播客开场与嘉宾介绍

All right, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. That's right. It's your favorite podcast. It's your podcasters's favorite podcast, the All-In podcast. We're back, baby. 各位好。欢迎回到全球第一播客。没错，这是你们最喜欢的播客，也是你们的播客主持人最喜欢的播客——“All-In”播客。我们回来了，宝贝。

Jason: Chimath Paul Aatia is here. Our chairman, our dictator. How you doing, brother? Jason: Chimath Paul Aatia 在这里。我们的主席，我们的“独裁者”。你怎么样，兄弟？

Chimath: Great. Yeah. Fantastic. You know, you put the Uber stock price and the Robin Hood stock price together, 150. I'm annoying. 200 I'm insufferable. And 250 we just hit. I am off the reservation officially hopping the fence. So yeah, life's good. Chimath: 太棒了。是的。非常棒。你知道，把优步（Uber）和罗宾汉（Robinhood）的股价加起来，150的时候我觉得有点烦人，200的时候我简直无法忍受。我们刚刚达到了250。我正式“出圈”了，跨越了那道栅栏。所以，生活很好。

Jason: All right. With us again, David Sachs, the ZAR. Jason: 好的。再次欢迎 David Sachs，我们的“沙皇”。

Sachs: By the way, what's the reason why your Robin Hood stock is through the roof? Because of the crypto policies of the Trump administration. Sachs: 顺便问一下，你的罗宾汉（Robinhood）股票暴涨的原因是什么？是因为特朗普政府的加密货币政策吗？

Chimath: Yeah, that's fair. Fair. That's half of it. Chimath: 是的，这很公平。这是其中一半的原因。

Sachs: That's why it's gone from what is it like $3 to 130 billion. Sachs: 这就是为什么它从3美元左右涨到了1300亿美元。

Chimath: Two $2. I paid less than a penny for my shares, but yes, it went from 13. Chimath: 是2美元。我的股票成本不到一分钱，但它确实从13美元涨上来了。

Sachs: Well, this is a typical liberal. You benefit from our policies and then you trash them. Sachs: 好了，这就是典型的自由派。你从我们的政策中受益，然后却诋毁它们。

Jason: I'm a moderate, independent moderate. Here we go. Now it's it's starting already. It's going to be a great week. Everybody buckle up. Jason: 我是一个温和派，独立的温和派。开始了。现在已经开始了。这将是美好的一周。各位，系好安全带。

Brad: And he puts the namaste in your payday. Our fifth bestie is back. Brad, welcome home. Brad: 他把“合十礼”带到了你的发薪日。我们的第五位好友回来了。Brad，欢迎回家。

Brad: It's great to be here. Great to be I went out and got a haircut. Brad: 很高兴来到这里。我出去理了个发。

Jason: Welcome back into the fold. Jason: 欢迎归队。

Brad: Welcome back. I got a haircut on the occasion. I mean, Jason Jason, do you know how long it's been since I was last on this pod? Brad: 欢迎回来。我特意为此理了个发。Jason，你知道我上次上这个播客是什么时候吗？

Jason: I don't know. I've invited you like 12 times, but I think the emails there's something going on with email. I didn't get any of my White House invitations. You didn't get any all-in invitations. Jason: 我不知道。我大概邀请了你12次，但我想电子邮件可能出了点问题。我没有收到任何白宫的邀请，你也没有收到任何“All-In”播客的邀请。

Brad: I mean, it's been so long since it's been so long since I was on this pod. I went back and listened. The last show I was on, we were still talking about how great Chamas spacks were before they crashed the entire market and it was already back. I mean, it was before Saxy Poo saved the entire crypto industry from prison and certain bankruptcy. And Jason, it was before you got so tilted with Democrats that you went completely off-grid, moved to Texas, and bought a bunch of guns. Brad: 我的意思是，我上次上这个播客已经是很久很久以前的事了。我回去听了一下，我上的最后一期节目，我们还在讨论 Chimath 的 SPACs (Special Purpose Acquisition Company: 特殊目的收购公司) 有多棒，那是在它们搞垮整个市场之前，而且当时它已经回来了。我的意思是，那是在 Saxy Poo 把整个加密货币行业从牢狱之灾和必然破产中拯救出来之前。Jason，那是在你对民主党如此不满，以至于完全脱离电网，搬到德克萨斯州，并买了一堆枪之前。

Jason: There it is. It's been a minute. So much changed in a Fortnite. My god. Wow. Here we are. Well, we're all back and we're having some fun. We'll have a little fun with our fifth bestie who's here. Jason: 瞧，就是这样。有一段时间了。短短两周内变化真大。天哪。哇。我们在这里。我们都回来了，玩得很开心。我们将和我们的第五位好友一起玩乐。

以色列-哈马斯停火协议

Jason: We got to start off with the Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal thanks to President Trump who announced it just yesterday. We tape on Thursdays. He announced it on Wednesday. You'll listen to this on Friday hopefully. And he announced the first phase of a multi-stage peace deal. Notably, it was on the day after the 2-year anniversary of the horrific October 7th attacks which led obviously to the invasion of Gaza. And this war has been particularly devastating for Gaza. Most of the region's been destroyed. 2.3 million residents have been displaced. And according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which I know some people will debate, uh over 67,000 Palestinians have been killed. The deal is based off of Trump's 20-point peace plan, which the White House published last week, and the Israeli government will vote on the deal today, maybe even before the show comes out. Even with all this tragedy, something has gone tremendously right when it comes to these peace negotiations and the peace talks. So, Saxs, tell us what went so right here in those negotiations. Jason: 我们必须从以色列-哈马斯停火协议开始，这要感谢特朗普总统，他昨天刚刚宣布了这项协议。我们周四录制节目。他是在周三宣布的。希望你们能在周五听到这期节目。他宣布了多阶段和平协议的第一阶段。值得注意的是，这恰好发生在2022年10月7日可怕袭击事件两周年纪念日的第二天，该事件显然导致了对加沙的入侵。这场战争对加沙造成了特别毁灭性的影响。该地区大部分已被摧毁。230万居民流离失所。根据加沙卫生部的说法（我知道有些人会对此提出异议），超过67,000名巴勒斯坦人被杀。这项协议基于特朗普的20点和平计划，白宫上周公布了该计划，以色列政府将于今天对该协议进行投票，可能甚至在节目播出之前。尽管发生了所有这些悲剧，但在这些和平谈判和和平对话中，有些事情进展得异常顺利。那么，Sachs，告诉我们这些谈判中到底有哪些进展顺利的地方。

Sachs: I mean, right now, it looks like both sides have agreed to this deal. And the first phase of the deal is for there to be a ceasefire to end active fighting. It's going to allow unrestricted aid into Gaza. It's going to allow the release of all remaining Israeli hostages. And Israel is going to release 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and start withdrawing Israeli troops. So that that is what apparently has been agreed to. And the Middle East has a way of disappointing you. Sometimes these deals don't stick, but based on everything we understand to be the case right now, this appears to be a big breakthrough in terms of the fighting will stop and the all the hostages will be released. And I do think it is a big accomplishment by the president in terms of how this happened is because the president was willing to both cajole and coerce and use pressure with respect to both sides of the conflict. Longtime diplomat Aaron David Miller who advised both Republican and Democrat administrations on Middle East peace negotiations for the last three decades. He said that, I'll quote here, "Donald Trump has demonstrated a degree of will unlike any other president, Republican or Democrat. He has pressed an Israeli prime minister in a way that none of his predecessors have ever done on an issue that that prime minister considers vital to his political survival and the way he would define Israeli security requirements." Sachs: 我的意思是，目前看来，双方都已同意这项协议。协议的第一阶段是实现停火，结束军事冲突。这将允许不受限制的人道主义援助进入加沙。它将允许释放所有剩余的以色列人质。以色列将释放2,000名巴勒斯坦囚犯，并开始撤出以色列军队。这显然就是已达成一致的内容。中东地区总会让人失望。有时这些协议无法持久，但根据我们目前所了解的一切，这似乎是一个重大突破，意味着战斗将停止，所有人质将被释放。我确实认为这是总统的一项重大成就，而之所以能够实现，是因为总统愿意对冲突双方进行劝说、施压和强制。长期外交官亚伦·大卫·米勒（Aaron David Miller）在过去三十年里曾为共和党和民主党政府提供中东和平谈判方面的建议。他曾说，我在此引用他的话：“唐纳德·特朗普展现出了一种意志力，这是任何其他总统，无论是共和党还是民主党，都前所未见的。他以一种前任从未做过的方式，在一位以色列总理认为对其政治生存以及他如何定义以色列安全要求至关重要的问题上，向其施压。”

Sachs: So that was Aaron David Miller who again was the US negotiator in Middle East peace negotiations for a quarter century. And in fact, he wrote a very interesting article in 2005 called Israel's lawyer in which he was a little bit self-critical of the US's previous efforts and his own efforts saying that in the past the US saw its role as being to represent Israel as opposed to being an objective negotiator. And he he critiqued the US's efforts saying that we might be able to get more done if the US was perceived as more of an honest broker and perceived as willing to be a little bit more neutral in the negotiations. And I think what he's seems to be saying here is that Trump was willing to do that. He was willing to pressure Netanyahu as well as Hamas. I mean, obviously you saw in the last few days that he said that if Hamas did not agree to this, all all hell would break loose. So, he was willing to basically pressure both sides into accepting this deal. And you have to give him credit for it for where things stand right now. And you are seeing, it seems like virtually everyone's giving him credit. Even the New York Times, even John Meechum was on MSNBC this morning giving President Trump credit for doing the seemingly impossible. And the reason I say even John Mechum is because Meechum is frequently criticizing President Trump as being a fascist or having authoritarian tendencies. And even he had to acknowledge that Trump had pulled off the seemingly impossible here today. Sachs: 所以那是亚伦·大卫·米勒，他再次担任了美国在中东和平谈判中长达四分之一世纪的谈判代表。事实上，他在2005年写了一篇非常有趣的文章，名为《以色列的律师》，其中他对自己和美国以往的努力进行了一些自我批评，称过去美国认为自己的角色是代表以色列，而不是作为客观的谈判者。他批评了美国的努力，认为如果美国被视为更诚实的中间人，并在谈判中更愿意保持中立，我们可能会取得更多成就。我认为他在这里似乎想说的是，特朗普愿意这样做。他愿意向内塔尼亚胡以及哈马斯施压。我的意思是，很明显，在过去几天里，你看到他说如果哈马斯不同意，一切都会乱套。所以，他基本上愿意向双方施压，让他们接受这项协议。就目前的情况而言，你必须为此归功于他。你正在看到，似乎几乎所有人都在归功于他。甚至《纽约时报》，甚至约翰·米查姆（John Meechum）今天早上也在微软全国广播公司（MSNBC：美国有线电视新闻频道）上赞扬特朗普总统完成了看似不可能的任务。我之所以说“甚至约翰·米查姆”，是因为米查姆经常批评特朗普总统是法西斯主义者或具有威权主义倾向。而即便他今天也承认，特朗普在这里完成了看似不可能的任务。

中东和平后的区域展望

Jason: All right, Shamath, obviously this is going to have a pretty positive impact on the region. So, as we look at, you know, if this does uh and again, you know, we got to be cautious here because as Saxs pointed out correctly in the Middle East, you know, sometimes these things fall apart and they're delicate. But let's assume that this uh peace deal does make its way to fruition and we what is it going to look like in the region post peace between these two nations? Jason: 好的，Chimath，显然这会对该地区产生相当积极的影响。那么，我们来看看，如果这项和平协议——我们必须谨慎，因为正如 Sachs 正确指出的，在中东，这些事情有时会瓦解，它们很脆弱——但假设这项和平协议最终得以实现，这两个国家之间和平之后，该地区会是什么样子？

Chimath: I mean, I don't know. So, let's start with that. Nobody knows. Chimath: 我的意思是，我不知道。所以，我们从这点开始。没人知道。

Jason: Nobody knows. Yeah, Jason: 没人知道。是的。

Chimath: I think it's been a very unpredictable place for a very long time. That being said, what is the rational thing that has to happen? I think that most of these countries are facing a very obvious problem which is they have a resource that is becoming increasingly less valuable. That resource is oil. And so the practical reality is you want peace so that you can focus on the forward monetization of your reserves. So when that oil sits in the ground, the longer it sits in the ground, the less valuable it is to you because it doesn't actually add to your balance sheet. The faster you can monetize the oil, then the faster you can deploy it into other things, including services for your own citizens. Chimath: 我认为这个地方长期以来一直非常不可预测。话虽如此，理性的发展是什么？我认为这些国家中的大多数都面临一个非常明显的问题，那就是它们拥有的一种资源正在变得越来越不值钱。这种资源就是石油。因此，实际情况是，你想要和平，这样你就可以专注于未来储备的变现。所以，当石油存在地下时，它在地下存放的时间越长，对你来说价值就越低，因为它并不会真正增加你的资产负债表。你越快地将石油变现，就能越快地将其投入到其他方面，包括为你自己的公民提供服务。

Chimath: Now the longer you wait to do that, the problem that we are seeing is that other solutions come around the corner. Eventually in the 10 or 15 or 20 year time frame, you'll have an abundance of electrons from nuclear. In the meantime, you have an abundance of electrons from that gas. You have an abundance of electrons, frankly, from solar. And all of these things will ultimately diminish the net long bid to oil. So if there's instability, you can't focus 100% on monetization. If there's stability, then the entire focus needs to be on the monetization of of the oil asset. And I think that that's a very healthy thing because it starts to create market driven incentives that will only accelerate all the positive things that are happening. Chimath: 现在，你等待的时间越长，我们看到的问题是，其他的解决方案就会出现。最终，在10年、15年或20年的时间框架内，你将拥有来自核能的丰富电子。与此同时，你已经拥有来自天然气的丰富电子。坦率地说，你还拥有来自太阳能的丰富电子。所有这些都将最终削弱对石油的净长期看涨。所以，如果存在不稳定，你就无法100%专注于变现。如果存在稳定，那么所有注意力都必须放在石油资产的变现上。我认为这是一件非常健康的事情，因为它开始创造市场驱动的激励机制，只会加速所有积极事态的发展。

Sachs: By the way, and the other thing I just want to say which is personal is shout out to a friend of the pod, Jared Kushner. Aman tweeted this which I think is just so superb. But in one week, Jared did the largest LBO (Leveraged Buyout: 一种通过大量借款来收购公司的金融交易) ever and then also helped negotiate Middle East peace. It's unbelievable. It's really incredible what these guys pulled off and it allows that region to be a real pillar of what happens in the next 50 to 100 years. Sachs: 顺便说一句，另一件我想说的，是私人的，那就是向播客的朋友贾里德·库什纳（Jared Kushner）致敬。阿曼（Aman）发了这条推特，我觉得非常棒。但在一周之内，贾里德完成了史上最大规模的杠杆收购，然后还协助谈判促成了中东和平。这简直难以置信。这些人取得的成就实在令人惊叹，它让那个地区能够成为未来50到100年发展的重要支柱。

Jason: All right. And I I think it's well said, Brad, that some stability in the region will help them with the transition from an oil-based economy to what you and I learned in our trips there and some of them together that they're looking to transition to private equity, solar, renewables, AI, owning sports teams, venture capital, and so many uh and tourism, building new cities. All of that is hard to do and then also getting investments if people feel the region's unstable andor dangerous. You know, it's not a good place to uh invest capital. So, let's um let's keep pulling the string as to what the best case scenario is here if we have true stability in that region. Jason: 好的。我认为 Brad 说得很好，该地区的一些稳定将有助于他们从石油经济转型。在你和我在那里的旅行中，我们了解到，他们正在寻求向私募股权（Private Equity）、太阳能（Solar）、可再生能源（Renewables）、人工智能（AI）、拥有体育团队、风险投资（Venture Capital）以及许多其他领域，包括旅游业（Tourism）、建设新城市转型。所有这些都很难实现，而且如果人们觉得该地区不稳定或危险，也很难获得投资。你知道，那不是一个好的投资资本的地方。所以，让我们继续探讨，如果该地区真正实现稳定，最好的情况会是什么。

Brad: Well, that I mean you you you nailed it. The conditions for all of those things economic, right, are safety and security. You don't have any economic growth in the region unless you have that you know and I think you guys covered it pretty well but maybe just highlight a broader feature I think of this presidency right I think we might call Trump like the moonshot presidency if you think about everything he's trying to accomplish even Hillary Clinton said if he pulls off peace between Ukraine and Russia which is also going on simultaneous to these efforts that she herself will nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize right I look at the presidency there are moonshots going on everywhere China, AI, re-industrialization, India, Pakistan, Ukraine, you know, in Russia, what he's doing in the Middle East. And if you think about moonshots, we all do these in Silicon Valley. These are high-risk, highreward efforts. We want to back people who go for moonshots, but the reality is most people don't have the courage to go for moonshots because there's a high probability that it won't work. But if you think about this for a second, after the horror of the October 7th attacks, the chaos in Syria, the attacks by Yemen, the escalations fueled by Iran, the idea that the president, Witoff, and you're right, Shamath, our friend Jared Kushner, could have overcome all of that, right? And that could have been all out war across the Middle East. It could have plunged the entire Middle East into utter chaos. But instead, he decapitated Iran. We brought Syria into the fold. We're on the verge of expanding the Abraham Accords (Abraham Accords: 以色列与数个阿拉伯国家之间的一系列和平及关系正常化协议). And now you have this historic signing. You know, we saw it with our own eyes when Sax and I were over there on the president's visit. You know, he is respected as a strong leader and liked in every one of these capitals that you go to, you know, and it's paying off. If this happens, Wickoff Kushner and the president all deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. If even 80% of it works out, I think it's worthy of a peace prize. Brad: 嗯，我的意思是，你一语中的。所有这些经济活动的条件，对吧，都是安全和保障。如果没有这些，该地区就不会有任何经济增长。我认为你们已经讲得很好了，但也许可以强调一下本届总统的一个更广泛的特点，我认为我们可以称特朗普为“登月计划总统”，如果你考虑他试图实现的一切，甚至希拉里·克林顿都说，如果他能在乌克兰和俄罗斯之间实现和平（这与这些努力同时进行），她自己就会提名他获得诺贝尔和平奖。对吧，我审视总统任期，到处都有“登月计划”在进行，中国、人工智能、再工业化、印度、巴基斯坦、乌克兰，你知道的，在俄罗斯，他在中东所做的一切。如果你考虑“登月计划”，我们在硅谷都做过这些。这些是高风险、高回报的努力。我们想支持那些敢于追求“登月计划”的人，但现实是大多数人没有勇气追求“登月计划”，因为失败的可能性很高。但如果你稍作思考，在10月7日袭击的恐怖事件、叙利亚的混乱、也门的袭击、伊朗煽动的升级之后，总统、Witoff，还有你说的对，Chimath，我们的朋友贾里德·库什纳，能够克服所有这些，对吧？那可能导致整个中东地区全面战争。它可能使整个中东陷入彻底的混乱。但相反，他“斩首”了伊朗。我们把叙利亚带进了谈判。我们正处于扩大《亚伯拉罕协议》的边缘。现在你看到了这次历史性的签署。你知道，当 Sachs 和我随总统访问那里时，我们亲眼看到了。你知道，他在你所去的每一个首都都被视为一位强大的领导人并受到欢迎，你知道，这正在取得回报。如果这得以实现，Wickoff Kushner 和总统都应获得诺贝尔和平奖。如果其中80%都能成功，我认为就值得获得和平奖。

