旧金山：从“狂欢”到“复苏”的争议

All right. You guys were talking about the fun shenanigans you were having in San Francisco and at Marc Benioff's Dreamforce. Did you see Brian Johnson was at Benioff's CEO dinner?

好的。你们刚才在聊在旧金山和马克·贝尼奥夫（Marc Benioff）的Dreamforce (Salesforce年度大会: Salesforce公司举办的年度科技大会)上那些有趣的恶作剧。你们看到布莱恩·约翰逊（Brian Johnson）在贝尼奥夫的CEO晚宴上了吗？

Oh, I didn't see him.

哦，我没看到他。

Yeah.

是的。

Matthew McConaughey was at our table at dinner.

马修·麦康纳（Matthew McConaughey）和我们同桌吃晚饭。

All right. All right. All right.

好的，好的，好的。

All right. All right.

好的，好的。

McConaughey is fabulous. He is funny.

麦康纳太棒了。他很有趣。

Did you see where I was sitting at that dinner?

你看到我那晚宴上坐在哪里了吗？

Yeah. Table one.

看到了。一号桌。

Right next to the king himself. The king himself. Exactly.

就在国王本人旁边。国王本人。没错。

The king who? The king and I. Benioff is a king.

哪个国王？国王和我。贝尼奥夫就是个国王。

Well, he's the king of San Francisco at his party.

嗯，在他的派对上，他是旧金山的国王。

He's the king of San Francisco.

他是旧金山的国王。

Yeah. I mean, obviously he has to bend the knee to the king of kings, which is Trump, but

是的。我的意思是，很明显他必须向万王之王——特朗普（Trump）——屈膝，但是……

I was sitting next to Benioff there.

我当时就坐在贝尼奥夫旁边。

It got weird.

气氛变得有点奇怪。

It got a little weird. No. Well, what happened was did you see that SF Standard? Yeah. I don't even know how they can write a headline like this. So,

是有点奇怪。不。嗯，事情是这样的，你看到那篇SF Standard (旧金山标准报: 旧金山当地报纸)的报道了吗？是的。我甚至不知道他们怎么能写出这样的标题。所以，

Well, it's a San Francisco standard.

嗯，那是旧金山的标准。

Yeah. So Benioff interviewed me at Dreamforce and somehow this was like headline-worthy for SF Standard and they said that Marc Benioff dodges political questions then fawns over David Sacks on Dreamforce day one. That was just referring to the interview we did. So we trolled them by taking that photo.

是的。贝尼奥夫在Dreamforce采访了我，不知怎么的，这事竟然登上了SF Standard的头条，他们说马克·贝尼奥夫回避政治问题，然后在Dreamforce第一天对大卫·萨克斯（David Sacks）阿谀奉承。那只是指我们做的那个采访。所以我们拍了那张照片来嘲讽他们。

That's um, yeah, it's a little weird. I thought the fireside chat you guys did was great.

嗯，是的，有点奇怪。我觉得你们做的炉边谈话很棒。

It was great. Yeah, it was just an interview.

很棒。是的，那只是一个采访。

It was really good actually. He's a very good interviewer.

实际上非常好。他是一个非常好的采访者。

Yeah, totally. But apparently to SF Standard, it's like some sort of transgression that I was even interviewed.

是的，完全正确。但显然对SF Standard来说，我接受采访就像是一种越轨行为。

They didn't get the memo that cancel culture is over.

他们没收到“取消文化”已经结束的通知。

Yeah.

是的。

They can't.

他们不能。

I know. That's what it feels like, right? Where they're like trying to They're trying to gin up some sort of

我知道。感觉就是这样，对吧？他们好像在试图挑起某种……

brewhaha over the fact that I was speaking.

因为我发言而引发的骚动。

Yeah. Oh, you can't talk to David Sacks. He's in the Trump administration. Not allowed to talk to him.

是的。哦，你不能和大卫·萨克斯说话。他在特朗普政府任职。不许和他说话。

About 100 people a week who say that.

每周大约有100个人这么说。

Literally the AI guy and the AI CEO shouldn't talk to him. It's like,

简直就是，人工智能专家和人工智能公司的CEO不应该和他说话。这就像是，

you know, like what the AI company, I should not talk to the government's AI person,

你知道的，就像人工智能公司，我不应该和政府的人工智能负责人说话，

right? By the way, did you see that there was one other very important conference in town at the same time as Dreamforce?

对吧？顺便问一下，你有没有看到，在Dreamforce同期，城里还有另一个非常重要的会议？

Okay.

好的。

I discovered this on my X feed.

我是在我的X动态上发现的。

Feel like a cold open about time. What? The Young Socialists or was it the Republicans?

感觉像是一个关于时间的冷开场。什么？是青年社会主义者大会还是共和党人大会？

It was called SlutCon.

它叫SlutCon。

Oh, SlutCon? Really?

哦，SlutCon？真的吗？

Oh my Lord. Look at this website.

哦，天哪。看看这个网站。

Oh, this is the agenda. How to be good at sex with Aaliyah. Uh, let's see.

哦，这是议程。如何与阿丽亚（Aaliyah）进行愉快的性爱。嗯，我们看看。

You cannot do this. Cut this out.

你不能这样做。把这部分剪掉。

Women venting. Oh, Sacks, that one's for you.

女性发泄。哦，萨克斯，那个是给你的。

I would have planned an or Freeberg here. Freeberg's giving a talk. A fluffer's guide to jobs by David Freeberg. Is that a panel or is it a fireside Freeberg? Which one?

我本来会在这里安排一个，或者弗里伯格（Freeberg）。弗里伯格要发表演讲。大卫·弗里伯格的“助兴者工作指南”。那是一个小组讨论还是炉边谈话？哪一个？

Reinforcement learning. Ho feedback small groups.

强化学习。何反馈小组。

Oh, you could re-and-write your positions. I see that. Re-underwriting your sexual positions by

哦，你可以重新编写你的立场。我明白了。重新审视你的性姿势，由……

Jamal's the last one. The VIP room.

贾马尔（Jamal）是最后一个。贵宾室。

Oh, VIP room. Yeah, that's Jamal. That's for sure. Jamal

哦，贵宾室。是的，那肯定是贾马尔。贾马尔。

Sax, how did you hear about this? Don't tell us that you ran out of bed. You went over to the East Bay.

萨克斯，你是怎么听说这个的？别告诉我们你从床上跳起来，跑去了东湾。

Sax, were you are you on the mailing list?

萨克斯，你是不是在邮件列表里？

No, my X feed just, you know, it's the new AI algorithm is just trying to find things you might be interested in.

不，我的X动态只是，你知道的，新的AI算法只是在试图找到你可能感兴趣的东西。

Sax also keynoting this. My X feed showed me SlutCon. So I clicked on it and now it's been nothing but SlutCon for a couple of days.

萨克斯也是这次活动的主讲人。我的X动态给我展示了SlutCon。所以我点进去看了，现在好几天了，我的动态里全是SlutCon。

[Music]

[音乐]

Let your winners ride.

让你的赢家乘胜追击。

[Music]

[音乐]

We open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

我们向粉丝开源了它，他们简直为之疯狂。

[Music]

[音乐]

Chamath, what did you think about walking around San Francisco? So, we went on a walk around downtown San Francisco.

查马斯（Chamath），你觉得在旧金山散步怎么样？我们当时在旧金山市中心散步。

Well, we were trying to find a place to get a drink in between the Benioff dinner and Sacks's talk. We ended up at the W Hotel, but I was worried for Chamath because it was his first time on the streets of San Francisco walking around with his own two legs. How was it, Chamath?

嗯，我们当时在贝尼奥夫的晚宴和萨克斯的演讲之间，想找个地方喝一杯。我们最后去了W酒店，但我为查马斯担心，因为那是他第一次用自己的双腿在旧金山的街头走动。感觉怎么样，查马斯？

Did you throw out those shoes? The loafer shoes.

你把那些鞋扔了吗？那些乐福鞋。

I burned them.

我把它们烧了。

The soles I'm sure were sullied beyond repair.

鞋底肯定已经脏得无法修复了。

I burned them. Those are one use for Chamath. Those are single use loafers. Once I got in the car, I gave Eugene my shoes and I said, "Burn these, Eugene. I never want to see these ever again. They've touched the pavement of San Francisco." And all I said was, "Yuck."

我把它们烧了。对查马斯来说，那些鞋是一次性的。那些是一次性乐福鞋。我一上车，就把鞋给了尤金（Eugene），我说：“尤金，把这些烧了。我再也不想看到它们了。它们碰过旧金山的人行道。”我只说了句：“恶心。”

Why don't you just have your domestic staff carry you on their shoulders? I don't understand.

你为什么不让你的家政人员把你扛在肩上呢？我不明白。

Why the crowd? It makes no sense.

为什么是人群？这说不通。

国民警卫队与旧金山治安争议

So Benioff pulls off this awesome convention, this conference, and then Trump does this press conference yesterday saying he's going to send troops into San Francisco. Did you guys see this?

所以贝尼奥夫成功举办了这场很棒的会议，然后特朗普昨天召开了新闻发布会，说他要派部队进入旧金山。你们看到了吗？

Yeah.

看到了。

Well, yeah. But no, but the Benioff thing happened first, right? So Benioff made news because he said, "Send in the National Guard (国民警卫队: 美国联邦和州政府的军事后备力量) to clean up San Francisco." But I actually I talked to him about it and got a little bit of context,

嗯，是的。但是，不，贝尼奥夫的事情是先发生的，对吧？所以贝尼奥夫上了新闻，因为他说：“派国民警卫队去清理旧金山。”但我实际上和他谈过，了解了一些背景，

which of course

当然，这……

misquoted or

被误引述了，或者……

Well, no, he wasn't misquoted, but it happened in a more innocuous way. He wasn't trying to weigh in on a political issue. Basically, what happened is I think he was describing the security at Dreamforce and how they bring in a couple hundred extra off-duty cops to provide security. So then the reporter tried to stir the pot by saying, "Well, would you bring in the National Guard?" And Benioff said, "Sure, if they can be cops." And that was kind of the end of it. And then and then it turns into this massive story that Benioff is supporting the National Guard coming to San Francisco, which I think he should support it, but

嗯，不，他没有被误引述，但事情发生的方式更无害。他并不是想介入政治问题。基本上，我认为他当时是在描述Dreamforce的安保情况，以及他们如何调动数百名额外的休班警察来提供安保。然后记者试图煽风点火，说：“那么，你会调动国民警卫队吗？”贝尼奥夫说：“当然，如果他们能当警察的话。”事情差不多就到此为止了。然后，这变成了一个大新闻，说贝尼奥夫支持国民警卫队进驻旧金山，我认为他应该支持，但是……

it's not exactly what he said. He was saying for Dreamforce he would hire them.

这不完全是他说的。他当时是说，为了Dreamforce，他会雇佣他们。

Yeah. I mean, who knows exactly what he was trying to say, but the point is that

是的。我的意思是，谁知道他到底想说什么，但重点是，

he could have just been talking. Yeah.

他可能只是随口说说。是的。

He wasn't seeking to make the news that ultimately he made,

他并不是想制造最终他制造出来的新闻，

but it's not a bad idea. It's actually a good idea. Do you think Trump teed off on that press cycle when he was doing that press conference and it was kind of off-the-cuff Sacks when he said, "Oh, they should send the National Guard in to San Francisco next."

但这并不是一个坏主意。实际上是个好主意。你认为特朗普在新闻发布会上，当他随口说：“哦，他们接下来应该派国民警卫队去旧金山”时，是不是借着那个新闻周期发飙了？

Well, I don't know.

嗯，我不知道。

Yeah,

是的，

I wasn't there for that. But San Francisco is a pretty obvious city to send in the National Guard because we have this downtown area where, you know, it's like that zombie city area, the Walking Dead part on Market Street. And everybody understands that it's because they won't stop the drug dealing. So you've got open air drug markets there on the main business thoroughfare of town, which is Market Street. And by the way, let me just back up and say that we have the best mayor we've had in decades now.

我当时不在场。但旧金山是一个很明显的需要派国民警卫队的城市，因为我们市中心有那么一块区域，你知道的，就像僵尸城一样，市场街（Market Street）上就像《行尸走肉》的场景。大家都明白，那是因为他们不阻止毒品交易。所以，在城市主要的商业干道市场街上，有公开的毒品市场。顺便说一句，让我回顾一下，我们现在拥有几十年来最好的市长。

Daniel Lurie.

丹尼尔·卢里（Daniel Lurie）。

Daniel Lurie's great. And I think Brooke Jenkins was the DA (地方检察官: 负责在特定司法管辖区内起诉犯罪行为的政府官员) that we supported to replace Chesa Boudin and after we recalled him. So I think she's good, too. But they're still working within the confines of a legal system here which is very left-wing. You've got all these leftist judges and I think they're somewhat constrained or hamstrung in terms of what they can do. Again, the evidence of that is that you've got hundreds of these drug dealers who are just operating with impunity in downtown and you've got this sort of zombie city of people who are so sick with drug addiction that they're pretty much living on the street. So, I think it would be a relatively easy thing to clean up if if they send in the National Guard.

丹尼尔·卢里很棒。我认为布鲁克·詹金斯（Brooke Jenkins）是我们支持取代切萨·布丁（Chesa Boudin）的地区检察官，在我们罢免他之后。所以我认为她也很好。但他们仍然在非常左倾的法律体系框架内运作。这里有很多左翼法官，我认为他们在能做的事情上受到了一定的限制或束缚。再次强调，证据就是市中心有数百名毒贩逍遥法外，而且你看到这种僵尸般的城市景象，人们因毒瘾而病入膏肓，几乎就住在街上。所以，我认为如果他们派国民警卫队进来，清理起来会相对容易。

I would argue that they're like, because I've been working in San Francisco and I think it's gotten a lot better this year.

我会说，他们就像，因为我一直在旧金山工作，我觉得今年情况好转了很多。

So, I looked up after all this Benioff brouhaha and the National Guard thing that Trump said yesterday. And so, the city's publication shows crime down 30% citywide and down 40% downtown. Homicides on a 70-year low this year. There are record lows of the number of tents left on the street. They've cleaned up all the tents. And I've seen this because I drive to my place in the city and they're all gone. And for the first time in seven years, they've actually got a net gain in total police officers on the force. And now they've got convention bookings up 50%. With hotel bookings up 60% because of it. And so here's what DA Jenkins put out. She said felony convictions in cases this year, narcotics, 88% of cases have resulted in convictions. Robbery, 85% have resulted in convictions. Burglary, 72% in convictions. And gun possession, 70% of cases result. And all the car break-ins are down to a 25-year low. And so I've noticed it acutely in my experience in the city. So it felt a little shocking to be like, oh, we need the National Guard. This is like a city on the upswing in my opinion. And I think things are getting much better anecdotally and the statistics represent it too. So, you know, it feels it feels like there's a little bit of a runaway narrative with San Francisco relative to what I think we those of us who are in the city are experiencing.

所以，在贝尼奥夫的这场风波和特朗普昨天提到的国民警卫队事件之后，我查了一下。城市出版物显示，全市犯罪率下降了30%，市中心下降了40%。今年凶杀案降至70年来的最低点。街上遗留的帐篷数量创历史新低。他们清理了所有的帐篷。我亲眼看到了，因为我开车去我在城里的住处，帐篷都消失了。七年来，他们首次实现了警力总数的净增长。现在，会展预订量增长了50%，酒店预订量因此增长了60%。地区检察官詹金斯公布的数据显示，今年重罪案件的定罪率：毒品案件88%导致定罪；抢劫案件85%导致定罪；入室盗窃案件72%导致定罪；枪支持有案件70%导致定罪。所有汽车盗窃案都降至25年来的最低点。我在城里的亲身经历也深刻感受到了这一点。所以，听到“哦，我们需要国民警卫队”时，感觉有点震惊。在我看来，这座城市正在好转。我认为情况正在明显改善，无论是从传闻还是统计数据来看。所以，你知道，感觉关于旧金山的说法有点失控，与我们这些在城里的人所经历的现实相比。

Let me thread these two stories together and hand it to you, Sax. So, the interesting thing when Sax and I were ousting Chesa Boudin, one of the things we learned was Chesa Boudin had this famous quote where he was saying, "Oh, well, we can't get rid of the fentanyl (芬太尼: 一种强效合成阿片类止痛药，常被滥用) dealers. I'm for drug regulation but not for fentanyl because it's a super drug that kills people very quickly." And it turned out he said all these Honduran nationals were victims.

