华尔街财富之道：奥伦·卡斯

他们在谈判桌上占有一席之地。

They have a seat at the table.

他们拥有平等的地位。

They have equal standing.

到了20世纪70年代，在很多情况下，他们正在积极利用这种权力去做许多我认为相当适得其反的事情，

To by the 1970s in a lot of cases, they are actively leveraging that power into a lot of quite counterproductive things, I would argue, in

在经济领域。

the economy.

并且自身也变得有些自成一体了。

And becoming somewhat in and of their own selves.

而这正是利用资金和

And that's Using the money and

是的，绝对是这些。

Yeah, those absolutely.

诸如此类的情况。所以我认为，如果你回顾一下上世纪70年代所谓的滞胀时期，我们当时的经济状况非常糟糕。

Kinds of And so I think if you think about what was called the sort of stagflation of the 1970s, we were in a very bad position economically.

供给学派随后提出——这一点从根本上说是正确的，我自己也认为属于供给学派——你不能仅仅通过当时政府的主要模式，即直接给人们更多钱去消费，来修复经济或实现期望的增长。

And what the supply siders came in and said, which was fundamentally correct, like I would describe myself as a supply sider, is you can't just fix the economy, you can't get the growth you want just through what had become the main government model, which is just give people more money to spend.

关键在于，企业投资和建设的激励因素是什么，或者为何缺乏这些激励？

That at some point the question is what are the incentives for businesses to invest and build stuff or not?

我认为我们完全认同资本主义的那一点，就是你确实希望利润动机驱动积极行为。

It goes back to that piece of capitalism I think we entirely agree on, which is you do want the profit motive driving positive behavior.

因此，供给侧经济学的基本理念是说，看，刺激增长的最佳方式之一实际上是改善人们投资、建设和扩大企业的激励措施。

And so the basic idea of supply side economics is to say, look, one of the best ways to spur growth would actually be to improve the incentives of people to invest and build and grow businesses.

这对工人来说也可能是好事。

That that can be good for workers too.

我认为这是正确的，但我觉得随后你又把这个钟摆拉回到了另一个方向。

I think that's correct, but I think that then you pull this pendulum back in the other direction.

你做一些对企业更友好的事情。

You do some things that are more business friendly.

你为投资创造更好的环境。

You create a better environment for investment.

这很好。

That's great.

然后，这会直接演变成一种观念：任何对企业和利润有利、或能减税的措施，都一定是更好的。

And then that swings straight all the way through to anything that's good for corporations and leads to more profits or reduces taxes is always going to be better.

同样，确实有很多情况存在过度监管。

And same with, okay, we did have over regulation a lot of cases.

没错。

Well, any Right.

我们确实需要各种类型的放松监管。

And we did need various types of deregulation.

让我们彻底走向另一个极端：监管越少越好，市场会自动运转。

Let's swing that all the way through to just the less regulation the better, the market will automatically work.

所以我认为，我们已经完全摆到了钟摆的这一端，现在需要再摆回来。

And so I think we sort of got all the way back up to that side of the pendulum, and now we need to swing back down again.

那么，有哪些工具可以帮助我们把钟摆重新摆回去呢？

So then it becomes what are the tools in the arsenal that can help us swing the pendulums back?

那么，政策讨论是否就变得可以接受了呢？

And and does the policy be cut discussion become alright.

这些工具，你知道的，比如税收激励、披露规则，或者像你提到的，对股票回购的限制等等。

Are the tools, you know, tax incentives, disclosure rules, or as you were saying, like limits on buybacks or so.

那么，我们现在要审视哪些工具，或者说，哪些指标能告诉我们已经走得太远了？

So what are the tools now that we look at, you know, or the metrics that we look at that tell us we've gone too far?

是不是，你知道，我可以指出工资增长。你并没有看到工资大幅增长。

Is it, you know, I can point to wage growth, You don't get a tremendous amount of wage growth.

或者说，收入不平等告诉我这个系统已经失衡了。

Or income inequality tells me the system is out of balance.

那么，我们可以使用哪些工具来让它重新恢复平衡呢？

What are the tools that we can use then that bring it more back into that balance?

是的。

Yeah.

所以，这正是所有这些问题的关键所在。

So that's exactly where the rubber meets the road on all this.

我认为有趣的是，你开始看到一些传统的政治分歧重新出现。

I think it's interestingly where you start to see some of the traditional political divisions reemerge.

因为在我看来，如果左右两派对问题的诊断存在分歧，那确实是个大问题，对吧？

Because my view is it's a real problem if you have left and right disagreeing on the diagnosis, right?

我认为双方都已经达到了这种状态。

I think both sides have gotten to that.

他们仍然存在分歧吗？还是感觉好像

Do they disagree still or is it It feels like

他们仍然有，但少多了。

they still Much less so.

好的。

Okay.

还是有一些的。

There is some.

所以我认为，如果回看2000年代，比如，共和党已经深深陷入一种立场，认为我们已经实现了机会平等，每个人都能成功并创办伟大的企业，而且如果我们以这种方式调整数据，每个人的工资都在上涨——事实上，你会惊讶地发现，有那么多人全职工作就是调整数据，以证明工资在上涨。

So I think if you look back to the 2000s, let's say, the Republican Party had really dug into a position of saying essentially we have achieved equal opportunity, everyone can succeed and build a great business, and actually if we adjust the numbers in this way, everybody's wages are going up and therefore you would be surprised how many people's full time job is to adjust the numbers to show that wages are going up.

是的，我正在

Yes, I'm And

因此，瞧好了。

sort of therefore, ta da.

我们不需要在这些方面采取任何行动，因为事实上一切都很好。

We don't need to take action on any of these fronts because in fact everything is going great.

你也会在气候变化之类的问题上看到这一点。

And you would also see that on things like climate change.

这是另一个典型的例子：如果我们承认气候变化是个问题，那我们是不是就得接受绿色新政？

It's another quintessential example where if we acknowledge that climate change is an issue, well then are we going to just have to embrace the Green New Deal?

我们就干脆说这根本不是个问题。

Let's just say that it's not a problem.

我认为双方都有不少类似的问题，我想是这样的。

And I think we have plenty of issues of that type on both sides, I would say.

我们可以谈谈左派为什么不愿承认某些问题是问题，因为一旦承认了，那就会导致——

We could talk about ways where the left doesn't want to say that something is a problem because if they do, well then what rate Well,

你现在在住房供应的争论中就能看到这一点，他们想说这是一个问题，但我们却不希望同时指出过度监管可能也是个问题，尤其是那些可能用于解决这个问题的环境法规。

you're seeing that now with the argument about housing supply, you'd say they want to say that this is a problem, but we don't want to also say that over regulation might be a problem, especially, you know, environmental regulations that may have to fix it.

所以我看到这些张力在任何地方都存在。

So you have I I see those tensions in in any of the places.

所以，我的观点是，这种极化的对立非常不健康。

And so, you know, my view is just that that that is a very unhealthy partisanship.

对吧？

Right?

试图弄清楚世界上真正发生的事情，本身并没有任何党派色彩。

Like, there is nothing partisan about trying to figure out what is actually happening in the world.

我们应该能够就这一点达成共同的描述。

We should be able to reach a common description of that.

当然，我们可能会对它赋予不同的价值观，比如哪些部分是好的，哪些是坏的。

Now, we might apply different values to it, say which parts are good versus bad.

因此，保守派可能会说，他们对相对较高的不平等水平是可以接受的，而进步派则不然。

So conservatives might say we're comfortable with a relatively higher level of inequality than progressives might.

但我们不应该在那个水平是什么的问题上存在分歧。

But we shouldn't be disagreeing on what that level is.

或者它是否存在。

Or that it exists.

没错。

Exactly.

说得对。

That's right.