Jason: Well, and not to mention, we're probably going to have, at least the rumors are, that there could be a China deal coming up at the end of this month or into next month. And if we could resolve the issues with Taiwan, even something like strategic ambiguity (strategic ambiguity: 一种外交政策，指在关键问题上保持模棱两可的立场), and if there's a chance of uh Ukraine and Russia being settled, now you've got the trifecta. You know, you got the three biggest hot spots taken off the table. If you can get two of those, it'd be great for humanity. poly market showing a 90% chance 90% chance that all Israeli hostages will be returned by the end of the month which would be just tremendous. Um and then also getting aid to these poor people suffering in Gaza would also be nice to see. Anybody else have any thoughts as we as we move on to our next story? Jason: 嗯，更不用说，我们很可能——至少有传言称——本月底或下个月会有对华协议。如果我们能解决与台湾的问题，即使是战略模糊（Strategic Ambiguity: 一种外交政策，指在关键问题上保持模棱两可的立场）之类的事情，如果乌克兰和俄罗斯有机会得到解决，那么你就得到了“三连胜”。你知道，三个最大的热点地区都被解决了。如果能解决其中两个，对人类来说就太棒了。PolyMarket 显示，以色列所有人质在本月底前被释放的可能性为90%，这将是巨大的成就。另外，能向加沙受苦受难的穷人提供援助也很好。在我们进入下一个话题之前，还有人有什么想法吗？

Sachs: I'll just say that the funny part here is just there's anything funny about the story is watching the entire global left that's been demanding a ceasefire in Gaza for almost two years. They've suddenly gone strangely silent now that President Trump has seemingly engineered that ceasefire and uh I guess the the Nobel committee is they are announcing this Friday. I do think that a record like this would absolutely win any other president the Nobel Prize or at least get him a nomination. President Trump has ended seven wars in seven months before this one. This would be the eighth if he pulls it off. So Sachs: 我只想说，这里有趣的部分（如果这个故事有什么有趣之处的话）是看着整个全球左翼，他们近两年来一直要求加沙停火。现在，既然特朗普总统似乎促成了停火，他们突然变得异常沉默。我猜诺贝尔委员会将于本周五宣布结果。我确实认为这样的记录绝对会让任何其他总统赢得诺贝尔奖，或者至少获得提名。特朗普总统在此次之前已经在七个月内结束了七场战争。如果他能成功，这将是第八场。

Jason: seven Obama Obama won with nothing. Obama won just for being elected. Jason: 七场？奥巴马什么都没做就赢了。奥巴马仅仅因为当选就赢得了诺贝尔奖。

Sachs: He just got elected and he got a Nobel Prize. It was just kind of like a gold star. Sachs: 他刚当选就获得了诺贝尔奖。那就像一颗金星一样。

Jason: Yeah. Okay. Well, let's move on to our next topic. Jason: 是的。好的。那么，我们进入下一个话题。

国民警卫队部署与城市治安争议

Jason: The National Guard (National Guard: 美国国民警卫队，由各州管理，战时可由联邦征召) has deployed troops into Chicago to protect ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 美国移民与海关执法局，一个联邦执法机构) agents and Portland might be next. Obviously, a bunch of protests have broken out in Chicago after a number of these ICE raids have occurred. And over the last month, DHS (Department of Homeland Security: 美国国土安全部，负责国家安全的联邦部门) has been executing something called Operation Midway Blitz in the city. 800 illegal aliens have been arrested. And there was a notable raid on September 30th by Border Patrol and FBI agents in Chicago's Southshore neighborhood where 37 illegal aliens were arrested in an apartment complex. Wow. And uh this included flashbangs and a Blackhawk helicopter, similar to what we saw in LA back in June. Trump has 500 National Guard troops standing by from Illinois and Texas and uh in case any protests get out of hand. Trump says they are needed to protect ICE agents who are being targeted. Illinois Governor JB Pritsker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson are obviously opposed to ICE actions and they are calling Trump an authoritarian and uh fighting for state rights in this regard. They filed a lawsuit to try to stop it and a hearing is scheduled for Thursday. Jason: 国民警卫队（National Guard: 美国国民警卫队，由各州管理，战时可由联邦征召）已向芝加哥部署部队，以保护移民与海关执法局（ICE: 美国移民与海关执法局，一个联邦执法机构）的特工，波特兰可能是下一个目标。显然，在发生多起ICE突袭后，芝加哥爆发了大量抗议活动。过去一个月，国土安全部（DHS: 美国国土安全部，负责国家安全的联邦部门）一直在该市执行一项名为“中途闪电战行动”（Operation Midway Blitz）的任务。800名非法移民已被逮捕。9月30日，边境巡逻队和联邦调查局（FBI: 美国联邦调查局，美国国内情报和安全机构）特工在芝加哥南岸社区进行了一次引人注目的突袭，在一个公寓大楼内逮捕了37名非法移民。哇。这次行动包括闪光弹和黑鹰直升机，类似于我们6月在洛杉矶看到的情况。特朗普已调集伊利诺伊州和德克萨斯州的500名国民警卫队待命，以防任何抗议活动失控。特朗普表示，他们需要保护正在成为目标的ICE特工。伊利诺伊州州长 JB Pritsker 和芝加哥市长 Brandon Johnson 显然反对ICE的行动，他们称特朗普为独裁者，并在此问题上争取州权。他们已提起诉讼试图阻止，听证会定于周四举行。

Jason: Obviously, the president had some losses in um a number of these National Guard activities, and we can get into the details of those. Mayor Johnson also signed a couple of executive orders aimed at slowing down ICE agents. Uh they've established some ICE-free zones across the city that prohibit ICE agents from using any city-owned property. And another one bans city employees from aiding ICE unless required by a criminal warrant. The White House called this a quote unquote disgusting betrayal and said Johnson was prioritizing illegals over US citizens. Your thoughts, Sachs? Jason: 显然，总统在一些国民警卫队的行动中遭遇了一些挫折，我们可以深入探讨这些细节。约翰逊市长还签署了几项旨在减缓ICE特工行动的行政命令（Executive Orders）。他们已在全市设立了一些ICE自由区（ICE-free zones），禁止ICE特工使用任何市属财产。另一项行政命令则禁止市政雇员协助ICE，除非有刑事逮捕令要求。白宫称此举是“令人作呕的背叛”，并表示约翰逊将非法移民置于美国公民之上。Sachs，你的看法？

Sachs: Well, I think the place starts with the Democrat attitude towards crime. We've seen many examples this recently. You had the murder of that young Ukrainian woman, Ireina, in a a subway by D. Carlos Brown. He was arrested 14 times and still left his judges and prosecutors refused to punish him or keep him off the streets. There was a testimony of Steven Federico before a congressional subcommittee who recounted how his daughter Logan was murdered by Alexander Dicki, a man with over 25 felony arrests in San Francisco. Here you got leftists are still trying to get diversion for Troy Mallister who killed Hana Abbe and Elizabeth Plat on New Year's Eve 2020. That was the case that activated all of us to get Chase Bodí recalled successfully. So look, you have here so many examples of leftist prosecutors and judges and activists always trying to get repeat felons off trying to get them diversion, never prosecuting them. They're in favor of zero bail (zero bail: 一种刑事司法政策，允许犯罪嫌疑人在没有缴纳保释金的情况下获释). They've turned the jails into revolving door. And that's why you see in places like Chicago or Washington DC enormous amounts of of violent crime. Sachs: 嗯，我认为问题首先出在民主党对犯罪的态度上。我们最近看到了许多例子。年轻的乌克兰女性伊雷娜（Ireina）在地铁中被D. Carlos Brown谋杀。他被捕14次，但法官和检察官仍拒绝惩罚他或让他远离街道。史蒂文·费德里科（Steven Federico）在国会小组委员会作证，讲述了他的女儿洛根（Logan）如何被亚历山大·迪基（Alexander Dicki）谋杀，此人在旧金山有超过25次重罪逮捕记录。在这里，左派人士仍在试图让2020年新年前夜杀害哈娜·阿贝（Hana Abbe）和伊丽莎白·普拉特（Elizabeth Plat）的特洛伊·马利斯特（Troy Mallister）获得分流处理。正是这个案件促使我们所有人成功地罢免了切斯·博迪（Chase Bodí）。所以你看，这里有太多例子表明，左派检察官、法官和活动家总是试图让屡犯者逃脱惩罚，让他们获得分流，从不起诉他们。他们支持零保释金（Zero bail: 一种刑事司法政策，允许犯罪嫌疑人在没有缴纳保释金的情况下获释）。他们把监狱变成了旋转门。这就是为什么你在芝加哥或华盛顿特区等地看到大量暴力犯罪的原因。

Sachs: Now in DC, the president had the ability to clean up the streets, to clean up the homeless encampments, make the streets safer. No one denied the feds had a right to go in and they did. And there have been immediate positive results. Homicides and carjackings and so forth have fallen dramatically. Everyone who actually lives in DC is very happy about this situation. And the restaurants are full again, people feel safe to go out. So the question is where else can the president basically help these cities and go in in Memphis? They have been invited by the Republican governor to go in and help and so they will. Now with Portland and Chicago, the problem here is that frankly you've got mayors and governors who are opposed to doing anything about the crime problem. And moreover, they refuse to support ICE and DHS in their mission to enforce immigration laws. And then finally, you've got violent leftist protesters like Antifa (Antifa: 反法西斯主义的，一种广泛的政治运动) who've taken to the streets and they are trying to thwart deportations of violent aliens by ICE and DHS. In response to that, the president has sent somewhere between, I think, 300 and 500 National Guardsmen to support ICE in Chicago. It's not a broad-based mission to clean up the streets because, you know, we still have to figure out what the legal authority to do that is. They're just there to support ICE. And yet, you see all this hysterical bluster and rhetoric by JB Pritsker and other Democrats basically claiming this is authoritarian. It's not. It's a very limited operation to support IS and DHS in their lawful mission to enforce immigration laws. And there's no question that the president has this authority. Both Eisenhower and JFK sent federal troops into the South to enforce federal desegregation laws. For example, when James Meredith was barred from attending Miss University of Mississippi, JFK sent in 30,000 federal troops to bust open the doors of Miss. And by the way, they were not National Guardsmen. These were the Army. So, presidents have sent in troops. They have sent a national guardsman to enforce the law in American cities. He absolutely has the right and power to do this. But like I said, this is somewhere between 300 and 500 guardsmen sent to back up ICE who is being assaulted by violent protests and riders by Antifa. And what you're seeing by the mainstream media and by liberals is an attempt to mischaracterize the situation. Sachs: 现在在华盛顿特区，总统有能力清理街道，清理无家可归者营地，让街道更安全。没有人否认联邦政府有权介入，他们也确实介入了。并且立即取得了积极成果。凶杀案和汽车劫持案等大幅下降。所有真正住在华盛顿特区的人都对这种情况非常满意。餐馆又坐满了人，人们外出感到安全。所以问题是，总统还能在哪里帮助这些城市，并在孟菲斯介入？他们受到了共和党州长的邀请去提供帮助，所以他们会去。现在，波特兰和芝加哥的问题在于，坦率地说，那里的市长和州长都反对解决犯罪问题。此外，他们拒绝支持ICE和DHS执行移民法的任务。最后，还有像反法西斯主义者（Antifa: 反法西斯主义的，一种广泛的政治运动）这样的暴力左翼抗议者走上街头，他们试图阻止ICE和DHS驱逐暴力外国人。作为回应，总统已向芝加哥派遣了大约300到500名国民警卫队士兵，以支持ICE。这不是一项全面清理街道的任务，因为我们仍然需要弄清楚这样做的法律授权是什么。他们只是在那里支持ICE。然而，你看到了JB Pritsker和其他民主党人所有这些歇斯底里的叫嚣和言论，基本上声称这是独裁行为。但它不是。这是一项非常有限的行动，旨在支持国土安全部执行移民法的合法任务。毫无疑问，总统拥有这项权力。艾森豪威尔（Eisenhower）和肯尼迪（JFK）总统都曾派遣联邦军队进入南方，以执行联邦废除种族隔离法。例如，当詹姆斯·梅雷迪思（James Meredith）被阻止进入密西西比大学时，肯尼迪总统派出了30,000名联邦军队强行打开了大学的大门。顺便说一句，他们不是国民警卫队。他们是陆军。所以，总统们曾派遣军队。他们曾派遣国民警卫队在美国城市执行法律。他绝对有权力和权利这样做。但正如我所说，这是派遣了大约300到500名卫兵去支援ICE，而ICE正受到反法西斯主义者的暴力抗议和骚乱的袭击。你所看到的主流媒体和自由派人士，都是在试图歪曲事实。

Jason: All right, just to put some numbers on that for the DC National Guard being called out. Obviously, Trump uh and the president, whatever president is, clearly has the rights to do that for a certain period of time. And um if you look at this Washington Post story, I'll send it to you for post, 61% of people said in DC, according to the Washington Post survey, that the people in Washington DC said the military police present has made them feel less safe. 79% of people pled in DC in the same survey said they don't want the National Guard in the city. So there is a lot of conflicting data here. But overwhelmingly in DC data that's an opinion. Jason: 好的，就华盛顿特区国民警卫队被召集一事，补充一些数据。显然，特朗普，以及任何总统，在一定时期内都有权这样做。如果你看《华盛顿邮报》的这篇报道（我会发给你），根据《华盛顿邮报》的调查，华盛顿特区61%的人表示，军警的存在让他们感到不安全。同一项调查中，华盛顿特区79%的人表示不希望国民警卫队进驻城市。所以这里有很多相互矛盾的数据。但在华盛顿特区，绝大多数数据都是观点。

Sachs: No, it's an emotional a survey. I give you a different surve. Sachs: 不，这是一项带有情绪的调查。我给你一项不同的调查。

Jason: If we're going to do surveys Jason: 如果我们要进行调查的话——

Sachs: Yeah. Yeah. Sure. There was a poll last week from TIP Insights (TIP Insights: 一家民意调查公司) which showed that Trump Sachs: 是的。是的。当然。上周TIP Insights（TIP Insights: 一家民意调查公司）的一项民意调查显示，特朗普——

Jason: What's Tip Insights? I've never heard of it. Jason: 什么是Tip Insights？我从未听说过。

Sachs: Tip. It's This was cited by Newsweek. I can put the link on the screen. Sachs: Tip。新闻周刊引用过。我可以把链接放在屏幕上。

Jason: Okay. Yeah, I never heard of it. Jason: 好的。是的，我从没听说过。

Sachs: Well, they're a pollster. Sachs: 嗯，他们是一家民意调查机构。

Jason: Well, Washington Post was one I cited. Yeah. Jason: 我引用的是《华盛顿邮报》。是的。

Sachs: Well, okay. And I'm sure they're perfectly objective, right? Next, you're going to be quoting the New York Times to tell me how objective they are. Here's Tip. They're a pollster. These TIP Insight showed that Trump had a net positive rating among voters in cities 47 to 44 and that his numbers have improved recently. So, look, I think this is tremendously popular with the citizens of these crimeinfested cities. We saw this with DC that the locals, the residents, including among the black population were very happy with the fact that Trump sent in the National Guard and crime has been massively reduced. Sachs: 嗯，好吧。我敢肯定他们绝对客观，对吧？接下来，你又要引用《纽约时报》来告诉我他们有多客观。这里是Tip。他们是一家民意调查机构。这些TIP Insight显示，特朗普在城市选民中的净支持率为47%对44%，并且他的数字最近有所改善。所以，你看，我认为这在这些犯罪猖獗的城市居民中非常受欢迎。我们在华盛顿特区看到了这一点，当地居民，包括黑人居民，对特朗普派遣国民警卫队以及犯罪率大幅下降的事实感到非常满意。

Chimath: Sorry, can I say something? You know why it's popular and it's working? Because of what Wes Moore did. Wesmore is the perfect example of what I think a Democrat governor should be doing, which is obviously he has to blather on with his anti-Trump rhetoric, but what does he do behind the scenes? He sends in state troops and he makes sure that there's a surge of policing in all of these crimeridden areas because he knows that the policy works. He just wants to get the credit for it and he doesn't necessarily want somebody else to get the credit. This is where I think what's happening in Illinois is a bit of a headscratcher because if you see how badly run and how crimeinfested Chicago is and the state of Illinois is, why wouldn't JB Pritsker do what Wes Moore does? I think the honest thing that they should be doing is to recognize that the citizens on the ground in these places want to live in a safe and peaceful place. And with more policing and with more troops, it's just statistically true that crime comes down. And I think at the end of the day, probably the citizens of these places care less whether they're National Guards troops or whether they're state troops, but they just care that they're there. This is why I think asking emotional reactions to me doesn't make as much sense because I feel it's a very partisan way of opining on the person who gives you the resource because I suspect if you ask the exact same question inside of Baltimore to the state troops that were sent in by West Moore a Democrat, you probably get a different response. But the outcome is the same. Crime goes down. That's what everybody wants. Chimath: 抱歉，我能说点什么吗？你知道它为什么受欢迎并奏效吗？因为 Wes Moore 的做法。Wes Moore 是一个完美的例子，我认为民主党州长应该这样做，他显然必须喋喋不休地发表他的反特朗普言论，但他在幕后做了什么？他派出了州部队，并确保在所有这些犯罪猖獗的地区加强警力，因为他知道这项政策是有效的。他只是想把功劳归于自己，他不一定希望别人得到功劳。这就是为什么我认为伊利诺伊州发生的事情有点令人费解，因为如果你看看芝加哥和伊利诺伊州的管理有多糟糕，犯罪有多猖獗，为什么 JB Pritsker 不做 Wes Moore 做的事情呢？我认为他们应该做的诚实的事情是认识到这些地方的公民希望生活在一个安全和平的地方。随着更多的警力和部队，犯罪率下降在统计学上是真实的。我认为归根结底，这些地方的公民可能不太关心是国民警卫队还是州部队，他们只关心这些部队是否在那里。这就是为什么我认为询问情绪反应对我来说没有太大意义，因为我觉得这是一种非常党派化的方式来评论提供资源的人，因为我怀疑如果你在巴尔的摩问同一个问题，问被民主党人 Wes Moore 派出的州部队，你可能会得到不同的回应。但结果是一样的。犯罪率下降了。那是每个人都想要的。

Jason: Brad, any concerns about the militarization in the country that is occurring from you? Jason: Brad，你对国内正在发生的军事化有什么担忧吗？