让我把这两个故事串起来，然后交给萨克斯。所以，当萨克斯和我罢免切萨·布丁时，我们学到的一件事是，切萨·布丁有一句名言，他说：“哦，我们无法清除芬太尼毒贩。我支持毒品管制，但不支持芬太尼，因为它是一种能迅速致人死亡的超级毒品。”结果他说所有这些洪都拉斯国民都是受害者。

Yeah.

是的。

Which I guess theoretically could be true, but it's kind of like in that what do they call it? Suicidal empathy category.

我想这理论上可能是真的，但这有点像他们说的什么？“自杀式同情”的范畴。

But it turns out this is something where ICE (移民及海关执法局: 美国国土安全部下属的执法机构，负责移民和海关事务) and the DEA (缉毒局: 美国司法部下属的执法机构，负责打击毒品走私和分销) have done some work. They actually started deporting these people last year and because the people in San Francisco pre-Daniel Lurie refused to do it. So the federal government actually has been taking action on this specific issue. And we've also been taking out the boats bringing the drugs here. Pretty

但事实证明，这是移民及海关执法局和缉毒局已经做了一些工作的事情。他们实际上去年就开始遣返这些人了，因为在丹尼尔·卢里上任之前，旧金山的人们拒绝这样做。所以联邦政府实际上已经对这个具体问题采取了行动。我们还一直在拦截运送毒品到这里的船只。相当……

you're not seeing a city government try to block federal action either, which is different than what you see in other cities. By the way, this is a good forewarning of what Mani's New York is going to look like when Mondani's New York kind of, you know, takes off. Imagine what's going to come into the city because there's now going to be permissive culture and, you know, kind of permissive society to do this sort of stuff.

你也没有看到市政府试图阻止联邦行动，这与其他城市的情况不同。顺便说一句，这很好地预示了当蒙达尼（Mondani）的纽约“起飞”时，马尼（Mani）的纽约会是什么样子。想象一下，届时会有什么进入这座城市，因为现在将会有放任的文化，你知道，一种放任的社会来做这类事情。

Yeah. So, I mean, this is this is where we'll get strong alignment and agreement like deporting Honduran fentanyl dealers. Like, what's taking so long? I would ask the administration to take a beat on the San Francisco thing because this city is like making major improvements and I feel very good about the direction. It's not like other cities that are on the downswing and also I think AI companies are setting up in San Francisco.

是的。所以，我的意思是，这就是我们能达成强烈共识的地方，比如遣返洪都拉斯的芬太尼毒贩。比如，为什么花了这么长时间？我会要求政府暂停一下旧金山的事情，因为这座城市正在取得重大进展，我对这个方向感觉非常好。它不像其他正在走下坡路的城市，而且我认为人工智能公司正在旧金山设立。

Money's coming back. Yeah. I say the power move by Daniel Lurie would be to say to the Trump administration, hey, can we get I don't know three months of National Guard just to be in every BART (湾区捷运: 服务于旧金山湾区的快速公共交通系统) station and then on these four corners in the Tenderloin (田德隆区: 旧金山市中心的一个街区，以高犯罪率和无家可归问题而闻名) just as a deterrent.

资金正在回流。是的。我认为丹尼尔·卢里的高明之举是告诉特朗普政府：“嘿，我们能不能让国民警卫队在每个湾区捷运站，以及田德隆区这四个角落驻扎三个月，仅仅作为一种威慑？”

You know what people would do if they did that? People would protest and riot because they're like we don't want federal policing of our city. Like it's going to be

你知道如果他们那样做，人们会怎么做吗？人们会抗议和暴动，因为他们会说我们不希望联邦政府来管辖我们的城市。就像会发生……

For sure. I think you would get like 10, 20% even in San Francisco rioting. I think the rest of the people would be like okay it's a short duration. It's on these corners for this purpose. Okay, bring it. That's why I think the Democrats are making a stupid decision.

肯定会。我认为即使在旧金山，也会有10%到20%的人会暴动。我认为剩下的人会觉得“好吧，时间很短。只是为了这个目的在这些角落。好吧，来吧。”这就是为什么我认为民主党人正在做出一个愚蠢的决定。

But if the city's doing their job and the city's improving, why do you need that? It's getting better. You know, like this is not the

但是如果市政府正在履行职责，而且城市正在改善，你为什么还需要那个呢？情况正在好转。你知道，这不像……

Yeah, that's if things are worse and you're in a spiral. It

是的，那是如果情况更糟，你陷入螺旋式下降的时候。它……

is a backstop.

是一个后盾。

Sure.

当然。

Yeah. I mean that maybe the reason it's getting better is because that backstop is there.

是的。我的意思是，也许情况好转的原因就是因为有那个后盾存在。

What? The National Guard backstop? They're they're hiring more police. They haven't done that in seven years in San Francisco. They're finally adding to the police cop under

什么？国民警卫队的后盾？他们正在招聘更多警察。旧金山七年来都没这么做过。他们终于在增加警力，在……

and they're enforcing and they're getting convictions. It's kind of working.

而且他们正在执法，并且获得了定罪。这有点奏效。

Well, I'll partially agree with both of you. So, I agree with Freeberg that we have the best mayor we've had in decades with Daniel Lurie and I think he is making progress and the city is bouncing back. I think we probably had the lowest low during COVID and so a lot of that is just the finally the bounce back and then we got the AI boom which is creating a lot of wealth and it's bringing a lot of people back to the city and it's starting to absorb all the vacancy we have. So in any event all those are good things. Nonetheless, we still have this problem of this blighted area of Main Street where of all people Gavin Newsom proved that we could clean it up. Remember when President Xi came to town from China for that summit

嗯，我部分同意你们两位的看法。所以，我同意弗里伯格的观点，我们有丹尼尔·卢里这位几十年来最好的市长，我认为他正在取得进展，城市正在复苏。我想我们在疫情期间可能跌到了谷底，所以很多情况只是最终的反弹，然后我们迎来了人工智能热潮，这创造了大量财富，吸引了很多人回到城市，并开始消化我们所有的空置。所以无论如何，这些都是好事。尽管如此，我们仍然面临着主街（Main Street）这片破败区域的问题，加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）证明了我们能够清理它。还记得习主席从中国来这里参加峰会的时候吗？

and all of a sudden magically that whole area was cleaned up in 48 hours

然后突然之间，那个区域在48小时内奇迹般地被清理干净了。

and you know all the drug addicts and all the drug dealers basically disappeared. I don't know where they sent them to. So it shows that there is a way to clean this up virtually overnight and I think that somehow the mayor and the DA are constrained in what they can do. So you could have a targeted operation here by the federal authorities to go in and clean that up. And I think that'd be a good thing.

你知道，所有的吸毒者和毒贩基本上都消失了。我不知道他们被送到哪里去了。所以这表明，几乎可以在一夜之间清理干净，我认为市长和地区检察官在他们能做的事情上受到了某种限制。所以联邦当局可以在这里进行一次有针对性的行动，进去清理干净。我认为那会是件好事。

What do you think would happen in the city if they did that with respect to the population? Are they going to welcome or not welcome federal policing of their streets?

你认为如果他们那样做，对城市居民来说会发生什么？他们会欢迎还是不欢迎联邦政府对他们街道的治安管理？

Well, again, I don't think we should be held hostage by lawbreakers who basically threaten violent protests and chaos in response to law enforcement authorities doing their job. I don't think we should be blackmailed by that or threatened by that or held hostage by that.

嗯，再说一次，我认为我们不应该被那些基本上威胁要通过暴力抗议和制造混乱来回应执法部门履行职责的违法者所挟持。我认为我们不应该被这种行为勒索、威胁或挟持。

But they're getting convictions. They're making arrests.

但他们正在获得定罪。他们正在进行逮捕。

I think that's awesome. I'm applauding their efforts and I'm not criticizing them. What I'm saying is we still have this intractable problem of this area of downtown where like Jamal said, there's a network of drug dealers. Just to build on your point, Jacob, about the Hondurans, there's actually an article in the San Francisco Chronicle talking about this where the majority of the drug trade in San Francisco comes from a single town in South America.

我觉得那太棒了。我赞扬他们的努力，我没有批评他们。我只是说，我们市中心这个区域仍然存在这个棘手的问题，就像贾马尔说的，那里有一个毒贩网络。雅各布（Jacob），就你的观点，关于洪都拉斯人的，旧金山纪事报（San Francisco Chronicle）实际上有一篇文章谈到这一点，旧金山的大部分毒品交易都来自南美洲的一个小镇。

And so, yeah, it's like why couldn't you just round up this whole network in a very targeted operation and deport them and that would clean up a huge part of San Francisco. I think there's an opportunity here. If you look at the cities where it's been very successful, so Muriel Bowser, who's the mayor of DC, obviously she wasn't thrilled about the president sending in the National Guard and she said so publicly. That being said, she also cooperated with it and it redounded to the benefit of all the citizens of Washington DC. So I think there's an opportunity here for the mayor to cooperate with the Trump administration and do a targeted exercise and clean up the streets of San Francisco. I think

所以，是的，就像你为什么不能在一个非常有针对性的行动中，把这个整个网络一网打尽并遣返他们，那将清理旧金山很大一部分地区。我认为这里有一个机会。如果你看看那些非常成功的城市，比如华盛顿特区的市长穆里尔·鲍泽（Muriel Bowser），显然她对总统派遣国民警卫队并不感到高兴，她也公开这么说了。话虽如此，她也配合了，这最终造福了华盛顿特区的所有市民。所以我认为市长有机会与特朗普政府合作，进行一次有针对性的行动，清理旧金山的街道。我认为……

or he can do it himself up himself for Did you guys see this interview with this woman in DC who was describing what it's been like in DC over the last 40 years and see the changes.

或者他可以自己做。你们看到对华盛顿特区这位女士的采访了吗？她描述了过去40年华盛顿特区的情况以及所发生的变化。

Yeah, she feels safe.

是的，她觉得很安全。

Elon retweeted it. Nick, I sent you the link on Signal. Just listen to what she says. It's really to your point, Sax, it's like it's just such a no-brainer thing to do. The question now is I think is a political calculation. Who wants to take credit for it? Because everybody should be doing this.

埃隆（Elon）转发了。尼克（Nick），我把链接发到Signal给你了。听听她怎么说。萨克斯，这真的说到你点子上了，这简直是无需动脑筋的事情。现在的问题，我认为是一个政治考量。谁想为此邀功？因为每个人都应该这样做。

Oh, let's listen to this. I'm always got to be the person to say it and I don't want to be the person to say it. But Donald Trump has been president for nine months. Nine months. And I'm seeing videos from Chicago, DC, where people like, "Yo, I feel safe. My kids feel safe. This is the best thing he ever did for us." So, what was happening all these years that this like literally I'm I've known DC and Virginia to have this type of going my whole life, and I'm I'm in my 40s. Okay. Almost touching it. So what was really truly going on if a mother became president 9 months ago and cleared that out with just a flick of a pen. I'm just thinking like did y'all really ever care?

哦，我们来听听这个。我总是那个不得不说出来的人，但我不想成为那个说出来的人。但唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）已经当了九个月的总统。九个月。我看到芝加哥、华盛顿特区的视频，人们说：“嘿，我感到安全。我的孩子们感到安全。这是他为我们做的最好的事情。”那么，这些年到底发生了什么，我这辈子都知道华盛顿特区和弗吉尼亚州一直有这种事，我已经四十多岁了。好吧。差不多了。所以如果一位母亲九个月前成为总统，然后一挥笔就解决了这个问题，那到底发生了什么？我只是在想你们真的在乎过吗？

Exactly. So I think that the point she's making there is we don't have to live this way. This is a choice. Okay.

没错。所以我想她想表达的观点是，我们不必这样生活。这是一种选择。好的。

Yeah. And we don't have to live in San Francisco with our main drag, our main street, Market Street, basically being an open air drug market where you've got hundreds of people who are addicted doing drugs in the street, you know, doing other things in the street. And again, Gavin Newsom proved that it could all be cleaned up very, very quickly. So, look, I think it's great that Daniel Lurie and Brooke Jenkins and the new administration are doing a better job, but they're still constrained and hamstrung by their own

是的。我们不必生活在旧金山，我们的主干道，我们的主街，市场街，基本上就是一个露天毒品市场，那里有数百名吸毒者在街上吸毒，你知道，还在街上做其他事情。而且，加文·纽森再次证明，这一切都可以非常非常迅速地清理干净。所以，你看，我认为丹尼尔·卢里、布鲁克·詹金斯和新政府做得更好，这很棒，但他们仍然受到自己的限制和束缚。

by the city's hold on by the city's

受到城市对城市的束缚……

liberal mindset, extreme liberal mindset towards what's possible. And I think like that person just said in the video, Trump just did it with a stroke of a pen. This is a choice. We don't have to live this way.

自由主义心态，对可能性抱持的极端自由主义心态。我认为就像视频中那个人说的，特朗普只是挥笔一划就做到了。这是一种选择。我们不必这样生活。

It's the biggest unforced error since opening the southern border. These are just the two stupidest decisions the Democrats ever made. And obviously the easiest thing to do to split the two approaches here, Freeberg, is

这是自开放南部边境以来最大的非受迫性失误。这简直是民主党人做过的两个最愚蠢的决定。显然，弗里伯格，要区分这两种方法，最简单的方法是……

to have Daniel Lurie say,

让丹尼尔·卢里说：

"Thank you for offering Trump.

“谢谢你的提议，特朗普。

We would like to have it for this period of time in this location." Then you could communicate to the people of San Francisco, it's just a test. It's just on these streets. When it comes top down and you don't have a choice and JB Pritzker does what he did, which is I'm going to ban you from coming in and reducing crime. Like, do you hear yourself, Pritzker? Like, I want to stop you from lowering crime.

我们希望在此时此地进行。”然后你可以告诉旧金山人民，这只是一个测试。只是在这些街道上。当它自上而下，你别无选择，而JB·普利兹克（JB Pritzker）做了他所做的事情，那就是“我要禁止你进来并减少犯罪”。普利兹克，你听到你自己说的话了吗？就像，“我想阻止你降低犯罪率。”

There's something else we got to do as well, which is we got to stop funding the drug addiction because the city provides something like $2 billion a year to these NOS's (非营利组织: 不以营利为目的的组织) who are supposedly there to quote take care of this homeless/addicted population and they manage them like their flock because for every addicted person they add to the flock, they get paid more money. And so, obviously, this is why we have this problem here. And in fact, the homeless we have in San Francisco are not predominantly from San Francisco. They're from all over the country, all over the surrounding area. They come here for the benefits. So, we create the magnet for all these people. So,

我们还需要做另一件事，那就是我们必须停止资助毒瘾问题，因为市政府每年向这些非营利组织提供约20亿美元，这些组织据说是在“照顾”这个无家可归/吸毒人口，他们把这些人像羊群一样管理，因为每增加一个吸毒者到他们的“羊群”中，他们就能获得更多的钱。所以，很明显，这就是我们这里存在这个问题的原因。事实上，旧金山的无家可归者并非主要来自旧金山。他们来自全国各地，来自周边地区。他们来这里是为了福利。所以，我们为所有这些人创造了磁石。所以，

part of it is law enforcement, then also part of it is just cut off the flow of money that's funding their drug addictions.