或者趋势的方向等等。

Or what direction the trend is in and so forth.

所以我认为金融化就是一个很好的例子，在这方面有很多非常棘手的讨论需要展开，比如，你会采取什么措施来解决这个问题？

And so something like financialization I think is a great example of this where there are a lot of very difficult discussions to have about, okay, what would you do to address this?

但我们应该能够达成共识，华尔街发展到的规模及其许多行为根本没有在创造实际价值。

But we should be able to agree that the scale that Wall Street has grown to and a lot of what it's doing just is not creating value in the world.

说得对。

That's right.

还有那个百分比，你知道的，你在文章里提到过。

And and and the percentage, you know, you you talk about it in the article.

你知道，金融化这个概念，指的是它占经济活动的百分比。

You know, the idea of financialization is sort of what percentage it takes up of economic activity.

是的。

Yeah.

你之前说过，几年前可能只有10%，但现在翻了一倍，这意味着这些金融工具和相关活动变得非常复杂，因为说实话，我认为金融化比产业政策更灵活。

And you were saying years ago, it might have been at 10%, but it has doubled, Meaning that these sort of financial instruments and is containing it so difficult because, you know, in truth, I would imagine financialization is more agile than industrial policy.

当然，投资制造业、仓库或为工人创造价值，需要更稳定的环境，而不确定性会打乱这一切。

Certainly investing in manufacturing or warehouses or creating value for workers takes a much more stable uncertainty is going to throw it.

金融化就是，嘿，我刚想到个点子。

Financialization is, Hey man, I just came up with this idea.

如果我们把房贷打包呢？

What if we bundle mortgages?

你知道，这看起来灵活多了。

You know, it seems much more agile.

是的。

Yes.

而且更难赶上。

And harder to catch up to.

我认为这完全正确。

I think that's exactly right.

因此，这很好地引出了我们该做什么这个问题。

And so that's a great sort of way into this question of what do we do?

因为我认为，在如何应对这个问题上，我与左派人士的看法仍有很大差异：我认为左翼观点倾向于找出我们不喜欢的那些东西并加以禁止。

Because I think one place where I at least perceive still very large differences between how someone like I would think about addressing this versus folks on the left is I think the more left of center view tends to be, okay, we essentially need to find the things that we don't like and prescribe them.

并建立一套监管机制，来约束这些行为，区分哪些是我们喜欢的，哪些是不喜欢的。

And sort of construct a regulatory apparatus that is going to sort of keep these things inbounds, figure out which ones we do like versus which ones we don't like.

比如在2008年的情况，或许银行不应该以35比1或40比1的杠杆率运作，应该进行压力测试。

And like in the case of 2008 saying, well, maybe banks shouldn't leverage at 35 to one, forty to creating you know, stress tests

对。

Yeah.

不让它成为经济的氢弹。

That don't allow it to become a hydrogen bomb for the economy.

你知道，我是个旅行者。

You know, I'm a I'm a traveling man.

我是个漂泊的人。

I'm a rambling man.

我喜欢到处走走。

You know, like to go.

我喜欢看看这个世界。

I like to see the world.

哦，不，等等。

Or oh, no, wait.

那不是我。

That's not me.

我喜欢待在家里。

I like to sit at home.

但确实有人喜欢那样。

But there are people out there who do like that.

让我告诉你，如果你真的喜欢环游世界，那可能需要一点点这样，一点点奶酪。

And let me tell you something, if you do enjoy seeing the world, you know, it could be a little a little bit of this, a little bit of cheese.

要想去看世界，你得在玉米饼上加点奶酪。

You gotta put a little cheese on that taco to go see the world.

但想象一下，如果你有一个类似奖励计划的东西，你知道我说的是什么，比如里程计划之类的。

But imagine if you had some kind of like a rewards program, you know what I'm talking about, like a miles program, etcetera.

但这是一个通过支付房租来累积积分的奖励计划，积分可用于旅行、餐饮、购物等。

But it's a rewards program that you pay rent through and then earn points for travel, dining, shopping, etcetera.

2026年。

2026.

如果你还在没有BILT的情况下支付房租，老兄，你醒醒吧。

If you're still paying rent without BILT, come on, brother.

这是一个为租客设计的忠诚计划，奖励你最大的月度开支——房租。

It's a loyalty program for renters that rewards you for your biggest monthly expense, which is rent.

使用BUILT，每次支付租金都能赚取积分。

With BUILT, every rent payment earns you points.

你可以兑换这些积分，用于航班、酒店、Lyft乘车、亚马逊购物等等。

You can redeem them, flights, hotels, Lyft rides, Amazon purchases, so much more.

顺便说一下，从二月份开始，BILT会员还可以通过支付房贷赚取积分。

And by the way, starting in February, BILT members can earn points on mortgage payments and get some for that.

所以请访问jointbuilt.com/tws加入这个为租房者设立的忠诚度计划吧。

So join the loyalty program for renters at jointbuilt.com/tws.

网址是joinbilt.com/tws。

That's joinbilt.com/tws.

请务必使用我们的链接，这样他们就知道是我们推荐的。

Make sure to use our URL so they know we're saying.

但如果你仔细看看《多德-弗兰克法案》的实际内容，它长达数千页，产生了数千页的法规，这些法规在很多情况下最终导致的结果是：银行不能发放某些高风险贷款，反而会贷款给我们称之为私募信贷的新机构，由它们来发放高风险贷款。

But then if you look at what Dodd Frank actually is, right, it's thousands of pages generating, thousands of pages of regulations that in a lot of cases end up doing things like saying, well, banks can't lend, make certain risky loans, banks will instead lend to this new set of institutions that we will call private credit and they will make the risky loans.

正如你所说，这些机构通常比监管机构更加灵活敏捷。

And to your point, that will typically be more agile than the regulators will be.

不过说实话，其中很多内容都是由这些金融机构的说客们添加进去的。

And a lot of that stuff though is added in by, to be fair, by lobbyists for these financial institutions.

困难在于，国会与这些非常富有的金融公司的说客接触的机会，远比与那些他们试图帮助避免灾难的普通民众要多得多。

The difficulty again is you also have a Congress that has much more access to the lobbyists for these very rich financial firms than to the people that they're sort of trying to help avoid these catastrophes.

是的。

Yes.

但在决定我们应该采取什么行动时，必须将这一点作为基本现实来考虑。

But it is important to take that as a baseline reality when you're deciding what we should do.

对吧？

Right?

换句话说，我确实对左派的朋友们感到很沮丧，他们总是说：'不，要不是那些说客，这个政策本来会更好的。'

In other words, I do get very frustrated with my friends on the left when they're like, No, but this would have worked better if not for the lobbyists.

我就想，那你们有没有应对他们不请说客的计划呢？

I'm like, Well, you have a plan for their not being the lobbyists?

穷人需要更好的说客。

Poor people need better lobbyists.

我一直以来都是这么说的。

I've always said that.

我认为如何更有效地代表工人是一个非常重要的问题。

I I think the question of how you represent workers more effectively is is a super important one.

对左派来说，他们的代表就是他们的游说者。

Well, think the idea is for the left that your representatives are your lobbyists.

换句话说，你把他们视为抵御金融集团的屏障，而不是一个容易被其腐蚀或影响的实体。

In other words, you look to them as a bulwark against that financial group rather than this kind of entity to be corrupted or swayed by it.

你把它看作是关于

That you you kind of view it as that's about

这个。

it.

这听起来很棒。

That sounds fantastic.

然后我再问一次，这对你们来说效果如何？

And then I would again say, And how's that working out for you?

对吗？

Right?

这不公平。

Not fair.

难道不是吗？我们保守派至少是实用主义者。

Is This not is, We conservatives are pragmatists, if nothing else.