Brad: Well, I think listen, nobody wants abusive tactics, but let me just give you some numbers that cause me to believe this feels more like, you know, a bipartisan issue and and we have kind of the pendulum swinging back more than, you know, something that should cause us concern. Court-ordered removals and deportations average 200,000 per year, 1997 to 2000. That's under Clinton. 200,000 a year. They averaged 300,000 a year, peaking at 400,000 under Obama, right? Deportations plummeted under Biden. At the same time, we know that illegal crossings into this country kind of exploded higher. And now they estimate that Trump is back to the trend line of 300 to 400,000 illegal, you know, deportations and removals. These are court-ordered removals. So, I might have expected the Trump number to be way higher given that we just went through this massive step up in illegal crossings, but I think it's really important to point out that this has been a bipartisan consistent thing that has happened in this country for 30 years. I'm not talking about tactics exactly how it's going on, but the deportations have been going on by both parties and we never it hasn't been an issue before. And so, it is curious that it is more of an issue now. And then the other thing I would just underscore is if you look at what Daniel Lur is doing in the city of San Francisco, he is live blogging on Twitter and Instagram the arrests of a 100 fugitives per night. I think he's had three or four of these nights now in San Francisco to take these people off the street following a mayor that wouldn't even arrest people and no prosecutions because he understands as a Democrat what citizens expect first is safety. They want the ability to walk their kids to school, to walk to dinner, to play in a park, and not have to worry about being safe. So, I think I, you know, I build on what Chamas said. I think the smart Democrats are realizing this is a bipartisan issue. This is what people want. It it it's not inconsistent with what, you know, Presidents Obama and Clinton did in their administrations in terms of deportations. And so, I don't think this is the hill that they want to die on. Brad: 嗯，我想，听着，没人想使用虐待性策略，但我只想给你一些数据，让我相信这更像是一个两党共同关心的问题，而且我们正处于钟摆摆回的状态，而不是一个应该引起我们担忧的事情。1997年至2000年克林顿（Clinton）执政期间，法院下令的驱逐和遣返平均每年20万。奥巴马（Obama）执政期间，平均每年30万，最高达到40万，对吧？拜登（Biden）执政期间，遣返人数骤降。与此同时，我们知道非法入境人数急剧增加。现在，他们估计特朗普（Trump）政府的非法移民遣返和清除人数又回到了30万至40万的趋势线。这些都是法院下令的遣返。因此，考虑到我们刚刚经历了非法入境人数的大幅增加，我可能会预计特朗普的数字会更高，但我认为指出这一点非常重要，即这在过去30年里一直是这个国家两党一致的做法。我不是在谈论具体的策略，但遣返一直是两党都在进行的，而且以前从未成为一个问题。因此，现在它成为一个更大的问题，这很奇怪。另外我想强调的是，如果你看看丹尼尔·卢尔（Daniel Lur）在旧金山所做的事情，他正在Twitter和Instagram上直播每晚逮捕100名逃犯。我认为他现在已经在旧金山进行了三四次这样的行动，以将这些人从街头清除，而之前的市长甚至不逮捕人，也不起诉，因为他作为一个民主党人明白公民首先期望的是安全。他们希望能够送孩子上学，外出吃饭，在公园玩耍，而不用担心安全问题。所以，我想我，你知道的，我是在 Chimath 的基础上说的。我认为聪明的民主党人正在意识到这是一个两党共同关心的问题。这是人们想要的。这与奥巴马和克林顿总统在他们的执政期间在遣返方面所做的事情并不矛盾。因此，我认为这不是他们想坚持到底的问题。

Jason: JCL, I'd love to hear your thoughts on on on what's going on with these deportations. Jason: JCL，我想听听你对这些遣返事件的看法。

Jason: Well, I've been very vocal that I don't agree with the violent nature of the deportations and what ICE is doing. Uh, but obviously I am very much since Sax and I work together on the ouster of Chesine, obviously I care coming from a law enforcement family about law and order. I think it's super important and I obviously agree, but I want to level the conversation up a little bit and maybe talk a little bit about the president's approval ratings and how this all connects. So, got a couple of charts I'll share with you guys here and I'll get your reactions. It's not pretty for Trump right now. His polling is at an all-time low. It's worse than the last couple of seasons of The Apprentice, in fact. And when you look at this chart here of Donald Trump's approval rating, you'll see there are four dips here. And this is the net approval rating. And what you'll see is liberation day when he did the tariffs. Obviously, he went a little too far on the tariffs. And uh that was pretty shocking. Went down to a -10. That's taking his approval minusing the disapproval. And that's how you get the net approval. Then the LA protest. Remember the violent protests and the ICE agents chasing people down in fields and Americans didn't like that either. Not releasing the Epstein files in July, another dip down to his lowest of his presidency, about 10%. And then now we're uh with these Chicago ICE raids and the violent nature of him, I believe, is the cause of this. And going on a little bit even from here, if you look at his wheelhouse, this is where Trump won the election. I think we all agree in the Trump 2.0 platform, which won a lot of moderates like myself. I know on this show people like to say I'm a Democrat. I've voted actually now Republican almost exactly as much as I've uh voted Democrat and I am a strong moderate. If you look at immigration, his net approval rating has plummeted from plus 10% down to minus about 5%. The economy, he's down 15%. He was up 5% at the start start. Trade, he's rebounded a little bit. And inflation, he's down 27%. Jason: 嗯，我一直非常直言不讳地表示，我不同意遣返行动的暴力性质以及ICE的做法。但是，自从 Sachs 和我一起努力罢免 Chesine 以来，我显然非常关心法律和秩序，因为我出身于一个执法家庭。我认为这非常重要，我当然也同意，但我想把对话提升一个层次，也许谈谈总统的支持率以及这一切如何关联。所以，我这里有几张图表要和大家分享，并听取你们的反应。目前对特朗普来说情况不妙。他的民调处于历史最低点。事实上，比《学徒》节目的最后几季还要糟糕。当你看到这张唐纳德·特朗普支持率的图表时，你会发现有四个低谷。这是净支持率。你会看到“解放日”，当时他征收了关税。显然，他在关税问题上走得太远了。那相当令人震惊。跌到了-10。这是用他的支持率减去反对率，从而得出净支持率。然后是洛杉矶的抗议活动。还记得那些暴力抗议和ICE特工在田野里追捕人们的场景吗？美国人也不喜欢那样。7月不公布爱泼斯坦文件，又一次跌到他总统任期内的最低点，大约-10%。然后现在，我认为芝加哥ICE的突袭行动和他的暴力性质是导致这一切的原因。如果再深入一点，看看他的“主场”，这是特朗普赢得选举的地方。我认为我们都同意特朗普2.0平台，它赢得了许多像我这样的温和派。我知道在这个节目中，人们喜欢说我是民主党人。实际上，我现在投票给共和党的次数几乎和投票给民主党的次数一样多，我是一个坚定的温和派。如果你看移民问题，他的净支持率从+10%骤降到-5%左右。经济方面，他下降了15%。一开始他上涨了5%。贸易方面，他略有反弹。通货膨胀方面，他下降了27%。

Jason: And so this is his wheelhouse. And if you look at from Bari Weiss's, you know, organization CBS News, congratulations to Bari on her taking it over and her sale to the free press to CBS. Only 17% of Americans believe Trump is making them better. This came out this week and 58% don't want the National Guard in our cities. People oppose what Trump is doing right now and he is at an all-time low. So, you have to ask yourself why. And uh I think this is because he's drifted from the 2.0 policies. Closing the border, very popular, lower taxes, no taxes on tips, extremely popular, pro business, pro-innovation. Thank you, Saxs. You're correct. This all is the best of Trump. DOD (Department of Defense: 负责国家安全和军队的联邦部门) reducing spending. The best of Trump and relentlessly trying to stop wars and apparently on the cusp of succeeding with the one in Gaza right now. This is what Americans, including myself, moderates, really like about Trump. What don't we like about the Trump 1.0 platform, the violence of January 6th, ICE agents in masks, beating powerless hardworking immigrants, sending in the National Guards, if you remember from the first administration, the kids in cages, the Muslim immigration ban, pardoning all the January 6 riders who beat police savagely trying to overturn election results. This is what people don't like. They don't like the chaos. And what Americans do love is they love the Constitution (Constitution: 宪法). And uh you know they they love the rule of law. This is where he can do really well. 85% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Constitution and 94% say it's really important to protect liberty and freedom. And what these actions and when you see Pam Bondi and you see Steven Miller, Trump's ratings go down. When you see Lutnik, you see Bessant, you see Sachs, you see Elon and Doge, his approval ratings go up. And so I would like to lobby my friends who are in the administration or around it and the people I know in the administration to think through this because what's at stake is the midterms. The Democrats are going to shellac the Republicans in the midterms if this continues. Nobody wants this type of violence. Nobody wants to see people beaten. Nobody wants to see mothers thrown on the ground as their children are crying just because they came here 20 years ago, 10 years ago when Republicans Republicans who were the biggest proponents of letting people in from Mexico to work here because we needed cheap labor. We as Americans have an obligation to these people who we brought into this country to treat them with compassion and we're not doing that. And that's my little monologue here. Jason: 所以这就是他的强项。如果你看看巴里·韦斯（Bari Weiss）的组织哥伦比亚广播公司新闻（CBS News），恭喜巴里接手并将其出售给自由出版社再转售给哥伦比亚广播公司。只有17%的美国人认为特朗普让他们变得更好。这周公布的数据显示，58%的人不希望国民警卫队进入我们的城市。人们反对特朗普现在所做的事情，他的支持率处于历史最低点。所以，你必须问自己为什么。我认为这是因为他偏离了2.0政策。关闭边境，非常受欢迎；降低税收，小费免税，非常受欢迎；支持商业，支持创新。谢谢你，Sachs。你说得对。这都是特朗普的优点。国防部（DOD: 负责国家安全和军队的联邦部门）削减开支。特朗普的优点是坚持不懈地试图阻止战争，而且现在看来在加沙问题上即将成功。这就是美国人，包括我自己在内的温和派，真正喜欢特朗普的地方。我们不喜欢特朗普1.0平台什么呢？1月6日的暴力事件，戴着面具的ICE特工，殴打手无寸铁的勤劳移民，派遣国民警卫队——如果你还记得第一届政府时，孩子们被关在笼子里，穆斯林移民禁令，赦免所有野蛮殴打警察、试图推翻选举结果的1月6日骚乱者。这是人们不喜欢的地方。他们不喜欢混乱。而美国人真正热爱的是他们热爱宪法（Constitution: 宪法）。而且，你知道，他们热爱法治。这是他可以做得非常好的地方。85%的美国人对宪法持好感，94%的人表示保护自由和民主非常重要。而这些行动，当你看到 Pam Bondi 和 Steven Miller 时，特朗普的支持率就会下降。当你看到 Lutnik、Bessant、Sachs、Elon 和 Doge 时，他的支持率就会上升。所以我想游说我在政府或政府周边的一些朋友，以及我认识的政府内部人士认真思考这个问题，因为中期选举岌岌可危。如果这种情况持续下去，民主党将在中期选举中痛击共和党。没有人希望看到这种暴力。没有人希望看到人们被殴打。没有人希望看到母亲们在孩子哭泣的时候被扔到地上，仅仅因为她们20年前、10年前来到这里，当时共和党人——那些最支持让墨西哥人来这里工作因为我们需要廉价劳动力的人——我们作为美国人有义务善待这些我们带到这个国家来的人，而我们却没有这样做。这就是我的小独白。

Jason: You heard from Brad that the deportations have basically mean reverted. So do you think that there were the same category of people being deported before as in now and that there's just less press coverage and it was okay then and it's not okay now or just explain this idea of mean reversion and whether we're getting the same and right people out of the country that we've been doing for the last 20 years. Jason: 你听 Brad 说，遣返基本上已经回归均值。那么你认为以前被遣返的人和现在被遣返的人属于同一类别，只是以前媒体报道较少，当时可以接受，现在却不行，还是请你解释一下“均值回归”这个概念，以及我们是否正在像过去20年那样，将同样正确的人驱逐出境。

Jason: Yeah. So what you're seeing is many lawsuits now of people who are Americans or who are properly documented now suing ICE cuz the way they're pursuing this with their masks and just randomly going after people and racially profiling people is resulting in the wrong people being picked up. And that's really what I find the the most offensive about it. I don't mind obviously the border being closed. I I said that many times here. I don't mind criminals being deported. I think that's a great idea. But I think we should look at the economics of this as well. We're spending $30 billion on ICE now. We've tripled the budget. We're spending $100,000 per person deported. Okay, that's a large number. If we simply find that 79-year-old car wash owner $10,000 every time he hires, you know, an illegal alien, this would stop. There are much better ways to execute this. And so I have to ask myself, what is the intent of this violence? What is the intent of sending the National Guard in? Is it actually a pure intent of wanting safety and security? I don't believe that's all that's at work here. Jason: 是的。所以你现在看到的是许多诉讼，那些美国公民或持有合法证件的人正在起诉ICE，因为他们戴着面具，随意追捕他人，进行种族定性，导致错误的人被捕。这正是我认为最令人反感的地方。我当然不反对关闭边境，我在这里说过很多次了。我也不反对驱逐罪犯。我认为那是个好主意。但我觉得我们也应该审视一下这背后的经济账。我们现在每年在ICE上花费300亿美元。预算增加了两倍。我们每遣返一个人花费10万美元。好吧，那是个很大的数字。如果我们只是简单地对那个79岁的洗车店老板，每次他雇佣非法移民就罚款1万美元，这种情况就会停止。有更好的方法来执行这项任务。所以，我不得不问自己，这种暴力的意图是什么？派遣国民警卫队的意图是什么？它真的只是单纯为了安全和保障吗？我不认为这是全部原因。

Chimath: And then a follow-up question. What do you think is the difference between Wes Moore, the governor of Maryland, sending in state troops and Donald Trump, the president of the United States, sending in federal troops into a state to help diminish crime? Chimath: 那么，一个后续问题。你认为马里兰州州长韦斯·摩尔（Wes Moore）派遣州部队，以及美国总统唐纳德·特朗普派遣联邦部队进入一个州来帮助减少犯罪，两者之间有什么区别？

Jason: Yeah. It would be the Constitution (Constitution: 宪法) and the United States of America, not a federal government ruling over all 50 states. The way this was set up by the founding fathers was that the states had rights and amongst those rights is the security of the people in that state. It's a very rare situation. Jason: 是的。那将是宪法（Constitution: 宪法）和美利坚合众国，而不是一个联邦政府凌驾于所有50个州之上。开国元勋们建立国家的方式是各州拥有权利，而这些权利中就包括该州人民的安全。这是一种非常罕见的情况。

Chimath: So your your issue or not your issue but your diagnosis would be what Wesmore is doing is right. JB should probably do that too. I Chimath: 所以你的问题，或者说不是你的问题，而是你的诊断是 Wes Moore 的做法是对的。JB 也许也应该这样做。我——

Jason: I would even take it a little further. Yeah, Jason: 我甚至会更进一步。是的。

Jason: I I think actually the the best thing to do if Trump is intent on saying, "Hey, crime's out of control in San Francisco," which we all experienced and you guys continue to experience if you're if you're in the city. Jason: 我认为实际上，如果特朗普坚持说“嘿，旧金山的犯罪失控了”，而我们都经历过，如果你们在城市里，你们也会继续经历，那么最好的做法是——

Sachs: I don't live in the city. I find Sachs: 我不住在城里。我发现——

Jason: you don't even But if people did go to the city, I think what I would do if I was the governor, I say, "You know what? We could use your help and we're going to call up the National Guard ourselves and we could use some help in these 17 locations. We'd love to collaborate with you." Jason: 你甚至不。但如果人们真的去了城市，我想如果我是州长，我会说：“你知道吗？我们可以用你的帮助，我们自己会召集国民警卫队，我们可以在这17个地点寻求一些帮助。我们很乐意与你合作。”

Chimath: So, it's not an outcome thing for you. It's a procedural process that says it needs to go through a different pathway. Chimath: 所以对你来说，这不是结果问题。这是一个程序性问题，你说它需要通过不同的途径。

Jason: It's the violence and the cruelty of it that I object to and it's the inefficiency in terms of the cost of it. I don't believe that mothers should be separated from their from their children or their fathers should be separated from their children. I don't believe it should be done in a brutal way and doesn't need to be. It could very easily be done with other tactics. And that is what I I take great offense to is both of those things. The inefficiency of it and then also I take offense to the derailing of the Trump 2.0 0 agenda, which I was in favor of, and I will call balls and strikes when Trump tips back into those authoritarian tendencies that the Trump 1.0 agenda that I've talked about. I'm not in favor of that. I don't like it. I would much prefer to see us be compassionate to immigrants. I would much rather see us take a softer hand and a path to these folks who've been here for 20 or 30 years. I'd see I'd like to see a path to them to become citizens because I think immigr this country was built by immigrants for immigrants and I believe we should continue that. But it should be legal immigration and if people were here illegally because Republicans and Democrats who are super in favor of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement: 北美自由贸易协定，一项加拿大、墨西哥和美国之间的贸易协议) wanted them here, we should take ownership of that and be kind and compassionate to them and give them a path if they're not criminals and if they pay their taxes, which almost universally they do, we should give them a path to citizenship. Jason: 我反对的是它的暴力和残酷，以及它在成本上的低效率。我不认为母亲应该与她们的孩子分开，或者父亲应该与他们的孩子分开。我不认为应该以残酷的方式进行，也不需要那样。它完全可以用其他策略轻松完成。我非常反感这两点。它的低效率，以及我反感特朗普2.0议程的脱轨，我曾支持该议程，当特朗普再次倾向于我所说的特朗普1.0议程的那些专制倾向时，我将秉公处理。我不支持那种做法。我不喜欢它。我更希望我们对移民怀有同情心。我更希望我们采取更温和的方式，为那些在这里居住了20或30年的人提供一条途径。我希望看到他们获得公民身份的途径，因为我认为这个国家是由移民为移民建立的，我相信我们应该继续这样做。但这应该是合法移民，如果人们在这里非法居留，是因为共和党和民主党——他们都非常支持北美自由贸易协定（NAFTA: 北美自由贸易协定，一项加拿大、墨西哥和美国之间的贸易协议）——希望他们留在这里，那么我们应该承担责任，善待并同情他们，如果他们不是罪犯并且缴纳了税款（几乎所有人都这样做），我们就应该给他们一条获得公民身份的途径。