一部分是执法，另一部分就是切断资助他们毒瘾的资金流。

You are 100% correct on that. I completely agree with you on that point. And I think that forced treatment center transitions is needed. Obviously, you know, we have a program, I've mentioned this on the show before, but for those who haven't heard about it, to hear about the absurdity of these programs in San Francisco. There's a program called the Managed Alcohol Program (酒精管理计划: 一种为无家可归或长期酗酒者提供受控酒精以减少危害的计划). $5 million per year out of the San Francisco city budget is spent on this program where you can walk into a hotel, they have free beer. You ask for a beer, they give you a beer.

你百分之百正确。我完全同意你的观点。我认为强制性的治疗中心过渡是必要的。显然，你知道，我们有一个项目，我之前在节目中提到过，但对于那些没听说过的人来说，听听旧金山这些项目的荒谬之处。有一个项目叫做“酒精管理计划”。旧金山市政府每年从预算中拨出500万美元用于这个项目，你可以走进一家酒店，他们有免费啤酒。你点啤酒，他们就给你啤酒。

What?

什么？

You drink the beer, you go out, you party, you come back, you get another beer. So they have all these studies that rationalize this program which is oh this is a way to help alcoholics recover from alcoholism when they're homeless and they need this treatment but here you can see this is from last year being beer.

你喝了啤酒，出去玩，开派对，回来，再拿一杯啤酒。所以他们有所有这些研究来合理化这个项目，就是说“哦，这是一种帮助无家可归的酒鬼从酒精中毒中康复的方法，他们需要这种治疗”，但你看，这是去年的啤酒。

Yeah. So the treatment is beer and

是的。所以治疗就是啤酒，而且……

that works for alcoholism I've heard. But it's one of these absurd things where now it's kind of a joke because there's also this close part of downtown where you know it's a little bit of a kind of do what you want where they kind of keep folks it's like hey you can use your needles here then folks will get a drink they'll play music they'll go after the thing. It's really sad how these programs obviously well-intentioned initially become of the most absurd.

我听说那对酒精中毒有效。但这真是荒谬的事情之一，现在它有点像个笑话，因为市中心还有一块区域，你知道，那里有点像“你想做什么就做什么”的地方，他们会把人留在那儿，就像“嘿，你可以在这里使用你的针头”，然后人们会去喝酒，听音乐，然后去追逐那个东西。真的很可悲，这些项目最初显然是出于好意，却变得如此荒谬。

If you want more of something keep spending money on it. In fact, there is a program for people who are addicted to gambling and they they give Chamath free flags and cranberries at the Wynn to help him with his crafts advent.

如果你想要更多某种东西，就继续花钱。事实上，有一个针对赌博成瘾者的项目，他们会在永利酒店给查马斯免费的旗帜和蔓越莓，帮助他进行手工艺品创作。

Yeah, it's amazing. If you if I keep going, one's going to land.

是的，太神奇了。如果我继续下去，总会有一个落地的。

You send a private jet and extend a massive credit line. It's amazing how how many gambling addicts you you'll attract to your casino.

你派一架私人飞机，并提供巨额信用额度。你将吸引多少赌博成瘾者到你的赌场，这真是令人惊讶。

By the way, did you guys see that JB Pritzker disclosed his income from 2024? And

顺便问一下，你们看到JB·普利兹克公布了他2024年的收入了吗？而且……

Oh, let's guess over under. Give us an over-under.

哦，我们来猜猜大小。给我们一个大小。

Out of the $10.3 million, $1.4 million of it was gambling winnings from Vegas.

在1030万美元中，有140万美元是来自拉斯维加斯的赌博赢利。

What? Yum yum. Okay. All new respect.

什么？哇哦。好吧。刮目相看。

$1.4 million playing blackjack. So, he's counting cards. Yeah, definitely. Definitely counting cards with Sacks. Yeah.

玩二十一点赢了140万美元。所以，他在算牌。是的，肯定。肯定和萨克斯一起算牌。是的。

Well, no. I I'll just tell you like look to win $1.4 million in blackjack basically you basically need to be betting 100k a hand.

嗯，不。我只是告诉你，要赢140万美元的二十一点，你基本上每手牌需要下注10万美元。

Even I don't do that. That's the only way you can win that much, which is a lot of money per hand. Not judging. I'm just saying.

连我都不那么做。那是你唯一能赢那么多钱的方式，每手牌的金额非常大。我不是在评判，我只是说。

I mean, that's Dana White level. He's He's Dana White level that David Sacks at Caesars.

我的意思是，那是达纳·怀特（Dana White）的水平。他在凯撒宫（Caesars）的水平就是达纳·怀特。

No, I'm not I'm not at that level.

不，我没有达到那个水平。

Come on. David plays at the $100 a hand table. He's got great. Uh, by the way, just to put some numbers behind it.

得了吧。大卫在每手100美元的桌子上玩。他很棒。顺便说一句，为了提供一些数据。

Speaking of Vegas, aren't we going next next month?

说到拉斯维加斯，我们下个月不是要去吗？

Yes. Yes. Yum. Yum.

是的。是的。太棒了。

Yum. Yum. Just to put some numbers on it, homeless budget, San Francisco, unbelievably high estimate like 800 million, lower estimate 700 million. And low estimate for homeless people is like 8,000. High estimates like 20. If you cut in between these two, they're spending $52,000 a year per homeless person. $52,000 a year. It is a solve problem. Well, that is an incentive to solve the problem because again, a lot of the money goes to NOS's and they get paid for every addict they can add to their flock. Thomas had a great line about this. He said that you get as much homelessness as you're willing to pay for.

太棒了。为了给出一些数字，旧金山的无家可归者预算，高估值高达8亿美元，低估值7亿美元。而无家可归者的低估值约为8000人，高估值约为2万人。如果取中间值，他们每年在每个无家可归者身上花费52000美元。每年52000美元。这是一个可以解决的问题。嗯，这确实是解决问题的一个激励，因为再次强调，很多钱都流向了非营利组织，他们每增加一个吸毒者到他们的“羊群”中，就能获得更多的报酬。托马斯（Thomas）对此有一句很棒的话。他说，你愿意为多少无家可归者买单，你就会得到多少无家可归者。

Well, and your point before is other places don't give the services. So therefore, the homeless slash junkies converse about this and then they pick the right.

嗯，你之前的观点是，其他地方不提供这些服务。所以，无家可归者/吸毒者会讨论这个问题，然后他们选择正确的。

We don't have to live this way. I appreciate the mayor. I appreciate the DA, but we don't have to live this way and there's more that can be done.

我们不必这样生活。我感谢市长。我感谢地区检察官，但我们不必这样生活，还有更多可以做的事情。

That is exactly it. You do not have to live this way.

就是这样。你真的不必这样生活。

Yes. Do not stand for it, folks. Okay, here we go. Lots of topics.

是的。各位，不要容忍它。好的，我们开始。很多话题。

中美贸易战与稀土矿物

The US-China trade battle is continuing. And this time we have a new wrinkle. Trump and Xi are set to meet in South Korea later this month. They're going to work out a grand trade deal. And this would be their first in-person meeting since 2019, six years ago. But last Thursday, China announced new export controls on 12 of 17 critical rare earth minerals (稀土矿物: 一组17种化学元素的总称，在现代技术中具有广泛应用) effective December 1st. Obviously, we need these for EVs (电动汽车: 使用电力驱动的汽车), batteries, your AirPods, everything. And on Friday, Trump threatened 100% tariff (关税: 对进口或出口商品征收的税) on all Chinese imports on top of the existing tariffs as of November 1st and accused the CCP (中国共产党: 中华人民共和国的执政党) of trying to quote hold the world captive. Stock market tanked, recovered on Monday when Trump told everybody, "Don't worry about it. It's going to be all good." So far this week, things have mostly deescalated. Friend of the pod, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant said the Trump meeting is still on track and quote, "We have substantially deescalated." Also, he said the 100% tariff does not have to happen. However, on Wednesday, Bessant called the export controls unacceptable and that it's China versus the free world. Let's take a pause here. Freeberg, thoughts on price controls generally, and if you want to expand into the overall relationship with China as it relates to rare earth metals, go for it. Bessant's comments on the price controls speak to what he calls a non-market economy (非市场经济: 政府对经济活动进行大量干预和控制的经济体系), meaning that the Chinese government is intervening and creating artificial surplus in the market, which drives prices down and effectively eliminates competition. And so the Chinese push in the '90s, supported by the CCP, ultimately eradicated competition and made it non-competitive for US companies. So they exited the market and now the United States finds itself completely dependent on Chinese suppliers. Particularly as it relates to rare earths, there was this company called Molycorp (钼公司: 一家曾在美国运营的稀土矿业公司) that ended up going out of business. The asset, the Mountain Pass mine that Molycorp operated, became MP Materials (MP材料公司: 一家美国稀土公司，运营着美国唯一的稀土矿山Mountain Pass), which Chamath knows well and did this big deal recently with the US government as they've tried to revitalize production at this mine and increase output. Freeberg, can you explain price floors (价格下限: 政府或机构设定的商品或服务的最低价格) for people just in case?

中美贸易战仍在继续。这次又有了新情况。特朗普和习主席定于本月晚些时候在韩国会晤。他们将达成一项重大的贸易协议。这将是他们自2019年，也就是六年前，首次面对面会晤。但上周四，中国宣布从12月1日起对17种关键稀土矿物中的12种实施新的出口管制。显然，电动汽车、电池、AirPods以及所有东西都需要这些矿物。上周五，特朗普威胁称，在现有关税的基础上，从11月1日起对所有中国进口商品征收100%的关税，并指责中国共产党试图“挟持世界”。股市暴跌，周一在特朗普告诉大家“别担心，一切都会好起来”后反弹。本周到目前为止，局势大部分已经缓和。播客的朋友，财政部长斯科特·贝桑特（Scott Bessant）表示，特朗普的会晤仍在按计划进行，并引用他的话说：“我们已经大幅度缓和了局势。”他还说，100%的关税不一定会发生。然而，周三，贝桑特称出口管制是不可接受的，并表示这是中国与自由世界的对抗。我们在这里暂停一下。弗里伯格，你对价格管制总体有什么看法？如果你想就稀土金属与中国的整体关系进行阐述，请随意。贝桑特关于价格管制的评论提到了他所说的非市场经济，这意味着中国政府正在干预市场，制造人为的过剩，从而压低价格，有效地消除竞争。因此，上世纪90年代，在中国共产党的支持下，中国的推动最终消除了竞争，使美国公司失去了竞争力。于是他们退出了市场，现在美国发现自己完全依赖中国供应商。特别是在稀土方面，有一家名为钼公司（Molycorp）的公司最终倒闭了。钼公司运营的资产，即山口矿（Mountain Pass mine），变成了MP材料公司，查马斯对此很了解，最近该公司与美国政府达成了一项大协议，试图重振该矿的生产并提高产量。弗里伯格，你能向大家解释一下什么是价格下限吗？

So price floors are that the government is going to mandate that things have to cost at least X. So they increase the price of inputs and basically make it more difficult for China to undercut pricing which increases the rationale for capital to invest in starting competitors because now they can have a guarantee of revenue or guarantee of price. But the problem is that I would argue the government's role maybe shouldn't be in setting price floors because that creates, you know, a very bad effect long term on the market. The government should deregulate and create a more free market in the US. A large reason why mining and processing of the ores moved offshore was because of the regulatory environment in the United States which made it difficult to compete with China. We could argue about the environmental laws and how extensive and how relevant they may be today relative to the '90s, but this created a real challenge for companies to compete because it was so much more expensive to operate in the US. So I would argue we should be focusing not so much on setting price floors to create an incentive for folks in the US to get involved in the industry, but rather to deregulate and to provide perhaps tax incentives and other economic incentives. So you don't inflate the cost of things, but you create a much more kind of liquid market and drive much more volume and interest in in building on this side.

所以价格下限是政府将强制规定商品至少要花费X。这样就提高了投入品的价格，基本上让中国更难通过低价竞争，从而增加了资本投资于创建竞争对手的理由，因为现在他们可以获得收入或价格的保证。但问题是，我认为政府的角色可能不应该设定价格下限，因为这会对市场产生非常长期的负面影响。政府应该放松管制，在美国创造一个更自由的市场。矿石开采和加工转移到海外的一个主要原因，是美国的监管环境使得与中国竞争变得困难。我们可以争论环境法有多么广泛，以及它们与上世纪90年代相比在今天有多么相关，但这确实给公司带来了竞争挑战，因为在美国运营的成本要高得多。所以我认为我们不应该过多地关注设定价格下限来激励美国人参与这个行业，而是应该放松管制，并提供税收优惠和其他经济激励。这样你就不会抬高物价，而是创造一个更具流动性的市场，并推动更多销量和兴趣来建设这一方。

All right, price floors. When we were talking about Kamala Harris running for president, she was asking for price floors and price fixing and making sure the government got involved in this. How is this different, Sacks? Well, look, as a general matter, I agree that the federal government shouldn't be setting the prices of goods and it shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy. But I think this is a different situation because over the past 30 years, we haven't really had a free market in rare earth. What's basically happened like Freeberg was saying, China has been allowed to dominate this industry. And specifically what they did is starting 30 years ago, they identified rare earths and rare earth magnets, the rare earth processing as a very strategic element in the supply chain. And they set out to dominate it. And they did that by massively subsidizing their businesses and driving all of the US competitors and the global competitors out of business. And they were partially allowed to do that by stupid WTO (世界贸易组织: 旨在促进国际贸易自由化的国际组织) rules that allowed quote unquote developing nations to subsidize their own industries even though China is not developing. I mean their economy is comparable to ours. And yet these WTO rules allowed them to effectively cheat by subsidizing their industries at the expense of our industries. And the result of this is that they do now have course of leverage over the supply chain. And over the last few weeks, they just used that imposing this vast new export control regime on rare earth. And their idea is to tighten the screws when they feel like it and to use rare earth as a form of leverage in the relationship with the United States. So, we're well past economics here and we're into international relations. We're into the balance of power. We're international security. And I don't think that the price floors here are designed to make the government the mediator of what prices should be in the free market. They're designed to create enough certainty for US investors that they can reinvest in rare earths and reshore the processing and the casting of rare earth magnets. And I just don't see another way to be able to create the incentives for investors because they know that if they invest a lot of money in rare earth processing that all China has to do is slash the prices and drive them out of business. And China continually uses that tactic. So I think you have to address that if you want to alleviate the American dependency on this critical resource which China currently has control over. This started in 2007 or eight with Hu Jintao and what he basically said is we're going to create six or seven national champions and he wanted to create them in the critical areas that they needed to dominate over the next 20 years and one of those was rare earths. Another one was batteries and EVs and yet another one was around the active principal ingredients or APIs that are the core inputs for pharmaceuticals. So what do they do? And when Xi came into power, Xi Jinping continued that huge gental strategy. What did they do? It's exactly what Sacks said, which is they have this very aggressive form of mercantilism (重商主义: 一种经济理论，认为国家财富主要通过贸易顺差和积累贵金属来增加). How do they affect that? They are willing through provincial balance sheets, through federal balance sheets, through loan guarantees, through organizations that are quasi public private partnerships. They step into markets and they can effectively change the spot price (现货价格: 立即交割的商品或资产的当前市场价格) on demand. Now, why is that problematic in America? I'll tell you the example of one of our businesses. You do these deals that are called take-or-pay agreements (照付不议协议: 一种合同条款，规定买方必须支付约定数量的货物或服务，无论其是否实际接收). So, MP has a deal with General Motors, one of my businesses that makes LFP cathode (磷酸铁锂正极: 一种用于锂离子电池的正极材料). Same deal with GM. You do what's called a take or pay, which means that General Motors steps up and says, "Great, I will buy X amount of volume from you at Y price.

