关于大政府、经济范式重构与个人小微创业路径的对话讨论

地球上根本就没有任何一个没有大政府却能高度运转的社会范例。

英文原文

There is literally no example on planet earth of a high functioning society without big government.

不，那不是真的。大政府正在榨干小企业的生机。我花过无数小时与企业待在一起，他们都觉得，你在英国根本不可能成功。一旦你挣到点什么，他们就会直接用税把它抽走。

英文原文

>> No, that's not true. Big government is sucking the life out of small businesses. And I spent countless hours with businesses and they're like, you can't succeed in the UK. As soon as you earn anything, they'll just tax it off you.

所以就溜去迪拜，线上打理业务，一分税都不用交。这太荒唐了。我不知道怎么会有人看着这种情况，还觉得这是一个好体制。

英文原文

>> So pop off to Dubai, run the business virtually, and pay no tax. It's idiotic. I don't know how you can look at that and think this is a good system.

不，不。要我说，需要做的是减轻对小企业的税收和压力，因为这个经济体中的每个人都需要拥有资产。我们需要拥有房产、拥有企业、拥有股票。

英文原文

>> No, no. say what needs to happen is reduce the taxes and the pressure on the small businesses cuz everyone in this economy needs to own stuff. We need to own a house, own a business, and own shares.

但并不是每个人都能当创业者。

英文原文

>> But not everybody can be an entrepreneur.

没错。听着，如果人人都能拥有属于自己的资产，那当然很好。但拥有资产的前提是挣到足够的钱，这样你才能存下钱，才能开始拥有资产。所以问题出在工资上，因为大多数人想要的是能够去上班，并且受到体面的对待。我想挣到足够的钱，好让我能感到安全。我只想成家、

英文原文

>> Correct. Look, it would be wonderful if everybody owned something. But ownership starts with earning enough money so that you can save money so that you can begin to own something. So the problem is wages because most people want to be able to go to work and be treated decently. I want to earn enough money so that I can feel secure. I just want to be married,

生孩子、买房，诸如此类。这就是我所听到的。我希望人们能过上这样的生活，我希望每个人都能这样。但这些都已经不复存在了。房子买不起。本地就业机会不存在。技术已经剔除了所有的中间人。没有人愿意支付合理的薪水。我们拥有的是最不快乐的人群。

英文原文

>> have kids, own a house, all that. That's what I hear. I want people and I want that for everyone. That's gone away. Houses are unaffordable. Local jobs don't exist. Technology has cut out all the middlemen. No one's paying healthy wages. We have the most unhappy population.

如果你想解决这个问题，就必须实施这个方案。

英文原文

>> And if you want to fix that, you have to enact this.

嗯，我见过尼克（Nick）的政策被落实，但我觉得还不够。

英文原文

>> Well, I've seen Nick's policies implemented and I don't feel it's enough.

你并没有见识过所有的政策。所以，我们需要让大家知道，伴随我们长大的那些规则已经变了，人们必须学习这个新经济时代的规则。

英文原文

>> You haven't seen all of the policies. So, but we need people to know that the rules that we grew up with have changed and people have to learn the rules of this new economy.

对。对。没错。我完全同意。如果你想让经济重回正轨，出发点就是——

英文原文

>> Yes. Yes. Yes. I totally agree. And if you want to get the economy back on track, the starting point is

频道订阅呼吁

这对我来说非常有意思。我的团队给了我这份报告，向我展示观看这个节目的观众里有多少人订阅了。根据报告，你们中有些人告诉我们，自己莫名其妙就被取消订阅了这个频道。所以，想请大家帮个忙，如果你是这个节目的常客，并且喜欢我们在这里所做的事情，请你现在能不能检查一下自己是否按下了订阅按钮。就订阅人数而言，我们即将迎来这个节目的一个相当重要的里程碑。所以，如果有一件简单又免费的事情是你可以做来帮助我们、帮助我的团队、帮助这里的每个人把这个节目保持免费，并且让它年复一年、周复一周地不断改进，那就是动动手指点一下那个订阅按钮，并仔细检查一下你是否已经点了。这是我唯一会向你们提的要求，我们一言为定好吗？如果你这样做了，我也会告诉你我会怎么做。我保证每周、每月，我们都会越来越拼尽全力，为你请来你想听到的嘉宾、带来你想听到的对话。自从“CEO日记”（D of Sio）开播之初，我就一直恪守这个承诺，我绝不会让你们失望。请帮帮我们。真的很感激。让我们继续回到节目。