Sachs: All right. Well, the first thing I want to do is point out that you mentioned that Doge was one of the most wonderful and popular things that President Trump did. And I agree that it was a great thing that he did. Basically trying to streamline the government and make it more efficient. But it was not popular. It was had only a 35% approval rating while 57% disapproved. Why is that? because the media pounded on Doge and Elon and turned him into a villain and tried to mischaracterize what he was trying to do and blamed him for every possible thing that was supposedly going wrong in the federal government. So, look, obviously the polling is not always a great indicator even when it is accurate and I remember when Anne Seltzer told us that Trump was going to lose Iowa by 10. So, obviously these pollsters often have no idea what they're talking about. In terms of the merits of this, you're completely ignoring the fact that there are lawless mobs who are the ones creating the violence. Not our law enforcement officers, not ICE, not DHS. In the city of downtown Portland, for example, you have literal Antifa terrorists who are extremely organized. They're aggressive and they're well funded. This is not just some sort of rag tag bunch. The White House uncovered a bunch of leftwing NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations: 非政府组织) who are funding Antifa along with other leftist protest groups. These NGOs have laundered over hund00 million of our money to fund terrorist violence in our streets. Antifa even has a safe house near the epicenter of the unrest in downtown Portland that local cops and local media know about, but nothing's being done. And it's this group that has basically terrorized downtown Portland and led to violent assaults, not our law enforcement officers. But when this violence breaks out because of Antifa, then the media blames the Trump administration for it. So I'm not surprised that the polling reflects that because that that's what the media does. But look, the bottom line here is what is the policy that the Trump administration should pursue? And previous administrations have pursued deportations and so has the Trump administration. I don't think you can have 10 to 15 million illegal immigrants allowed during the Biden years and then just say there's going to be an amnesty. I mean, what are we supposed to do? This situation was not created by Trump. It was created by Biden. They opened up the border. There were holes in the border walls. Millions of people streamed through. They were bust all over the country. Trump won on fixing that problem and deportations were part of the mandate. Now he's doing it. Can't just be a one-way ratchet. When the Republicans are in power, they close the border. And then when the Democrats are in power, they open it up, allow 10, 15 million illegals in, and then we can do nothing about it when we take power. No, that's not the way this works. There has to be a correction to what Biden did, which was outrageous. And I remember plenty of liberals while that was going on, they were saying that the videos we saw on Fox News were cherrypicked. They said that there was no real situation at the border. We were gas lit constantly about it. Whereas every single person who actually visited the border said the same thing that it was outrageous that Biden had opened up the border that people are streaming through. They were running through and Trump won on a mandate of fixing this problem. And now that he is fixing it, what we have people do is claim that he's the source of the violence. No. Antifa and leftwing riers are the source of the violence. You don't see this violence in red cities and you don't even see it in in the blue cities which have offered to cooperate with Trump like Memphis or like DC. So when you see cooperation from these cities, they are actually cleaning them up. But in Chicago and in Portland, you have violent protesters and that is the source of the problem. And the media can blame it all on Trump as much as they want, but fundamentally that is what's going on. Sachs: 好的。那么，我首先要指出的是，你提到 DOD (Department of Defense: 负责国家安全和军队的联邦部门) 是特朗普总统所做的最棒和最受欢迎的事情之一。我同意他做得很好，基本上是试图精简政府，提高效率。但它并不受欢迎。它的支持率只有35%，而反对率高达57%。这是为什么呢？因为媒体猛烈抨击 DOD 和埃隆，把他描绘成一个恶棍，并试图歪曲他所做的事情，将联邦政府中所有可能出错的事情都归咎于他。所以，你看，显然民意调查并非总是很好的指标，即使它们是准确的。我还记得安·塞尔泽（Anne Seltzer）告诉我们特朗普将在爱荷华州输掉10个百分点。所以，显然这些民意调查机构常常不知道自己在说什么。就此事的实质而言，你完全忽略了无视法律的暴徒才是制造暴力的人。而不是我们的执法人员，不是ICE，也不是国土安全部。例如，在波特兰市中心，有真正的反法西斯主义（Antifa: 反法西斯主义的，一种广泛的政治运动）恐怖分子，他们组织严密，具有侵略性，资金充足。这不仅仅是一群乌合之众。白宫揭露了一批左翼非政府组织（NGOs: Non-Governmental Organizations: 非政府组织），他们资助反法西斯主义者以及其他左翼抗议团体。这些非政府组织洗钱超过数亿美元，资助我们街道上的恐怖暴力。反法西斯主义者甚至在波特兰市中心的骚乱中心附近有一个安全屋，当地警察和媒体都知道，但什么也没做。正是这个团体恐吓了波特兰市中心，并导致了暴力袭击，而不是我们的执法人员。但当这种暴力因反法西斯主义者而爆发时，媒体却将其归咎于特朗普政府。所以我对民意调查反映出这一点并不感到惊讶，因为媒体就是这样做的。但你看，这里的底线是，特朗普政府应该奉行什么样的政策？前几届政府都曾进行遣返，特朗普政府也一样。我认为你不能在拜登执政期间允许1000万到1500万非法移民入境，然后就说要实行大赦。我的意思是，我们应该怎么做？这种情况不是特朗普造成的。是拜登造成的。他们开放了边境。边境墙上有漏洞。数百万人涌入。他们被巴士运送到全国各地。特朗普是靠解决这个问题赢得的选举，而遣返是其授权的一部分。现在他正在做。不能只是单向的棘轮。当共和党执政时，他们关闭边境。然后当民主党执政时，他们开放边境，允许1000万到1500万非法移民入境，然后当我们上台时，却对此束手无策。不，事情不是这样运作的。必须纠正拜登所做的一切，那是令人发指的。我记得很多自由派人士在当时，他们说我们在福克斯新闻上看到的视频是断章取义的。他们说边境根本没有真正的问题。我们不断地被蒙蔽。然而，每个真正访问过边境的人都说了同样的话，即拜登开放边境，人们蜂拥而至，这是令人发指的。他们冲破边境，特朗普是带着解决这个问题的使命赢得的选举。现在他正在解决这个问题，人们却声称他是暴力的根源。不。反法西斯主义者和左翼骚乱者才是暴力的根源。你在红色城市看不到这种暴力，甚至在那些愿意与特朗普合作的蓝色城市，比如孟菲斯或华盛顿特区，也看不到。所以当你看到这些城市的合作时，他们确实在清理这些城市。但在芝加哥和波特兰，你有暴力抗议者，这才是问题的根源。媒体可以随心所欲地把一切都归咎于特朗普，但从根本上说，这就是正在发生的事情。

Jason: Okay, let's move on to our next topic. Anybody else? I'm surprised as someone who normally supports law enforcement that you're not backing these guys up. Jason: 好的，我们进入下一个话题。还有其他人吗？我感到惊讶的是，作为一个通常支持执法部门的人，你竟然不为这些人辩护。

Jason: Oh, I I support law enforcement. I do not think they should um do it the way they're doing it. It's the violence. It's the cruelty that I object to. Jason: 哦，我支持执法部门。我只是不认为他们应该以现在的方式进行。我反对的是暴力和残忍。

Sachs: Okay. Sachs: 好的。

Jason: I don't mind people being held accountable for crossing the border. I don't mind the deportations. Jason: 我不介意人们因越境而被追究责任。我也不介意遣返。

Chimath: I do think Chimath: 我确实认为——

Sachs: How do you think it should be done, Jacob? Sachs: Jacob，你认为应该怎么做？

Jason: Yeah. So a very simple method would be if you went to people who are employing and because the people who are here illegal are here to build a better life for their families and to live the American dream. That's why they're here. They're here to get a job and to have a better life for their children if they are working illegally. And so they're here. These are the most industrious people I've ever met in my life. Immigrants, including the two of you. Most industrious people are the immigrants. Uh we know that. And so a very simple way to do this if you wanted to do it without cruelty and without burning $100,000 per person is to go to where they're being employed. And if you saw this terrible video of a 79-year-old man being tackled by two ICE agents and he's suing the government for 50 million. That's not the way to do it. You go to that car wash. You say, "I'd like to see everybody's paper." Everybody runs. They show you the papers. Whichever person is not actually employed there legally and who doesn't have their papers, you give a $10,000 fine and then you come back the next day and you give a $20,000 fine. And if you did that, this would be incredibly effective and you wouldn't have the brutality you have under no circumstances. And I've talked to many of my relatives who are cops and many of my friends, they look at what ICE is doing and they see it as being unnecessarily brutal. All you have to do is go to where they're working and give the fines and then round people up who are in fact criminals. No problem with any gang members or any felons to be taken down and to sometimes you have to do that with force obviously if they're criminals. But for everybody else, we can do this compassionately and we can do it much more efficiently. We could do it by just paying people to self-deport and we could increase that rate. And actually that actually has been working. The story hasn't been told yet. I think we'll see that in the statistics that of the three or 4 hundred thousand people we wind up deporting probably a third of them are going to be people who self-deepported and we we'll we'll share those statistics here as we go but it's the violence Jason: 是的。所以一个非常简单的方法是，如果你去找那些雇佣非法移民的人——因为那些非法来到这里的人是为了给家人创造更好的生活，实现美国梦。这就是他们来这里的原因。如果他们非法工作，他们是为了找一份工作，为他们的孩子过上更好的生活。所以他们在这里。这些人是我一生中遇到过的最勤奋的人。移民，包括你们两位。最勤奋的人就是移民。我们都知道。所以，如果你想在不残忍、不每人花费10万美元的情况下做到这一点，一个非常简单的方法就是去他们受雇的地方。如果你看到了那个79岁老人被两名ICE特工擒住，他正在起诉政府索赔5000万美元的可怕视频。那不是正确的做法。你去那家洗车店。你说：“我想看看每个人的证件。”所有人都跑了。他们给你看证件。哪个员工不是合法受雇，也没有证件，你就罚款1万美元，然后你第二天再来，罚款2万美元。如果你这样做，这将非常有效，而且你根本不会有现在的这种残酷。我与许多当警察的亲戚和朋友聊过，他们看到ICE的做法，认为这是不必要的残忍。你所要做的就是去他们工作的地方，处以罚款，然后逮捕那些真正的罪犯。对任何帮派成员或重罪犯采取行动，有时如果他们是罪犯，你显然必须使用武力，这都没问题。但对于其他人，我们可以怀着同情心，更高效地做到这一点。我们可以通过支付费用让他们自愿离境，并提高这个比例。实际上，这已经奏效了。这个故事还没有被讲述出来。我想我们会在统计数据中看到，我们最终驱逐的三四十万人中，可能三分之一是自愿离境的人，我们会在这里分享这些数据，但问题是暴力——

Sachs: I'll just note that in DC DC is the city where Trump was first able to basically get involved in trying to stop the crime because he was able to bring in the National Guard and everyone understands the feds run DC so he has a free hand. Have we seen any of the problems that we're talking about in DC? No, we haven't. It's calm. People can go out at night. They're going to restaurants again. The citizens are happy. Why? Because the things you're talking about are the result of violent Antifa protests in Chicago and Portland. Because the local politicians like JB Pritzkar have an incentive to blame everything on Trump and they've been turning a blind eye to these local gangs who are creating all the problems. Sachs: 我只想指出，在华盛顿特区，特朗普之所以能够介入并试图制止犯罪，是因为他能够调动国民警卫队，而且每个人都明白联邦政府管理华盛顿特区，所以他可以自由行动。我们在华盛顿特区看到过我们正在讨论的任何问题吗？没有。那里很平静。人们晚上可以外出。他们又去餐馆了。市民们很高兴。为什么？因为你所说的那些问题是芝加哥和波特兰暴力反法西斯主义（Antifa: 反法西斯主义的，一种广泛的政治运动）抗议活动的结果。因为像 JB Pritzkar 这样的地方政客有动机将一切归咎于特朗普，而且他们一直对那些制造所有问题的当地帮派视而不见。

Jason: Yeah, we're in a strong agreement that Antifa and I'll add to it, the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers, who brought tons of guns to the capital and uh who ran January 6. I agree with you. All of those radical organizations should be handled. Uh we're in strong agreement. And just Jason: 是的，我们强烈同意反法西斯主义者（Antifa: 反法西斯主义的，一种广泛的政治运动），我还要加上“骄傲男孩”（Proud Boys）和“誓言守护者”（Oathkeepers），他们带着大量枪支进入国会大厦，并在1月6日制造了骚乱。我同意你的看法。所有这些激进组织都应该受到处理。我们强烈同意。而且，只是——

Sachs: the fact that you're bringing up the nonsequator of January 6 tells me that you've lost this debate. Sachs: 你提到1月6日这个不相干的话题，说明你输掉了这场辩论。

Jason: I'm not looking to to win a debate with you, Sex. I'm not in the debate club, but you can win whatever debate you want. I'm just giving my opinion. But the more and just to give a little nuance here with the Doge thing, I agree that it was unpopular with the libs, but what I what I was talking about was the moderates who won Trump the election this year, which you had a big part in, David. You you turned a lot of the moderates uh you know, the fiscally conservative but socially liberals uh in our community, the tech community, you're directly responsible for that. I might argue this podcast and you and Chimamoth and your support of Trump and the 2.0 agenda was a big part of him getting elected. I've heard from people in and around the administration, they believe that that was a key part in their success this time. So, when I say that uh people were in support of Doge, I'm talking specifically about moderates and the people who backed the Trump 2.0 agenda just to clean that up. I do agree with you Jason: 我不是想和你辩论，Sachs。我不是辩论社的，但你想赢哪场辩论都可以。我只是发表我的意见。但为了给“国防部”（DOD）的事情增加一点细微之处，我同意它在自由派中不受欢迎，但我所说的是今年让特朗普赢得选举的温和派，大卫，你在其中发挥了重要作用。你转变了我们社区、科技社区中许多温和派，你知道，那些财政保守但社会自由的群体，你对此负有直接责任。我可能会说这个播客，你和 Chimath，以及你们对特朗普和2.0议程的支持，是他当选的重要原因。我从政府内部和周边的人那里听说，他们认为这是他们这次成功的关键部分。所以，当我说人们支持“国防部”（DOD）时，我特指温和派和支持特朗普2.0议程的人，只是澄清一下。我确实同意你的看法——

Sachs: that uh yeah uh but you can roll your eyes. Well, my point is Sachs: 嗯，是的，但是你可以翻白眼。嗯，我的观点是——

Jason: I'm not trying to win a debate with you. I'm just telling you my my opinion. Jason: 我不是想和你辩论。我只是告诉你我的观点。

Sachs: Polls can give us interesting information, but they're also a snapshot in time. And what really matters is the results of the policies. And I think that if you look at DC, hold on. You look at DC just a couple of months ago before Trump went in, the left was basically shrieking hysterically that it was authoritarian, that it was fascist and so forth and so on. They had all these arguments. It's going to be brutal the population. Trump goes in there and it's worked amazingly well. Sachs: 民意调查可以给我们提供有趣的信息，但它们也只是某一时间点的快照。真正重要的是政策的结果。我认为，如果你看看华盛顿特区，等一下。几个月前特朗普上任前，左翼基本上歇斯底里地尖叫，称其为独裁、法西斯等等。他们有所有这些论点。对民众来说将是残酷的。特朗普去了那里，而且效果惊人地好。

Jason: I will let you have word and Jason: 我让你说——

Sachs: I don't think we should be abandoning the poor populations of these inner cities to the predatory crime that they've been subjected to for decades that their Democrat politicians have done absolutely nothing about. Quite frankly, these cities are something like 9010 Democrat. If we can just make them 7525, then I don't think Republicans will lose elections anymore. So, I'm glad Trump is trying to do this. We've seen these examples over and over again. Sachs: 我认为我们不应该放弃这些内城区的贫困人口，让他们继续遭受几十年来民主党政客对此毫无作为的掠夺性犯罪。坦率地说，这些城市大概是90%民主党。如果我们能把这个比例调整到75%比25%，那么我认为共和党就不会再输掉选举了。所以，我很高兴特朗普正在尝试这样做。我们已经一次又一次地看到了这些例子。

Chimath: This is why Wes Moore is doing what he's doing. Exactly. I think the tactic works and I think Jason, we are moving away from whether the tactic works or not to who is trying to frame themselves to take the credit. And if you look at the Democratic path to the presidency, we've heard this before, but Wes is sort of at the front of the line. And I think he's seen that this is the right place to be on this point. Chimath: 这就是 Wes Moore 这样做的原因。没错。我认为这个策略有效，Jason，我认为我们正在从策略是否有效转向谁试图为自己邀功。如果你看看民主党通往总统宝座的道路，我们以前听过，但 Wes 某种程度上走在前列。我认为他已经看到这是在这个问题上应该采取的立场。

Chimath: So I think it's like he doesn't want the success if it doesn't acrew to him. That's why he sent in state troops in Maryland into all the hot spots. I think what will be interesting is in three or four months from now when we see the incremental crime stats data and whether we see Wes wrap that up in a big bow and say look what I did and I think if you do see that then I think what you will have seen is a successful policy that was co-opted at the state level because they want to take the credit for it and Chimath: 所以我认为，他好像不希望成功不归功于他。这就是为什么他把马里兰州的州部队派往所有热点地区。我认为有趣的是，从现在开始的三四个月后，当我们看到犯罪统计数据的增量时，以及我们是否会看到 Wes 将其“包装”一番，然后说“看我做了什么”时，我认为如果你确实看到了这一点，那么你就会发现一项成功的政策在州一级被“借用”了，因为他们想把功劳归于自己，而且——

Brad: you'll find an adequate number of journalists who will want to paint that as a oh wow look at this invention that has happened But the artifact will be that Trump initiated and instigated it. Brad: 你会发现足够多的记者会想把它描绘成“哦，哇，看看这个发生了什么的发明”，但事实是，特朗普启动并煽动了它。

Chimath: Now, if people copy it, that's a smart thing to do if it works. Chimath: 现在，如果人们效仿，如果有效，那也是明智之举。

Jason: Absolutely. You cannot deny that uh law and order is at the top of everybody's list in terms of just living a productive life. All right, next up on the agenda. Oh, Bestie Brad, you're going to love this one. Jason: 绝对是。你不能否认，就过上富有成效的生活而言，法律和秩序是每个人清单上的头等大事。好的，下一个议题。哦，亲爱的 Brad，你会喜欢这个的。

AI芯片市场的巨大交易

Jason: AMD (Advanced Micro Devices: 超微半导体公司) and OpenAI (OpenAI: 一家人工智能研究公司) just closed a massive GPU deal. Could be worth 60 billion or more over the next 5 years. Obviously, uh, two companies are are run by friends of the pod. Lisa from AMD and Sam from OpenAI, both been on the pod. AMD stock rocketed up 35% since the announcement. OpenAI committed to purchasing six gigawatts worth of AMD's nextg GPUs. A little bit of an interesting wrinkle here. AMD granted OpenAI warrants. Okay, that's interesting. For up to 160 million shares or 10% of the companies. And with that massive increase in their stock price, Brad, I think this means that OpenAI is going to get a lot of GPUs essentially for free. Jason: AMD（Advanced Micro Devices: 超微半导体公司）和OpenAI（OpenAI: 一家人工智能研究公司）刚刚达成了一项大规模的图形处理器（GPU）交易。未来五年内，这笔交易的价值可能达到600亿美元甚至更多。显然，这两家公司都由我们播客的朋友管理。AMD 的 Lisa 和 OpenAI 的 Sam 都曾做客我们的播客。自从宣布这项交易以来，AMD 的股价飙升了35%。OpenAI 承诺购买价值六千兆瓦的 AMD 下一代 GPU。这里有一个有趣的小细节。AMD 授予 OpenAI 认股权证。好的，这很有趣。高达1.6亿股，或公司总股本的10%。随着股价的大幅上涨，Brad，我认为这意味着 OpenAI 基本上可以免费获得大量 GPU。

Jason: Big dialogue has started, Brad, around these round-tripping (Round-tripping: 虚假交易，指通过虚假交易人为夸大收入或交易量的财务欺诈行为) conflicted party transactions. Is that how some people would describe them, specifically the SEC? Do you have concerns about the AI trade and the amount of circulation of shares, GPUs, and cash that's going on right now, and I know you're in the thick of this. Jason: Brad，关于这些虚假交易（Round-tripping: 虚假交易，指通过虚假交易人为夸大收入或交易量的财务欺诈行为）的利益冲突方交易，已经引发了大量讨论。某些人，特别是美国证券交易委员会（SEC: Securities and Exchange Commission: 负责监管美国证券市场的联邦机构），会这样描述它们吗？你是否担心当前的AI交易以及股票、GPU和现金的大量流通？我知道你身处其中。

