activity in bank accounts coming from agents and personal assistants.

他们追踪到的其中一件事是，他们觉得看到的很多交易并不是用户指示的。

And one of the things that they're tracking is that they feel like a lot of the transactions they're seeing were not directed by the users.

而且很难确切知道他们是怎么判断的，但把钱包钥匙交给智能体这个想法，我觉得已经开始看起来不太靠谱了。

And it's a little hard to know exactly how they determine that, but already this idea that you're gonna give the keys to your wallet to an agent is, I think, starting to look pretty suspect.

我觉得企业将不得不做出一些非常大的战略决策。

I think there's gonna be some pretty huge corporate strategy decisions that companies are going to have to make.

因为我能理解，首先亚马逊会说，我们不希望你的Muse访问我们的网站。

Because I get why in the first instance, Amazon is like, we don't want your Muse accessing our site.

但如果沃尔玛说，欢迎你的Muse进来，他们可能别无选择。

But if Walmart is like, bring on your Muse's here, they might not have any choice.

这一切都取决于，人们是否真的想通过AI智能体购物，如果真的想，那么肯定会有人抓住这个机会，然后说……

It all is going to depend on, like, if people really want to shop through an AI agent, then, like, someone is gonna really exploit this and say...

并且为他们敞开大门。

And fling the doors wide open for them.

而且世界上的亚马逊们可能别无选择。

And the Amazons of the world may not have any choice.

我觉得这不一定取决于世界上的亚马逊们。

I don't think it's going to be down to the Amazons of the world.

这取决于保险公司以及为智能代理和公司本身承保责任险的保险公司。

It's going be down to the insurers and whoever is insuring liability for the agents and the companies themselves.

当然会取决于他们，但是对亚马逊来说，你去那里购物并让他们了解你也是有很大价值的。

It will be down to them, but there's a lot of value for an Amazon in you going there and them knowing something about you.

你上亚马逊买牙刷，可能还会点击感兴趣的电影，等等，突然之间他们就有了关于你丰富的数据库。

So you go to Amazon and you buy a toothbrush, and maybe you click on a movie that you're interested in, blah blah, and suddenly they have a rich pool of data about you.

那非常有价值。

That is very valuable.

如果你通过你的Muse购买，你仍然是在进行交易，但他们从你那里获取的信息就少多了。

If you're going through your Muse to buy it, you're still doing the transaction, but there's a lot less that they're getting from you.

这对他们来说会是一个非常艰难的取舍，哪个选项更好呢？

This is going to be a very difficult trade off for them, which is the better option?

这是个巨大的问题。

It's huge issue.

我要说几件事。

I'll say a couple things.

第一，如果你还没看过的话，一定要去看看亚马逊上关于你的信息。

One, you should definitely check out your Amazon about me if you haven't already.

哦，我从来没看过

Oh, I never have

那个。

done that.

所以亚马逊现在会告诉你，它了解你的哪些特征。

So Amazon now lets you know the characteristics that it knows about you.

几周前有个很火的新闻，因为亚马逊根据某个客户买的紧身裤和牛仔裤，判断出他屁股比较平。

There was a viral story a couple of weeks ago because Amazon identified one customer as having flat buttocks based on some of their, I guess, leggings purchases and jeans purchases.

所以它非常详细。

So it was quite detailed.

它有很多关于我三岁孩子的信息，比如，因为我

It had a lot of information about my three year old, for example, because I had

你知道的。

Know.

买过一些派对用品。

Done some party shopping.

亚马逊会

Amazon will

以为我最近只对买软软的玩具感兴趣。

think that all I'm interested in buying is squishy toys these days.

所以

So

第二点我想说的是，我们已经看到一些零散的证据，那些以前经常在亚马逊购物的人，现在用Muse，反而在亚马逊上买的东西比过去几年都多。

The second thing I'll say is we are already seeing anecdotal evidence of folks who used to do quite a bit of shopping on Amazon who are now using Muse and have bought more things off Amazon than they have in years.

我觉得这对亚马逊来说是个真正的威胁。

And I think this is a real threat to Amazon.

而且Y Combinator和其他地方有些人认为，代理商务可能是第一次有机会开始，比如说，

And there are some folks at Y Combinator and other places who are suggesting that Agents Commerce could be the first opportunity to start to, like Sure.

多年以来第一次在亚马逊身上动点血。

Draw some blood, at Amazon for the first time in years.

我想以一个，嗯，算是个开心的结局来结束。

I wanna end on, I guess, a happy, happy ish note.