那么你打算如何设计它呢？

So how do you design it?

我们怎么才能赶上呢？因为他们把我们打得落花流水。

How do you catch up to because they're kicking our ass.

我的意思是，困难之处在于他们如此灵活，甚至以你提到的金融化例子来说，比如在交易地点旁边架设微波塔，这样就能通过波动性、订单流付费或其他各种发明的手段来赚钱，或者将其游戏化，使其更像是范特西（Fan Duel）而非真实经济，而证交会（SEC）完全无法应对。

I mean, that's the thing that makes it so difficult is they're so much more agile, even in the way of let let's use your sort of example of part of financialization is in some ways, like setting up microwave towers right next to where the trading is going so that you're making all your money on volatility or payment for order flow or all these other kinds of invented or gamifying it so that it it resembles more, you know, fan duel than it might anything resembling the real economy, and the SEC's completely overmatched.

从务实的角度来说，你能设计哪些措施来提前应对这个问题？

What are the things you can design to get ahead of it in in pragmatic terms?

对。

Right.

所以，这让我想到的是，我们真正需要的其实是相当直接、基础广泛的约束。

So so what this leads me to is just to think is that what we really need is quite sort of blunt, broad based constraints.

就像沃尔克规则那种，一页纸的规定，如果你是银行，就不能用储蓄来资助你的任何冒险行为和金融化操作。

Like Volcker Rule kinds of that one page, if you're a bank, you can't use savings to finance your whatever adventurism and financialization.

对。

Right.

所以要有非常明确的界限，规定哪些机构可以做，哪些不能做。

So very clear lines, what kinds of institutions can and can't do.

非常明确的透明度和披露要求。

Very clear transparency and disclosure requirements.

所以，如果你计划收取人们投资额的7%作为费用归自己，你必须非常清楚地公布这一点，这样养老基金就知道你在做什么。

So if you planning to collect 7% of people's investments in fees to yourself, you actually have to publish that very clearly so that a pension fund knows that's what you're doing.

像股票回购这样的事情是不允许的，这在1983年之前一直是这样的。

Things like just stock buybacks are not allowed, which was the case until 1983.

很有意思，你说我们应该取消股票回购。

It's very funny, you say we should get rid of stock buybacks.

人们会说，哦，这太马克思主义了。

People are like, Oh, that's Marxist.

我说，但这也曾是美国法律长达两百多年。

I'm like, Well, it was also US law for more than two hundred years.

是的。

Right.

他们说，你做的任何事，其实都是在卷入一场左派已经长期斗争的战斗——那就是，有一种奇怪的二元对立：如果政府以劳动者的名义干预市场，那就是马克思主义。

They say anything you do is, you know, you really are you're wading into a battle that I think the left has been fighting for a really long time, which is there's this strange kind of dichotomy that if the government intervenes with the market, in quotes, on behalf of labor, that's Marxist.

但如果政府以金融化为名，为他们铺路，那就叫资本主义。

But if they intervene on behalf of financialization, easing their road, that's capitalism.

我觉得这就是令人沮丧的地方，你知道，你谈到你可能对左派有不满，但正是这种沮丧，我认为，也是左派所感受到的——就像你之前说的，这种教条。

Like, I think that's that's the frustration, you know, you talk about I understand the frustration that you may have with the left, but that's the frustration, I think, that the left has that, you know, there's this, as you said earlier, kind of this dogma.

政府不该挑选赢家并掠夺财富。

The government doesn't pick winners and loot.

如果你是左派，你会说：不，政府其实一直在这么做。

And I think if you're on the left, you go, no, it it does all the time.

但它只是挑选那些最有资源和最多金钱的赢家。

But it just picks the winners that have the most access to it and the most money.

而这正是我们的不满之处。

And and that's our frustration.

不。

No.

我认为这是对的。

I I think that's right.

我认为，这种不满在右翼的很大一部分群体，甚至是一个不断增长的群体中也同样存在。

I think it is it is a frustration on a on a large segment and a growing segment of the right as well.

我的意思是，你显然已经看到商业圆桌会议、商会等与共和党右翼之间出现了急剧的分裂，因为我认为人们越来越意识到——这又回到那个观点：基本事实是，这套体系真的行不通，我们确实需要理解它为何行不通，并采取行动。

I mean you've seen obviously a very sharp fallout between business roundtable and chamber of commerce and so forth and the right of center in the Republican Party because I think there's an increasing recognition, and it goes back to that point about just like what are the basic facts that this really isn't working and we really do need to understand why it's not working and do something about it.

我总是向右翼人士强调的一点是，我们现在所拥有的体系是不可持续的。

The thing that I always emphasize to folks on the right is you know, what we have right now is not sustainable.

就像捂住耳朵，告诉人们一切都很美好。

Like to cover your ears and tell people things are great.

在你看来，哪些部分最不可持续？

What parts of it in your mind are least sustainable?

比如是不平等吗？

Like is it inequality?

你具体关注哪些方面，觉得我们正在创造一些无法持续的东西？

What are the things specifically that you're looking at that you go, Man, we're creating something that's not going to hold?

我认为这既有个人层面的微观因素，也有国家层面的宏观因素。

So I think there's what I would call a micro element at the personal level and a sort of macro element the national level.

好的。

Okay.

我先说宏观层面，因为这个比较快。

I'll just hit the macro one first because it's a little quicker.

现实是，美国。

The reality is that The U.

的。

S.

经济在股票市场估值、总收入GDP数据等指标上表现优异。

Economy, it performs great on the measures like stock market valuation and top line GDP figures and so forth.

我们实际的生产能力、创造就业、创新以及与中国竞争的能力正在急剧下降。

Our actual capacity to make things, to create jobs, to innovate, to compete with China is in sharp decline.

一个不优先奖励这些核心能力的体系，不可能产生我们想要的结果。

And a system that does not reward that above all else is not going to produce the kinds of outcomes that we want.

因此，无论是金融化问题，还是贸易与产业问题，我认为这其中还涉及移民维度——即我们往往认为，既然国内找不到想要的工人，那就干脆引进外来人员。

And so whether it is on these questions of financialization, if it's on these questions of trade and industry, I think there's an interesting sort of immigration dimension to it and the extent to which we sort of say, well, we're just going have to bring in we can't find the workers we want here, our solution is to just bring in somebody else.

我们所采纳的这套模式，并不利于美国的自由与繁荣。

The formula we have settled on is not one that is actually conducive to the liberty and prosperity of The United States.

我认为，我们正处在许多人正确感受到的下滑趋势中，必须扭转这一趋势。

And I think we are on what many people rightly feel is a downward slide that we need to reverse.

但右翼人士难道不会认为，扭转这一趋势是一种人为的构造吗？我们学到的是，金融化、金融服务、法律服务、科技服务才是真正的经济核心，而制造业已经是旧经济了。

Now wouldn't people the right side know reversing it is an artificial contrivance that what we've learned is financialization, financial services, legal services, tech services, that's where actually manufacturing is the old economy.

我们实际上正在创造新的经济。

We're actually creating the new economy.

那你为什么要回到那种状态呢？

And why would you want to go back to that?

我不同意这个观点，但他们不就会这么说吗？

I disagree with that view, but isn't that what they would say?

他们并不是在让路，而是让这些未来市场来主导我们的经济吗？

They're they're not they're getting out of the way and allowing these future markets to dictate our economy?

有一小部分影响力正在萎缩和衰退的群体，他们会随着这艘船一起沉没，坚持这种说法。

There is a small and shrinking and declining in influence group that will go down with the ship saying that.