英文原文

>> This is super interesting to me. My team given me this report to show me how many of you that watch this show subscribe. And some of you have told us according to this that you are unsubscribed from the channel randomly. So, favor to ask all of you, please could you check right now if you've hit the subscribe button, if you are a regular viewer of the show and you like what we do here. We're approaching quite a significant landmark on this show in terms of a subscriber number. So, if there was one simple free thing that you could do to help us, my team, everyone here to keep this show free, to keep it improving year over year and week over week, it is just to hit that subscribe button and to double check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll ever ask of you, do we have a deal? If you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll make sure every single week, every single month, we fight harder and harder and harder and harder to bring you the guests and conversations that you want to hear. I've stayed true to that promise since the very beginning of the D of Sio and I will not let you down. Please help us. Really appreciate it. Let's get on with the show.

对话：背景与经济学视角

尼克，我想先从你的背景和成长历程谈起，以便理解你的视角以及你是一个怎样的人。你曾经以近70亿美元的价格卖掉了一家公司，

英文原文

>> Nick, I want to start with your background and your context so I can understand your perspective and who you are. You sold a company for almost $7 billion,

对吗？而你身上非常引人瞩目的一点在于，亿万富翁通常对世界有着某种特定的叙事和看法。

英文原文

>> correct? And what's so fascinating about you is you typically billionaires have a certain narrative and perspective on the world.

你似乎持有一种截然不同的观点。

英文原文

>> You seem to have a very different one.

确实如此。

英文原文

>> I do.

你究竟是谁？你从哪里来？关于你知道我们今天将要讨论的这些主题，你对世界的看法又是怎样的？

英文原文

>> Who are you? Where have you come from? And what is your perspective on the world as it relates to the subjects that you know we're going to discuss today?

应该说，我成长于一个重视公民意识的家庭。

英文原文

>> I was raised in a civic family, I should say.

那是什么意思？

英文原文

>> What does mean?

那意味着一个认真对待公民责任的家庭。呃，但我们当时是中产阶层，我父亲开始为这家小小的、呃、家族企业工作，那是由他、他的父亲创办的、生产枕头和羽绒被的企业，而这正是我涉足商业的起点。长话短说，我很早就对互联网、呃、以及它将在商业中扮演的角色产生了一种直觉。而且幸运的是，我碰巧有一位认同这一主张的朋友，他的名字叫杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）。当时他想创办一家在线零售店。他那时在纽约的一家对冲基金工作，呃，正在和我最亲密的一位朋友约会。出于各种各样的原因，他最终把他的东西从纽约寄到了西雅图我的家里，我们一起创立了亚马逊（Amazon.com）。但从那之后，我又开始创办其他科技公司。你知道，我协助经营过制造企业、电子商务企业。我和朋友们还拥有一家银行，诸如此类，你知道，我认为对市场这种非常广泛的视角开始让我形成一种直觉：当今人们被传授的所有关于经济学的知识——那种传统观点——完全是一套谎言；如果你认真对待它并以此为基础制定政策，唯一可能发生的结果就是富人变得更富，其他人变得更穷。而且，呃，你知道，对我来说一个关键的证据，或者说真正激发我兴趣的事，是我在2007、2008年看到了美国国税局（IRS）的税收表格，上面展示了美国收入份额的历史情况，在1980年，收入最高的前1%的美国人占有了大约8.5%的国民收入。呃，到2007年，据我记忆，那8%已经增长到了22%，作为国民收入份额而言基本翻了三倍。而底层50%的美国人，他们的份额从1980年的大约18%跌落到了2007年左右的12%。我所做的就是把这些数字放进电子表格里，然后自问：如果这种趋势再持续30年，会发生什么？答案就是革命。你知道，这完全就是个算术问题，因为如果前1%的人控制了45%或50%的收入，而底层50%的人只占5%，资本主义民主制度就无法维系。这并不是什么深奥的政治见解。这只是纯粹的数学。我吓坏了，决定必须全身心投入去弄清楚为什么会发生这种情况，以及如何才能、如何才能去纠正它。所以从那时起，我就一直在围绕这个问题撰写文章并为之工作。