Brad: Yeah. And and maybe before we get into round-tripping and circular revenues, which I do want to hit, I think it's super important that we talk about that. Let's just break down the deal a little bit because there's a lot going on and I think it I think it's important we put context around it. So, first, this is a bet the farm bet by Lisa Sue, right? She's given away 10% of the company if the compute gets deployed. She said a couple weeks ago, we're in year two of 10 of a compute buildout across the country. So, I I I have a couple charts here. Why would she make a bet the farm bet, Jason? Right, that's an important question. Remember, Nvidia just did a huge deal with OpenAI. They didn't give away any of their company. In fact, they got the right to buy part of OpenAI. So, look at this chart. This is pretty wild. Just in 22, in 2022, two and a half years ago, Nvidia and AMD had basically the same revenue, $25 billion, right? This year, Nvidia will do 10x that at roughly, you know, 210, $230 billion, and AMD will do 33 billion, right? Not much more than they were doing when the companies were tied in 2022. So Nvidia's captured nearly 100% of the incremental AI data center revenues over the course of the last 2 and 1/2 years. And I think there's this notion that somehow Nvidia just popped out this special AI chip. But I think if you listen to Jensen, understand study the company, it's because they have this ecosystem of software, networking, extreme code design. The unit of compute is no longer the chip, right? It's the entire data center which is composed of, you know, 5 to 10 different chips. Performance per watt, right? Power being the constrained resource here is everything. And Nvidia's just crushed the competition. Brad: 是的。或许在我们深入探讨虚假交易（Round-tripping: 虚假交易，指通过虚假交易人为夸大收入或交易量的财务欺诈行为）和循环收入之前（我确实想谈谈这些），我认为我们讨论一下这件事非常重要。我们先来稍微分析一下这笔交易，因为其中有很多细节，我认为我们有必要提供一些背景信息。首先，这是 Lisa Su 的“孤注一掷”式赌注，对吧？如果计算能力得到部署，她就放弃了公司10%的股份。几周前她说过，全国性的计算能力建设正处于十年计划的第二年。所以，我这里有几张图表。Jason，她为什么要进行这种“孤注一掷”的赌注呢？对，这是一个重要问题。请记住，英伟达（Nvidia）刚刚与 OpenAI 达成了一笔大交易，他们并没有放弃任何公司股份。事实上，他们获得了购买 OpenAI 部分股份的权利。所以，看看这张图表。这相当惊人。就在2022年，两年半前，英伟达和 AMD 的营收基本相同，都是250亿美元，对吧？今年，英伟达的营收将达到其10倍，大约2100亿到2300亿美元，而 AMD 将达到330亿美元，对吧？与2022年两家公司营收持平的时候相比，AMD 的增长并不多。因此，在过去两年半的时间里，英伟达几乎占据了所有新增的 AI 数据中心营收。我认为有一种观点认为英伟达不知怎么地突然推出了这种特殊的 AI 芯片。但我想，如果你听 Jensen 的话，了解并研究这家公司，你会发现这是因为他们拥有一个由软件、网络、极致代码设计组成的生态系统。计算单元不再是芯片本身，对吧？它是整个数据中心，由5到10种不同的芯片组成。每瓦性能，对吧？在这里，电力作为受限资源，决定了一切。而英伟达已经完全击败了竞争对手。

Brad: So now put yourself in the shoes of Lisa, right? And she's clearly not on the wave. This tsunami has come. Jensen's riding it. He's capturing 100% of the wave and she's not even yet on the wave. Her MI350 was just not competitive. And so they have one shot. Either the MI450 gets adopted and they get back into the game, right? Or or or they're out. She's a total warrior. I think she believes in the 450. She went to her board and she said, "Listen, this is we got to take the shot here. We got to bet the farm. If it works, she's going to get 150 billion of incremental revenue just from OpenAI, right, for building out 5 gawatt. And on top of that, of course, it could unlock a lot of the other market because now it will have validated that they have a a a chip that works. But it's far from a done deal, far from a conclusion whether the 450 is going to work. Can it compete against Vera Rubin? Can it compete against uh Reuben Ultra? All super important questions. So that's one you you know that that's the AMD deal. Brad: 所以现在，把自己放在 Lisa 的位置上，对吧？她显然没有赶上这股浪潮。这场海啸来了。Jensen 正在乘风破浪。他占据了100%的市场份额，而她甚至还没有上船。她的 MI350 根本不具竞争力。所以他们只有一次机会。要么 MI450 被采纳并让他们重回赛场，对吧？要么他们就出局了。她是一个十足的战士。我认为她相信 MI450。她去找她的董事会，她说：“听着，我们必须在这里放手一搏。我们必须孤注一掷。如果成功了，她将仅从 OpenAI 就能获得1500亿美元的增量收入，对吧，用于建设5千兆瓦的算力。除此之外，当然，它可能会解锁其他许多市场，因为现在它将验证他们拥有一个有效的芯片。但这远非板上钉钉，MI450 是否能成功还远未有定论。它能与 Vera Rubin 竞争吗？它能与 Reuben Ultra 竞争吗？所有这些都是极其重要的问题。所以，你知道，这就是 AMD 的交易。

Jason: Why have we switched from saying oh Colossus bought you know XAI's data center 100,000 H100s 200,000 H100s to now framing these in gigawatts. I think it's important for people to understand why that's now how deals are being framed just in the last 3 months has changed. Jason: 为什么我们从说“Colossus 购买了 XAI 的数据中心10万片 H100、20万片 H100”转变为现在用千兆瓦来描述这些交易？我认为让人们理解为什么在过去3个月里交易的框架发生了变化，这很重要。

Chimath: Yeah I think I think there are a couple constraining features. Number one chips change right? So 100,000 H100s is not, you know, is not apples for apples with the number of GB200s, you know, Grace Blackwell 200s or GB300s. And so it's hard to talk about them. You're comparing apples and oranges when you're comparing these data centers. So a unifying metric of compare, right, is the the the power that goes in. Everything starts with the power. It's the constrained resource. So we can compare a gigawatt of power because it's remember it's power in and it's tokens out and we can compare that over time and normalize across all these different chips and it's not just these two companies you got tranium by Amazon TPU by Google Cerebrris Gro etc. there are a lot of folks in this game. And so again, I think what you saw this week in this flurry of announcements, right, is that you have the market leader that's basically captured 90 to 100% of the incremental demand for the biggest thing that the the data center and the chip market has ever seen. And every other player is looking at what they have to do to have a shot to capture part of this wave, their high-risisk, highreward bets. The other thing I would say is, and again, shut me up and anybody can jump in if they want to, but I want to decompose. We're hearing these estimates of 100 gawatt, four to five trillion of buildout over the course of the next four years. If you look at that same chart I just showed you, that's not what Wall Street estimates are, right? There is a lot of disbelief on Wall Street as to what's going to get built out. So if you look at that estimate, you know, starting in 2027, it basically flatlines 27 through 29 for Nvidia, right? Less than 10% keger in terms of the growth for Nvidia. They have by 2029 them doing 360 billion in revenue compared to 210 billion of revenue this year. To put it in gigawatt perspectives, that means going from four to five gigs per year in 25 to 9 gigs in 29. That's a big step up, but a long way from the 100 gigawatts you were hearing, you know, bantered about on CNBC this week. Chimath: 是的，我认为有几个限制因素。第一，芯片在不断变化，对吧？所以10万片 H100 并不能与 GB200（例如 Grace Blackwell 200）或 GB300 的数量直接进行同类比较。因此，很难谈论它们。你在比较这些数据中心时，就像在比较苹果和橘子。所以，一个统一的衡量标准，对吧，就是输入的功率。一切都始于功率。它是受限资源。所以我们可以比较千兆瓦的功率，因为记住它是输入功率，输出是 tokens，我们可以随着时间比较，并对所有这些不同的芯片进行标准化。而且不仅仅是这两家公司，你还有亚马逊（Amazon）的 Tranium (Tranium: 亚马逊自研AI芯片系列)、谷歌（Google）的 TPU (Tensor Processing Unit: 谷歌为机器学习开发的专用处理器)、Cerebras Gro 等等，有很多参与者。所以再次强调，我认为你这周在这一连串公告中看到的，对吧，是市场领导者基本上已经占据了数据中心和芯片市场有史以来最大增量需求的90%到100%。其他所有参与者都在思考他们必须做什么才能有机会抓住这波浪潮，他们的赌注是高风险、高回报的。我想说的另一点是，再次强调，如果有人想打断我或插话，请随意，但我想剖析一下。我们听到这些估计说未来四年将建设100千兆瓦，价值四到五万亿美元。如果你看看我刚才给你的那张图表，那并不是华尔街的估计，对吧？华尔街对实际建设规模有很多不信任。所以，如果你看看那个估计，你知道的，从2027年开始，英伟达的收入在27年到29年间基本上是持平的，对吧？英伟达的增长率不到10%。他们到2029年将实现3600亿美元的收入，而今年是2100亿美元。从千兆瓦的角度来看，这意味着从25年的每年四到五千兆瓦增长到29年的九千兆瓦。这是一个很大的进步，但与你本周在 CNBC (Consumer News and Business Channel: 美国消费者新闻与商业频道) 上听到的100千兆瓦还有很长的路要走。

Chimath: That's for a different reason. Nick, put this put this quote up there, which is this famous quote from Nathan Rothschild where he said, "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Why is that quote so interesting as applied to AI? I think that what you're going to see and you're seeing it in those revenue graphs is that there is a traffic jam that's happening in growth where it won't be the ability to actually build nextgen silicon, but it'll be the energy inputs that will constrain it and it will be the ingredient inputs that constrain growth. And so the companies that then control those elements of the supply chain will actually come into power and rise to power. So what is one example of this? One example of this is when you look at the architecture of Nvidia's chips, one of the things that they have made a huge bet on is HBM (High Bandwidth Memory: 一种用于3D堆叠同步动态随机存取存储器的高性能RAM接口). And this is a memory structure. And what's so interesting about that is when you look at the HBM market, it is effectively Nvidia who takes up the majority, the majority majority and then Google. And now AMD's next architecture actually needs to sit on top of HBM. Now they're going to have to go and step into that supply chain and try to ask for share. Where will that share come from? And this is where the people that then control that supply, SK Hynix (SK Hynix: 韩国半导体制造商) and Samsung (Samsung: 韩国跨国集团), will have leverage. Now, this is what's interesting about a deal that OpenAI announced two or three weeks ago. Sam was in Korea and you saw him shaking hands with SK Hynix and Samsung. And my initial thought then was why is OpenAI doing a deal with the memory maker and then it occurred to me, wow, he's buying forward capacity on HBM because now he can allocate that share. So when I saw that deal and I saw that equity, it reminded me of this Rothschild quote. Sam has allocation and now Sam can allocate allocation and then as a result get a tax and I believe that the warrants and the equity are effectively that. What's a different example? Brad mentioned this before, but energy will be the gating item beyond a shadow of a doubt. And so if you control electrons, any form of electrons, hydrocarbon to electron (hydrocarbon to electron: 将碳氢化合物转化为电能), electron to electron (electron to electron: 电子到电子的转换，如电池), photon to electron (photon to electron: 光子到电子的转换，如太阳能), doesn't matter, you will then be in a position to start asking for equity, upside, participation in these companies in a way that you could never do before. You would just have been a linear member of the supply chain, a low margin participant. Chimath: 那是出于不同的原因。尼克，把这个引文放上去，这是罗斯柴尔德（Nathan Rothschild）的名言，他说：“我不在乎哪个傀儡被放在英国的王位上，统治日不落帝国。掌控英国货币供应的人，就掌控了大英帝国，而我掌控着英国的货币供应。”这句引言应用到人工智能（AI）上为什么如此有趣？我认为你将看到的——而且你已经在那些收入图表中看到了——是增长正在发生交通堵塞，届时限制因素将不再是实际制造下一代硅芯片的能力，而是能源输入和原料输入将限制增长。因此，那些控制供应链这些要素的公司将真正掌握权力并崛起。那么，这有什么例子呢？一个例子是，当你审视英伟达（Nvidia）芯片的架构时，他们押下重注的一个关键点是 HBM (High Bandwidth Memory: 一种用于3D堆叠同步动态随机存取存储器的高性能RAM接口)。这是一种内存结构。有趣的是，当你审视HBM市场时，英伟达实际上占据了绝大部分，然后是谷歌（Google）。而现在 AMD 的下一代架构实际上需要依赖HBM。现在他们将不得不进入这条供应链并争取份额。那份份额从何而来？这就是那些控制供应的公司，SK海力士（SK Hynix: 韩国半导体制造商）和三星（Samsung: 韩国跨国集团），将拥有影响力的地方。现在，OpenAI 两三周前宣布的一项交易就很有趣。萨姆（Sam）当时在韩国，你看到他与SK海力士和三星握手。我当时的最初想法是，为什么OpenAI要与内存制造商进行交易？然后我突然想到，哇，他正在提前购买HBM的产能，因为现在他可以分配这份份额了。所以当我看到那笔交易和那份股权时，它让我想起了罗斯柴尔德的这句名言。萨姆拥有分配权，现在萨姆可以分配分配权，然后因此获得回报，我相信认股权证和股权实际上就是如此。另一个不同的例子是什么？布拉德（Brad）之前提到过这一点，但毫无疑问，能源将是瓶颈。所以，如果你控制电子，任何形式的电子，无论是碳氢化合物转化为电子（hydrocarbon to electron: 将碳氢化合物转化为电能）、电子到电子的转换（electron to electron: 电子到电子的转换，如电池），还是光子到电子的转换（photon to electron: 光子到电子的转换，如太阳能），都无关紧要，你都将能够以前所未有的方式要求这些公司的股权、上涨空间和参与权。你以前只会是供应链上的一个线性成员，一个低利润的参与者。

Chimath: So when I look at where we are, I think that the really interesting question now is to ask what is the second and third order degree inputs that are critical to allowing the big foundational model makers to allowing Nvidia to allowing AMD Broadcom to thrive and that is where I would start to look because those that control those resources are going to dictate the pace and the scale of this AI expansion. Okay, coming around the horn here to you, our Zar of AI, David Saxs. When you see this massive amount of deal making occurring, it's got to warm your heart a bit. American exceptionalism at work here, people swinging for the fences. What's your take on Brad and Chimat's overview of where we're at here in the fall of 2025 in the AI race? Chimath: 所以，当我审视我们所处的位置时，我认为现在真正有趣的问题是，哪些二阶和三阶输入对于让大型基础模型制造商、英伟达（Nvidia）、AMD 博通（Broadcom）蓬勃发展至关重要？这就是我将开始关注的地方，因为那些控制这些资源的人将决定人工智能（AI）扩张的速度和规模。好的，现在轮到我们的AI沙皇大卫·萨克斯（David Sachs）了。当你看到如此大规模的交易正在发生时，你的内心一定感到一丝温暖吧。这是美国例外主义在发挥作用，人们都在全力以赴。对于 Brad 和 Chimath 对我们2025年秋季AI竞赛现状的概述，你有什么看法？

Sachs: Yeah, I I don't really like to take sides on these deals for the obvious reason that we want to be supportive of everybody and just have a healthy environment for competition. So, as long as there's investment going on and as long as there's a lot of competition, those are good things. That's what we want to see. So, I tend to think this OpenAI AMD deal is evidence of that. There was the OpenAI Nvidia deal. There was the Nvidia XAI deal. There's just a ton of investment going on and that's what we want to see. So that's all really good news. Sachs: 是的，我其实不太喜欢在这些交易中站队，因为显而易见的原因是，我们希望支持所有人，并拥有一个健康的竞争环境。所以，只要有投资正在进行，只要有很多竞争，这些都是好事。这就是我们希望看到的。因此，我倾向于认为 OpenAI 和 AMD 的这笔交易就是证明。之前有 OpenAI 和英伟达的交易。还有英伟达和 XAI 的交易。现在有大量的投资正在进行，而这正是我们希望看到的。所以这都是非常好的消息。

Chimath: I was struck by Brad's chart about Nvidia's revenue in the out years. The amount of capex (Capital Expenditure: 资本支出，指用于购买、维护或升级实物资产的资金) or investments going to go into data centers and compute more than a few years from now. I think that's really hard to predict. Chimath: Brad 关于英伟达（Nvidia）未来几年营收的图表给我留下了深刻印象。几年后，将投入数据中心和计算领域的资本支出（Capex: 资本支出，指用于购买、维护或升级实物资产的资金）或投资的金额。我认为这真的很难预测。

Brad: Impossible, right? Yeah, Brad: 不可能，对吧？是的。

Sachs: very hard because on the demand side of the compute, it's going to depend on new applications that get created. So for example, the demand for tokens depends not just on AI chat bots, but on the new agents that are coming along. You have these new video generation models, Sora, and now XAI's just released something. So we don't really know what the demand for tokens is going to be. I think it's going to be huge. I think there's a lot of applications that haven't even been invented yet. We are in the very early stages are going to drive demand. It's a little bit like in the early days of the internet, we had this dotcom bubble (dotcom bubble: 互联网泡沫，指20世纪90年代末互联网公司股票价格飙升后破裂的时期) where everyone thought there had been too much fiber built out and then all the fiber ended up being used because, you know, social networking came along, Facebook came along, YouTube came along. When all that original fiber in the '90s was built out, they didn't even know that photos and videos were going to be a thing. So, the bandwidth eventually all got used up. I think in a similar way, all of the compute will eventually get used up by new applications. I guess the thing we don't know is how much more efficient will the infrastructure get at producing these tokens. So that would be the offsetting factor is yes the chips are getting so much better. I mean Sachs: 非常困难，因为在计算的需求端，它将取决于新应用的创建。例如，对 tokens 的需求不仅取决于AI聊天机器人，还取决于正在出现的新代理。你看到了这些新的视频生成模型，Sora，现在 XAI 也刚刚发布了新的模型。所以我们真的不知道对 tokens 的需求会是多少。我认为它会非常巨大。我认为还有很多应用甚至还没有被发明出来。我们正处于非常早期阶段，这将推动需求。这有点像互联网早期，我们经历了互联网泡沫（dotcom bubble: 互联网泡沫，指20世纪90年代末互联网公司股票价格飙升后破裂的时期），当时所有人都认为光纤铺设过多了，但后来所有的光纤都被用完了，因为，你知道，社交网络出现了，Facebook 出现了，YouTube 出现了。当90年代所有那些最初的光纤被铺设时，人们甚至不知道照片和视频会成为一种东西。所以，带宽最终都被用完了。我认为以类似的方式，所有的计算能力最终都会被新应用耗尽。我猜我们不知道的是，基础设施在生成这些 tokens 方面会变得多高效。所以这将是一个抵消因素，那就是芯片确实变得越来越好。我的意思是——

Chimath: we're moving faster than Moore's law here. Every year Nvidia is releasing a new generation of chips Chimath: 我们这里的进展比摩尔定律还快。英伟达（Nvidia）每年都在发布新一代芯片。

Sachs: and it's doing inference at multiple times the efficiency of the previous year on I guess a token per watt basis or whatever you want to measure it. So that's an offsetting factor. And then there could be um more efficiencies created in the model architectures with um sparser architectures. So those will be offsetting factors as all the efficiencies we get. But then you have to you know if I'm kind of arguing with myself then you've got the Jevans paradox which is as the cost per token comes down more and more that's going to enable AI to be used in more and more context where previously it wasn't economically efficient now it will be. So that's going to fuel the demand. I mean, David, David, I think this is a huge boom. Yeah. Sachs: 而且它在推理方面的效率是去年的数倍，无论是按每瓦特 token 衡量还是其他任何你想要衡量的标准。所以这是一个抵消因素。然后，模型架构中可能会通过更稀疏的架构创造出更多的效率。所以这些都将是抵消因素，是我们获得的所有效率。但接着你必须，你知道，如果我有点像在自言自语，那么你就会遇到杰文斯悖论（Jevons paradox），即随着每个 token 的成本越来越低，这将使人工智能能够用于越来越多的场景，在这些场景中，以前在经济上效率不高，现在则会变得高效。所以这将推动需求。我的意思是，大卫，我认为这是一个巨大的繁荣。是的。