我会说这在目前已经相当偏离主流了，尤其是在共和党和共和党政治内部，以及许多新兴出版物和年轻人参与的各类项目中，现在很少有人会说‘不，一切都很顺利，我们走的是正确道路’。

I would say it is at this point pretty far out of the mainstream, certainly within the Republican Party and Republican politics, and in a lot of the sort of newer publications, what the kinds of programs younger people are participating in, there are very few people at this point who would say, No, things have been going well, this is the right track.

即便他们指着GDP数据说，你看我们的GDP，你要意识到那主要是七家大公司和一些我们甚至不确定将来能否用上的人工智能数据中心在支撑。

Even as they point to, you know, look at our GDP, it's, you know, you realize it's seven companies and like, you know, AI data centers that we don't even know will ever be used.

是的。

Yeah.

不，这正是个绝佳的例子。

No, so that's a perfect example.

我认为你会发现，再说一遍，政治就是政治。

I think you'll find and again, the politics is politics.

那些本职工作就是宣传特朗普政府政绩的人，会专门挑能显示特朗普政府干得好的事情来说。

People whose job is to promote how well the Trump administration is doing will point to the things that show the Trump administration is doing well.

但在当今相当于弗里德曼和哈耶克那一代人辩论的实际思想交锋中，你再也找不到任何人会说：'可是看看标普500指数，一切都没问题'。

But in the actual sort of intellectual debates, today's equivalent of what Friedman and Hayek were arguing in a prior generation, you won't find anyone anymore saying, But look at the S and P 500, things are fine.

那只是个笑点，算不上真正的论点。

That's a punch line, not an actual argument.

对。

Right.

好的。

Okay.

而且我认为，即便你观察中右翼的下一代领袖们——听众们当然可以自由选择是否支持他们——但看看他们在说什么，想想他们所持的立场

And I think you see that even in if you look at the sort of next generation of leaders on the right of center, and listeners are free to support them or not, But look at what they're saying, think about the positions they've

采取的立场。他们可以自由选择

taken They're free to

现在就这么做。

do that now.

六个月后他们可能就无法自由选择支持与否了。

Six months from now they may not be free to support them or not.

我们不会

We don't

我怀疑自由会很好地持续下去。

I know what's going suspect that freedom will persist just fine.

但在我们讨论的这些议题上，如果你看看J.

But on these issues that we're talking about, if you look at what a J.

D.

D.

看看万斯或马可·卢比奥在参议院的表现，再看看乔希·霍利、来自俄亥俄州的新参议员伯尼·莫雷诺、印第安纳州的吉姆·班克斯，这些都是他们经常讨论且用这些术语谈论的内容。

Vance or Marco Rubio was doing in the Senate, if you look at Josh Hawley, Bernie Moreno, who's a new senator from Ohio, Jim Banks from Indiana, This is stuff that they talk about all the time and in these terms.

所以我认为，虽然政党内部这些观念的更迭显然需要时间，但在幕僚、作家层面以及政治层面，你会看到一个相当显著的转变，特别是在这些宏观问题上——比如需要重新工业化、需要应对中国等等。

And so I think the newer it takes time obviously for these things to turn over in a political party, but at the staff and writer level and at the political level, I think you see a pretty significant shift, certainly on these macro questions, on the need to re industrialize, on the need to take on China and so forth.

那为什么还没有在政策层面凝聚成更连贯的东西呢？

Why hasn't that then coalesced into something more coherent at the policy level?

这就引出了一个更大的讨论，也是我上周惹恼经济学家们的话题——他们很生气我把经济学和政策混为一谈。

And this gets into maybe a larger discussion, and it's one that I stepped in shit in last week with economists being very angry that I'm confusing economics with policy.

但当你谈到这一点时，为什么这种思维方式的转变没有形成一套更连贯的经济治理理念呢？

But when you talk about that, why hasn't that shift in mindset created a more coherent governing philosophy of economics?

当我看到特朗普政府充斥着这些——我猜是更偏右翼的经济学家和这类人士时，感觉上显得很不协调。

When I look at the Trump administration filled with these, you know, I'm assuming more right of center economists and people of that thing, it feels incoherent.

我要拿走英特尔10%的股份。

I'm going to take 10% of intel.

你知道吗？

You know what?

我会让你把芯片卖给中国，但你必须分我一杯羹。

I'll let you sell chips to China, but you've gotta give me a cut of that.

哦，还有，我要对巴西征收50%的关税，因为我不太喜欢他们对待博索纳罗的方式。

Oh, also, I'm gonna put 50% tariffs on Brazil because I don't really like the way they've treated Bolsonaro.

你有点无法理解我们的本质以及他们是如何设计这些政策的——不是作为对钟摆式摇摆或社会弊病的纠正，而更像是一种冲动，就像巨婴的冲动行为。

And you sort of can't wrap your mind around what we are and and how they're designing these policies, not as correctives for pendulum swings or societal ills, but as kind of impulse, like giant baby impulse.

嗯，我认为特朗普政府的情况关键在于特朗普总统本人。

Well, I think what you have with the Trump administration is President Trump.

对吧？

Right?

我的意思是，我觉得你知道

I mean, I think you know

有道理。

Fair enough.

说得对。

Fair point.

说得对。

Fair point.

按我的观点，你知道，就像我向左派强调的，要以游说集团的存在为基本现实一样，还有一个基本现实就是行政部门的负责人是唐纳德·特朗普。

To my point, you know, in parallel to my point to the left about taking as a baseline reality that you have the lobbyists, there's also a baseline reality that the head of the executive branch is Donald Trump.

对。

Right.

而特朗普，正如你刚才描述的，是一个倾向于朝许多不同方向行动的人。

And Trump is someone who, as you just described, tends to go in a lot of different directions.

我称之为'发脾气经济学'。

I call it tantronomics.

发脾气经济学。

Tantronomics.

特朗普经济学。

Tantronomics.

而且我认为很重要的一点是，他作为一个如此非意识形态化的人，最令人着迷的地方在于，他实际上愿意摒弃所有曾经是共和党标准教条的东西，这确实带来了一些真正的好处。

And it's important to say I think what's so fascinating about him as such a non ideological person is that I think that actually had some real benefits in his willingness to reject everything that had been standard Republican dogma.

对吧？

Right?

他的意愿是，没有其他人

His willingness there was no one else

但他并没有用一种虚无主义的态度来取代它，比如‘没错，就是这样’。

But he wouldn't replace it with a sort of nihilistic Well, that's right.

所以我一直使用的比喻是建筑的比喻，对吧？

So the metaphor that I always use is the building metaphor, right?

也就是说，拆除是重建过程中的重要部分。

Which is that demolition is an important part of a rebuilding process.

如果你只做拆除，然后去找下一个要拆除的东西，你就不太可能被铭记为一位伟大的建设者。

If all you do is demolition and then go find the next thing to demolish, you are less likely to be remembered as a great builder.

我明白了。

I see.

所以你的意思是，我们现在正处于经济的东翼部分，但还没到达宴会厅。

So you're saying right now we're in the East Wing part of our economy, but we haven't yet gotten to the ballroom.

我们正在等待经济的宴会厅到来。

We're waiting to get to the ballroom of the economy.

我认为完全可以这么说，已经发生了大量的拆除工作。

I think it is certainly fair to say that there has been a lot of demolition.

是的。

Yes.

我认为有趣的是，当你提到拿走这家公司10%股份等等时，从根本上来看，实际上是在转向我们将要实施产业政策。

And I think the interesting thing when you mention, take 10% of this company and so forth, what you see at the sort of fundamental level is in fact a shift toward, we are going to do industrial policy.

或者说是一种国家主导的资本主义。

Or a state run capitalism.

但现在我们陷入了一个循环，那就是如何防止那种盗贼统治以及总统庇护者们的利益输送？

But we get into this loop now, which is how do you then prevent the kind of kleptocracy and and feeding at the trough of the patrons of the president?