好的，价格下限。当我们谈论卡马拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）竞选总统时，她曾要求设定价格下限和价格管制，并确保政府介入其中。萨克斯，这有什么不同？嗯，总的来说，我同意联邦政府不应该设定商品价格，也不应该在经济中选择赢家和输家。但我认为这是一个不同的情况，因为在过去30年里，稀土市场我们并没有真正的自由市场。基本上就像弗里伯格说的，中国被允许主导这个行业。具体来说，他们从30年前开始，将稀土、稀土磁铁以及稀土加工确定为供应链中一个非常战略性的环节。他们着手主导这个领域。他们通过大规模补贴本国企业，将所有美国竞争对手和全球竞争对手挤出市场。他们之所以能部分做到这一点，是因为愚蠢的世界贸易组织规则允许所谓的“发展中国家”补贴本国产业，尽管中国并非发展中国家。我的意思是，他们的经济规模与我们相当。然而，这些世界贸易组织规则允许他们通过补贴本国产业来有效地作弊，牺牲了我们产业的利益。结果是，他们现在确实对供应链拥有了影响力。在过去几周，他们刚刚利用这一点，对稀土实施了这项庞大的新出口管制制度。他们的想法是，在他们觉得有必要时收紧螺丝，并将稀土作为与美国关系中的一种筹码。所以，我们在这里已经超越了经济学，进入了国际关系。我们进入了力量平衡。我们是国际安全。而且我认为这里的价格下限并不是为了让政府成为自由市场中价格的调解者。它们旨在为美国投资者创造足够的确定性，使他们能够重新投资稀土，并将稀土磁铁的加工和铸造重新迁回国内。我只是看不到其他方法能够为投资者创造激励，因为他们知道，如果他们大量投资稀土加工，中国所要做的就是削减价格，将他们挤出市场。而中国不断使用这种策略。所以我认为，如果你想减轻美国对这种中国目前控制的关键资源的依赖，你就必须解决这个问题。这始于2007或2008年胡锦涛执政时期，他基本上说的是，我们将创建六七个国家冠军企业，他希望在未来20年内主导的关键领域创建这些企业，其中之一就是稀土。另一个是电池和电动汽车，还有一个是作为药品核心投入的活性药物成分（API）。那么他们做了什么？当习近平上台后，他延续了胡锦涛的这项宏大战略。他们做了什么？这正是萨克斯所说的，他们采取了非常激进的重商主义形式。他们如何实现这一点？他们愿意通过省级资产负债表、联邦资产负债表、贷款担保，通过准公私合营组织。他们进入市场，可以有效地按需改变现货价格。现在，这在美国为什么是个问题？我给你举一个我们公司的例子。你做这些被称为“照付不议协议”的交易。所以，MP公司与通用汽车公司（General Motors）有一项协议，我的一个生产磷酸铁锂正极材料的业务也与通用汽车公司有同样的协议。你做的是所谓的照付不议，这意味着通用汽车公司站出来说：“很好，我将以Y价格向你购买X数量的产品。

And so you go and you take that deal to Wall Street and you say, "I need financing to build a factory or a capability." Contrast that to the Chinese company who just goes to the government and the government says, "Here's a bunch of incentives and money and price breaks. Just go build it." So already we're a little bit behind, but it's much more free market and it's more transparent. So you take a deal, you go to Wall Street, they give you money, you start building it, you start to produce it, and then you expect General Motors or Ford or Tesla to start buying this stuff. But as Sax said, if all of a sudden China sees it, what they do is they enter the market and they will dump an enormous volume of that product into the spot market. What happens? The price craters. Now all of these end buyers are in a really tough position because their competitors can buy at a much bigger discount that they can. They have to flow that price through their products. Their prices are more expensive. They have less demand. And that's the huge negative cycle that China has complete control of. So why is the federal government stepping in to create what is essentially a last resort buyer of record? It is so critical in these markets because the US balance sheet is the only one that can create a strategic reserve (战略储备: 国家或组织为应对紧急情况或市场波动而储存的关键物资或资源) around these inputs. Not dissimilar to how we do with petroleum. We can nominate now things that are critical dispos

所以你拿着这份协议去华尔街，说：“我需要融资来建造一座工厂或一项能力。”这与中国公司形成对比，中国公司直接去找政府，政府说：“这里有一堆激励、资金和价格优惠。去建吧。”所以我们已经有点落后了，但它更自由市场，也更透明。所以你拿到一份协议，去华尔街，他们给你钱，你开始建造，开始生产，然后你期望通用汽车、福特或特斯拉开始购买这些东西。但正如萨克斯所说，如果中国突然看到这种情况，他们就会进入市场，向现货市场倾销大量该产品。会发生什么？价格暴跌。现在所有这些最终买家都处于非常艰难的境地，因为他们的竞争对手可以以比他们大得多的折扣购买。他们必须将这个价格反映到他们的产品中。他们的价格更贵。他们的需求更少。这就是中国完全控制的巨大负面循环。那么，为什么联邦政府要介入，创建一个本质上是最终买家的记录呢？这在这些市场中至关重要，因为美国的资产负债表是唯一能够围绕这些投入建立战略储备的。这与我们处理石油的方式并无不同。我们现在可以指定那些关键的处置品……

all of these things that can now absorb the price shocks that China may otherwise be able to affect. So I think this structure where we now have these public private partnerships frankly is the only practical antidote to dealing with this issue. Otherwise we're always going to be prone to this very clever and accurate and smart mercantilism from the Chinese. So I'm I'm a big fan of this general market structure. It's the only way that you cannot be theoretical and actually respond to the conditions on the ground. Yeah, we've been doing a little research on this and here is neodymium (钕: 一种稀土元素，常用于制造强力磁铁).

所有这些现在都可以吸收中国可能影响的价格冲击。所以我认为这种我们现在拥有的公私合作结构，坦率地说，是解决这个问题的唯一实际解药。否则，我们将总是容易受到中国这种非常聪明、精准和精明的重商主义的影响。所以我非常支持这种普遍的市场结构。这是唯一一种能够不流于理论，而是实际应对实际情况的方式。是的，我们一直在对此进行一些研究，这里是钕。

This is one of the one of the two inputs for for magnets for permanent magnets.

这是永磁体所需的两种输入材料之一。

And you can see here $50,000 for a ton back in 2020 during COVID it spiked almost up to a quarter million dollars and then it came back down. So look, you can you can imagine like it's incredibly difficult when there's that much volatility

你可以看到，在2020年新冠疫情期间，每吨5万美元的价格曾飙升到近25万美元，然后又回落了。所以你看，你可以想象，当波动性如此之大时，要做到这一点是极其困难的。

to try to buy capex (资本支出: 企业用于购买、维护或升级固定资产（如建筑物、设备或土地）的资金), to try to plant opex (运营支出: 企业在日常经营活动中产生的费用), to try to extract from the ground, go through all of the regulatory rigmarole that western countries have to go through and then all of a sudden have a sale price that you can't control. And if you look at the cost, we were just doing some research on it. You know, if you get your AirPods, it's one or two percent of the cost of that. Medical devices, it's a lot more. But even in a Tesla Model Y, it's it's 10 dips.

试图购买资本支出，试图投入运营支出，试图从地下开采，经历西方国家必须经历的所有监管繁文缛节，然后突然间出现一个你无法控制的销售价格。如果你看看成本，我们刚刚做了一些研究。你知道，如果你买AirPods，它只占成本的一两个百分点。医疗设备则要多得多。但即使在特斯拉Model Y中，它也只占10个百分点。

It's less than I think this is an inaccurate way of looking at it. You have to look at the actual mass. And so the real problem is in in cars, in engines, you're talking about tens of kilos ultimately, and that's where the real costs build up. And then separately, the permanent magnets that go into cars, you can work your way around. The real in future markets that really matter is in robotics because these permanent magnets are the key input to the actuation mechanism (驱动机制: 负责将能量转化为机械运动的系统或部件) of the robots. Meaning how do the robots move? How do the joints move? Through actuation that happens because of rare earths and permanent magnets.

我认为这是一种不准确的看法。你必须看实际的质量。所以真正的问题在于汽车、发动机，最终你谈论的是几十公斤，那才是真正的成本累积所在。另外，汽车中使用的永磁体，你可以绕过它。未来真正重要的市场在于机器人技术，因为这些永磁体是机器人驱动机制的关键输入。这意味着机器人如何移动？关节如何移动？通过稀土和永磁体产生的驱动。

And as Elon said at the summit, he's building all those himself. Right now, only 7% of the known deposits of it have been found. There's plenty of it out there. But to your point, I came to the same conclusion as you, Chamath, which is we should be building a strategic reserve of these. And if you look, we could be, you know, buying them when these things are down and deploying them

正如埃隆（Elon）在峰会上所说，他正在自己建造所有这些。目前，已知的储量中只有7%被发现。外面还有很多。但就你的观点而言，我得出了和你一样的结论，查马斯，那就是我们应该建立这些战略储备。如果你看，我们可以在这些东西价格下跌时购买，并在需要采取不同行动时部署它们。

when we need to do something different. I think instead of trying to like time the market, I think what the United States can be much better at is having a broad forecast of demand, knowing how many million tons of this stuff we will need and just thoughtfully and methodically being a purchaser of record to create these strategic reserves. And then the worst case that can happen is you can do a swap

当我们有需要做些不同事情的时候。我认为，与其试图把握市场时机，不如说美国可以更好地做到的是对需求进行广泛预测，了解我们需要多少百万吨这种材料，然后有计划、有条不紊地成为记录采购方，以建立这些战略储备。这样，最坏的情况就是你可以进行互换……

with these customers. So Tesla all of a sudden can't go into the spot market. They should be able to come to the strategic reserve and be able to buy lithium. You know, General Motors needs something, whomever, right? Figure robots need something. I think that mechanism is the only way we can compete effectively on a day-to-day basis with the Chinese.

与这些客户进行交易。所以特斯拉（Tesla）突然无法进入现货市场。他们应该能够来到战略储备库购买锂。你知道，通用汽车（General Motors）需要一些东西，或者其他任何公司，对吧？假设机器人需要一些东西。我认为这种机制是我们每天与中国人有效竞争的唯一方式。

I mean, I would argue I think we actually if we let the market work and we create the necessary kind of structure to allow the market to operate, meaning the regulatory barriers are diminished to develop mines and to conduct the processing of the ores. So there's two sides of the equation when it comes to this kind of industry of rare earths. The one is mining the ore. You know this Mountain Pass site which is kind of on the border of California and Nevada which is now MP materials. They've got this rare earth ore called bastnäsite (氟碳铈矿: 一种重要的稀土矿物，是铈、镧等稀土元素的主要来源). That's the ore that you get out of the ground. And then you have to process that ore to get the elements out of the ore that you want to use in manufacturing. The processing steps. I kind of went a little bit deep on this over the last week because I got really interested in why we don't do this anymore in the United States. And there is so much nasty

我的意思是，我认为如果我们让市场发挥作用，并创建必要的结构来允许市场运作，也就是说，减少开发矿山和进行矿石加工的监管障碍，那么我们实际上就能做到。所以，当谈到稀土这类产业时，这个等式有两面。一面是矿石开采。你知道这个位于加利福尼亚州和内华达州边境的山口矿区，现在是MP材料公司。他们有一种稀土矿石叫做氟碳铈矿。那是你从地下开采出来的矿石。然后你必须加工这种矿石，才能从中提取出你想要用于制造的元素。加工步骤。上周我对此深入研究了一下，因为我真的对为什么美国不再做这个感到非常感兴趣。而且有很多糟糕的……

output from this process. You're using very strong acids to do leaching (浸出: 用液体从固体中提取可溶性物质的过程). You do processing, you do extraction, refinement. All of the material kind of gets separated out from the rock and it's dirty. And as a result, there's byproducts and waste and environmental exposure, but also human personnel exposure. But the technology hasn't been deeply developed in 40 years. It's still kind of 40-year-old chemical engineering technology. And we stopped developing it about 40 years ago in the United States.

这个过程会产生很多有害的产物。你使用非常强的酸进行浸出。你进行加工、提取、精炼。所有物质都从岩石中分离出来，而且很脏。因此，会产生副产品、废物和环境暴露，以及人员暴露。但这项技术在40年里没有得到深入发展。它仍然是40年前的化学工程技术。而美国大约在40年前就停止了这项技术的开发。

It's not even technology. It's no

这甚至不是技术。它不是……

Yeah, it's not. It's just it's just metallurgy and chemistry. But but there are techniques now that can be applied that can do this in a kind of scalable safer way without any of the environmental hazards. But this is largely why this shifted over to China is they didn't have the sort of regulatory burdens that we have in the United States which made it much cheaper and the labor cost was much lower. But with automation and certain systems we can actually process this ore. It's not super complicated. It's a series of well understood steps of chemistry and mechanical separation. So we could process ores. The other kind of important point is there could be well over a thousand times the proven reserves of rare earths in the existing proven reserve catalog using new discovery techniques. So USGS (美国地质调查局: 美国联邦政府的科学机构，负责研究地球、其自然危害和资源) the geological survey in the United States has this kind of earth MRI system where they're trying to do new mapping. But there's also several private companies that can use radar and microwave imaging and then you can use the system of interferometry (干涉测量法: 利用波的干涉现象来测量距离、角度或检测微小变化的科学技术) where you actually put multiple beams down underground and you can get a better read or a better understanding of where these ores might lie. And there are unproven reserves in Texas, in Wyoming, in Colorado, in Missouri, all over the continental United States. So if we did decide, hey, this is strategic to us, I do think one of the important points is that we could unlock both new kind of discoveries and new refinement systems in the United States and actually be truly competitive with China if we put the will behind it. So I think like this is a good moment for the United States to observe what's going on and not just kind of be, you know, focused on China's production. I think we could outpace them and and accelerate through this if we chose to. So, Sacks, where does all of this fit in to the broader agreement? And do you think that they're going to go to South Korea and come out with a deal? And do do you have a sense of like what the contours have to be to make this a success?

是的，不是。它只是冶金学和化学。但是现在有一些技术可以应用，以一种可扩展、更安全的方式进行，没有任何环境危害。但这主要是为什么它转移到中国的原因，他们没有我们美国那样的监管负担，这使得成本更低，劳动力成本也低得多。但是通过自动化和某些系统，我们实际上可以处理这种矿石。它不是超级复杂。它是一系列众所周知的化学和机械分离步骤。所以我们可以处理矿石。另一个重要的点是，使用新的发现技术，现有已探明储量目录中的稀土储量可能超过一千倍。所以美国地质调查局在美国有一个地球MRI系统，他们正在尝试进行新的测绘。但也有几家私营公司可以使用雷达和微波成像，然后你可以使用干涉测量系统，将多束光束打到地下，你可以更好地读取或更好地了解这些矿石可能位于何处。在德克萨斯州、怀俄明州、科罗拉多州、密苏里州，整个美国大陆都有未探明的储量。所以如果我们真的决定，嘿，这对我们来说是战略性的，我确实认为一个重要的点是，我们可以在美国解锁新的发现和新的精炼系统，如果我们有决心，实际上可以真正与中国竞争。所以我认为，现在是美国观察正在发生的事情的好时机，而不仅仅是，你知道，专注于中国的生产。我认为如果我们选择这样做，我们可以超越他们并加速通过这个过程。那么，萨克斯，所有这些如何融入更广泛的协议中？你认为他们会去韩国并达成协议吗？你对达成协议的成功条件有什么看法？

Well, the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessant, who we know, just said that the Trump meeting is still on track and he also said that we have substantially deescalated and that the 100% tariff does not need to happen. So, he says it's still on track. By the way, I think he's doing a phenomenal job here. He really understands the intricacies of this trade relationship and I think he's capable of both applying pressure but then also finesse. So I think he's doing a great job on this. But in any event, I think the reason why you want to have the leaders meet, President Trump and President Xi, is that I think that this relationship, this bilateral relationship between the US and China will work best when there's an agreement at the top. And what I mean by that is that when you just let the various bureaucracies deal with each other, you're more likely to have misunderstandings or or food fights. So let me give you an example. Over the past few weeks, obviously you've had this Chinese Ministry of Commerce passed these export controls on the rare earth which created the possibility of greatly limiting the access of not just American companies but companies all over the world to Chinese rare earths. They've sort of backed away from that. Separately in the US, you had movements by our government to greatly expand the export control list. And basically, there was a interim final rule that was issued by the commerce department on September 29th that said that if a Chinese company is on the export control list, that restriction should also apply to any of its affiliates or subsidiaries that are more than 50% owned by that company, which is kind of obvious, right? You don't want a Chinese company like Huawei to circumvent the entity list by simply setting up a shell organization. And so I think it was a perfectly reasonable rule to issue, but then China reacted to that very strongly. And so there's just such a high chance of the two sides miscommunicating with each other and over escalating when you just allow the bureaucracies to talk to each other. And I think what's most needed right now is to have a grand bargain between President Trump and President Xi. And that will then calm down the relationship. And obviously this is going to be a very competitive relationship for as far as the I can see because there's both security and economic competition going on. But I do think that when you have an understanding at the top, it creates conditions for more stability.