你能给我们讲讲那个在70年代扭转热狗价格的热狗哥的故事吗？

Can you tell us about the the hot dog guy who managed to reverse hot dog prices in the 1970s?

这个人是个巨人队球迷，他觉得旧金山巨人队把热狗价格调高了，我记得好像是五分钱。

So this was someone who, was a Giants fan, who felt like the San Francisco Giants were changing hot dog prices by, I think it was only a nickel.

但他觉得当时是高通胀时期。

But he felt like this was a period of high inflation.

五分钱太贵了。

A nickel was was far too much.

他算了算账，发现他们能多收多少五美分，成本又涨了多少。

He sort of ran the numbers, figured out how many nickels they were gonna bring in, figured out how much their costs had gone up.

原因是他们要筹钱搞某种

The reason was because they were funding some sort

球场的翻新。

of renovation of the stadium.

然后他们说，嗯，我们得提高热狗价格才能，对。

And they said, like, we have to have higher hot dog prices to Yeah.

所以罗恩·戈登基本上就是旧金山巨人队球迷的热狗价格斗士。

So Ron Gordon is basically a hot dog price warrior on behalf of San Francisco Giants fans.

没错，他们确实在翻新球场。

And, yes, they were renovating the stadium.

他们打算开始提高热狗的价格。

They were gonna start charging more for hot dogs.

他觉得这太离谱了。

He felt like it was too much.

他发起了一场运动，要让热狗价格保持低位，确保不会涨哪怕五分钱。

He started a campaign to keep hot dog prices down and to make sure that they didn't go up a nickel.

实际上，他后来收到了经济顾问委员会的一封信，称赞他在全国通货膨胀时期努力抵制涨价的行为。

He actually ended up getting a letter from the Council on Economic Advisors, like praising him for his efforts to beat back price hikes during a period of national inflation.

那是五十年前上一轮通货膨胀时期的事了。

This was back during the last period of inflation fifty years ago.

他成功地为其他人保住了低价。

And he was successful in keeping prices low for the rest of us.

至少暂时是这样。

For a while anyway.

我想知道现在那个体育场的热狗卖多少钱。

I'm what what hot dogs cost nowadays at that stadium.

我觉得在美国，谁才是真正的抗通胀斗士，这个问题挺复杂的。

I guess the politics of who are the inflation fighters in America, they they get tricky.

我们有一期节目是在杰克逊霍尔采访里士满联储主席时做的，他和他辖区的一些供应商聊了聊。

We did an episode when we were out in Jackson Hole with the president of the Richmond Fed, and he was talking to some of the suppliers in his district.

他说，你看，我也不知道，也许做点躺椅之类的吧。

He was like, Look, I don't know, maybe make some lawn chair or something like that.

然后他说，我们的价格在涨，但沃尔玛不让……

And he's like, Our prices are going up, but Walmart is not letting...

他们坚持原价，不肯为我们的躺椅多付钱。

They're holding the line and they're not paying more for our lawn chairs.

如果我们想进沃尔玛的货架，就得自己消化这个成本。

If we want shelf space at Walmart, we have to eat the price itself.

所以听到这个故事，我就想，沃尔玛，致敬。

And so when I hear that story, I'm like, Walmart, salute.

你们是伟大的……

You the great...

你们是我们对抗通胀的最坚强战士，等等。

You are our strongest soldiers in our fight against inflation, etcetera.

我也知道很多人对沃尔玛这样的巨头感到不舒服，从政治上说，他们更希望看到更多夫妻店的世界，等等。

I also know that a lot of people are really uncomfortable with the Walmarts of the world and politically would like to see a world of more mom and pop stores, etcetera.

虽然很多情况下他们收费更高。

Although in many cases they charge more.

总的来说，你觉得我们社会在大型和小型公司的理想组合方面想要什么？

How do you think generally speaking about what we want as a society in terms of the optimal mix of large and small companies?

因为像沃尔玛、亚马逊这样的公司，它们有惊人的规模优势，而且规模优势还能压低价格等等。

Because the Walmarts of the world, the Amazons of the world, they have incredible power of scale and powers of scale they can also bring prices down, etcetera.

小企业在很多情况下以在工资盗窃等方面做得最差而闻名。

Small businesses are sort of famous in many cases for being the worst at things like wage theft and so forth.

通常它们实际上没有最好的价格，因为它们没有那种规模。

Often they actually don't have the best prices because they don't have that scale.

我们社会在商业平台的生态多样性方面想要什么？

What do we want as a society in terms of the flora and fauna, the ecology of commercial platforms?