Jason: Yeah. Your point is a your point is a great one. Everybody's looking for the bubble, right? We've got this pattern recognition. Everybody's like, "What? It's dark fiber. It's got to be dark fiber. There's no way that you can 10x your revenues at Nvidia without it being, you know, a bubble." But the reality today is Nvidia trades at a lower price to earnings multiple than it did when it was $200 a share. Think about what the term dark fiber means. We were laying fiber in the ground that remained dark. We did not have the demand for the fiber. There is not a dark GPU in the world today. Jason: 是的。你的观点很棒，你的观点很棒。每个人都在寻找泡沫，对吧？我们有这种模式识别。每个人都在说：“什么？这是暗光纤。一定是暗光纤。英伟达的收入不可能增长10倍而不形成泡沫。”但今天的现实是，英伟达的市盈率比股价200美元时还要低。想想“暗光纤”这个词是什么意思。我们铺设在地下但未被使用的光纤。我们当时没有对光纤的需求。今天世界上没有闲置的 GPU (Graphics Processing Unit: 图形处理器)。

Sachs: There's not going to be a dark GPU in the world next year. Sachs: 明年世界上也不会有闲置的 GPU (Graphics Processing Unit: 图形处理器)。

Jason: Good point. There's no dark GPU. Jason: 说得好。没有闲置的GPU。

Chimath: I don't think that's the question. I think the question is what is the ROI (Return on Investment: 投资回报率) on input and output tokens per use case? What is the ROI of a random use of a model? And I think that that is a very good question. How many of those tokens are generally gross margin negative? How many of those are unprofitable? How many of those are profitable? And I think that's what they're trying to ask when they ask that question. They may just not know the technical intricacies to ask it that way. But I think that's what people are trying to debate when they're trying to guess. And I don't think we totally yet know. Chimath: 我不认为这是问题所在。我认为问题是每个用例中，输入和输出 tokens 的投资回报率（ROI: Return on Investment: 投资回报率）是多少？模型随机使用的投资回报率是多少？我认为这是一个非常好的问题。这些 tokens 中有多少通常是毛利率为负的？有多少是无利可图的？有多少是有利可图的？我认为当他们提出这个问题时，他们想问的就是这个。他们可能只是不知道如何以技术细节来提问。但我认为人们在猜测时，试图辩论的就是这个。而且我认为我们还不能完全知道。

Jason: And just two things I wanted to add here. There are other solutions which have not yet hit the ground. I mentioned Bit Tensor. I think it's an open source project that's worth looking into. I started a little fund of my own with my own capital to start exploring this because there are going to be other solutions that come to fill all of this Javans paradox that's happening. Chimach, your thoughts? Yeah. Jason: 我只想在这里补充两点。还有一些其他解决方案尚未落地。我提到了 Bit Tensor。我认为这是一个值得研究的开源项目。我自己用自己的资金启动了一个小基金来探索这一点，因为会有其他解决方案来填补正在发生的杰文斯悖论。Chimath，你的看法？是的。

Chimath: Well, I think the thing to remember is token generation is this very complicated quadratic that just consumes a ton of power. And there really is no way to ignore the fact that even with more complicated capabilities, the models are becoming much more complicated. These context windows are getting longer or bigger. And so I just think that we are in this massive massive capital race. And unfortunately I think what that will create is the need for all of these other things. Like for example, there may be architectures where you just have to use SRAM (Static Random-Access Memory: 一种使用闩锁电路存储每个比特的随机存取存储器) because you can't get HBM. I don't think we know what that does to a whole bunch of these use cases today because it may just be completely unperformant. Separately, I think Meta was the one that published this. There's a big disconnect right now in the market around the failure rates of certain classes of hardware and not at the chip level because at the chip level these things are really performant but at the server rack system level these things are you know failing 9 to 20% of the time. That's very complicated how do you deal with all of that and how do you deal with these cascading failures all these things because we are pushing the boundaries of physics we're at you know two and three nanometer scale yields are good not Okay. All of these things I think have to get worked up. Chimath: 嗯，我认为要记住的一点是，token 的生成是一个非常复杂的二次方过程，它消耗大量的电力。而且真的无法忽视这样一个事实：即使拥有更复杂的功能，模型本身也变得复杂得多。这些上下文窗口正在变得更长或更大。所以我只是认为我们正处于这场大规模的资本竞赛中。不幸的是，我认为这将创造出对所有其他事物（的需求）。例如，可能存在这样的架构，你只能使用 SRAM (Static Random-Access Memory: 一种使用闩锁电路存储每个比特的随机存取存储器)，因为你无法获得 HBM (High Bandwidth Memory: 一种用于3D堆叠同步动态随机存取存储器的高性能RAM接口)。我认为我们今天不知道这对这些用例会产生什么影响，因为它可能完全无法实现高性能。另外，我认为 Meta 是发布这个消息的公司。现在市场对某些类别硬件的故障率存在很大的脱节，而且不是在芯片层面，因为在芯片层面这些东西的性能确实很好，但在服务器机架系统层面，这些东西你知道的，有9%到20%的时间会发生故障。这非常复杂，你如何处理所有这些？你如何处理这些级联故障，所有这些事情？因为我们正在突破物理学的界限，我们正处于两纳米和三纳米的规模，良率并不好。所有这些事情我认为都必须解决。

Brad: and that's what makes it such a great opportunity and so exciting I think. Brad: 我认为，这就是为什么它如此令人兴奋，如此巨大的机会。

Jason: Brad, let's talk about the TAM (Total Addressable Market: 潜在市场总量，指某产品或服务可能达到的最大市场需求). I've been working a bit on what is the TAM of this. And in the modern developed world, what we used to call the first world, you got about 500 million business users. They spend on average, Brad, about $3,000 on SAS products (Software as a Service products: 软件即服务产品). So if you were to just put those numbers together, it it gets pretty large pretty quick. trillions of dollars in revenue for those users. And if you look at consumers and just use an analogy maybe Brad I think be interested if you think this is a valid one. Consumers pay for you know Netflix and Disney Plus whatever it is probably a couple hundred a year. So then you have a billion users in the developed world. I'm not counting frontier markets and the developing world. We're talking about a TAM that's going to be a couple of trillion dollars a year. I think you would agree. So the buildout of a trillion dollars doesn't seem as farical if that is in fact the prize. And I think I've set the tab very well. Jason: Brad，我们来谈谈潜在市场总量（TAM: Total Addressable Market: 潜在市场总量，指某产品或服务可能达到的最大市场需求）。我一直在研究这个的TAM是多少。在现代发达世界，也就是我们以前所说的第一世界，大约有5亿商业用户。Brad，他们平均每年在软件即服务产品（SAS products: Software as a Service products）上花费约3,000美元。所以如果你把这些数字加起来，它会很快变得非常庞大。为这些用户带来数万亿美元的收入。如果你看看消费者，也许用一个类比，Brad，我想你会感兴趣的，如果你认为这是一个有效的类比。消费者每年为Netflix和Disney Plus等服务支付几百美元。那么，在发达世界，有10亿用户。我还没有计算前沿市场和发展中世界。我们谈论的是一个每年价值数万亿美元的TAM。我想你会同意的。所以，如果这就是最终的回报，那么万亿美元的建设就不显得那么荒谬了。我认为我把账算得很清楚了。

Chimath: Wait, hold on. It's not it's not a trillion. That's just the capex, then you have to think of what the opex is. The opex is probably the same multiplied by the useful life, which is probably 20 years. So if you think there's a billion of capex going in, you have to expect that there's a trillion capex, sorry, trillion of capex going in. There's tens of trillions of opex over the useful life of all of this stuff. upgrade cycles, people, power, water. So, it's a much bigger spend than we think. So, we have to be careful that we're not underestimating, frankly. Chimath: 等等，等等。它不是万亿美元。那只是资本支出（capex），然后你还得考虑运营支出（opex）。运营支出可能与资本支出相同，再乘以使用寿命，可能长达20年。所以如果你认为投入了10亿美元的资本支出，你就必须预期投入了1万亿美元的资本支出，抱歉，是1万亿美元的资本支出。所有这些东西在其使用寿命内，运营支出将达到几十万亿美元。升级周期、人力、电力、水。所以，这比我们想象的要大得多。坦率地说，我们必须小心，不要低估了。

Jason: Absolutely. And then there's what the life of these are, right, Brad? Like, what is the use for like Corewave thinks these things last four years? Jason: 绝对是。然后还有这些东西的寿命，对吧，Brad？比如，Corewave 认为这些东西能用四年，这是怎么回事？

Brad: Well, they six. They underwite to six. Brad: 嗯，他们说六年。他们保证是六年。

Jason: They're at six. Other people are saying four. So, that seems a little challenged, too. Here's a rule of thumb is that each gigawatt data center is about $50 billion of investment roughly between the chips, the land power shell. It's about 50 billion per gigawatt. And you have, you know, open AAI and Elon, they're talking about scaling to 10 gawatt data centers. That's a $500 billion investment. Jason: 他们说是六年。其他人说是四年。所以这似乎也有点争议。这里有一个经验法则：每个千兆瓦的数据中心大约需要500亿美元的投资，包括芯片、土地和电力基础设施等。大约每千兆瓦500亿美元。你知道，OpenAI 和 Elon，他们正在谈论扩展到10千兆瓦的数据中心。那将是5000亿美元的投资。

Chimath: I think that's right. Chimath: 我认为这是对的。

Jason: Per data center if it gets that big. I mean to be clear they're still working on the 1 gawatt data centers but from there they're going to go to 2 or 3 gawatt next year and then from there probably to five over the next couple of years. So you could get to a 10 gawatt in I don't know probably 5 years something like that. Brad's kind of convinced me that we should all be taking the over on this as he usually does. Welcome home Brad. We appreciate you. Jason: 如果数据中心能变得那么大，那么就是每个数据中心。我的意思是，需要明确的是，他们仍在建设1千兆瓦的数据中心，但明年他们将增至2或3千兆瓦，然后未来几年可能达到5千兆瓦。所以，我不知道，可能在五年左右的时间里，你可以达到10千兆瓦。Brad 似乎已经说服我，我们都应该在这个问题上押注“超过”，他通常都是这样。Brad 欢迎回家。我们感谢你。

Sachs: When I think about Nvidia's market, I think the big question to me is I so I would bet the over on demand because I think that it's very hard to underwrite demand for applications that don't exist yet, but I'm confident they will be there. The thing I don't know about their business is whether the GPU market bifurcates between training and inference. I think everyone understands that Nvidia has by far the best training chips, but there's a lot of competitors including Chimamath company Gro and there's Cerebras and obviously AMD wants to compete and then obviously Huawei is is kind of a wild card there. We can talk about that. And then obviously I should mention all the the ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits: 专用集成电路，为特定应用而设计) that the big AI companies are. Yeah, using Broadcom IP, you've got the Google TPUs and you know, Brad, you mentioned Tranium, which is Amazon's chip, and I think Open AI wants to develop their own chip. So, I think the question is given that inference will be 99% of the market and training is only 1%. Could Nvidia be in a situation where they've got training locked up, but when it comes to inference, there's just a lot of other alternatives because people have developed cheaper inference chips. I'm not saying that's going to happen. To me, that would be the big question. Sachs: 当我考虑英伟达（Nvidia）的市场时，我认为对我来说最大的问题是，我宁愿赌需求会更高，因为我认为很难预测尚未存在的应用程序的需求，但我相信它们会出现。我对他们业务不了解的一点是，图形处理器（GPU）市场是否会在训练和推理之间分化。我认为每个人都明白英伟达拥有迄今为止最好的训练芯片，但有很多竞争对手，包括 Chimath 的公司 Gro，还有 Cerebras，显然 AMD 也想竞争，然后华为（Huawei）在那里也算是一个不确定因素。我们可以讨论一下。然后显然我应该提到所有大型AI公司正在使用的专用集成电路（ASICs: Application-Specific Integrated Circuits: 专用集成电路，为特定应用而设计）。是的，使用博通（Broadcom）IP，你有谷歌（Google）的 TPU (Tensor Processing Unit: 谷歌为机器学习开发的专用处理器)，Brad，你提到了亚马逊（Amazon）的芯片 Tranium，我认为 OpenAI 也想开发自己的芯片。所以，我认为问题是，鉴于推理将占市场份额的99%，而训练只占1%。英伟达是否可能陷入这样一种境地：他们垄断了训练市场，但在推理方面，却有很多其他选择，因为人们已经开发出了更便宜的推理芯片。我并不是说这一定会发生。对我来说，那将是一个大问题。

Brad: Well, I mean, listen, you know. Yeah. You know, I think first I go back to the point you made. We're at this critical juncture in a global AI race and we should all be celebrating the fact that there is this level of investment going on in the United States. This is the definition of creative destruction. It won't all work. But the risk capital, the entrepreneurial boldness of SAM and Nvidia and Lisa, this is what's going to keep us ahead in the global AI race. None of this would be happening if Washington had not unlocked power. Jensen said this on on my podcast or our podcast last week, you know, on this. We've unlocked power. We've unlocked capital. People are now able to underwrite to these deals. So, first, I just think that this is incredible. We have this level of competition in terms of Nvidia's ability to stay ahead um of of everybody else. Listen, I think at the end of the day, it's power in and it's tokens out. It's perf per watt. If I've talked to many CFOs (Chief Financial Officers: 首席财务官) of hyperscalers and they said you could price the competitor chips at zero. Jensen said this publicly many times. Price the competitor chips at zero and it's still more effective and uh economic decision to choose Nvidia. And I think that's what it comes down to. They have to be at perf per watt because power is the constrained resource. Going back to what Chimas said. Brad: 嗯，我的意思是，听着，你知道。是的。你知道，我想我首先回到你提出的观点。我们正处于全球人工智能竞赛的关键时刻，我们都应该庆祝美国正在进行这种程度的投资。这就是创造性破坏（Creative Destruction）的定义。它不会全部成功。但 SAM、英伟达（Nvidia）和 Lisa 的风险资本、创业胆识，这才是让我们在全球人工智能竞赛中保持领先的关键。如果华盛顿没有释放权力，这一切都不会发生。Jensen 上周在我的播客或我们的播客上谈到这一点。我们释放了权力。我们释放了资本。人们现在能够承保这些交易。所以，首先，我只是认为这太不可思议了。我们在英伟达保持领先于所有其他公司方面拥有这种程度的竞争力。听着，我认为归根结底，就是输入功率，输出 token。就是每瓦性能。我与许多超大规模数据中心首席财务官（CFOs: Chief Financial Officers: 首席财务官）聊过，他们说你可以将竞争对手的芯片定价为零。Jensen 多次公开表示这一点。将竞争对手的芯片定价为零，选择英伟达仍然是更有效和更经济的决定。我认为这就是问题的关键。他们必须达到每瓦性能，因为电力是受限资源。回到 Chimath 说的话。

Jason: Okay. I want you to just give me a number Brad. The total TAM (Total Addressable Market: 潜在市场总量，指某产品或服务可能达到的最大市场需求) of this in five years. What's the in the modern world? What's the spend going to be? Just think about that for a second. Jason: 好的。Brad，我希望你给我一个数字。未来五年内，现代世界的潜在市场总量（TAM: Total Addressable Market: 潜在市场总量，指某产品或服务可能达到的最大市场需求）是多少？支出会是多少？请稍作思考。

Brad: I think I think Jason, I think you made a great point about about total TAM. We see about a hundred billion already in incremental generative AI revenue in 2026. That has to grow to well over a trillion by 2030. If you look at it on a top downs basis, $125 trillion global GDP (Gross Domestic Product: 国内生产总值，指一个国家在特定时期内生产的所有最终商品和服务的货币或市场价值总和). If you get a 10% improvement in productivity, that's 12 trillion a year of productivity improvements. If you get a 5%, that's five or six trillion. That's what's leading MASA and Sam and others to place these these heroic bets. Brad: 我认为，Jason，你关于总潜在市场总量（TAM: Total Addressable Market: 潜在市场总量，指某产品或服务可能达到的最大市场需求）的观点很棒。我们看到2026年增量生成式AI收入已达约1000亿美元。到2030年，这一数字必须增长到远超1万亿美元。如果从自上而下的角度来看，全球国内生产总值（GDP: Gross Domestic Product: 国内生产总值，指一个国家在特定时期内生产的所有最终商品和服务的货币或市场价值总和）为125万亿美元。如果生产力提高10%，那就是每年12万亿美元的生产力改进。如果提高5%，那就是五到六万亿美元。这就是导致 MASA、Sam 和其他人下这些豪赌的原因。

Jason: Okay, great. We just have to lightning round this. Here is the round-tripping (Round-tripping: 虚假交易，指通过虚假交易人为夸大收入或交易量的财务欺诈行为) discussion that people are obsessed with. Nvidia at the center of this uh a $4.5 trillion company, largest company in the world. And as you can see here between XAI, OpenAI making language models, AMD, uh, Intel, Coreweave standing up data centers, you know, and so many other companies. Oracle is obviously in the mix with their cloud, Google with their cloud, Gemini, uh, they have their own chips as well. What do we take away from what we all saw, Chimath and I, up close and personal with AOL and and their partnerships? And I guess I'll start with you here, Chimoth. Is this analogous to the round-tripping we saw on the dotcom era (dotcom era: 互联网时代，指20世纪90年代末互联网泡沫时期)? Are these conflicted party transactions concerning to you at any level? Is CNBC and everybody hand ringing about this over their skis or is it a legitimate concern? I'm not sure that they're framing the concern properly. There are a lot of industries where these things are standard practice and well accepted. One example that was explained to me this week was how the auto OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers: 原始设备制造商，指生产用于其他公司最终产品的零部件或组件的公司) dealt with car dealers, their car dealer networks, where you would give what's called the floor loan (floor loan: 地板贷款，指汽车制造商向经销商提供的用于购买车辆库存的贷款), where if you're trying to sell a Ford F-150, you give your dealership a loan. They then buy the car, it pulls forward the revenue for Ford, then the dealer goes and sells the car to you, and you know, they take the ARB and they pay the financing cost. So, this kind of stuff has been wellestablished for a long time. So I think what I would rather ask is where is the PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board: 公众公司会计监督委员会，负责监督上市公司审计的非营利性私营公司) expert that says this is not good. I just think that these are too complicated for me to understand. They get into the vagaries of accounting law. But I suspect that these companies are well advised and I think that there are other industries that have been doing it for many years and I think that if there was a real issue it would have been exposed much sooner quite honestly. Jason: 好的，太棒了。我们快速过一下。这里是人们痴迷的虚假交易（Round-tripping: 虚假交易，指通过虚假交易人为夸大收入或交易量的财务欺诈行为）讨论。英伟达（Nvidia）是其中的中心，一家4.5万亿美元的公司，全球最大的公司。正如你所看到的，XAI、OpenAI 制造语言模型、AMD、英特尔（Intel）、Coreweave 建立数据中心，还有很多其他公司。甲骨文（Oracle）显然也参与其中，他们的云服务，谷歌（Google）也有他们的云服务、Gemini，他们也有自己的芯片。我们从我们所有人，Chimath 和我，近距离接触美国在线（AOL）及其合作关系中得到了什么启示？我想我先从你这里开始，Chimath。这是否类似于我们在互联网时代（dotcom era: 互联网泡沫，指20世纪90年代末互联网泡沫时期）看到的虚假交易？这些利益冲突方交易在任何层面上都让你担忧吗？是 CNBC (Consumer News and Business Channel: 美国消费者新闻与商业频道) 和所有人都对这件事过度紧张，还是这是一个合法的担忧？我不确定他们是否正确地描述了担忧。有很多行业，这些事情都是标准做法，而且广为接受。本周向我解释的一个例子是汽车原始设备制造商（OEMs: Original Equipment Manufacturers: 原始设备制造商，指生产用于其他公司最终产品的零部件或组件的公司）如何处理汽车经销商，他们的汽车经销商网络。你会提供所谓的地板贷款（floor loan: 地板贷款，指汽车制造商向经销商提供的用于购买车辆库存的贷款），如果你想销售一辆福特 F-150，你就会给你的经销商一笔贷款。然后他们购买汽车，这为福特提前带来了收入，然后经销商再把汽车卖给你，你知道，他们收取套利，并支付融资成本。所以，这类事情已经存在很久了。所以我想我宁愿问的是，有没有公众公司会计监督委员会（PCAOB: Public Company Accounting Oversight Board: 公众公司会计监督委员会，负责监督上市公司审计的非营利性私营公司）的专家说这不好。我只是觉得这些对我来说太复杂了，无法理解。它们涉及会计法的模糊之处。但我怀疑这些公司都得到了很好的建议，而且我认为还有其他行业多年来一直在这样做，而且我认为如果真的有问题，它会更早被曝光，说实话。