嗯，我们认识的财政部长斯科特·贝桑特刚刚表示，特朗普的会晤仍在按计划进行，他还说我们已经大幅度缓和了局势，而且100%的关税不一定会发生。所以，他说一切仍在按计划进行。顺便说一句，我认为他在这里做得非常出色。他真正理解这种贸易关系的复杂性，我认为他既能施加压力，又能巧妙应对。所以我认为他在这方面做得很好。但无论如何，我认为让特朗普总统和习主席两位领导人会晤的原因是，我认为这种关系，即中美双边关系，在最高层达成协议时会运作得最好。我的意思是，如果你只是让各个官僚机构相互打交道，你更有可能出现误解或争吵。所以让我给你举个例子。在过去几周，显然中国商务部通过了这些稀土出口管制，这可能极大地限制了不仅美国公司，而且全世界公司获取中国稀土的途径。他们已经有所退让。另外在美国，我们的政府也采取行动，大幅扩大了出口管制清单。基本上，商务部在9月29日发布了一项临时最终规则，规定如果一家中国公司在出口管制清单上，那么这项限制也应该适用于任何由该公司拥有50%以上股权的关联公司或子公司，这有点显而易见，对吧？你不会希望像华为这样的中国公司通过简单地设立一个空壳组织来规避实体清单。所以我认为这是一项完全合理的规则，但中国对此反应非常强烈。所以，当你只是让官僚机构相互对话时，双方之间出现误解和过度升级的可能性非常高。我认为现在最需要的是特朗普总统和习主席之间达成一项大协议。这将有助于缓和两国关系。显然，在我看来，这将是一种竞争非常激烈的关系，因为安全和经济竞争都在进行。但我确实认为，当最高层达成共识时，会为更大的稳定创造条件。

All right. Traders on Polymarket think or know depending on the situation that we are going to see cooler heads prevail. 15% chance of the 100% tariff on China going into effect by November 1st. In other words, 85% chance it's not going to happen. 73% chance of US-China trade agreement by November 10th.

好的。Polymarket上的交易员认为，或者说根据情况知道，我们将看到冷静的头脑占上风。对中国征收100%关税在11月1日前生效的可能性为15%。换句话说，有85%的可能性不会发生。中美贸易协议在11月10日前达成的可能性为73%。

Who do you think has the greatest incentive to decouple? The US or China?

你认为谁有最大的动机脱钩？美国还是中国？

I think both sides understand that they can no longer be dependent on the other for things that they consider to be critical. So, I mean, the US has realized, wait a second, we can't allow China to have a monopoly on rare earths. And by the way, it's not just the rare earth, the processing, it's also the casting of the rare earth into magnets. So there's this long tale of I don't know 20,000 different kinds of magnets that are made from rare earth that are used in the industrial supply chain. And if China were to cut those off, then it would greatly impede manufacturing of pretty much every different kind of electric motors from cars to other goods. So in any event, my point is just the US clearly cannot be dependent. I'm sure that China is reaching a similar conclusion. That doesn't mean that trade can't happen between the two countries. I'm sure it will continue. But I don't think either side wants to be in a position where the other side can use its leverage beyond just economic terms into geopolitics. But with respect to the Belt and Road initiative, like don't you think China's been planning for the decoupling in kind of a very long viewed way relative to the United States and they're more I would say prepared and active to execute the decoupling whereas the US still is waking up to the fact that there are certain kind of critical supply chain dependencies that we have with China and maybe we shouldn't be decoupling as quickly as we stated our intention to. Like it feels like they're in a pretty advantaged position. Sacks and both the buy side and the sell side.

我认为双方都明白，他们不能再依赖对方来获取他们认为关键的东西。所以，我的意思是，美国已经意识到，等等，我们不能让中国垄断稀土。顺便说一句，这不仅仅是稀土的加工，还包括将稀土铸造成磁铁。所以工业供应链中使用了大约2万种不同的稀土磁铁。如果中国切断这些供应，那么几乎所有不同类型的电机制造，从汽车到其他商品，都将受到极大阻碍。所以无论如何，我的观点是美国显然不能依赖。我相信中国也得出了类似的结论。这并不意味着两国之间不能进行贸易。我相信贸易会继续下去。但我不认为任何一方希望处于对方可以将其影响力从经济层面延伸到地缘政治层面的境地。但就“一带一路”倡议而言，你难道不认为中国一直在以一种相对于美国来说非常长远的眼光规划脱钩吗？而且他们更积极地准备和执行脱钩，而美国才刚刚意识到我们对中国存在某些关键供应链依赖，也许我们不应该像我们声明的那样迅速脱钩。感觉他们处于一个相当有利的位置。萨克斯，无论是买方还是卖方。

They have 20% youth unemployment. They have a demographic time bomb that's gone off. They have a pretty moribund real estate market. They have very little to none foreign direct investment. So I don't agree with you.

他们有20%的青年失业率。他们的人口定时炸弹已经引爆。他们的房地产市场相当萧条。他们的外国直接投资非常少，甚至没有。所以我不同意你的看法。

Okay.

好的。

Well, I I would just say that I think what China has been doing

嗯，我只想说，我认为中国一直在做的事情……

meaning they're they're just as challenged as we are. They have different challenges.

意思是他们和我们一样面临挑战。他们面临着不同的挑战。

Yeah. No, it's good it's a good point. Yeah.

是的。不，这是一个很好的观点。是的。

中国的崛起与地缘政治秩序

I would just say that I think that China is a rising great power. I think that over the last decade their economy grew to the point where it's roughly the size of the US's economy. Certainly on a on a PPP basis (购买力平价: 一种货币汇率计算方法，旨在消除不同国家之间物价水平差异的影响), it might even be bigger,

我只想说，我认为中国是一个正在崛起的大国。我认为在过去十年里，他们的经济增长到大致与美国经济规模相当的程度。当然，按购买力平价计算，它甚至可能更大，

right?

对吗？

But on an international currency basis, it's still smaller. But anyway, the point being that as China has risen as a great power, it sought to create its own international institutions. And so if you think about, you know, what the US has, the US has NATO (北约: 北大西洋公约组织，一个军事联盟) obviously and the G7 (七国集团: 由七个主要发达国家组成的政府间政治经济论坛) and the World Bank (世界银行: 提供发展援助和贷款的国际金融机构) and the IMF (国际货币基金组织: 促进全球货币合作、金融稳定和国际贸易的国际组织) and all that kind of stuff. And what China has sought to do is create, you know, they created the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (上海合作组织: 旨在加强成员国之间安全和经济合作的区域性国际组织), which is a security focused organization. I wouldn't call it quite the equivalent to NATO, but it's trending in that direction. They've been probably the main sponsor behind BRICS (金砖国家: 由巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非组成的经济合作机制) and Belt and Road (一带一路: 中国提出的跨国经济合作倡议), I think, is part of that. They're creating their own network of relationships. are creating their own international order and it is a challenge to the US order. I mean during the unipolar moment (单极时刻: 指冷战结束后美国作为唯一超级大国的时期) from say 1991 to I don't know 2017 the US was the only great power in the system and we basically defined all the key international institutions and China as it's risen has done what all great powers seek to do which is to create their own order and so yeah I think they do want to be somewhat independent of the US they don't want to be dependent on us and I think we're realizing that we have to act the same way and the shame of it is that when we were running all the key institutions during the unipolar moment like the WTO. We engaged in so many foolish policies that allowed China to dominate rare earths. I mean we should never have let that happen.

但以国际货币为基础，它仍然较小。但无论如何，重点是，随着中国作为一个大国的崛起，它试图建立自己的国际机构。所以如果你想想，你知道，美国拥有什么，美国显然拥有北约、七国集团、世界银行和国际货币基金组织等等。而中国一直试图做的是，你知道，他们创建了上海合作组织，这是一个以安全为重点的组织。我不会说它完全等同于北约，但它正朝着那个方向发展。他们可能是金砖国家和“一带一路”背后的主要赞助者，我认为这是其中的一部分。他们正在建立自己的关系网络。正在建立自己的国际秩序，这对美国的秩序构成了挑战。我的意思是，在从1991年到2017年左右的单极时刻，美国是体系中唯一的强国，我们基本上定义了所有关键的国际机构，而中国在崛起过程中也做了所有大国都寻求做的事情，那就是建立自己的秩序，所以，是的，我认为他们确实想在某种程度上独立于美国，他们不想依赖我们，而且我认为我们正在意识到我们必须以同样的方式行事，令人羞耻的是，当我们在单极时刻运营所有关键机构，比如世界贸易组织时。我们采取了许多愚蠢的政策，让中国主导了稀土。我的意思是，我们绝不应该让这种事情发生。

Can I clarify one thing which is I think that a lot of people don't know this historical artifact which I think is so fascinating which is I don't think China is a rising power. I think China is a reascending power. And the reason I say that is if you go back to 1500 to now, over all of those years, China had the world's largest GDP 70% of those years.

我能澄清一件事吗？我认为很多人不知道这个历史事实，我觉得它非常引人入胜，那就是我认为中国不是一个正在崛起的力量。我认为中国是一个重新上升的力量。我之所以这么说，是因为如果你回顾从1500年到现在，在所有这些年份中，中国有70%的时间拥有世界最大的GDP。

70%.

70%。

So if you think about it in that context, especially as a Confucian society, I think the Chinese think about this as hold on, this is reasserting the dominance that we've always had. And I think if you start to look at it through that lens, that's why they view the blending of public private partnerships, the organizations that go and help backs stop private companies in China. The other interesting thing which I learned studying China is how they allocate capital. The capital allocation system is both rigid, but it's incredibly flexible. What do I mean? The way that China allocates money is the following. You have Xi Jinping and his close circle of people. They dictate the priorities, right? I think there was an article, Nick, you can find it. But Xi is personally right now helping to draft the five-year business plan of China. But what happens is is it goes from that central group of like 7, 8 people to the Politburo. And when it gets approved by the Politburo, it gets sent to all the provinces and then it gets sent to the prefectures. So an example was in 2006 and 7 when they decided to prioritize EVs. What you effectively have is a cascading set of venture capitalists who are operating against a national priority and then they are rewarded for it. And so you essentially have 300 VCs running around organizing human capital in all of these different provinces against all of these different priorities. And at the end of that you get a BYD or you get a Xiaomi or you get these great companies. And I think that that is what's so daunting if you think about it. So that's another thing that we have to factor as well. They have

所以如果你从这个角度来看，尤其作为一个儒家社会，我认为中国人认为这是一种重新确立我们一直拥有的主导地位。我认为如果你开始通过这个视角来看待它，这就是为什么他们看待公私伙伴关系的融合，以及那些在中国帮助支持私营公司的组织。我研究中国时学到的另一个有趣的事情是他们如何分配资本。资本分配系统既僵化又极其灵活。我什么意思？中国分配资金的方式如下。你有习近平和他的亲密圈子。他们决定优先事项，对吧？我想有一篇文章，尼克，你可以找到它。但习近平目前正在亲自帮助起草中国的五年商业计划。但实际情况是，它从那个由大约7、8人组成的中央小组传达到政治局。当政治局批准后，它会被发送到所有省份，然后发送到各个地级市。例如在2006年和2007年，当他们决定优先发展电动汽车时。你实际上拥有的是一系列层层递进的风险投资家，他们根据国家优先事项进行运作，然后为此获得奖励。所以你基本上有300个风险投资家在所有这些不同的省份，针对所有这些不同的优先事项，组织人力资本。最终你会得到一个比亚迪（BYD）或者一个小米（Xiaomi），或者这些伟大的公司。我认为，如果你仔细想想，这正是令人望而生畏的地方。所以这也是我们必须考虑的另一个因素。他们有……

and they have they have one of those plans Chamath for every industry not just so they have like an agriculture five-year plan. They have an energy five-year plan and in each one it details out their forecast of not just like how to catch up but what's possible and that's why they're charting new new avenues of innovation in nuclear power. Yeah. It's about them, I think, getting back to where they have been as opposed to them realizing that they could potentially be the world's largest economy. It's more them saying, "We were the largest for so long. We took our eye off the ball and now we need to get refocused." I think that's more of a national pride kind of motivation here. But it's obviously different people, different country, different governing structure, etc.

查马斯，他们每个行业都有这样的计划，不仅仅是农业五年计划。他们有能源五年计划，每个计划都详细列出了他们不仅如何追赶，还包括可能实现的目标的预测，这就是为什么他们在核能领域开辟了新的创新途径。是的。我认为，这关乎他们回到他们曾经的位置，而不是他们意识到自己有可能成为世界最大经济体。更多的是他们说：“我们曾经长期是最大的。我们放松了警惕，现在我们需要重新集中精力。”我认为这更多是一种民族自豪感的驱动。但显然是不同的人，不同的国家，不同的治理结构等等。

Isn't that incredible though? 70% of the year since 1500 they had the largest GDP in the world.

但这难道不令人难以置信吗？自1500年以来，他们有70%的时间拥有世界最大的GDP。

It is incredible.

这太不可思议了。

It's stunning.

令人震惊。

Yeah. I mean, there were these innovations that drove some of these ships. The technology of ships and fleets of ships drove the Dutch Empire to its prowess and then the British Empire to its prowess. And there were these moments of technological innovation. But you're right, always on the heels was China. And this may be China's moment of resurgence across the board.