对我来说，我想要的是能提供最多价格竞争的组合。

I mean, for me, I want the mix that provides the most price competition.

而且我认为，当我们的经济中没有价格竞争时，我们就真的麻烦了。

And I think when we don't have price competition in our economy, we're in real trouble.

而且我越来越多地看到，公司在开发技术来破坏价格竞争，我在书里讲了很多这样的例子。

And what I see increasingly is companies building technologies, and I talk about a lot of them in the book, to subvert price competition.

所以就连麦当劳这样的公司也在开发复杂的算法定价工具，确保即使是加盟商之间也无法互相竞争。

So even, you know, companies like McDonald's are building sophisticated algorithmic pricing tools to ensure that even franchisees can't compete against each other.

加盟模式的核心在于加盟商是独立的，应该在一定程度上拥有定价权。

The whole point of franchises is that they're independent and should have some level of control over pricing.

但这种情况越来越不成立了。

That's increasingly not the case.

现在麦当劳会含糊其辞地说，我们只是推荐这些价格。

Now McDonald's will hem and haw and say, we're just recommending these prices.

加盟商不用非得接受。

The franchisees don't have to take them.

但事实证明，当麦当劳在评估续约决定时，或者在评估你这个加盟商能否再拿下一个店面开第二家分店时，他们会评估你是否遵循了他们的定价算法。

But it turns out that when McDonald's is evaluating renewal decisions, when McDonald's is evaluating whether or not you as a franchisee can pick up another property and open a second location, they evaluate things like your conformity to the pricing algorithm.

所以我担心的是，即使在一些确实存在竞争的市场里，这些工具也被用来暗中破坏竞争。

And so my concern here is even in markets where there actually is some competition, these tools are being used to subvert it.

所以我们看到了RealPage，又是一个算法定价垄断的案例，城里的房东们平时本来是互相竞争的，却能够通过这个软件共享竞争敏感信息，协商统一价格，导致房租比竞争市场高出高达25%。

So we saw RealPage, another case of algorithmic price fixing, where landlords in a city who would usually compete with each other were able to share competitively sensitive information and align on pricing, resulting in rent prices as much as 25% more than you would see in a competitive market through this software.

同样，还有一个加油站技术公司叫Calibrate，现在正受到审查，有人在加州提起了集体诉讼。

Similarly, there's a gas station technology, Calibrate, a tech company that is under scrutiny right now, a class action filed in California.

他们帮1700家加油站统一了价格。

They were helping 1,700 gas retailers align on price.

协调定价。

Coordinate on price.

指控称这可能让加州司机每加仑多付高达30美分。

The allegation is that it could have been as much as 30¢ a gallon higher for drivers in California.

所以我是在寻找价格竞争。

So I'm looking for price competition.

这并不总是仅仅靠销量就能实现的。

That is not always just achieved by volume.

对，当这类技术能够绕开规模效应的时候。

Right, when these types of technologies are able to circumvent scale.

好的。

Alright.

Lindsay Owens，这本书就被敲诈了。

Lindsay Owens, the book is gouged.

非常感谢你来参加Odd Lots节目。

Thank you so much for coming on Odd Lots.

谢谢邀请我。

Thanks for having me.

这太棒了。

This is great.

所以，Joe，我觉得这些都特别有意思。

So, Joe, I found all of that really fascinating.

我知道你问了很多刁钻的问题。

I know you asked a lot of devil's advocate questions there.

在我看来，是你说的，不是我说的。

In my mind you said it, not me.

在我看来，问题在于力量不平衡。

In my mind, the issue here is an imbalance.

如果你是沃尔玛或亚马逊这样的公司，你拥有最好的技术、最好的人工智能模型、最好的数据，这一切都唾手可得。但如果你是一个朝九晚五上班的人，只是想买辆车，也许还有一台电脑，你根本没有那么多时间或技术能力去研究这些。

If you're a Walmart or an Amazon, you have, like, the best technology, the best AI models, the best data out there at the touch of your fingertips versus if you're someone, you know, working a nine to five or whatever who's just trying to buy, I don't know, a car

完全同意。

Totally.

不过——

Or

买电脑什么的，你根本没有那么多时间或技术能力去深入研究。

a computer, you don't have that much time or that much technological prowess to actually devote to it.

理论上，人工智能确实能解决一部分这个问题。

AI could, in theory, solve some of that for sure.

但是……

Except...

不，等等。

No.

其实我倒是希望AI能解决一些这种不平衡。

Like, I'm hopeful that AI could solve some of these imbalances.