你知道，当人们可以说总统在这个过程中获益高达40亿美元时，很难对经济的任何再平衡进行审视，这难道不是问题的根源吗？

You know, it's very hard to look at any rebalancing of the economy when people can say, but the president has benefited by the tune of $4,000,000,000 through the course of this, isn't at the base of this.

我们必须保留那些让美国走到今天的东西，也就是一套稳定的基本规则，我们会遵守这些规则，正如经济领域常说的，最糟糕的就是不确定性。

We have to preserve what kind of got America to this point, which is a baseline of there are stable rules of the road that that we will honor that allow for you know, they always say in the economy, the worst thing is uncertainty.

我们是否已经失去了那个——那个曾经是我们的黄金标准？

Have we lost that that that was our gold standard?

在我们能够着手处理你所谈论的那些补救措施之前，难道我们不需要重建那种基础的稳定性吗？

And before we can even tackle the kinds of remedies that you're talking about, don't we need to rebuild kind of that baseline stability?

是的。

Yes.

我认为这是一个非常重要的观点，当我们思考政治与经济之间的互动时，这一点曾被严重忽视。

I think that's an incredibly important point that there are certain know, When we think about the sort of interaction between politics and the economy, this is one of the things that was so lost.

有趣的是，过去并没有一个叫做经济学的学科。

It's funny, there didn't used to be a field called economics.

它被称为政治经济学。

It was called political economy.

人们称亚当·斯密为政治经济学家。

People called Adam Smith a political economist.

直到二十世纪，才出现了独立的经济学领域，它主要依赖数学和抽象模型，来推断应当如何行动。

And it was only really in the twentieth century that you defined this separate field of economics, which was just with math and abstract models and so forth we can kind of say what should be done.

但实际上，政治维度几乎总是不可分割的，尤其是在我们讨论‘我们应当做什么’这一层面时。

When in reality the political dimension is almost always inseparable, certainly at the level of what should we be doing.

但经济学家难道不是试图两头讨好吗？

But don't economists try and have it both ways.

我得说，上周我们采访理查德·塞勒时，有一件事让我觉得有点虚伪，顺便说一句，我很喜欢和他聊天。

I have to say, one of the things that felt disingenuous about we talked to Richard Thaler last week, which by the way, I love talking to that.

那场对话很棒，但很多经济学家非常生气。

Thought it was a great conversation, but there were a lot of economists that were really pissed.

他们不是生他的气，而是生我的气，怪我无知还有其他各种原因。

Not at him, at me for ignorance and all kinds of other things.

但他们生气的一点是，你不懂经济学和政策之间的区别，可他们自己不也想两头占便宜吗？

But one of the things they were pissed about is, you don't understand the difference between economics and policy, but don't they want it both ways?

因为他们并不仅仅在象牙塔里研究，把经济学关在玻璃罩里。

Because they don't just study it in an ivory tower and put it in a terrarium.

当这些政策制定时，他们就在房间里。

They're in the room when these policies are made.

他们在设计我们经济的参数方面具有极大的影响力。

They are incredibly influential in designing the parameters of our economy.

但如果你批评这一点，就会引发一些——恕我直言——非常刻薄的反应。

And yet if you criticize that, it stirs up a bit there, if I may say, very mean.

他们是非常刻薄的人。

They're very mean people.

是的。

Yes.

所以我完全同意这一点。

So I completely agree with that.

我认为在辩论圈子里，我们把这称为莫特与贝利策略，你熟悉莫特与贝利策略吗？

I think in debating circles we refer to that as a Mott and Bailey, which is are you familiar with the Mott and Bailey?

我不熟悉莫特这个说法

I'm not familiar Let the Mott

让我来给你讲讲莫特和贝利

me tell you about the Mott and Bailey.

就像莫特和贝利防御体系。

Like the Mott and Bailey.

莫特和贝利是中世纪村庄的一种布局——我可能把顺序说反了，但我认为莫特是山顶上的小型要塞。

The Mott and Bailey is the configuration of a medieval village that had I might get them backwards, but I believe the Mott was the small fortress on top of the hill.

而城堡的外城则是大家更愿意居住的开放区域，所以你住在外城里。

And then the Bailey was the sort of open village area that everybody preferred to live And so you lived out in the Bailey.

当野蛮人进攻时，你可以撤退到内堡中。

And then if the barbarians were attacking, you could retreat into the Mott.

明智的策略。

Solid move.

设计得很巧妙。

Well designed.

而且

And

就是这样。

there you go.

所以，Mott 和 Bailey 式的论证方式是，你先提出一些非常宽泛的主张，尽情发挥。

And so the Mott and Bailey form of argument is you sort of spread out and make these very expansive claims and sort of have a great time.

但一旦受到攻击，你就退回到一个更狭窄、更容易辩护的立场上。

And then when you actually get attacked, you retreat to this much narrower thing that you can defend.

当你在你的MOT里时，你会对任何人大喊大叫

And then when you're in your MOT, you yell insults at anybody

谁能这样。

who can this.

Python。

Python.

是的。

Yes.

但同样重要的是，一旦攻击者离开，好了。

And then but as importantly, as soon as the attackers have gone, alright.

行。

Fine.

他们一走，你就又立刻扩展回你的Bailey。

And moved on, you spread right back out again into your Bailey.

嗯，他们一直在让我头脑混乱。

Well, they've been bailing my mind.

我不喜欢这样，老兄。

I don't like it, buddy.

如果你像我一样，你就是自己惯性的受害者。

If you're like me, you're a victim of your own inertia.

静止的物体会保持静止。

A body at rest stays at rest.

如果我正在做某件事，我就会一直做下去。

If I got something I'm doing, I just keep doing it.

它更好有关系吗？

Does it matter that it's better?

没有。

No.

它更差有关系吗？

Does it matter that it's worse?

可能没有。

Probably not.

我只是继续做下去。

I just keep doing it.

像蜗牛一样缓慢前行，穿越生命的花园。

Slogging along like a snail, moving through the garden of life.

这其实挺黑暗的。

That's actually pretty dark.

但关键是，这让我在电话账单上多花了钱。

But the point is that's what screws me on telephone bills.

别因为我不了解就为过多的无线服务付费。

Stop paying for too much wireless just because I don't know.

我就只是这样而已。

That's just what I do.

一直都是这样的。

It's how it's always been.

这就是我的公司风格。

That's just my company.

Mint 的存在就是为了纠正这个问题。

Mint exists purely to fix that.

同样的覆盖范围，同样的速度，只是没有虚高的价格。

Same coverage, same speed, just without the inflated price tag.

你可以更换你的网络服务，大家。

You can change your coverage people.

Mint 就是你所期待的高端无线服务。

Mint is the premium wireless you expect.

你知道的，在这里，你可以无限通话、无限短信，还有数据流量，但价格只有其他公司的几分之一。

You know, here, you're unlimited talk, you're unlimited text, your data, but at a fraction of what others charge.

而且限时优惠，你可以享受三个月、六个月或十二个月无限高端无线服务的五折优惠。

And for a limited time, you can get 50% off three months, six months, twelve month plans of unlimited premium wireless.

携带你自己的电话号码，几分钟内通过 eSIM 激活，立即开始省钱。

Bring your own phone number, activate with eSIM in minutes, Start saving immediately.

无需长期合约。

No long term contracts.

没有麻烦。

No hassle.

享有七天退款保证和高达百分之九十多的客户满意度评级。

With a seven day money back guarantee and customer satisfaction ratings in the mid nineties.

Mint让您可以轻松尝试，并了解为什么人们一旦使用就不再回头。

Mint makes it easy to try it and see why people don't go back.

准备好停止支付不必要的额外费用了吗？

Ready to stop paying more than you have to?