是的。我的意思是，有一些创新推动了这些船只的发展。船只和船队的技术推动了荷兰帝国达到其鼎盛时期，然后是大英帝国。这些都是技术创新的时刻。但你说得对，中国总是紧随其后。这可能是中国全面复兴的时刻。

The person who really saw this ahead of the curve was Lee Kuan Yew from Singapore. Basically the founder of Singapore

真正预见到这一点的人是新加坡的李光耀。基本上是新加坡的创始人。

and Graham Allison wrote a book about Lee Kuan Yew where he talks about his insights and there's a couple of quotes here that I think are are really good on this. What Lee Kuan Yew said is that it's not possible to pretend that this China is just another big player. This is the biggest player in the history of the world and he also said that the size of China's displacement of the world balance is such that the world must find a new balance. So

格雷厄姆·艾利森（Graham Allison）写了一本关于李光耀的书，他在书中谈到了李光耀的见解，这里有几句引言，我认为非常精辟。李光耀说，不可能假装中国只是另一个大玩家。这是世界历史上最大的玩家，他还说，中国对世界平衡的冲击规模如此之大，以至于世界必须找到新的平衡。所以……

Chamath, like you're saying, China was the biggest power in the world for hundreds of years and then it was kind of overtaken by the western powers and now it's kind of reasserting itself. But in any event, this is why I think that during the unipolar moment, the US should have been a lot more careful about facilitating China's rise

查马斯，就像你说的，中国几百年来一直是世界上最大的强国，然后被西方列强超越，现在它正在重新崛起。但无论如何，这就是为什么我认为在单极时刻，美国在促进中国崛起方面应该更加谨慎。

because we created a monster. And this is the point that

因为我们制造了一个怪物。而这正是……

Professor Mearsheimer has made many times and he wrote about this going back to 2002 saying in his article about whether China could rise peacefully and he said the answer is no because if we facilitate their rise we will create a geopolitical competitor (地缘政治竞争对手: 在国际政治和经济领域与他国竞争影响力的国家或实体) and we'll go from being a unipolar world order to a multipolar world order (多极世界秩序: 国际体系中存在多个具有相似实力和影响力的主要国家或权力中心). And that's basically what's happened. But at the time, just remember like when when they were admitted to the WTO and the motivation was really about lowering the cost of goods and services for the American consumer, which was like an intrinsically reasonable motivation. It wasn't like there was some nefarious intention at the time, but it was shortsighted in that it didn't do the calculus. Fast forward 20, 30, 40 years to determine, well, if we then kneecap our ability to actually produce anything, where are we going to be if they do start to decouple? That's

米尔斯海默（Mearsheimer）教授多次提出这一点，他早在2002年就写过一篇文章，讨论中国能否和平崛起，他说答案是否定的，因为如果我们助长他们的崛起，我们将创造一个地缘政治竞争对手，我们将从单极世界秩序走向多极世界秩序。这基本上就是已经发生的事情。但当时，请记住，当他们被接纳加入世界贸易组织时，其动机确实是为了降低美国消费者的商品和服务成本，这本身是一个合理的动机。当时并非有什么邪恶的意图，但它目光短浅，没有进行长远计算。快进20、30、40年，来确定，如果我们那时削弱了我们实际生产任何东西的能力，如果他们真的开始脱钩，我们又将处于何种境地？那就是……

it was hubris (傲慢: 过度的自信或自大，常导致失败或错误) though. It was hubris because we thought that there was only one great power in the system and that's the way it would always be. We thought great power politics was off the table and we thought that we were at the end of history.

那是一种傲慢。那是一种傲慢，因为我们认为体系中只有一个大国，而且永远都会是这样。我们认为大国政治已经不再是问题，我们认为我们正处于历史的终结。

It wasn't hubris, it was greed. The CEOs at the time and the people who were influential in making donations to politicians wanted to make more money. That's why they did it. They didn't do it with anything other than a profit motivation, which is greed.

那不是傲慢，那是贪婪。当时的CEO们以及那些对政治家捐款有影响力的人，都想赚更多的钱。这就是他们这样做的原因。他们这样做除了利润动机之外，没有其他任何动机，而利润动机就是贪婪。

Part of American like mindset at the time was that we had a monopoly on knowledge work, right? And this was I think very key. This this speaks to the hubris of the decision-makers was that this knowledge work is where you create a separation of labor from intellect. And that there was this idea that America would move into a services economy fully and not have to be in a labor economy and the labor economy could be outsourced.

当时美国人的一种心态是，我们在知识工作上拥有垄断地位，对吧？我认为这非常关键。这说明了决策者的傲慢，即知识工作是劳动与智力分离的地方。当时有一种观念认为，美国将完全转向服务经济，不必再处于劳动经济中，而劳动经济可以外包。

Ultimately, that didn't yield true. The the internet kind of created a rival to knowledge work or a diffusion of knowledge and diffusion of knowledge capacity to societies around the world, which really did create a different structure than we anticipated at the time.

最终，这并未实现。互联网在某种程度上对知识工作构成了挑战，或者说知识和知识能力扩散到了世界各地的社会，这确实创造了一种我们当时未曾预料到的不同结构。

I think that's looking in the rearview mirror, Freeberg. I think the the CEOs at that time were like how do we increase the profit margin on an iPhone on a PC on any product being created and the way to do that is find the lowest I

弗里伯格，我认为那是事后诸葛亮。我认为当时的CEO们在想如何提高iPhone、PC或任何正在创造的产品的利润率，而实现这一目标的方法就是找到最低的……

labor source possible and that was China they just did it out of just pure

劳动力来源，那就是中国，他们只是出于纯粹的……

So that was part of it but there was another factor here as well which I I do think the ideology was really powerful and remember in the 1990s the leading philosopher or international relations theorist the most celebrated book was The End of History by Francis Fukuyama (弗朗西斯·福山: 美国政治学家，以其著作《历史的终结及最后之人》而闻名) and what he basically said is that we're at the end of history because liberal democracy has won and it's only a matter of time before the whole world becomes liberal democracies. And the theory about China was that if they got rich, they had become more like us, that people would rise up and demand a liberal democratic government as they became rich. And so we then justified, and there probably was an element of greed to this as well, we then justified helping China rise on the grounds that somehow this wealth would turn him into a democracy. And in fact, all that it did was make them richer and more powerful. It didn't change their government. It just turned them into a huge geopolitical competitor to the US. The author who actually predicted this and well there's Mearsheimer who predicted in the early 2000s also Samuel Huntington (塞缪尔·亨廷顿: 美国政治学家，以其著作《文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建》而闻名) wrote a book

所以那是一部分原因，但这里还有另一个因素，我确实认为意识形态非常强大，还记得在1990年代，最重要的哲学家或国际关系理论家，最受推崇的书是弗朗西斯·福山的《历史的终结》，他基本上说的是，我们正处于历史的终结，因为自由民主已经胜利，全世界变成自由民主国家只是时间问题。关于中国的理论是，如果他们富裕起来，他们就会变得更像我们，人们会起来要求一个自由民主的政府，因为他们变得富裕。所以我们当时就为帮助中国崛起找理由，而且这其中可能也有贪婪的成分，我们当时为帮助中国崛起找理由，认为这种财富会以某种方式将他们变成一个民主国家。而事实上，它所做的只是让他们变得更富有、更强大。它没有改变他们的政府。它只是让他们变成了美国巨大的地缘政治竞争对手。实际上预测到这一点的作者，嗯，米尔斯海默在21世纪初也预测到了，塞缪尔·亨廷顿也写了一本书……

called The Clash of Civilizations in the mid '90s that was sort of the opposite of end of you know end of history was celebrated. Clash of Civilizations was sort of reviled. But what Huntington said is that what these other civilizations want around the world is not westernization. They want modernization.

在90年代中期出版的《文明的冲突》，这本书与《历史的终结》的观点截然相反，《历史的终结》曾备受赞誉。《文明的冲突》则受到某种程度的诟病。但亨廷顿说的是，世界各地这些其他文明想要的不是西方化。他们想要现代化。

And as they modernize and become richer, they're not going to basically westernize. They're going to become competitors to the western order. And that's basically what happened.

随着他们现代化和变得更富有，他们基本上不会西方化。他们将成为西方秩序的竞争者。这基本上就是已经发生的事情。

I thought for sure you were going to say Friedman's The World Is Flat, which was I think air cover for all this because you would get the peace dividend if everybody had McDonald's and everybody was watching the same movies. Go ahead, Chamath. You have some thoughts.

我本来以为你肯定会提到弗里德曼（Friedman）的《世界是平的》，我认为那本书为所有这些提供了空中掩护，因为如果每个人都吃麦当劳，每个人都看同样的电影，你就会获得和平红利。请继续，查马斯。你有一些想法。

That Huntington book is actually exceptional. The thing with Francis Fukuyama is he he writes in this beautiful way, but he literally bats zero. It's like you could basically read a Francis Fukuyama book and understand that whatever the opposite of what he wrote is likely going to happen. That anyway, that's neither here nor there. But I just wanted to pick on what Jason said because I agree with him. The thing is you had a lot of this geopolitical tension Sacks which I think you articulated it well like the elites were coming together like we're going to convert China we're going to do all of this stuff and I think that was a trend but then what hyperaccelerated it in my opinion was something that was very tactical which Jay Cal mentioned which is the compensation plans of most of the executives and CEOs of these public corporations started to get very tuned to gameable metrics like EPS (每股收益: 公司每股普通股的利润) in and around that same time. And so Jason's right, the direct financial incentives to basically think about this as a monocultural global world where you can just export things to every nook and cranny of the world to optimize for the flow of profits back to you, trap them in any country you want because it doesn't ultimately matter to your compensation.

亨廷顿那本书确实很出色。弗朗西斯·福山的问题在于，他写得很优美，但他简直是零命中率。就像你基本上可以读一本弗朗西斯·福山的书，然后理解他写的东西的反面很可能会发生。无论如何，那都不是重点。但我只是想针对杰森（Jason）说的话，因为我同意他的观点。问题是，萨克斯，你有很多这种地缘政治紧张，我认为你阐述得很好，就像精英们聚集在一起，说我们要改造中国，我们要完成所有这些事情，我认为那是一种趋势，但在我看来，真正加速它的，是杰·卡尔（Jay Cal）提到的一个非常战术性的东西，那就是大多数上市公司高管和CEO的薪酬计划在那段时间开始变得非常注重可操作的指标，比如每股收益。所以杰森说得对，直接的财务激励基本上是把这看作一个单一文化的全球世界，你可以把东西出口到世界的每个角落，以优化利润流回你手中，把它们困在任何你想要的国家，因为这最终对你的薪酬无关紧要。

That perversion also happened at the same time which I think accelerated what otherwise would have given us maybe another decade or two to realize that we weren't in complete control of our destiny.

这种扭曲也同时发生，我认为这加速了本来可能给我们再一二十年时间才能意识到我们并未完全掌控自己命运的过程。

So it gets um, you can see it also in Taiwan with like how in the world did 90% of the chips come out of one tiny island? It's just capitalism like it's the best place to do it at the cheapest price, the most efficiently. And then you have now this dependency on Taiwan because we didn't think about redundancy and supply chain. Freeberg, in related international news, Trump is put up or the Trump administration has put up about $40 billion to help out Argentina. Can you explain what's going on there?

所以，嗯，你也可以在台湾看到，世界上90%的芯片是如何从一个小小岛屿出来的？这只是资本主义，它是在最便宜的价格下最有效率地完成这件事的最佳地点。然后你现在对台湾产生了这种依赖，因为我们没有考虑冗余和供应链。弗里伯格，在相关的国际新闻中，特朗普或者说特朗普政府已经提供了大约400亿美元来帮助阿根廷。你能解释一下那里发生了什么吗？

AI的经济影响与公众认知

They're trying to bolster the credit rating of Argentina with the currency swap (货币互换: 两个国家或机构之间交换等值不同货币的协议) that's related to the financial condition the promise proponents would argue he inherited. The opponents would say, you know, he's making things worse. The US is stepping in to support his free market kind of principles that are ultimately going to drive cross-border cooperation. So, I think that the swap agreement puts in place a bolstering of support. I thought this was related directly to the to rare earths

他们正试图通过与财政状况相关的货币互换来提升阿根廷的信用评级，支持者会说这是他继承的。反对者会说，你知道，他正在让事情变得更糟。美国正在介入，支持他的自由市场原则，这些原则最终将推动跨境合作。所以，我认为互换协议提供了支持。我以为这与稀土直接相关……

to rare earths. I I'm not sure about rare earth. All right, Jamal. I saw you retweeting some of this and there's been a little bit of a back channel in the last 48 hours. Kind of breaking news here. Data centers (数据中心: 集中存放计算机服务器和网络设备，用于存储、处理和分发数据的设施) are spiking the cost of energy or people are perceiving it to be doing so in different geographies here in the United States and I guess not wanting to be hated or get into wars with consumers some big tech companies are standing down plans explain what's going on here Chamath and if this is a trend yet

与稀土有关。我不太确定稀土。好的，贾马尔。我看到你转发了一些这个，而且在过去48小时内，有一些幕后消息。有点像突发新闻。在美国的不同地区，数据中心正在推高能源成本，或者人们认为它们正在这样做，我想，为了不被消费者憎恨或与他们开战，一些大型科技公司正在搁置计划。查马斯，解释一下这里发生了什么，以及这是否已经成为一种趋势。

I put this out there when I wrote that because I I do think that this is the beginning of a trend. Just to be very specific, Google was planning a $1 billion spend on a data center in Indianapolis County or Indianapolis. And essentially what happened was there was enough push back that it looked like if it went to vote in the city council, they would have voted against the approval of the data center, against the the necessary zoning and other regulatory approvals. And so I think to avoid what would have been an awkward press cycle, Google just pulled it and said, "Don't worry, we're not going to do this here." And so that in and of itself I think is an isolated incident except that in this same week it happened two other times

我写那篇文章的时候就提出了这一点，因为我确实认为这是一种趋势的开始。具体来说，谷歌（Google）计划在印第安纳波利斯县或印第安纳波利斯投资10亿美元建设一个数据中心。基本上，由于反对声浪足够大，看起来如果提交市议会投票，他们会投票反对数据中心的批准，反对必要的区域规划和其他监管批准。所以我认为，为了避免一个尴尬的新闻周期，谷歌直接撤回了计划，说：“别担心，我们不会在这里做这个。”所以这本身我认为是一个孤立事件，除了在同一周内又发生了两次。

in Wisconsin there was a proposal very similar to Google's but this time from Microsoft where again those local residents got pretty upset and in the 11th hour Microsoft pulled it and then in the third example there was an attempt by an Amazon data center to get built near Tucson. That I think also was mothballed. So why is this happening? When I tweeted this out or when I posted it rather, the comments were pretty instructive. I think that there are three things that I took away from it. Thing number one is that people are seeing their prices of electricity go up in the local areas where the data centers are being built.

在威斯康星州，有一个与谷歌非常相似的提案，但这次是微软（Microsoft）提出的，当地居民再次非常不满，微软在最后一刻撤回了提案。然后第三个例子是亚马逊（Amazon）试图在图森（Tucson）附近建造一个数据中心。我认为那个也搁置了。那么为什么会发生这种情况呢？当我发布这条推文或者说帖子时，评论非常有启发性。我认为我从中总结出三点。第一点是，在数据中心建设的当地，人们看到他们的电价上涨了。

The second is that people are worried about the water consumption of these data centers and the cost of water and the access to clean water and that the plans to be net-neutral on water consumption may or may not be real. So there's a concern there. And then the third that many of the people commented was about the actual noise pollution that it was creating. But I I took a step back from this and my thought is very simple, which is it actually speaks to one of three very important inflection points that we're dealing with on the AI side, right? So one of them we talked about last week, which is you can't have 50 state laws, right? It needs to come from the federal government so that there's one set of regulation and that there's clarity. So effectively what Sax has been able to execute on the crypto side, I think his intention is to try to do this on the AI side and I think the federal government needs to be given a chance to do that. Otherwise locally in the United States the only winners are going to be lawyers and then we're going to create an own goal and China's going to win. Okay. Second, we just talked about it is the government needs to be the economic backstop to the US supply chain that powers AI, right? And we talked about all these things, the metals, the minerals, the rare earths, so that the tax that companies can extract are mostly market driven and not exploitative and doesn't create air pockets in the funding cycle. Okay, so we talked about that. But here's the thing that nobody talks about. When you look at these data centers, I think what it's saying bottoms up is that these hyperscalers (超大规模云服务提供商: 指那些拥有庞大基础设施和计算能力的云计算服务提供商，如亚马逊AWS、微软Azure和谷歌云) need to get these communities on their side. I think that there is no understanding of what a token (代币: 一种数字资产，通常用于区块链平台上的特定功能或价值交换) is. What is a token? I don't think if you ask the average person on the street, they know what it is. What they know is that tokens are not jobs. And if AI is going to be embraced by the public, I think what we need to do a better job of is to show the tangible economic benefits, especially in places like Wisconsin and Indiana that may feel like they're missing out. So, we can't have this narrative that AI may take your job away while it's also doubling your electricity price because they're not feeling and seeing the abundance that we think that it can offer. This is exactly right, Chamath. If you think about the average American citizen, you know, they have somebody in their family who drives for Uber or DoorDash, they have truck drivers, they have Amazon factory workers, and all those jobs are going away. It's just a matter of when. And some people believe we can handle the displacement, others don't. Go ahead. Freeberg.