但我担心的不只是定价，还有网络安全方面，最近这话题也挺火的，我们今天录节目是10月22号。

But what I worry about, and not just with pricing, but with range of field cybersecurity, very much in the news today, we're recording this October 22.

我担心的局面是，这可能会变成军备竞赛。你有一个智能体，它或许真的能为你办事，然后别人也有一个AI定价模型，试图更了解你，然后反过来压制你。

The dynamic that I'm worried about is that it's just gonna be arms races, So you're gonna have an agent and maybe it truly does work on your behalf, etcetera, and then someone else is gonna have an AI pricing model that tries to figure out more about you and overcome that.

然后你得升级到下一版模型去应对。

And then you have to upgrade to the next version of the model to overcome that.

而且从很多方面来看，AI确实可能让市场更高效。

And that in many respects, it's possible that AI makes markets more efficient.

东西可能更便宜，等等。

It makes things cheaper, etcetera.

但也可能变成纯粹的无谓损失，最后我们得到的还是原来那个价格，唯一的不同是双方都多花了钱给OpenAI、Anthropic或者Meta，结果还是回到原来的那个均衡点，没有这些AI我们也一样能达到。

It is also possible that it just becomes deadweight loss where we arrive at the exact same price that we would have before, except the only difference is that both sides have paid more to OpenAI, Anthropic, or Meta in order to re arrive at the same equilibrium that we could have had without all this AI stuff.

这就是我说的AI的忙碌理论，大家都会用智能体去互相起诉，

This is my busy work theory of AI, where everyone's just gonna have agents that file lawsuits at

每次都是这样。

each time.

最后结果都一样，但有人靠卖给我们算力赚了不少钱。

To the same place on the end, but someone makes a bunch of money selling tokens to us.

另外，我觉得那个……

Also, I thought the his...

单一公开定价背后的历史其实很有意思。因为你想，在一定程度上，随着AI代理和各种新的定价策略出现，我们好像回到了那种定制化的讨价还价时代，你得去砍价。

The history behind, like, the single public price tag is really interesting because if you think about it to some extent with Agents AI and all these new pricing strategies coming out of companies, we're kind of going back to that customized era of haggling where you have to Haggling.

你得花很多时间去琢磨价格。

You have to devote a bunch of time to, like, figuring out the price.

就算你去麦当劳想买个便宜点的，你也得搞清楚当天有哪些优惠券，哪些能用的。

If you're buying from McDonald's and you want a good price, you have to, like, figure out which coupon you want for that day and what's available to you.

那真是浪费时间。

It's a time suck.

哪里……

Where is

这确实很费时间。

It is a time suck.

你知道吗，这样效率不高。

You know It's not efficient.

我有个想法。

You know, here's a thought that I had.

还记得2021、2022、2023年那会儿，网上经常看到这种事情吗？

Remember in 2021, 2022, '23, there was this very recurring thing that you'd see online.

就是有人说，天哪。

Was like someone would say, oh my god.

我刚花了15美元买了一盒蓝莓。

I just paid $15 for blueberries.

懂吧？

Okay?

然后另一个人就说……

And then someone else was like...

就会说你是个白痴。

Would say, you're an idiot.

去沃尔玛网站看看。

Go to walmart.com.

这里有蓝莓，才卖2.99美元。

Here's blueberries that you can buy for 2.99.

如果你花15美元买，那真是你自己的问题。

And if you're paying $15 it's really your fault.

其实也有点道理。

And it kind of is.

但是当我看到这些，你本可以在沃尔玛花2.99美元买到蓝莓。

But when I see these, you could have bought blueberries for 2.99 at Walmart.

我看到的是缺乏一般均衡思维，也就是说，如果所有在Whole Foods购物的人都突然转向买2.99美元的沃尔玛蓝莓，那这些蓝莓就不会再是2.99美元了。

What I see is a lack of general equilibrium thinking, by which I mean, if all of those people who shopped at Whole Foods suddenly switched to the $2.99 Walmart blueberries, they would not be $2.99 anymore.

会有一大波人涌入。

There would be this big inrush.

也许它们会……

Maybe they would...

它们不会一下子跳到15美元。

They wouldn't jump to $15.

可能跳到4.99美元之类的。

Maybe they jump to $4.99, etcetera.

但价格就是价格。

But, like, prices are prices.

所以仅仅因为存在更低的价格，并不意味着每个人都能买到那个低价，因为那样的话低价就会涨上去。

And so just because there exists a lower price does not mean that everyone can capture the lower price because then the lower price goes up.

所以，我觉得我不知道。

And so, like, I don't

不知道。

know.