新客户今天即可进行转换，并在限时期间内，每月仅需15美元即可享受无限优质无线服务。

New customers can make the switch today and for a limited time, get unlimited premium wireless for just $15 a month.

立即访问 mintmobile.com/tws 进行转换。

Switch now at mintmobile.com/tws.

网址是 mintmobile.com/tws。

That's mintmobile.com/tws.

限时优惠。

Limited time offer.

预付45美元可享受三个月，90美元可享受六个月，或180美元可享受十二个月。

Upfront payments of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or a $180 for twelve months.

需订阅套餐。

Plan required.

相当于每月15美元。

$15 per month equivalent.

额外收取税费。

Taxes and fees extra.

仅限初始套餐期限。

Initial plan term only.

当网络繁忙时，超过35GB的流量可能会变慢。

Over 35 gigabytes may slow when network is busy.

需要兼容设备。

Capable device required.

可用性、速度和覆盖范围因地区而异。

Available to speed and coverage varies.

请访问 mintmobile.com。

See mintmobile.com.

所以，我认为经济学辩论中一个持续存在且非常重要的特点是：是的，经济学作为一门重要且有价值的学科，确实提供了有用的见解，它运用分析和数据等手段来提出有益的观点，我们在制定公共政策时应当予以考虑。

So this is a constant feature of the economics debates that I think is very important is that yes, there is an important valuable discipline of economics that has useful insights, that uses both analysis and data and so forth to make useful points that we should consider when we are making public policy.

而另一方面，则是实际的政策制定过程。

And then there is the actual policy making process.

经济学家们已经非常习惯于断言，他们那些狭隘但有用的技术见解决定了政策应该如何制定。

And economists have gotten very comfortable asserting that their narrowly useful technical insights dictate what policy should be.

所以我们的模型显示自由贸易

So our model shows that free trade

这通常遵循右翼的观点。

That's is usually followed the Right.

因此，任何质疑我们自由贸易方案的人都是白痴。

Therefore, anybody who questions our prescription of free trade is an idiot.

然后我就说，等等，等等，其实我理解你的自由贸易模型。

And it's like, woah, woah, actually I understand your model of free trade.

首先，在现实世界中，我有十个理由认为，也许我只是有围绕其他事物进行优化的价值观。

Here are 10 reasons why in the real world, first of all, maybe I just have values for optimizing around other things.

其次，这里有其他人会采取的行为方式，而你没有考虑到。

Second of all, here's ways other people are going to behave that you're not taking into account.

第三，如果我们那样做，我们的政治将会发生什么。

Third of all, here's what's going to happen to our politics if we do that.

如果我们以那种方式破坏我们的政治，你认为经济最终会怎样？

And if we undermine our politics in that way, what do you think is going to end up happening to the economy?

诸如此类，等等。

And so on and so forth.

这造成了信誉问题，我认为这正当地削弱了信誉，而且我可能认为，就像很多人将伊拉克战争视为美国海外信誉的一个分水岭一样。

And it creates a credibility issue That I think undermines, you know, rightfully so, and I I probably consider in the way that I think a lot of people view the Iraq war as a kind of cleaving point for American credibility, right, overseas.

再说一遍，你或许可以追溯到六七十年代，说越南战争也造成了非常类似的影响。

And again, you probably can go back to the sixties and seventies and say the Vietnam War did a very similar thing.

我认为2008年金融危机可能是一次对这种公信力的过度修正，但对于一个对整体经济、就业、劳动力等各方面造成如此毁灭性打击的事件——并且是经济金融化和工具化的直接后果——令我惊讶的是，所有这些的策划者在经济体系中仍然如此具有韧性。

I think the 2,008, and maybe it's been an overcorrection against that credibility, but it really for something that was so devastating to the broader economy and to the jobs and to the and labor and all that, and the direct result of the financialization and instrumentation of the economy, I've been surprised at how resilient the architects of all that remain in the economy.

为什么会这样？

How is that?

嗯，我认为至少直到最近，这又回到了那种祭司现象，他们是其中的仲裁者。

Well, I think at least until recently, this goes back to the sort of priesthood phenomenon, they were the arbiters of it.

我的意思是，你甚至能找到各种出色的论文，毫不意外地论证金融危机不是他们的错，这些论文在技术上是权威的

I mean, can even find all sorts of great papers unsurprisingly about how the great financial crisis was not their fault, which are technically the authoritative

如果是学术界的

If academic it's in

它发表在《金融监管经济学家杂志》上。

the It's in the Journal of Financial Regulatory Economists.

结果发现他们与此事毫无关系。

It turns out that they had nothing to do with it.

但我确实认为这是双重打击：一是大衰退带来的金融余波，二是与中国自由贸易造成的产业冲击。

But I really do think it's the double whammy of the financial fallout from the Great Recession and the sort of industrial fallout from free trade with China.

因为关于这一点，我特别喜欢引用拉里·萨默斯的说法。

Because that also I was such an love quoting Larry Summers on this point.

我想我可能还能再坚持一段时间。

I think I can still do that maybe a little bit longer.

等等，

Wait,

气氛突然就冷下来了。

the room just got cold.

我不知道发生了什么。

I don't know what happened.

他作为财政部长在国会作证时表示，经济学家在所有事情上都存在分歧。

He testified before Congress as Secretary of the Treasury that economists disagree on everything.

但在这个问题上，答案只有一个。

On this, there's only one answer.

要知道，克林顿和白宫曾让这些诺贝尔奖得主走进简报室，向人们宣讲，如果你看不出这有多好，那只是因为你不够聪明，对吧。

Know, the Clinton And White House walked these Nobel laureates up to the briefing room to sort of lecture people that you know, if you did not see how great this was, you just were not smart enough to Right.

你不懂科学，你就是个白痴。

You don't understand the science and you're an idiot.

更糟糕的是，在错误已经显而易见之后，这种论调还在持续。

And then even worse, it carried on after it was obviously wrong.

所以你知道，我在2011到2012年期间曾为米特·罗姆尼的总统竞选工作过。

So, you know, I worked for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in twenty eleven-twenty twelve.

而罗姆尼实际上，由于他更多来自商业背景，非常关注中国问题以及与中国自由贸易显然未能奏效的种种方式。

And Romney actually was, because he came from more of a business background, was very focused on the China issue and the ways that free trade with China was clearly not working out.

你知道，在这场灾难持续了十年、十二年后，经济学家们却完全否认这一点。

You know, ten, twelve years into this debacle, and economists just absolutely denied it.

这根本不是真的。

That's just not true.

自由贸易对所有人都有好处。

Free trade works well for everybody.

这是否是一种误解，认为资本可以流动，而劳动力却不能？

And was it a misunderstanding of that sort of capital can travel, but labor can't?

这仅仅是资本在这个新型电子世界经济中所拥有的优势，而劳动力自然会被打得落花流水吗？

Is it just the advantages that capital had in this new, like, electronic world economy that labor just was was naturally going to get its ass kicked?

我觉得这是其中一个原因。

You know, I think that's a piece of it.

不过我认为还有另外两个问题，一个是他们总是假设贸易会是平衡的。

Think two other problems though, one is they always just assume that trade would be balanced.

所以如果大量资本流向中国，去那里生产更便宜的东西，那也没问题。

So if a whole bunch of capital heads to China to make something cheaper in China, that's okay.

我们这里总会生产出别的东西，用来与中国的东西进行交换。

There's going to be something else that we make here now to trade for the stuff from China.

这几乎成了一条铁律。

And it was a sort of rock solid principle.

实际上保罗·克鲁格曼曾写过一篇著名文章，讨论我们应该向本科生传授哪些经济学知识。

Was actually Paul Krugman wrote a famous essay talking about what should we teach undergraduates about economics.

其中一个核心观点是贸易逆差会自我修正。

And one of the core things was trade deficits are self correcting.