英文原文

>> That means a family that takes uh civic responsibility seriously. Uh but we were middle class people and my father started to work for this tiny uh family business that uh his his father had started manufacturing bed pillows and down comforters which is how I got my start in business. And to make an incredibly long story short, I had a very early intuition uh about the internet u and uh the role that it would play in commerce. And as luck would have it, I had a friend who agreed with that proposition and his name was Jeff Bezos. And so he wanted to start an e-retailer. He was working in New York uh uh for a hedge fund uh dating one of my closest friends. And for a variety of reasons, he ended up sending his stuff from New York to Seattle to my house and we started Amazon.com together. But from that started starting other tech companies. you know, I've helped run, you know, manufacturing businesses, e-commerce businesses. my friends and I own a bank, you know, like that, you know, and I think that that very broad perspective on markets began to inform an intuition that everything that people are taught about economics today, that sort of the conventional view is a pack of lies and that if you take it seriously and enact policy on the basis of it, the only thing that can happen is that the rich will get richer and everyone else will get poorer. And uh you know a signal piece of that evidence for me sort of a thing that really sort of galvanized my interest was that I got a look at the IRS tax tables in 2007208 which showed American income shares in the history of that and in 1980 the top 1% of Americans shared about 8 and a half% of national income. uh by 2007 that 8% had grown to 22% as I recall so triple largely as a share of national income. While the bottom 50% of Americans their share fell from about 18% in 1980 to 12% in about 2007. And what I did is I took those numbers and I stuck them in a spreadsheet and said what happens if this trend continues for another 30 years? And the answer is revolution. You know, it just it's just arithmetic because you cannot sustain a capitalist democracy if the top 1% controls 45 or 50% of income and the bottom 50% shares five. This is not a deep political insight. This is just math. And I and I freaked out and decided that I needed to devote myself to trying to figure out why this happened and how you could how you could fix it. And so I have been writing about this and working on it since then.

为什么这件事对你来说显得如此重要？我听你谈论过“干草叉”（pitchforks）。

英文原文

>> Why did this feel so important to you? I've heard you talk about pitchforks.

即使是对历史的粗略阅读也会告诉你，当社会变得像我们现在所生活的社会这般不平等时，呃，可怕的事情就会开始发生。这要么导致警察国家，要么导致革命。而我相信干草叉已经到了跟前。我认为特朗普（Trump）政府就是——就是，你知道的，社会开始、开始走向四分五裂的典型例子之一。而我只是认为，拥有权力和资源的人有责任去做正确的事情。

英文原文

>> Even a cursory reading of history will tell you that when societies get as unequal as the societies we now live in, uh, terrible things start to happen. This leads to either a police state or a revolution. And I believe that the pitchforks are here. I think the Trump administration is the is the, you know, one of the canonical examples of a society beginning beginning to tear itself apart. And I just think it's the responsibility of people with power and resources to do the right thing.

唐（Dom），同样的问题问你。

英文原文

>> Don, same question for you.

是的，我在澳大利亚长大，嗯，十几岁的时候，我发现了创业。我很早就遇到了一位创业导师，呃，在一家初创公司干了两年，那真的让人心潮澎湃，我也非常热爱它。嗯，我觉得自己就像发现了人生的作弊码，那就是创业、创办企业和小企业，然后在21岁的时候，我走出去创办了自己的公司，那是我的第一家代理机构，并且发展得非常迅速。呃，第一年就从零做到了100万，第三年达到了1000万，就像这样一家充满活力的新公司，有这么多很酷的年轻人在那里工作和生活。我们其实差不多算是这样。是的。我们其实是在一栋大房子里，我们待在一起的时间很长。是的。我就是深深地爱上了创业、小企业、家族企业以及所有这类事情。而且在15年前，我还创办了一家创业孵化器，想聚在一起谈论创业并弄清楚如何经营企业的人，可以聚在一起探讨如何做到这一点。嗯，所以在过去的15年里，我花了无数的时间与世界各地聚在一起探讨创业如何运作的5500家企业待在一起。而在这些年里，我也得出了一个类似的结论，那就是我们在过去25年里看到的技术革命掏空了中产阶层。我基本上对自己说，我不能再按照陪伴我长大的那些规则去玩了。我必须迅速学会这个新经济、这个数字经济的规则，否则我就会被

英文原文

>> Yeah, I grew up in Australia and um as a teenager, I discovered entrepreneurship. I got an entrepreneurial mentor uh very early on and I did two years in a startup and it was really exciting and I loved it. Um and I felt like I discovered a cheat code in life which was entrepreneurship and starting businesses and small businesses and then at 21 I went off and started my own company which was my first agency and it grew really rapidly. Uh went from zero to a million in its first year and then 10 million in year three and it was like this exciting young company with all these cool young people working there and living there. We actually kind of did. Yeah. We actually were in a big house and we kind of spent a lot of time together. Yeah. I just fell in love with entrepreneurship and small business and family business and all of those kind of things. And I also 15 years ago started an entrepreneur accelerator where people who want to get together and talk about entrepreneurship and figure out how to run their businesses can get together and and figure out how to do that. Um so for the last 15 years I've spent uh countless hours with uh 5 and a half thousand businesses all over the world who are getting together talking about how entrepreneurship works. And over the years I've also come to a similar conclusion that the technological revolution that we've seen in the last 25 years has hollowed out the middle class. And I basically said I can't play by the rules that I grew up in. I have to learn the rules of this new economy, this digital economy pretty quickly or else I'm going to be