Chimath: You say PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board: 公众公司会计监督委员会，负责监督上市公司审计的非营利性私营公司) public company Accounting Oversight Board. Yeah. Like I mean I just think there there's just and by the way there's all the quarterly regulatory filings that are required all the Sarbox compliance (Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance: 萨班斯-奥克斯利法案合规，指遵守美国联邦法律对公司财务记录和报告实行的特定做法) that's required the numbers of auditors that are looking at these things. I think it does come down to the fact that there are many industries that use this forward flow agreements if you want to call it factoring flowing agreements if you want to call it that. And I just think that it's newer in our industry but it's important to acknowledge that it's very well established in many other legacy industries. Chimath: 你说公众公司会计监督委员会（PCAOB: Public Company Accounting Oversight Board: 公众公司会计监督委员会，负责监督上市公司审计的非营利性私营公司）。是的。我的意思是，我只是认为，而且顺便说一下，还有所有要求的季度监管申报，所有需要的萨班斯-奥克斯利法案合规（Sarbox compliance: 萨班斯-奥克斯利法案合规，指遵守美国联邦法律对公司财务记录和报告实行的特定做法），以及审计师对这些事情的审查。我认为这归根结底是因为许多行业都在使用这种“预付协议”（forward flow agreements），如果你愿意称之为保理流动协议的话。我只是认为这在我们行业是新的，但重要的是要承认它在许多其他传统行业中已经非常成熟。

Jason: and there's a lot of it all of a sudden. So I guess Brad, the uniqueness to our industry is one piece or I'll give it to you Sax. The the uniqueness to our industry is one piece and the number of these is just making people's heads spin a little bit and makes their mind wander. But conflicted party transactions have to be very well documented, you know, in SEC filings, etc. And these are largely public companies. But go ahead, Sax. Jason: 而且突然之间就多了很多。所以我想 Brad，我们行业的独特性是一方面，或者我把它交给 Sachs。我们行业的独特性是一方面，而这类交易的数量之多，让人有点摸不着头脑，思绪游离。但冲突方交易必须有非常详尽的记录，你知道，在SEC文件等中。而且这些公司大多是上市公司。不过请继续，Sachs。

Sachs: Well, look, these companies all have lots of very expensive lawyers and accountants. So, I'm sure that from a, you know, GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles: 公认会计原则，一套通用的会计原则、标准和程序) standpoint or security standpoint or compliance standpoint, what they're doing is fine. Now, when people talk about round-tripping, if you want to talk about the the spirit of it, the underlying concept behind it, I think what it comes down to is that Nvidia is effectively extending credit to its buyers. Why do they need credit? Because this buildout is so capital intensive. I mean, Sachs: 嗯，你看，这些公司都有很多非常昂贵的律师和会计师。所以，我确信从公认会计原则（GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles: 公认会计原则，一套通用的会计原则、标准和程序）的角度，或者从证券或合规的角度来看，他们所做的是没问题的。现在，当人们谈论虚假交易（round-tripping）时，如果你想谈谈其精神层面，其背后更深层次的概念，我认为它归结为英伟达（Nvidia）实际上是在向其买家提供信贷。为什么他们需要信贷？因为这次建设是如此资本密集。我的意思是，

Chimath: Elon, every model is quadratic. It gets worse. Chimath: 埃隆，每个模型都是二次方的。情况变得更糟了。

Sachs: They're all running around the world looking for capital. There was a photo of Sam the other day. I forgot what country he was in. Might have been UAE or Saudi or something. In any event, they're all looking for as much capital as they can get to fund this buildout. And in certain cases, obviously, Nvidia is extending effectively credit in exchange for equity or whatever it may be. And I think the question you have to ask is simply, are these companies that are on the receiving end of this credit effectively creditworthy? In other words, will this investment yield economically viable results? Right? Because if let's say Nvidia extends credit to OpenAI and then OpenAI then buys chips from Nvidia, Nvidia recognizes that as revenue. The question is is there economic substance to that or is it basically a shell transaction? And my my view on it is that there is substance to the transaction because there is downstream demand for AI and the applications that are eventually going to get built and for the uh APIs (Application Programming Interfaces: 应用程序编程接口，一套用于构建和集成应用软件的定义和协议) that are being put out there for basically the tokens that are being generated. I mean Brad will have the exact numbers but I think open AAI's revenue ramp rate is it's something like 5 billion to 25 billion to 100 billion. Brad what can you tell us the years on that? I mean, Sachs: 他们都在世界各地寻找资本。前几天有一张 Sam 的照片。我忘了他在哪个国家。可能是阿联酋或沙特之类的。无论如何，他们都在尽力获取尽可能多的资本来资助这项建设。在某些情况下，显然，英伟达（Nvidia）实际上是在以股权或其他形式提供信贷。我认为你必须问的问题很简单，这些接受信贷的公司是否真正具有信用价值？换句话说，这项投资会产生经济上可行的结果吗？对吧？因为如果比如说英伟达向 OpenAI 提供信贷，然后 OpenAI 再从英伟达购买芯片，英伟达就会将其确认为收入。问题是，这笔交易是否有经济实质，还是基本上只是一个空壳交易？我的观点是，这笔交易具有实质性，因为对人工智能及其最终将构建的应用程序，以及为生成 token 而推出的应用程序编程接口（APIs: Application Programming Interfaces: 应用程序编程接口，一套用于构建和集成应用软件的定义和协议）存在下游需求。我的意思是 Brad 会有确切的数字，但我认为 OpenAI 的收入增长速度大概是50亿美元到250亿美元再到1000亿美元。Brad，你能告诉我们这些数字对应的年份吗？我的意思是，

Brad: well, I don't want to get over my dis skis about what's been disclosed, but I think that Brad: 嗯，我不想对已经披露的信息言过其实，但我认为——

Sachs: Yeah, they'll they'll they'll exit this year at over 20 billion run rate. I think there are a lot of people who think they could hit uh 50 next year and 100 after that. So, this again gets back to your point, David. There's no dark GPUs in the world today. The tokens are being consumed. Every consumer in the world wants answers. They don't want to use 10 blue links. Every enterprise wants to deploy this to make their enterprise better. National sovereigns want to do this in order to advance their military and other other things. I want to come back to this very point. We should be on the lookout for sham transactions. When you have moments of excitement like this, they of course will lead to somebody on the edge doing stuff that is a sham. What's a sham? There's no economic substance. There's no end buyer for your product. So I call up Sachs. I say, "Saxs, I I've got a bunch of inventory. Nobody wants to buy it. I'm going to wire you a billion dollars. Buy a billion dollars of my product, I'll post it to revenue and we're good to go. It doesn't cost him anything and I get to book a billion in revenue. Clearly a sham, clearly illegal. Not at all what's occurring in the case with Nvidia. Just put it in perspective. 25 through 27, Nvidia will generate $450 billion, half a trillion dollar of cash flow. What they're investing is mice nuts. They are making equity investments in companies that are mice nuts. It's not credit to these companies. The companies don't, in the case of Open AI, they don't even have to use Nvidia chips. They just told the world they were going to buy all this AMD, right? They're rumored to be building their own chips. So, the point of the matter here is, of course, it lubricates the system by making these investments, but they're tiny equity checks in these companies. I think about it this way. You know, Google Capital is one of the biggest investors in Dolingo. Dolingo is one of the biggest advertisers on Google. Nobody's crying foul that Google is somehow round-tripping revenue back into uh you know Google advertising, right? So long as there is end demand for the product and it's not a sham, I think these things are fine. Sachs: 是的，他们今年的年化收入将超过200亿美元。我认为很多人认为他们明年可能达到500亿，之后达到1000亿。所以，大卫，这又回到了你的观点。当今世界没有闲置的GPU。Tokens正在被消耗。世界上每个消费者都想要答案。他们不想使用10个蓝色链接。每个企业都想部署这个来改善自己的企业。国家主权者也想这样做，以发展他们的军队和其他方面。我想回到这一点。我们应该警惕虚假交易。当出现像这样的激动时刻时，它们当然会导致一些边缘人士做出虚假的事情。什么是虚假？没有经济实质。你的产品没有最终买家。所以我打电话给Sachs。我说：“Sachs，我有一堆库存。没人想买。我给你汇10亿美元。购买我10亿美元的产品，我就会把它计入收入，我们就可以继续了。这对他没有任何成本，而我却能获得10亿美元的收入。”这显然是虚假的，显然是非法的。这与英伟达（Nvidia）的情况完全不同。从这个角度来看。2025年到2027年，英伟达将产生4500亿美元的现金流，也就是半万亿美元。他们投资的只是九牛一毛。他们正在对这些公司进行股权投资，这些投资微不足道。这不是给这些公司的信贷。这些公司，就OpenAI而言，他们甚至不必使用英伟达芯片。他们刚刚告诉全世界他们要购买所有的AMD芯片，对吧？有传言说他们正在构建自己的芯片。所以，这里的问题是，当然，通过这些投资，它润滑了系统，但这些公司中的股权投资很小。我这样看。你知道，谷歌资本是Duolingo最大的投资者之一。Duolingo是谷歌最大的广告商之一。没有人抱怨谷歌正在某种程度上将收入“回流”到谷歌广告中，对吧？所以只要产品有最终需求，而且它不是虚假的，我认为这些事情就没问题。

Jason: All right, I think we'll leave it there. There's going to be a lot more news on this. Jason: 好的，我想我们就到此为止。关于这件事还会有很多新闻。

Sachs: But people love the picture of the plug plugging itself into its butt or the or there's another one of a power strip plugged into the power strip. Sachs: 但人们喜欢那个插头插在自己屁股上的图片，或者另一个插排插在插排上的图片。

Jason: Can you find the plug plugging itself in the butt? Jason: 你能找到那个插头插在屁股上的图片吗？

Sachs: The elephant. Yeah, that that there it is. That's what we're talking about. Yes. I somehow I don't think the onoff switch is going to make a difference here. Sachs: 大象。是的，就是那个。我们说的就是那个。是的。不知怎的，我不认为开关在这里会有什么不同。

Chimath: By the way, when I whenever I see this, I think, is it dangerous to do that? And then I remember, no, there's actually no electricity or current, but it it I always think that it is anyways. Chimath: 顺便说一句，每当我看到这个，我都会想，这样做危险吗？然后我就会想起，不，实际上没有电或电流，但不知怎的，我总觉得它就是危险的。

Jason: I mean, well, I think the concern we'll have is if there's a downdraft, and right now they're saying, hey, 10 to 30% of a correction the next year is uh, you know, what people are buzzing about. I guess it's always some percentage of a correction. If there's a correction, some stocks go down, the tide goes out. Then we figure out who has a sustainable business. And who's wearing shorts and who's not? And that's what happened exactly in the dotcom bubble (dotcom bubble: 互联网泡沫，指20世纪90年代末互联网公司股票价格飙升后破裂的时期). The tide went out. Amazon had enough revenue to continue. Other people did. And some people maybe they were caught with no shorts in the ocean. Jason: 我的意思是，嗯，我想我们担忧的是如果出现下行趋势，而现在人们正在议论明年将有10%到30%的调整。我猜总会有一定比例的调整。如果出现调整，一些股票会下跌，潮水会退去。然后我们就会知道谁拥有可持续的业务。谁穿着泳裤，谁没有？这正是互联网泡沫（dotcom bubble: 互联网泡沫，指20世纪90年代末互联网泡沫时期）时期发生的事情。潮水退去，亚马逊有足够的收入继续经营。其他人也有。而有些人可能在海里被发现没穿泳裤。

Sachs: Whenever you have a boom like this, there's obviously going to be winners and losers and there's going to be a lot of losers. But the the question is whether the winners will pay off the the losers. That's what venture capital (venture capital: 风险投资，对初创企业或小型企业进行的股权投资) requires. But I just think it's amazing how much of a boom is going on. And I think Brad's made the argument that it hasn't even peaked yet. 40% of US GDP (Gross Domestic Product: 国内生产总值，指一个国家在特定时期内生产的所有最终商品和服务的货币或市场价值总和) growth this year is AI. And AI companies have accounted for 80% of the gain in US stocks this year. I know a lot of people are ringing their hands and pointing to this as like evidence that somehow we're we're in a bubble, but to me it's a wonderful thing that the US is on the forefront of building out this technological revolution and building out all this infrastructure. And I think it's ultimately going to pay huge dividends and we just need to not screw it up. Sachs: 每当出现这样的繁荣时，显然会有赢家和输家，而且输家会很多。但问题是赢家是否会为输家买单。这就是风险投资（venture capital: 风险投资，对初创企业或小型企业进行的股权投资）所要求的。但我只是觉得这种繁荣的程度令人惊叹。而且我认为 Brad 已经提出了观点，认为这尚未达到顶峰。今年美国国内生产总值（GDP: Gross Domestic Product: 国内生产总值，指一个国家在特定时期内生产的所有最终商品和服务的货币或市场价值总和）增长的40%来自人工智能。而人工智能公司贡献了今年美国股市涨幅的80%。我知道很多人对此感到不安，并将其视为我们陷入泡沫的证据，但对我来说，美国处于这场技术革命前沿并建设所有这些基础设施是一件美妙的事情。我认为它最终会带来巨大的红利，我们只需要不把它搞砸。

Jason: Yeah. Jason: 是的。

Sachs: And there's just so many people who, I mean, to be honest, just want to screw this up with excessive regulation at the state level, excessive regulation at the federal level. They want the bureaucracies in Washington to manage and approve everything. If we go down that path, we could sabotage this. If we just allow it to happen, if we allow the innovators to do what they do best, I think this is going to drive four or 5% GDP growth for the next few years, it'll be a really wonderful thing. Sachs: 而且有太多的人，说实话，只是想通过州级和联邦层面的过度监管来搞砸这件事。他们希望华盛顿的官僚机构管理和批准一切。如果我们走那条路，我们可能会毁掉这一切。如果我们只是让它发生，如果我们让创新者做他们最擅长的事情，我认为这将在未来几年推动4%或5%的GDP增长，那将是一件非常棒的事情。

Jason: I mean, it's a great place to wrap. And if only we had somebody who had decades of experience and had a really logical bent to them about free markets, who could advise our president, we would be in great shape. Oh, wait. That's Sax. Good job. Jason: 我的意思是，这是结束的好时机。如果我们能有一个拥有数十年经验，对自由市场有着真正逻辑倾向的人来为我们的总统提供建议，那我们就会处于绝佳的状态。哦，等等。那是 Sachs。干得好。

黄金市场涨势与美元贬值

Jason: All right, everybody. Gold rally is off the charts. Shout out to our friend Vinnie Lingham, who told us about this for the last year or two. Jeez, it just broke 4,000 for the first time ever this week. Up over 50% for the year. Gold's outpacing Bitcoin, which is up 30% itself. And all the other major indices. NASDAQ's up 19% in the same time period. S&P 14 down 9%. Silver is surging even more than gold. There might be some utilization reasons for that. Silver gets used in a a lot of different components whereas gold very rarely does. At the same time, the US dollar down 8% year to date. Here's a chart from our friends over at Visual Capitalist about gold versus US Treasury. Something we talked about here. Uh, US treasuries Jason: 好的，各位。黄金涨势惊人。向我们的朋友 Vinnie Lingham 致敬，他过去一两年一直在告诉我们这件事。天哪，本周它有史以来首次突破了4000点。今年上涨了50%以上。黄金的表现超过了比特币，比特币本身也上涨了30%。以及所有其他主要指数。纳斯达克同期上涨19%。标准普尔14指数下跌9%。白银的涨幅甚至超过了黄金。这可能有一些利用率方面的原因。白银被用于很多不同的组件，而黄金则很少。与此同时，美元今年迄今下跌了8%。这里有一张来自我们 Visual Capitalist 朋友的图表，关于黄金与美国国债。我们在这里讨论过这个。嗯，美国国债——

Jason: Chimath, you want to take this and then we'll go to Brad. What are we seeing here with gold? Are is this like a safety trade? Is this an anti-USD trade? What what what's behind this? Too much money supply? What's happening? Jason: Chimath，你想先说说这个吗，然后我们再请 Brad 谈。我们现在看到的黄金市场是怎样的？这是一种避险交易吗？这是一种反美元交易吗？这背后是什么原因？货币供应过多？发生了什么？

Chimath: No, this is just people confusing correlation and causation and making stuff up to look smart. Why is gold up? Gold is up because there are many more net new buyers. Who is the most important net new buyer? It's Tether (Tether: 一种与美元挂钩的稳定币). Tether has been issuing a stable coin called Tether Gold (Tether Gold: 一种与实物黄金挂钩的稳定币) where they'll actually custody the gold on your behalf and it's the amount and volumes of it are rising. At the same time, central banks (central banks: 中央银行，负责管理国家货币和信贷的机构) are rebalancing. And then yet at the same time, you have a lot of macro funds (macro funds: 宏观对冲基金，对全球经济趋势进行投资) that have essentially decided that central banks aren't to be trusted and they don't know what to do. And so they're not necessarily long bonds, they're not necessarily long currencies and so they're long gold. So I think it's a mixture of things. There's no panacea explanation, but if you had to put it into a couple buckets, it's net new speculation, net new stable coin related issuance, and a loss of confidence in central bank policy around the world. Chimath: 不，这只是人们混淆了相关性和因果关系，然后为了看起来聪明而胡编乱造。黄金为什么上涨？黄金上涨是因为有更多的新买家。谁是最重要的新买家？是 Tether（Tether: 一种与美元挂钩的稳定币）。Tether一直在发行一种名为 Tether Gold（Tether Gold: 一种与实物黄金挂钩的稳定币）的稳定币，他们会替你保管黄金，而且其数量和交易量正在增加。与此同时，中央银行（central banks: 中央银行，负责管理国家货币和信贷的机构）正在进行再平衡。而且与此同时，有许多宏观对冲基金（macro funds: 宏观对冲基金，对全球经济趋势进行投资）基本上已经决定中央银行不可信，他们不知道该怎么做。所以他们不一定会做多债券，也不一定会做多货币，所以他们做多黄金。所以我认为这是多种因素混合的结果。没有万能的解释，但如果你非要将其归类，那就是净新增投机、净新增稳定币相关发行，以及全球对中央银行政策失去信心。