我也想说的是，以合理的价格买蓝莓不应该耗费那么多精力。

I would also argue that buying blueberries for a decent price should not consume that much mental capacity.

不。

No.

确实不应该。

It shouldn't.

不应该变成一件要花五分钟去网上调研的事情，比如，我会从这儿买，然后我要它……

It shouldn't be like a five minute campaign even to go online and research like, oh, I'm gonna buy it from here, and I'm gonna have it...

如果你在网上买，还得让它送到家里，而不是直接走进店里买。

You know, if you buy it online, you're gonna have to have it delivered to your house as well versus just walking in a store.

这是一个时间问题，也是一个效率……

It's a time issue, and it's efficiency...

在我看来是低效率的问题。

An inefficiency issue in my mind.

我说这话，是因为我就是一个喜欢购物，还喜欢喝48美元鸡尾酒的人。

And I say that as someone who loves shopping and buying $48 cocktails apparently.

好吧，这就是我最后想说的点。

Well, is the last point I was going to make.

这是一个宏观的问题，跟算法定价没有关系，就是……

And this is a macro question, and it has nothing to do with algorithmic pricing, which is that there is a...

我们这些站在K字顶端的人，一直都在抱怨价格。

Those of us on the top of the K complain about prices all the time.

不管出于什么原因，总的来说，我们中的一些人，但大多数人，尽管抱怨了那么多价格，却并没有真正改变我们的消费行为。

And for whatever reason, by and large, some of us, but most of us have not meaningfully changed our consumption behavior despite all the prices that we complain about.

我真是因为买了一杯鸡尾酒配汉堡就被你们这样批评。

I'm really getting grilled for buying a cocktail on my burger.

不，这只是一个例子。

No, it's It's one present.

人们抱怨，然后他们第二天还是做同样的事情，这就是为什么通货膨胀一直持续，因为……

People complain then they do And the same thing they do the next that is why inflation continues to persist because it...

从行为上讲，不管别的，人们抱怨，然后第二天还是照样买同样的东西。

Behaviorally, whatever it else, people complain, and then they buy the same thing the next day.

确实如此。

It's true.

但是，再说了，如果你想在剧院里喝点什么，其实也没有别的选择。

But, also, it's not like if you want to drink something in a theater, don't have a choice.

又不是说我可以出去

It's not like I can go out

对。

No.

去别的地方。

Somewhere else.

不过，算了，我们就聊到这儿吧？

But, anyway, shall we leave it there?

那就到这儿吧。

Let's leave it there.

这里是《异想天开》播客的又一期节目。

This has been another episode of the Odd Thoughts podcast.

我是特蕾西·奥拉维。

I'm Tracy Allaway.

你可以在Tracy Allaway那里关注我。

You can follow me at Tracy Allaway.

我是吉尔·维森塔尔。

And I'm Jill Weisenthal.

你可以在the stalwart关注我。

You can follow me at the stalwart.

关注我们的嘉宾，林赛·欧文斯。

Follow our guest, Lindsay Owens.

她的账号是Owens Lindsay one。

She's at Owens Lindsay one.

关注我们的制作人，卡门·罗德里格斯在Carmen Arman，达肖·贝内特在Dashpot，凯尔·布鲁克斯在Kale Brooks，还有凯文·洛萨诺在Kevin Lloyd Lozano。

Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Arman, Dasho Bennett at Dashpot, Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks, and Kevin Lozano at Kevin Lloyd Lozano.

当然，你也可以在Discord上随时聊这些话题，地址是discord.gg/oddlots。

And, of course, you can chat about all of these topics twenty four seven in our Discord, discord.gg/oddlots.

还有更多Odd Lots内容，可以查看我们的每日通讯，在bloomberg.com/hotbots就能找到。

And for more Odd Lots content, you can check out our daily newsletter, which you can find at bloomberg.com/hotbots.

如果你喜欢这次对话，喜欢我们聊定价的内容，那就在你最喜欢的播客平台上给我们留个好评吧。

And if you enjoyed this conversation, if you like it when we talk about pricing, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform.

如果你是在视频上看到这期节目并且喜欢的话，那就留个评论，或者点个赞，更好的是订阅我们。

And if you're watching this on video and you enjoyed it, then please leave a comment or like the video or better yet, subscribe.

另外提醒一下，如果你是彭博社的订阅用户，就可以完全无广告收听我们的所有节目。

And remember, if you're a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free.

你只需要在苹果播客上找到彭博频道，然后按照那里的说明操作就行了。

All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there.

感谢你的收听。

Thanks for joining.