第二点是，人们担心这些数据中心的用水量、水费以及清洁水的获取，而且关于水消耗净零的计划可能并非真实。所以这里存在担忧。第三点是许多人评论的，关于它造成的实际噪音污染。但我对此退了一步，我的想法非常简单，那就是它实际上反映了我们在人工智能方面正在处理的三个非常重要的转折点之一，对吧？其中一个我们上周谈过，那就是你不能有50个州法律，对吧？它需要来自联邦政府，这样才能有一套统一的法规，并且有明确性。所以萨克斯在加密货币方面能够执行的，我认为他的意图是试图在人工智能方面也这样做，我认为联邦政府需要有机会做到这一点。否则，在美国当地，唯一的赢家将是律师，然后我们将自摆乌龙，中国将获胜。好的。第二点，我们刚刚谈过，政府需要成为支持人工智能的美国供应链的经济后盾，对吧？我们谈到了所有这些东西，金属、矿物、稀土，这样公司可以提取的税收主要是市场驱动的，而不是剥削性的，并且不会在融资周期中造成资金空缺。好的，我们谈过了。但这里有一个没有人谈论的问题。当你看到这些数据中心时，我认为它从底层传达的信息是，这些超大规模云服务提供商需要争取这些社区的支持。我认为人们不了解代币是什么。代币是什么？我认为如果你问街上的普通人，他们不知道那是什么。他们知道的是代币不是工作。如果人工智能要被公众接受，我认为我们需要做得更好的是展示切实的经济利益，尤其是在像威斯康星州和印第安纳州这样可能觉得自己被忽视的地方。所以，我们不能有这种说法，即人工智能可能会夺走你的工作，同时又使你的电费翻倍，因为他们没有感受到和看到我们认为它能提供的丰富。查马斯，这完全正确。如果你想想普通的美国公民，你知道，他们家里有人为优步（Uber）或DoorDash开车，他们有卡车司机，有亚马逊工厂工人，所有这些工作都将消失。这只是时间问题。有些人相信我们能够应对这种取代，另一些人不相信。请继续。弗里伯格。

Chamath, my idea, just sorry, my idea, my idea is you have to use the balance sheet of these big companies, use that free cash flow and it can act as a cushion for a lot of what needs to happen. So,

查马斯，我的想法，抱歉，我的想法是，你必须利用这些大公司的资产负债表，利用那些自由现金流，它可以为很多需要发生的事情提供缓冲。所以，

they can pay higher tariffs for electricity.

他们可以支付更高的电费。

They can also just frankly go and pay for some amount of the electricity bill of these local folks. They could pay for solar and storage if they wanted to. There's a plethora of ideas here where they probably are going to need to step into market to get folks on their side and I think they have to do it. It's interesting you mentioned that because I just had Zack Dell from Base Power on this week in Startups last week and what they do is they put batteries on the side of your house outside their square ones so they're not as felt as industrial like industrial ones and then they will fill those batteries when the electricity is cheap. They'll deploy it when it's expensive. They get the arbitrage (套利: 利用不同市场或资产之间的价格差异进行交易以获取利润的行为)

他们也可以坦率地去支付这些当地居民的部分电费。如果他们愿意，他们可以支付太阳能和储能的费用。这里有很多想法，他们可能需要进入市场才能争取到人们的支持，我认为他们必须这样做。你提到这一点很有趣，因为我上周在“本周创业公司”节目中邀请了Base Power的扎克·戴尔（Zack Dell），他们所做的就是把电池放在你房子外面，是方形的，所以不像工业电池那么显眼，然后他们会在电费便宜的时候给这些电池充电。当电费贵的时候，他们就会使用这些电池。他们从中获得套利。

and I said to him on the show like it's only they only charge consumers I think $500 or $1,000 to install it just so they have some skin in the game. You don't have to rip your roof apart and put solar on. It's just batteries. And they said, "Well, why don't you do that and like do an entire neighborhood? Like when they build these 3,000 home infill neighborhoods, why don't you put them on every single one and then create a network for data centers?" And he said, "Stand by. That's what exactly what we're working on." So it kind of combines your idea. Sacks, you're the czar. What are your thoughts on what Chamath points out is which is the average working American and their perception of AI? You have job loss, you have electric bills going up, and then you have, hey, fake news, the reality, is this real or not? These Sora slop videos (Sora生成视频: 指由OpenAI的Sora模型生成的视频内容，可能带有不真实或低质量的含义) I'm seeing, it feels like there's a little bit of a trend towards a negative framing of the AI innovation and maybe it's not going to help the bottom half of society. Are you seeing that? Do you believe it? And do you have plans to counter it?

我在节目中对他说，他们只向消费者收取500或1000美元的安装费，只是为了让他们有点参与感。你不需要拆掉屋顶安装太阳能。它只是电池。他们说：“那你们为什么不这样做，比如覆盖整个社区呢？就像他们建造这些3000户的填充式社区时，为什么不给每一户都安装上，然后为数据中心创建一个网络呢？”他说：“请稍等。这正是我们正在努力的。”所以这有点结合了你的想法。萨克斯，你是沙皇。你对查马斯指出的普通美国工薪阶层及其对人工智能的看法有什么想法？你看到失业、电费上涨，然后还有，嘿，假新闻，现实，这是真的还是假的？我看到的这些Sora生成视频，感觉有点倾向于负面地看待人工智能创新，也许它不会帮助社会底层。你看到这种情况了吗？你相信吗？你有什么计划来对抗它？

Well, what I see is that we just came off a quarter of 3.8% economic growth, of which 40% was attributable to AI. So, in other words, if we didn't have this AI boom going on, by my math, our GDP growth (国内生产总值增长: 一个国家或地区经济活动总量的增长率) rate in Q2 (第二季度: 一年中的四月、五月、六月) would have been 2.3% instead of 3.8%.

嗯，我看到的是，我们刚刚结束了一个经济增长率为3.8%的季度，其中40%归因于人工智能。所以，换句话说，如果不是因为这场人工智能热潮，根据我的计算，我们第二季度的国内生产总值增长率将是2.3%，而不是3.8%。

So AI is the difference between having great GDP growth, say around 4%. And modest GDP growth around 2%. So it seems to me that everyone who wants to have a great economy should be supportive of this AI boom that's happening. The job loss narrative is just that. It's just a narrative. It's a story. The media loves to tell it. It's mostly theoretical. It's mostly anecdotal. You can point to a few jobs here and there, but there's no evidence of widespread job loss. This is just something that people are prognosticating about the future. And in every previous technological revolution that we've had, yes, the jobs have shifted, but they've shifted from more rote jobs (死记硬背的工作: 指重复性高、不需要太多创造性思维的工作) to more sophisticated jobs that create a higher standard of living for everybody. The best example being that in the year 1900, 50% of the US economy was involved in agriculture. In other words, one out of every two people were farmers. By the year 2000, that number had dropped to 2%. The difference, the 48% did not become unemployed. They went off and did other things. They worked in factories, for example, and they went into the services part of the economy. So I think what's going to happen here is that AI is going to enable people to shift their work to more gratifying and less rote parts of the economy that will increase productivity and standards of living for everybody. Biology has a really good way of explaining this and I think this goes to the heart of why the job loss narrative is a fallacy is because humans are end-to-end (端到端: 指从开始到结束的完整过程或系统). What makes them really good and irreplaceable is that they can do an entire job end to end and they can pivot their objective and figure out what their objective should be. AI is not like that. It has to be told what to do. It has to be prompted (提示: 向人工智能模型提供指令或输入，以引导其生成特定输出) and then when it gives you a result, that result has to be validated (验证: 确认结果的准确性或有效性) to make sure it's not hallucinating. And then frequently you don't really get the result you're looking for. So you have to iterate and you have to reprompt and you go through this loop where you do it over and over again until you get something that's valuable. So in other words, humans do the things at the end. They do the prompting and validation. AI does the stuff in the middle. So as biology says, humans are end to end. AI is middle to middle. This is why fundamentally I think that AI and humans will be very synergistic (协同作用的: 指不同事物共同作用，产生大于各部分之和的效果). AI will not be a replacement for humans. They're going to do the stuff in the middle that humans don't like to do and it's going to allow humans to be much more productive. So right now I'm very optimistic about this boom. And I do think that people who are criticizing it should really think about whether they want the US to have 2% growth rates or 4% growth rates because that's what we're really talking about here.

所以人工智能是实现高GDP增长（比如4%左右）和适度GDP增长（比如2%左右）之间的区别。在我看来，所有希望拥有强大经济的人都应该支持这场正在发生的人工智能热潮。失业论调仅仅是一种说法。它只是一个叙事。一个故事。媒体喜欢讲述它。它大多是理论性的。大多是轶事。你可以指出这里那里有几份工作，但没有证据表明普遍的失业。这只是人们对未来的预测。在我们经历的每一次技术革命中，是的，工作岗位确实发生了转变，但它们是从更多死记硬背的工作转向了更复杂的工作，为每个人创造了更高的生活水平。最好的例子是，在1900年，美国经济的50%从事农业。换句话说，每两个人中就有一个是农民。到2000年，这个数字下降到2%。这48%的差异并没有导致失业。他们去做了其他事情。例如，他们在工厂工作，他们进入了经济的服务业部分。所以我认为这里将发生的是，人工智能将使人们能够将他们的工作转向经济中更令人满意、更少死记硬背的部分，这将提高每个人的生产力并改善生活水平。生物学有一个很好的方式来解释这一点，我认为这触及了为什么失业论调是谬误的核心，因为人类是端到端的。让他们真正优秀和不可替代的原因是他们可以端到端地完成整个工作，并且他们可以调整他们的目标并弄清楚他们的目标应该是什么。人工智能不是那样的。它必须被告知要做什么。它必须被提示，然后当它给你一个结果时，那个结果必须被验证以确保它没有产生幻觉。然后你经常得不到你想要的结果。所以你必须迭代，你必须重新提示，你经历这个循环，一遍又一遍地做，直到你得到有价值的东西。所以换句话说，人类做最后的事情。他们做提示和验证。人工智能做中间的事情。所以正如生物学所说，人类是端到端的。人工智能是中间到中间的。这就是为什么从根本上我认为人工智能和人类将是非常协同作用的。人工智能不会取代人类。它们将做人类不喜欢做的中间工作，这将使人类的生产力大大提高。所以现在我对这场繁荣非常乐观。而且我确实认为那些批评它的人应该真正考虑他们是希望美国有2%的增长率还是4%的增长率，因为这才是我们真正讨论的问题。

Freeberg, CEO of Uber and Tesla believe the opposite. They think these driver jobs are gone pretty quickly. The data showing there's a bit of a serious problem right now with young people getting jobs specifically because of AI. And obviously GDP is not wages. The people we're talking about who are affected by these job losses don't own equities. The top 50, 55% of the country own equities. So what do you think about this narrative? Do you believe it's a false narrative, a true narrative somewhere in between? Okay, here here's how I would think about what may happen rather than think about someone quote losing their job, which you know is a term you keep using and others keep using and

弗里伯格，优步（Uber）和特斯拉（Tesla）的CEO们持相反观点。他们认为这些司机的工作会很快消失。数据显示，目前年轻人找工作存在一些严重问题，特别是由于人工智能的影响。显然，GDP不等于工资。我们谈论的受这些失业影响的人并不拥有股票。全国前50%到55%的人拥有股票。那么你对这种说法有什么看法？你认为它是虚假的、真实的，还是介于两者之间？好的，我将这样思考可能发生的事情，而不是思考某人“失去工作”，你知道，这是一个你和其他人一直在使用的词，而且……

I think would be yeah

我想会是，是的。

I don't what whatever it is it you're you're acting like they're passively in a victim state. We have the lowest unemployment in history and there's an extraordinary demand for new capacity of work by humans to do stuff in the United States right now because of the extraordinary manufacturing buildout that is underway driven largely by AI and soon-to-be robotics and several other industries. We just talked about rare earths mining and processing. There are many industries that are taking off in this country that have not existed and there is a demand for labor. And when there's a demand for labor and there's a shortage of people to do the work, the employer typically says, "Let's go recruit. Let's go spend. Let's go train." And when you have an innovation cycle like is underway right now, the hiring for the new jobs happens before the loss of the old jobs happens. So you have to have someone that builds all the Model T's before people stop becoming horse buggy drivers. So who's going to do all the Model T building? They're going to get paid. They're going to get offered money to go do those jobs. So what typically happens in these cycles is that there's a recruitment exercise, a recruiting cycle that happens upfront. And so rather than say all these drivers are going to lose their jobs, another way to frame it is that all of these drivers are going to be offered new, higher paying jobs before there's lower demand for driving. And they're going to say, I can go make twice as much money per hour by going over to take this new job. And then they're going to say, "I'd rather do that than drive. I'm getting paid twice as much and I get to work on more interesting stuff. I like that." That's how this is likely going to go. That is the more positive view on how what you're calling job displacement actually plays out in the US economy in the decade ahead. A recruiting cycle precedes the elimination of old jobs that aren't needed anymore. That recruiting cycle is a net positive for people. They say, "Wow, that is an amazing improvement in my income, an improvement in my lifestyle. I get to work on more interesting things. My life is better because of it. And then years later, the demand for those old jobs starts to die down, but at that point, everyone's been recruited away anyway.

我不知道是什么，你表现得好像他们被动地处于受害者状态。我们现在失业率处于历史最低水平，而且由于人工智能以及即将到来的机器人技术和几个其他行业所推动的非凡制造业建设正在进行中，美国目前对人类从事新工作能力的需求异常旺盛。我们刚刚谈到了稀土开采和加工。这个国家有许多以前不存在的行业正在蓬勃发展，并且存在劳动力需求。当存在劳动力需求而又缺乏人手来完成工作时，雇主通常会说：“我们去招聘吧。我们去花钱吧。我们去培训吧。”当像现在正在进行的创新周期出现时，新工作的招聘发生在旧工作消失之前。所以你必须有人建造所有的福特T型车，然后人们才会停止成为马车夫。那么谁来建造所有的福特T型车呢？他们会得到报酬。他们会得到钱去从事这些工作。所以这些周期中通常发生的是，会有一个招聘活动，一个招聘周期提前发生。所以与其说所有这些司机都会失去工作，不如说这些司机在驾驶需求下降之前，都会被提供新的、更高薪的工作。他们会说，我去从事这份新工作，每小时能赚两倍的钱。然后他们会说：“我宁愿那样做也不愿开车。我能拿到两倍的工资，而且能从事更有趣的事情。我喜欢那样。”这很可能是事情的发展方式。这是对你所说的就业替代在未来十年美国经济中如何实际发生的更积极的看法。招聘周期先于不再需要的旧工作的淘汰。那个招聘周期对人们来说是净积极的。他们说：“哇，我的收入有了惊人的提高，我的生活方式也改善了。我能从事更有趣的事情。我的生活因此变得更好了。”然后几年后，对那些旧工作的需求开始减少，但那时，反正所有人都已经被招聘走了。

So, Freeberg, you mentioned the Model T putting all the horse and buggies out of business. And if we had today's media environment around back in the days of Henry Ford, that's exactly what they would have been bemoaning is that all the horse and buggy guys are going to be put out of business. And part of the reason why that would have been a very bad take is because it's easy to see the people who are being displaced in the short term like maybe the Uber drivers or something like that. But it's hard to see all the new industries and all the new businesses and all the new jobs that don't even exist yet that are going to be created. So for example, what were the downstream effects of the Model T? Well, first of all, it created this new kind of industrial assembly line which applied not just to cars but to all sorts of goods. I mean Henry Ford pioneered that and that had huge ramifications for the US becoming the industrial power that it ultimately became which led it to winning World War II. Then just in terms of the car, you had things like the build out of the interstate highway system,

所以，弗里伯格，你提到了福特T型车让所有的马车都失业了。如果我们在亨利·福特（Henry Ford）时代有今天的媒体环境，那他们抱怨的正是所有马车夫都将失业。而这之所以是一个非常糟糕的观点，部分原因在于，短期内很容易看到那些被取代的人，比如优步司机之类的。但很难看到所有新的产业、新的企业以及那些尚未存在但即将被创造出来的新工作。所以举个例子，福特T型车的下游效应是什么？嗯，首先，它创造了一种新型的工业装配线，不仅适用于汽车，也适用于各种商品。我的意思是，亨利·福特开创了这一点，这对美国最终成为工业强国产生了巨大影响，并使其赢得了第二次世界大战。然后就汽车本身而言，你看到了州际公路系统的建设，

the tire industry.