Jason: And this is uh in some ways a good backstop, Brad, for governments maybe to stop spending and maybe a little austerity. You called austerity in the tech industry in 2021. Thanks for that. I bought a bunch of stocks. that went all in on Facebook and a bunch of other ones uh when you were talking about this. So, also China seems to be flipping into gold, too. I've been reading about that. So, what's your take, Brad? Jason: Brad，这在某种程度上是一个很好的后盾，也许能促使政府停止支出，并实行一点紧缩政策。你在2021年就预言了科技行业的紧缩。为此感谢你。我当时买了很多股票，全力投资 Facebook 和其他一些公司，当你谈论这些的时候。所以，中国似乎也正在转向黄金。我一直在看相关报道。那么，Brad，你的看法是什么？

Brad: Yeah, I mean, listen, there's one there's one camp that says this is all because the world's falling apart and we're all panicked about global governments balance sheets. I think that's part of it, but I think Chimath nailed it, right? You got a total change in the new demand picture for gold, right? As evidenced by we, you know, we have a bitcoin of gold, BTC, you know, Bitcoin, but we also have it in the form of Tether, right? You're now going to allow people to have exposure to the actual underlying gold by buying a crypto asset. So, you have new demand for it. You do have people concerned about the state of the world, but it's always been a speculative asset plus a store of value, right? And I've got a couple charts here. You can throw them up if you want. One is simply looking at the correlation with the S&P 500 over the last 10 years and the other one's looking at it with US debt. And I I it's probably chart crime. I'll go back to what Chimas said. I can make up any story I want to make. It tracks the the growth in US debt. It tracks the growth in risk assets in the S&P 500. The fact of the matter is it's a combination of all of these things. And hats off to the people who are up 50% this year on gold. Brad: 是的，我的意思是，听着，有一派人说这一切都是因为世界正在崩溃，我们都对全球政府的资产负债表感到恐慌。我认为这确实是部分原因，但我认为 Chimath 说对了，对吧？黄金的新需求图景完全改变了，对吧？证据就是，我们有黄金比特币（BTC），比特币，但我们也有Tether形式的黄金，对吧？你现在将允许人们通过购买加密资产来获得实际基础黄金的敞口。所以，你有了新的需求。确实有人担心世界状况，但它一直是一种投机资产加上价值储存，对吧？我这里有几张图表。如果你想，可以放上去。一张是简单地看过去10年与标普500指数的相关性，另一张是看与美国债务的相关性。我，我，这可能是一种图表犯罪。我回到 Chimath 所说的。我可以编造任何我想要的故事。它追踪美国债务的增长。它追踪标普500指数中风险资产的增长。事实是，它是所有这些因素的综合。向今年黄金上涨50%的人致敬。

Jason: All right. Is that simple Sachs? Anything you want to add? There is one other big factor. I mean, maybe Chimath mentioned this, but China's central bank has been increasing its gold reserves for 11 consecutive months. They added 40,000 ounces in September alone. As of the end of September, China's gold reserves totaled 74 million ounces valued at 283 billion. So, they've been gradually substituting away from US dollars, US treasuries towards gold. And I, you know, some of this is geopolitical. China is our chief competitor in the world. They probably don't want to be dependent on the dollar and US treasury. So, they're diversifying away. Also, you can't forget that this trend really started during the Biden administration with the Ukraine war because the B administration used the US dollar is basically a geopolitical weapon. They cut off access to Swift (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 环球银行金融电信协会，提供全球金融信息服务). They froze Russian assets and the banking system. And so a lot of countries look to that and go, "Oh geez, you know, if I am totally reliant on the US dollar complex, then I can be on the receiving end of US foreign policy that I don't like." And so it was, I think, pretty natural that the BRICS countries (BRICS countries: 巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非，由五个主要新兴经济体组成的协会) would look at that and start to develop alternatives. And just by the way, when the bricks talk about this currency that they're going to develop, they're not talking about a man on the street type of currency. The best guess about what they're going to do is it'll be some sort of gold-backed certificates where they can settle up huge international trade flows using gold certificates. So that might be part of what's driving this as well. That's a very long-term project by the bricks countries. I don't think we're going to see anything in the next few years. Jason: 好的。Sachs，就是这么简单吗？你有什么要补充的吗？还有一个重要因素。我的意思是，也许 Chimath 提到了这一点，但中国央行已经连续11个月增加黄金储备。仅9月份就增加了4万盎司。截至9月底，中国的黄金储备总量达到7400万盎司，价值2830亿美元。所以，他们一直在逐渐从美元、美国国债转向黄金。而且，你知道，这其中一部分是地缘政治因素。中国是我们在世界上主要的竞争对手。他们可能不想依赖美元和美国国债。所以，他们正在多元化。此外，你不能忘记，这种趋势实际上始于拜登政府执政期间的乌克兰战争，因为拜登政府基本上将美元用作地缘政治武器。他们切断了对 SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 环球银行金融电信协会，提供全球金融信息服务) 的访问。他们冻结了俄罗斯资产和银行系统。因此，许多国家看到这种情况后会想：“天哪，如果我完全依赖美元体系，那么我就可能成为美国我不喜欢的外交政策的受害者。”所以，我认为 金砖国家 (BRICS countries: 巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非，由五个主要新兴经济体组成的协会) 看到这种情况并开始开发替代方案是相当自然的。顺便说一句，当金砖国家谈论他们将开发的这种货币时，他们谈论的不是普通人使用的那种货币。关于他们将如何做的最佳猜测是，它将是某种黄金支持的凭证，他们可以使用黄金凭证结算巨额国际贸易流。所以这可能也是推动这一趋势的一部分。这是金砖国家的一个非常长期的项目。我认为未来几年我们不会看到任何成果。

Jason: And that's uh sachs their way of sending a message to the US. Hey, don't use USD to yank our chain. Yeah. Is that your interpretation? Well, I don't know if they're trying to send the message or they just don't want to take that risk, right? Jason: Sachs，这是他们向美国传递信息的方式。嘿，别用美元来牵制我们。是的。这是你的解读吗？嗯，我不知道他们是不是想传递信息，或者他们只是不想承担那个风险，对吧？

Sachs: They understand that if they're part of the dollar complex and they can be affected by things like cutting off Swift, by sanction, by banking sanctions, their assets in theory could be seized and so forth and so on. So, obviously, they're going to try and reduce the possibility of that externality. Sachs: 他们明白，如果他们属于美元体系，他们可能会受到切断 SWIFT、制裁、银行制裁等因素的影响，他们的资产理论上可能会被查封等等。所以，显然，他们会试图减少这种外部性发生的可能性。

Jason: Yeah, makes total sense. All right, let's wrap on Poly Market (Poly Market: 一个预测市场平台). My guy Shane, friend of the pod, announced that the New York Stock Exchange parent company ICE (Intercontinental Exchange: 洲际交易所，一家金融科技和数据公司) a different intercontinental exchange had invested 2 billion at a 9 billion post or somewhere in that range. They will now distribute Poly Market stated at thousands of financial institutions globally. And it looks like Poly Market will be launched in the US imminently. There's actually a poly market for poly market being available uh in the US for trades. Poly market was only founded in 2020. They were valued at 20 at 350 million last year before the election and uh 1.2 billion earlier this year. Founders Fund (Founders Fund: 创始人基金，一家风险投资公司) made a nice investment. Uh that turned out to be a pretty great trade. 98% chance now that Poly Market will go live in the US in 2025. I think that's found money right there. I mean, I'm going to place a bet there. Chimath, your thoughts on this new category and why it's so important for it to exist. Jason: 是的，完全有道理。好的，我们来总结一下PolyMarket（PolyMarket: 一个预测市场平台）吧。我的朋友 Shane，播客的朋友，宣布纽约证券交易所（NYSE: New York Stock Exchange）的母公司洲际交易所（ICE: Intercontinental Exchange: 洲际交易所，一家金融科技和数据公司）——另一个洲际交易所——以90亿美元的估值或在该范围内的某个估值投资了20亿美元。他们现在将把 PolyMarket 分发到全球数千家金融机构。看起来 PolyMarket 即将在美国推出。实际上，在美国已经有一个关于 PolyMarket 是否可用于交易的 PolyMarket 市场。PolyMarket 成立于2020年。去年大选前，他们的估值为20亿美元，估值达到3.5亿美元，今年早些时候达到12亿美元。创始人基金（Founders Fund: 创始人基金，一家风险投资公司）进行了一笔不错的投资。嗯，这结果证明是一笔非常棒的交易。现在 PolyMarket 在2025年上线美国的可能性为98%。我认为这笔钱就在那里。我的意思是，我要在那里下注。Chimath，你对这个新类别有什么看法，以及它为什么如此重要？

Chimath: I talked to Jeff Spreer the day he did the investment just to congratulate him. One of the things that he said, which I think is true, everything is becoming a market. And you're going to see this convergence where eventually you'll have sports that look like markets. You'll have knowledge that becomes a market. And then you'll ultimately have equities and debt instruments also behave this way. Meaning they'll be tokenized. They'll be very funible. You can just take a long or short position on almost anything. And so I think you're going to see this convergence. What does it mean? I don't know. But it puts a lot of really interesting assets under the microscope. If you built like a high-frequency trading (High-Frequency Trading: 高频交易，一种算法交易，特点是速度快、换手率高、报单成交比高) organization, what does it mean when all of a sudden some crypto pool shows up and it can do HFT much faster than you and basically chops the cost to zero because you don't have an infrastructure and a corporate or what is it going to mean to the betting sites like FanDuel and DraftKings where now a bunch of these trades can happen here as well. So I think what Shane is leading the charge on is democratizing this and financializing all this infrastructure to run extremely liquidly via tokens effectively on chains. And I think that that is a huge deal broadly speaking. Chimath: Jeff Spreer 投资那天我与他交谈，只是为了祝贺他。他说的一件事，我认为是对的，那就是一切都在市场化。你将看到这种融合，最终体育赛事会像市场一样运作。知识会成为一个市场。然后，股票和债务工具最终也会以这种方式运作。这意味着它们将被代币化。它们将非常可替代。你几乎可以在任何事情上建立多头或空头头寸。所以我认为你将看到这种融合。这意味着什么？我不知道。但它让许多非常有趣的资产受到了仔细审视。如果你建立了一个像高频交易（High-Frequency Trading: 高频交易，一种算法交易，特点是速度快、换手率高、报单成交比高）组织，突然之间出现一个加密货币池，它的HFT速度比你快得多，并且基本上将成本降至零，因为它没有基础设施和公司，那意味着什么？或者对像 FanDuel 和 DraftKings 这样的博彩网站又意味着什么，现在许多这类交易也可以在这里进行。所以我认为 Shane 正在主导的是将这一切民主化，并将所有这些基础设施金融化，通过代币在链上高效地运行，实现极高的流动性。我认为，广义上讲，这是一件大事。

Jason: Yeah, I'm I'm loving this for the Oscars and I was just thinking wow if you're a movie uh studio and you're releasing a film and you if these markets become big enough you could hedge your bet on your own film. I mean, this could have profound impacts on every industry. Yeah, Brad, how do you think about it as somebody who trades? Jason: 是的，我喜欢这种奥斯卡预测市场，我刚才在想，哇，如果你是一个电影制片厂，你正在发行一部电影，如果这些市场足够大，你可以在自己的电影上下对冲赌注。我的意思是，这可能对每个行业都产生深远的影响。是的，Brad，作为一个交易员，你是怎么看待它的？

Brad: I just love the fact we now professionalized the wisdom of the crowds (wisdom of the crowds: 群众智慧，指大量独立个体决策的平均值通常优于任何单一专家决策的现象). I mean, we've known for 150 years that crowds are smarter than experts and all these people hanging out in ivory tow towers controlling the conversation. Now, the those emperors have no clothes, right? The reality is I think it was this guy Francis Gton who coined the phrase 1907, he got a group of 800 farmers together. They had to guess the weight of an ox. And then he had five experts. And guess what? The crowd got a got a lot closer than the experts to the weight of the ox. And here we are 150 years later and you're going to have, you know, very very big companies, right, that are now taking it to the next level, creating liquidity. And when people put money on something, the crowd gets even smarter. So, uh, it's a, you know, kudos to you guys. You really, your partnership with them, you've taken them to a higher level. And, uh, it's awesome to see. great um great lesson for entrepreneurs. There was a website in trade. I don't know if you guys remember that from like the early 2000s into like the 2010 that was doing this. They had regulatory issues, but the idea was out there and people just didn't go all in on it, so to speak. And here we are. Shane has crushed it. Another amazing, respectful, fascinating, insightful episode of your podcast. Welcome home, fifth bestie, Brad Gersner. Go check out his other pod, BG2 (BG2: 一个播客名). Great to have Brad back in the mix. Brad: 我只是喜欢我们现在将群众智慧（wisdom of the crowds: 群众智慧，指大量独立个体决策的平均值通常优于任何单一专家决策的现象）专业化的事实。我的意思是，我们150年前就知道，群众比专家更聪明，而所有这些在象牙塔里掌控对话的人。现在，那些皇帝没有穿衣服，对吧？现实是，我认为是弗朗西斯·高尔顿（Francis Galton）在1907年创造了这个词，他召集了800名农民。他们必须猜测一头牛的重量。然后他有五位专家。你猜怎么着？群众的猜测比专家更接近牛的重量。150年后的今天，我们将看到，非常非常大的公司，对吧，现在正在将其提升到一个新的水平，创造流动性。当人们在一个事物上投入金钱时，群众会变得更聪明。所以，嗯，你知道，向你们致敬。你们真的，与他们的合作，将他们带到了一个更高的水平。而且，嗯，看到这太棒了。对企业家来说是一个很棒的教训。有一个名为“网站贸易”的网站。我不知道你们是否还记得，大约从2000年代初到2010年左右，他们也在做这件事。他们遇到了监管问题，但这个想法是存在的，只是人们没有全力投入，可以说。而现在我们在这里。Shane 已经取得了巨大成功。这是你们播客的又一集精彩、令人尊敬、引人入胜、富有洞察力的节目。欢迎回家，第五位好友，Brad Gersner。去听听他的另一个播客，BG2（BG2: 一个播客名）。很高兴 Brad 再次加入讨论。

Jason: It's great to be chopping it up with you. We have to get Brad and Freedberg on the same pod. Jason: 很高兴能和你们一起讨论。我们得让 Brad 和 Freedberg 上同一期播客。

Sachs: Oh yeah, let's do it. Sachs: 哦，是的，我们来做吧。

Chimath: What if people prefer, a science corner or a market corner? You don't even tell us in the comments. Tell us in the comments. Chimath: 如果人们更喜欢科学角还是市场角呢？你们甚至不用在评论中告诉我们。在评论中告诉我们吧。

Brad: I will allocate my two votes. I can tell you. Brad: 我会投我的两票。我可以告诉你。

Jason: Wow. Freeberg taking a stray. He's not even here. No, you just He's wondering out loud corner. Jason: 哇。Freeberg 躺枪了。他甚至没在这里。不，你只是他大声地想知道角落。

Sachs: You I mean, maybe there's an asteroid coming or we could talk about the markets and have great charts. I don't know. Anything's possible on the world's number one podcast. Your favorite, your podcasters's favorite podcast, the All-In Pod. We'll see you all very soon. Allin.com. sign up for an email and get special uh information on what Congratulations on all your success, Jason. Congratulations. Sachs: 我的意思是，也许有一颗小行星正在接近，或者我们可以谈论市场并展示很棒的图表。我不知道。在世界第一播客上，一切皆有可能。你们最喜欢，你们播客主持人最喜欢的播客，All-In Pod。我们很快就会再见。Allin.com。注册邮件以获取特别信息。Jason，恭喜你取得所有成功。恭喜。

Jason: How much success are we talking about here? Congratulations on behalf of the Trump administration. Congratulations. Jason: 我们这里谈论的是多大的成功？代表特朗普政府祝贺你。恭喜。

Sachs: Thank you. Well, I hope on your Trump driven success. Congratulations. Sachs: 谢谢。嗯，我希望在你的特朗普驱动的成功上。恭喜。

Jason: Absolutely. Yes. And uh Trump 2.0. Jason: 绝对是。是的。还有，特朗普2.0。

Sachs: What else can we do for you? What other stocks? What other stocks can we uh can we for you? Sachs: 我们还能为你做些什么？还有哪些股票？我们还能为你推荐哪些股票？

Jason: Actually, I do have one thing about laws. That would be a big relatives you'd like to loop into this conversation. What other people would you like? I call balls and strikes here. It's a very important role here to have you noticed. Jason: 实际上，我对法律确实有一点看法。那将是你想把哪些重要的亲戚也拉进这个对话中。你还想要谁？我在这里秉公处理。这是一个非常重要的角色，你注意到了吗？

Sachs: You know what I've noticed psychologically? The steel is here. The steel man. The people that constantly say they call balls and strikes are never the ones that call balls and strikes. Don't listen to what they say. Just look at what they do. Sachs: 你知道我在心理学上注意到什么吗？“钢人”在这里。那些不断说他们秉公处理的人，从来不是真正秉公处理的人。不要听他们怎么说。只看他们怎么做。

Jason: Exactly. Yeah. Welcome to Texas. Come by the ranch anytime. Welcome to Texas. Exactly. I have the great state of Texas. How's that ranch treating? It's so great. I carry I carry a pistol on my waist. It's incredible. This place is great. You're welcome. To quote Jack Nicholson and a few good men. Yeah, you live under the security blanket that we provide and then you question the manner in which we provide it. Jason: 说得没错。是的。欢迎来到德克萨斯。随时来牧场。欢迎来到德克萨斯。说得没错。我拥有伟大的德克萨斯州。那个牧场怎么样？太棒了。我腰上带着手枪。这太不可思议了。这个地方太棒了。不客气。引用杰克·尼克尔森（Jack Nicholson）在《好人寥寥》（A Few Good Men）中的台词。是的，你生活在我们提供的安全保障之下，然后你质疑我们提供它的方式。

Sachs: Absolutely. That's called checks and balances. Uh to our amazing panel, great job. And uh to our civil servant, David Saxs, get back to work for the American people. You're doing a great job. I love you, boys. Best news. Byebye. will let your winners ride. Rainman David and it said we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you queen of quinoa. Besties are gone. That is my dog taking notice your driveways. Oh man, my habitasher will be up. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy cuz they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that we just need to release somehow. Your feet wet your feet your feet. We need to get mering all in. Sachs: 绝对是。这叫制衡。嗯，致我们出色的团队，干得好。嗯，致我们的公务员 David Saxs，回去为美国人民工作吧。你做得很好。我爱你们，伙计们。最好的消息。再见。我们会让你们的赢家继续。雨人 David，它说我们向粉丝开源了，他们都为之疯狂。爱你的藜麦女王。朋友们都走了。那是我的狗注意到你的车道了。哦，天哪，我的帽子店就要开张了。我们都应该去开个房间，来一场大狂欢，因为他们都太没用了。就像这种性张力，我们只是需要某种方式释放出来。你的脚湿了，你的脚，你的脚。我们都需要全身心地投入。