所以不可能长期存在——我去年和他一起上播客时还跟他提过这一点。

So you can't have a long term I was on a podcast with him last year and mentioned this to him.

他当然不记得了。

He didn't remember of course.

他听到这个一定非常兴奋。

He must have been very excited to hear about.

他一定非常兴奋，被提醒起这一点，而且

He must have been very excited to be reminded of And that

然后我说：不，不，我随时准备根据需要引用这句话。

then I said, No, no, I'm always ready to read the quote as needed.

他说：嗯，那太天真了。

And he said, Well, that was naive.

我说：好吧，

And I like, Well,

给他点赞。

Credit to him.

我希望你没有写那篇附带的文章，暗示那些无法理解你经济学观点的人应该被嘲笑，因为嘲笑比真正去与他们辩论更有效。

I wish you hadn't written the accompanying essay suggesting that people who could not understand your economics should be ridiculed because ridicule is more powerful than actually trying to argue with them.

是的

Yeah.

我也知道这一点。

I'm aware of that as well.

那是我的马丁·贝利。

That's my Martin Bailey.

你现在完全是乱用术语。

Now you're just misusing terms left and right.

但这就是这一切的惯常做法。

But this was sort of the MO of all of this.

所以如果你认为，一大堆东西会流向中国，那也没关系。

And so if you figure, Oh, a whole bunch of stuff will go to China, that's fine.

我们会得到别的东西作为替代。

We'll get something else instead.

也许这样本可以行得通。

Maybe that could have worked out.

但事实证明，那是完全错误的。

But it turns out that that was simply wrong.

而这一切经济学背后的另一个核心假设，是经济学家们不愿谈论的，即他们只关心消费。

And then the other core assumption under all of this economics that the economists hate talking about is that all they care about is consumption.

literally，经济学将‘好’定义为拥有更多的可消费物品。

Like quite literally, the way that economics defines the good is having more stuff to consume.

事实上，它把工作定义为‘坏’，对吧？

And in fact, it defines work as the bad, right?

理想的经济结果。

The ideal economic outcome.

解释一下。

Explain this.

这是什么意思？

What does that mean?

因为我熟悉消费者指数和消费支出占经济70%之类的说法。

Because I'm familiar with sort of the consumer index and consumer spending being 70% of the economy and all that.

但是，难道工作生产力不是他们定义的生产力吗？

But thought, isn't work productivity what they would define as productivity?

还是说它仍然只被定义为用于消费的？

Or is that still only defined as it is to consuming?

所以在正式的经济模型中，一切都是为了消费。

So in the formal economic models, it is for the sake of the consuming.

因此，曾任奥巴马经济顾问委员会主席、现于哈佛教授经济学入门课程的杰森·弗曼，一两年前在世贸组织日内瓦会议上发表演讲时特别指出：经济学家们明白进口才是我们获得的好东西，而出口只是为了获得更多进口而不得不做的坏事。

And so Jason Furman, was chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, now teaches the intro level econ course at Harvard, gave a speech a year or two ago in Geneva at the WTO, World Trade Organization, convening where he specifically noted that economists know that imports are the good thing that we get and exports are just the bad thing that we have to do to get more imports.

所以基本上我们都在为周末而工作。

So it's basically we're all working for the weekend.

这就是我们的

That's what we're

没错。

right.

说得对。

Fair enough.

所以，理想情况下，如果你按照所谓的政策评估标准来操作，对吧？

So the ideal, if you're kind of They do what they're called scoring policies, right?

我们会运行我们的模型，找出最佳政策。

We're going to run our model and say what's the best policy.

最理想的政策是，我们能获得所有想要消费的东西，而无需做任何工作。

The ideal policy would be one where we get just everything we want to consume and don't have to do any work.

我认为这就是埃隆的未来。

I think that's Elon's future.

我认为他所说的是，AI将把我们带向这样的未来。

I think that's what he says is going to happen to us through AI.

这是一个有趣的问题，对吧？

Well, is an interesting question, right?

那样会是好事吗？

Would that be good or not?

对。

Right.

这难道不会让人看到，这个问题非常有趣，因为从科技界的当权者——那些将设计我们未来无论何种反乌托邦世界的新晋亿万富翁的角度来看，他们审视零工经济，认为自动化和人工智能不仅会在某些领域取代我们，而且这样做更好。

Wouldn't that make see, this gets us in this is such an interesting because from the sort of the powers that be within the tech world, the new billionaires that are going to design the whatever dystopian world we're going to live in, they look at the gig economy, that automation and AI, not only is it going to replace us to certain places, it's better that it does.

他们以你所说的方式看待它，但我认为这也忽略了人们渴望感到自己是有价值的这一点。

That they look at it in the way that that you're saying, which I think misses out also on that people want to feel relevant.

是的。

Yes.

那是生活中一个重要的部分。

That that's an important part of of life.

是的。

Yes.

是不是有这样一种感觉，就是你通过劳动所做的事情，哪怕是最微小的地方也很重要，你知道，就是我们所有人都希望成为不可或缺的工作者这种想法。

Is the feeling that what you do through your labor matters in the smallest of ways, whether that you know, it's that idea of we all would like to be essential workers.

我们不想被取代。

We don't want to be replaced.

我们只希望获得与自身价值相称的薪资，能够摆脱月光族的生活。

We just want a wage commensurate with being able to live not paycheck to paycheck for that relevance.

是的。

Yes.

这正是对的。

That's so that's exactly right.

这正是我试图表达的核心观点，我的组织美国指南针专注于这一点：我们实际上需要市场去做很多事情。

And this is the the core of the point that I try to make and my organization American Compass focuses on, is the idea that there are a lot of things we actually need markets to do.

所以，我们热爱资本主义。

So again, we love capitalism.

我们希望市场存在，我们认为市场是组织经济的正确方式。

We want markets We think markets are the right way to organize an economy.

我们希望它们能良好运行。

We want them to work well.

这意味着，除了为我们提供廉价商品外，市场还需要做很多其他事情。

And what that means is there's actually a lot of things we need them to do besides just give us access to cheap stuff.

其中最重要的一点是，在人们居住的地方创造与他们能力相匹配、能支持家庭的工作。

And one of the most important is be generating jobs in the places where people live, aligned to the kinds of things they can do that allow them to support families.

对。

Right.

所以我们又回到了亚当·斯密那只看不见的手的理论上。

And so we're all the way back to the Adam Smith invisible hand thing again.

我们经济中正在发生的事情是否就是能产生那种结果的事情。

Are the things that are happening in our economy the kinds of things that generate that outcome.

而经济学在形式上对此完全是视而不见的。

And economics formally is just completely blind to that.

嗯，金融化肯定是其中之一。

Well, certainly financialization is for sure.

没错，正是如此。

Well, that's right.

金融化反映了一个市场，其激励机制并不鼓励这样做。

The financialization, it reflects a market where the incentives are not to do that.

经济学作为一个分析领域，确实没有很好的方法来衡量这一点，对吧？

Economics as a field of analysis just doesn't really have a way to measure that, right?

所以当你看到GDP上升时，这并不能说明它是在以支持这些目标的方式上升

So when you see GDP go up, that doesn't tell you anything about whether it is going up

而是以支持或不支持这些目标的方式上升。

in a way that supports those things or not.

奥林，让我问你一个问题，因为我记得，也许这是因为当时它是一种自我调节的主张。

Why, Orin, let me ask you this, because I remember, and maybe this is because it was kind of a self regulating proposition.

但如果你还记得，就在十年前、十五年前，曾兴起过一股ESG运动，企业开始自我评估，或被他人评估其经济产出是否具有正面效应或净正面效应。

But if you remember there was a movement, it wasn't even that long ago, ten, fifteen years ago, that ESG movement, where corporations were now also going to judge themselves or be judged on whether or not their economic production was also positive or a net positive.