轮胎行业。

Yeah. That just about the highways that led to

是的。那只是关于导致……的高速公路。

to Holiday Inn and hotels and motel and drive-through windows and McDonald's and car culture

到假日酒店、旅馆、汽车旅馆、免下车窗口、麦当劳和汽车文化。

and

以及……

and the taxi cab industry itself emerged.

出租车行业本身也随之兴起。

George Lucas got his start as a director by making the film American Graffiti which was all about car culture in the 1950s. So that led to Star Wars. I mean, there's all these butterfly effects of the Model T being invented, which are absolutely massive. And it would have been impossible to foresee all of that stuff a hundred years ago. When you have these new industrial revolutions or these new technological revolutions, it's going to increase the capacity of humans to design all sorts of new products, create all sorts of new businesses. And what we've seen is that this lump of labor fallacy (劳动总量谬误: 认为经济中存在固定数量的工作，因此技术进步或移民会导致失业的错误观念) that you have all these humans that we don't know what to do with so you have to just keep them busy has always proven to be a fallacy throughout human history.

乔治·卢卡斯（George Lucas）通过制作电影《美国风情画》（American Graffiti）开启了他的导演生涯，那部电影完全是关于1950年代的汽车文化。所以那导致了《星球大战》。我的意思是，福特T型车的发明产生了所有这些蝴蝶效应，它们是绝对巨大的。而这一切在一百年前是无法预见的。当你拥有这些新的工业革命或新的技术革命时，它将增加人类设计各种新产品、创造各种新业务的能力。而我们所看到的是，这种劳动总量谬误，即你拥有所有这些我们不知道该如何处理的人类，所以你必须让他们保持忙碌，在人类历史上一直被证明是谬误。

And by the way, those buggy drivers did not lose their jobs. They chose to go into one of these new industries where they were offered more money.

顺便说一句，那些马车夫并没有失业。他们选择进入这些新行业，在那里他们获得了更多的报酬。

I don't think this is the issue at all. I would say that when you look at Arizona, Indiana, and Wisconsin, what you are looking at are people whose jobs are not at risk today, tomorrow or the next day because of AI. I don't think that's what it is. And I think that they probably on the margins benefit. The question is more how are they getting information and how are they processing their point of view so that they show up to these local municipality meetings and essentially cancel progress. That is a very important thing to diagnose because it is not isolated. So I'm trying to ask the question which I think is a more practical and important one is what do we do to make sure that the narrative and the facts are clear because right now you're seeing very different and diverse pockets of people in largely purple and then some red states voting against the exact things we need to bring this abundance forward. And I think we need to figure out why and how that's happening and have a version that counteracts that. Otherwise, this will become more slowed. It will not go faster.

我根本不认为这是问题所在。我想说的是，当你看到亚利桑那州、印第安纳州和威斯康星州时，你看到的是那些今天、明天或后天都不会因为人工智能而面临失业风险的人。我不认为问题是这个。而且我认为他们在边缘地带可能受益。问题更多在于他们如何获取信息，以及他们如何处理自己的观点，以至于他们出现在这些地方市政会议上，并实质上取消了进展。这是一个非常重要的诊断，因为它并非孤立事件。所以我试图提出的问题，我认为是一个更实际和重要的问题，那就是我们如何确保叙事和事实清晰明了，因为现在你看到在主要是紫色州和一些红色州，有非常不同和多样化的人群投票反对我们推进这种富足所需要的正是这些东西。我认为我们需要弄清楚为什么以及如何发生这种情况，并提出一个能够对抗它的版本。否则，这将变得更加缓慢。它不会加速。

Well, you bring up a good point there. There are I would say there's legitimate and illegitimate reasons to be skeptical of AI. So, the one that you bring up, Chamath, that I think is very legitimate is that we are going to have to stand up a lot more electricity power generation. Otherwise, it could drive residential rates up and that will create a backlash to AI and the buildout of data centers and we don't want that. So, that's a legitimate issue that has to be solved. However, there are what I would call illegitimate reasons to fear AI. And that's got everything to do with the media environment. And there spreading of all these unproven narratives in many cases based on contrived studies where they're saying that, you know, there's going to be 50% job loss in the next few years or you have all the Terminator type scenarios where AI is going to grow beyond our control. All of these doomer narratives that are being created that are scaring people and creating a knee-jerk reaction at the state level, which we talked about last week, where there's now a thousand bills going through state legislatures mostly because the legislators feel a need to quote unquote do something, not because they know what they want to do. So, there's a lot of unnecessary fear out there that's been created by the media and then by organizations and companies who have a regulatory capture agenda (监管俘获议程: 指某些行业或公司通过影响监管机构的决策，使其监管政策偏向于自身利益).

嗯，你提到了一个很好的观点。我想说，对人工智能持怀疑态度有合理和不合理的原因。所以，查马斯，你提出的那个我认为非常合理的原因是，我们将不得不建设更多的电力发电设施。否则，这可能会推高居民电价，从而引发对人工智能和数据中心建设的反弹，而我们不希望看到这种情况。所以，这是一个必须解决的合理问题。然而，也有我称之为不合理的原因来恐惧人工智能。这与媒体环境息息相关。他们散布所有这些未经证实的说法，在许多情况下基于捏造的研究，声称未来几年将有50%的失业，或者你有所有终结者类型的场景，即人工智能将失控发展。所有这些正在制造的末日叙事正在吓唬人们，并在州一级制造出一种膝跳反应，我们上周谈到过，现在有上千个法案正在通过州立法机构，主要原因是因为立法者觉得有必要“做点什么”，而不是因为他们知道自己想做什么。所以，有很多不必要的恐惧是由媒体以及那些有监管俘获议程的组织和公司制造出来的。

I hear you. What what I'm saying is we need to figure out how to fix this because you can't have Google, Microsoft, and Amazon cancel essential projects that advance this entire sector and economy forward. We're not talking about some random fly by night business here. We're talking about three of the five pinnacle horsemen of the AI race that we are fielding on the field.

我明白你的意思。我想说的是，我们需要弄清楚如何解决这个问题，因为你不能让谷歌、微软和亚马逊取消那些推动整个行业和经济向前发展的关键项目。我们在这里谈论的不是什么随机的昙花一现的生意。我们谈论的是我们正在赛场上部署的人工竞赛的五大核心巨头中的三家。

Well, you we're looking for suggestions. Do you have any off the top of your head? Do you think it's in education? Do you think it's in explaining the value of AI and how those people in those states would benefit from it or do you think it's just simple economics lower their electricity bill?

嗯，我们在寻求建议。你有什么脱口而出的想法吗？你认为是在教育方面吗？你认为是在解释人工智能的价值以及这些州的人们将如何从中受益吗？还是你认为这只是简单的经济学，降低他们的电费？

I think there are two things. The people in Indiana and Wisconsin said again electricity prices, water and noise. I think that we can fix those problems and I think we we meaning our industry and specifically the hyperscalers need to start using these gobs of free cash that today public markets don't value anyways. It's not like Google, Amazon, Facebook gets credit for their cash. In fact, Facebook's stock price went up when they basically burned through all their cash. You want to see them invest. And so, if you really want to take the capex around AI and make it a true super cycle, there's another avenue of where capital can be deployed. I would encourage the CEOs of these companies to wake up and get their act together and do it. That's number one. And then the second thing is I think that we need to have better spokesman for our industry. So meaning every time you see somebody talking about all these naval gazing technologies and then can't translate it into simple English into product value. For example, this week on the one side we have Anthropic AI doomerism (Anthropic公司的AI末日论: 指Anthropic公司及其部分研究人员对AI潜在风险和灾难性后果的担忧和警告) that Saxs had to confront, but then on the other side there were all of these people that got freaked out because OpenAI (OpenAI公司: 一家美国人工智能研究和部署公司) wants to push towards erotica (色情内容: 描绘性行为或性器官的艺术或文学作品) and all they could think of was the impact to their children.

我认为有两件事。印第安纳州和威斯康星州的人们再次提到了电价、水和噪音。我认为我们可以解决这些问题，而且我认为我们——也就是我们的行业，特别是超大规模云服务提供商——需要开始利用这些大量的自由现金，反正今天的公开市场并不重视这些现金。谷歌、亚马逊、脸书（Facebook）并没有因为他们的现金而获得赞誉。事实上，脸书的股价在他们基本上烧光所有现金后反而上涨了。你希望看到他们投资。所以，如果你真的想围绕人工智能进行资本支出，并使其成为一个真正的超级周期，那么还有另一个资本可以部署的途径。我鼓励这些公司的CEO们清醒过来，齐心协力去做。这是第一点。然后第二点是，我认为我们需要为我们的行业找到更好的发言人。也就是说，每次你看到有人谈论所有这些自省的技术，却无法用简单的英语将其转化为产品价值。例如，本周一方面我们有萨克斯不得不面对的Anthropic公司的AI末日论，但另一方面，有很多人因为OpenAI想要推动色情内容而感到恐慌，他们唯一能想到的就是这对他们孩子的影响。

Again, this is not necessarily true or not true, but the point is we need to have better, more eloquent, reasonable spokesman who can articulate a vision that everybody can buy into. And I said this on X, what is Arabella and Soros going to get behind now to find a boogeyman? You don't have Israel. You're not going to have, you know, Ukraine soon. So, what are you going to find as a boogeyman? And it's it's unfortunately sitting right in our backyard.

再说一遍，这不一定是真的或假的，但重点是我们需要有更好、更雄辩、更合理的发言人，能够清晰地阐述一个每个人都能接受的愿景。我在X上说过，现在阿拉贝拉（Arabella）和索罗斯（Soros）会支持什么来寻找一个替罪羊？你没有以色列。你很快也不会有乌克兰。那么，你会找到什么作为替罪羊呢？不幸的是，它就在我们的后院。

Yeah. I'm I'm not sure Altman is the greatest spokesperson for the industry. Just to to clean up a little bit here, Freeberg, my position isn't doomerism. I just think displacement is going to be more significant than we think. And the evidence I have of that is just watching what's happening with young people applying for jobs and the increase in unemployment there. And then looking at the people who deploy AI at the highest velocity which are obviously tech companies and if you look at Alphabet

是的。我不太确定奥特曼（Altman）是不是这个行业最好的发言人。弗里伯格，为了澄清一下，我的立场不是末日论。我只是认为取代效应会比我们想象的更显著。我对此的证据就是观察年轻人求职的情况以及那里的失业率上升。然后看看那些以最高速度部署人工智能的人，显然是科技公司，如果你看看Alphabet……

you know they had peak Googlers in 2022 190,000 and they've had massive earnings and profits increase and have 187,000 people now in other words less. And then you do the same for Meta, Uber, and Amazon. You know, Meta peaked at 86,000 employees now at 75, Uber at 33, now at 31. And Amazon, where you'd think you'd have a lot of growth here, they're at they peaked at 1.6 and now they're down at 1.55. So, these companies are not hiring. The gains they're talking about publicly in the deployment of AI are significant and they all have aggressive plans to use automation specifically in robots and self-driving and obviously knowledge work to reduce headcount increase profits and I think that's going to become the narrative that's going to be very challenging for our industry because if you look at our own companies they're saying wait a second your companies aren't growing and my kid got a computer science degree (计算机科学学位: 学习计算机理论、设计和应用系统及软件的学术学位) if you look at the unemployment level of people graduating with computer science degrees who are developers. It's increasing. Unemployment amongst developers is increasing and that's just really notable. So, I wouldn't say I'm a doomerist, but I am concerned that the new jobs might not show up as quickly as the old jobs or the static team size trend continues because we've had static team sizes for years now. Okay, this has been another amazing episode of the number one podcast in the world, the All-In podcast. Tell your friends, write a review

你知道，他们在2022年达到了谷歌员工的峰值，有19万人，他们的收入和利润都大幅增长，现在却只有18.7万人，换句话说，人数减少了。然后你看看Meta、优步和亚马逊也是如此。你知道，Meta员工数曾达到8.6万人的峰值，现在是7.5万；优步曾是3.3万，现在是3.1万。而亚马逊，你可能会认为这里会有很多增长，他们曾达到160万人的峰值，现在降到了155万。所以，这些公司并没有在招聘。他们公开谈论的人工智能部署带来的收益是巨大的，而且他们都有积极的计划，特别是在机器人和自动驾驶以及知识工作中使用自动化来减少员工数量，增加利润。我认为这将成为一个对我们行业来说非常具有挑战性的叙事，因为如果你看看我们自己的公司，他们会说，等等，你们的公司没有增长，我的孩子拿到了计算机科学学位，如果你看看那些拥有计算机科学学位的开发人员的失业率。它正在上升。开发人员的失业率正在上升，这确实非常值得注意。所以，我不会说我是末日论者，但我确实担心新工作可能不会像旧工作那样迅速出现，或者团队规模停滞不前的趋势会继续下去，因为我们已经有几年团队规模保持不变了。好的，这是全球第一播客《All-In》的又一精彩节目。告诉你的朋友们，写一篇评论……

about how much you love the All-In podcast. We'll see you. This is episode 247. Thank you to our Sultan of Science. We missed you last week. To our Czar, have a great time this weekend at SlutCon. Be safe at SlutCon.

关于你有多喜欢《All-In》播客。我们下次见。这是第247集。感谢我们的科学苏丹。我们上周很想念你。致我们的沙皇，祝你这个周末在SlutCon玩得愉快。在SlutCon注意安全。

SlutCon's already happened to be clear. I'm not going.

明确地说，SlutCon已经结束了。我没去。

We missed it. Where's the afterparty? There's got to be a post-play party this weekend. Who knows? It's got to be an afterparty. And of course, puts the dick and dictator. Your chairman.

我们错过了。派对后派对在哪里？这个周末肯定有余兴派对。谁知道呢？肯定有余兴派对。当然，还有那个把“dick”和“dictator”放在一起的人。你的主席。

He puts the dick in dictator. You play the and SlutCon.

他把“dick”放进了“dictator”。你在SlutCon上玩……

I sure you put this bizarre and bizarre and he puts

我肯定你把这个奇怪和奇怪的东西放进去了，他放进去了……

Oh my God.

哦，天哪。

the anus in your anus

你的肛门里有肛门

and calccanous.

和跟骨。

And he puts the anus in.

他把肛门放进去了。

I don't think you want to use that word. I don't think that's one you want to use.

我认为你不想用那个词。我认为那不是你想用的词。

Anus. All right. And Moose is doing great. Thanks.

肛门。好的。穆斯（Moose）做得很好。谢谢。

I love all you guys. Thank

我爱你们所有人。谢谢。

We'll let your winners ride.

我们会让你的赢家乘胜追击。

Rainman David.

雨人戴维。

And it said,

它说：

"We open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it."

“我们向粉丝开源了它，他们简直为之疯狂。”

Love you. Queen of Kino.

爱你。电影女王。

[Music]

[音乐]

Besties are gone.

好朋友都走了。

That is my dog taking notice your driveways.

那是我的狗在注意你的车道。

Oh man, my appetite will meet.

哦，天哪，我的胃口会满足的。

We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that we just need to release somehow.

我们都应该开个房间，来一场大狂欢，因为他们都太没用了。就像这种性张力，我们总得想办法释放一下。

Wet your feet. Wet your feet. Her feet.

湿湿你的脚。湿湿你的脚。她的脚。

We need to get Murky's I'm going all in.

我们需要得到穆尔基的，我要全力以赴。

[Music]

[音乐]

I'm going all in. 我全力以赴。