他们制定了关于环境、社会正义等不同方面的各种指标。

And they created sort of these different parameters about environment and social justice and these different things.

但这一运动在政治上和其他方面都失败了。

And it was a disaster, politically and otherwise.

是的。

Yes.

考虑到我们正在讨论的内容，为什么会这样呢？

Why would that be given sort of what we're talking about?

请允许我此刻就左派问题提出一个尊重的观点。

If I may make a respectful point regarding the left at this moment.

DSG（环境、社会和治理）的理念，即我们确实需要关注利润之外的事物，这一点非常重要。

DSG, the idea that we do need to care about things besides profit is very important.

ESG最不幸的一个方面是，它声称我们因此真正需要更加关注的基本上是进步议程。

One of the most unfortunate elements of ESG was that it said the things that we therefore really need to concentrate on more are essentially the progressive agenda.

对吧？

Right?

所以当时非常关注气候变化。

So there was a very heavy focus on climate change.

你们正在采取哪些措施来减缓气候变化？

And what are you doing to reduce climate change?

对。

Right.

不过公平地说，其中很多只是表面功夫。

Although a lot of it was, to be fair, lot of it was lip syncing.

我的意思是，其中很多都算是

Mean a lot of it's kind of

哦，绝对是。

Oh, absolutely.

但就你认真对待它的程度而言，它实际上并没有关注我们在这里讨论的一系列问题。

But to the extent that you want to take it seriously, it was not actually focused on the set of things we've been talking about here.

你在国内投资吗？

Are you investing domestically?

你创造的工作岗位，是否能让人们养家糊口？

Are you creating the kinds of jobs that are going to allow people to support families?

你是说。

You're saying.

它本质上聚焦于这批精英中偏左翼的那部分人，他们大体上对现状感到满意，但希望围绕气候变化、某种社会正义观念等议题，强加一套特定的政策优先事项。

It was focused on the set of essentially the left of center side of this elite that is generally happy with how things are going on, but wanted to impose a particular set of policy priorities around things like climate change, a certain conception of social justice.

也许定义得不够清晰。

And maybe ill defining it.

是的。

Yeah.

尽管关于社会正义的部分，我一直很惊讶，尤其是对于那些谈论优绩主义的人，他们为什么会如此抵触。

Although the social justice part, I've always been so surprised that the pushback on, especially for those you know, talk about meritocracy.

如果从市场的角度来理解社会正义，这些传统上被排斥、甚至曾被法律明确排除的群体，难道不能将它们重新定义为新兴市场，并主张加大对新兴市场的投资，从而最终建立一个更大、更优绩、更具竞争性的体系吗？

I would think you know, if you think about social justice in terms of markets, aren't these communities that have been traditionally excluded, oftentimes explicitly by the law, couldn't you just reclassify them as emerging markets and suggest that you wanted to create better investment in emerging markets to create a larger, more meritocratic system ultimately with more competition?

我一直觉得，这种观点竟然被如此负面地看待，这让我感到意外。

Isn't I always viewed that as it was surprising to me that it was viewed so negatively.

因为这本质上是在打破一个陈旧的体系。

Because it basically taking a legacy system and kind of breaking it down.

对。

Right.

我的意思是，如果你只是以企业领导者的身份，以最大化利润为目标，那你喜欢新兴市场的原因通常是，那里能带来巨额利润。

I mean, I think that, you know, again, if you're just putting your hat on as a business leader trying to maximize profit, what you like about an emerging market typically is it's a place to generate a lot of profit.

但在美国，正如你所定义的，那些通常被排除在外、被忽视的群体，往往并不是利润机会集中的地方。

And in The US, as you've defined it, for the most part those groups that have typically been excluded, places that have been left behind, those don't tend to be the places where a lot of the profit opportunity is.

短期。

Short term.

短期。

Short term.

短期。

Short term.

这正是他们所关注的，也把我们联系在一起。

Which is what they're looking at and which That connects connects us.

这又回到了

Which connects back

到

to

金融化带来的另一个大问题，即当你在金融服务、某种程度上在科技和媒体领域赚取所有利润时，你可以实现大量增长，但你最赚钱的方式却是推动和提升那些已经表现最好的狭小群体。

another of the big problems with financialization, which is when you're making all of your money in financial services, to some extent in tech, in media, you can generate a lot of growth, but you are making the most profitable things the boosting and lifting up of those narrow enclaves that are already doing best.

我认为我们需要做的一件最有力的事情是——而且我认为，这会导致你在政治光谱上得到不同的答案——那就是，如何推动更多投资回归到国家的其他地区？

And one of the most powerful things I think we need, and again, I think this is where you'll then get different answers across the political spectrum is, okay, what does it mean to drive more investment back out into the rest of the country?

在我看来，仅仅制定一堆规则强制要求这样做是无法实现这一目标的。

In my view, you aren't going to get that done by basically making a bunch of rules saying you have to go do that.

你应该做的是制定这些非常宽泛的规则。

What you want to do is create these very broad rules.

以关税为例，你想要制定一个广泛的规则，规定在美国制造的产品销售起来比在其他地方制造的产品更便宜。

Even taking a tariff as an example, you want to create a broad rule that says it's going to be cheaper to sell something that you've made in The United States than it is to sell something that you made somewhere else.

当你考虑到海外监管的不平衡、他们支付给工人的工资以及他们的生活水平时，这确实非常困难。

Which is awfully difficult when you think about the imbalances of regulation overseas and what they get away with paying people and what their standard of living is.

这确实是一件很难设计的事情，对吧？

That's a really hard thing then to engineer, isn't it?

嗯，在我看来，这恰恰是支持关税这类政策的理由，就是说，如果我们只想要最便宜的东西，那现状就很好。

Well, that in my mind is exactly the argument for something like tariffs is to say, if all we want is the cheapest thing, then this is great.

如果是由中国的奴隶劳工制造，那成本会更低。

If Chinese slave labor makes it, it will be cheaper.

不过关税的问题在于，归根结底——再次声明，并非要反驳我们最尊敬的领导人——但最终这还是会变成一种对消费者的累退税，由那些最无力承担、你知道、支付这笔溢价的人来负担。

The problem with the tariffs though is ultimately, and again, not to push back on the dearest of our leaders, but ultimately that ends up being a regressive tax on consumers and the people that can least afford, you know, to pay that premium.

而且这笔钱可能不会以投资的形式回流到他们手中。

And that money may not come back to them in investment.

那么我们岂不是在惩罚我们声称要帮助的那些人吗？

So aren't we punishing the very people we purport to help?

它确实有可能具有累退性。

There is potential for it to be regressive.

实际上有一位非常出色的学者，我想他正式的身份是经济历史学家，名叫迈克尔·林德，他提出了一个我认为至关重要的观点，并就此为我们写了一篇精彩的文章，那就是我们必须牢记，我们收入或税制的累进性或累退性并非首要问题。

There's actually a wonderful, I guess he's an economic historian officially named Michael Lind, who makes this point that I think is so important and wrote a great essay for us about it, that it's really important to remember that the progressivity or regressivity of our income, of our tax system isn't the primary question.

这是我们为了弥补所有其他不平等而采取的次要手段。

It is a secondary thing that we do to make up for all of the other inequality.

如果我们能够做到

If we could do

那你还有什么其他办法来弥补呢？

How else do you make it up?

以关税为例，如果我们采取行动以真正惠及普通工人、被遗忘地区的方式来重组我们的经济，理想情况下将能产生更好的经济成果。

Taking tariffs as an example, if we do things to restructure our economy in ways that are actually going to benefit typical workers, left behind parts of the country, are going to ideally generate better economic outcomes.