被取代和被颠覆。而且我没有后路。我不是出自任何形式的财富或金钱家庭。我也没有接受任何风险投资。我是自己出资、白手起家，靠凑信用卡之类的手段来做自己的企业。是的，我认为我真正深信的一点是，我们目前处于非常巨大的危险之中：如果更多人无法分享资本主义的红利，他们就会做出疯狂的举动，投票选出社会主义。没错。草民的怒火就会袭来，而不平等将在经济中成为一股具有毒性和腐蚀性的力量。所以，就像我是一个希望很多人能从资本主义中受益的资本家。这一直以来都是我的主张。我只是想在我们做出蠢事之前，让更多人融入资本主义的红利中。

英文原文

displaced and disrupted. Um and I don't have a fallback position. I I didn't come from any form of wealth or money. Um I also didn't take on any venture capital. I self-funded, bootstrapped uh my own businesses by cobbling together credit cards and things like that. And yeah, I I think one of the things that I really truly believe is that we are in a very big danger at the moment that if more people can't participate in the benefits of capitalism, they're going to do crazy things and vote in socialism. Correct. uh and the pitchforks will come and inequality is going to be a toxic corrosive force uh in the economy. So like I'm a capitalist who wants lots of people to benefit from capitalism. That's been my whole shtick for forever. Um and I just want to include more people in the benefits of capitalism before we do do dumb things.

富人税与空心化

我想因此问题就在于，我们该如何做到这一点？主流的叙事，而且我认为也是最占主导地位的叙事之一，就是我们需要对像我们这样的人征收多得多的税。丹尼尔，你对此怎么看？

英文原文

>> And I guess the question therefore is how how do we do that? The prevailing narrative and I think one of the most dominant narratives is we need to tax people like us a lot more. What's your view of that Daniel?

把富人树立成反派是非常容易的。你可以想象这种亿万富豪，对吧？尼克也许可以成为一个反派，你可以这么做。当我审视经济以及是什么在榨干它时，这更难具象化，但我们有这些巨型企业，我们有这些巨型基金。在英国这里，所有的房子都在被黑石集团（BlackRock）收购，这是一家大型私募股权基金，希望全体民众永远沦为租房阶级。而且你知道，我们的首相曾与这家大基金的首席执行官手拉手走在街上说：“是的，进来收购东西吧，让房屋金融化，而这正引起很多麻烦。”接着你还有像微软、像亚马逊这样的大公司，他们说：“嘿，我们想在你们国家做生意，但我们不想在那里交税。我们想假装自己在卢森堡，或者假装自己在爱尔兰，我们要从英国的仓库向英国的消费者发货，但我们当时并不真正在英国，所以我们不交税。”然后你还有星巴克，他们说，你知道，我们想在夫妻家庭店咖啡馆隔壁做生意卖咖啡，但我们必须为星巴克标志支付这笔特许权使用费，而那笔钱必须流向百慕大，等等。所以当我审视是谁在掏空工薪阶层/中产阶级时，你会看到庞大的巨型企业，它们绝对比我们曾经设想的还要庞大。它们现在和国家一样大。而且你还有巨型企业基金，它们也是万亿美元级别的基金。我担心的一件事是，很多人认为像我这样基本上充满活力的创业型人士，甚至像尼克这样的亿万富翁，才是敌人。而你知道，当出现一个发明了很酷的吸尘器并卖出很多的詹姆斯·戴森（James Dyson）时，那并不是敌人。当出现写了一堆歌、成为著名的披头士成员并赚了十亿美元的保罗·麦卡特尼（Paul McCartney）时，那并不是敌人。真正的敌人是我们将住房金融化。敌人是不想交税的大型巨型企业。那是我们需要稍微更加细致入微、认清是谁在掏空中产阶级的地方，以及我们该如何做出政策抉择来确保这种情况不会发生。

英文原文

So it's very easy to have a bad guy of a rich person. Uh so you could imagine this billionaire rich person, right? Nick maybe could be a bad guy and you could sort of do that. When I look at the economy and what's draining it out, um it's it's harder to conceptualize, but we have these mega corporations and we have these mega funds. So here in the UK, all the houses are being bought up by Black Rockck, a massive private equity fund that wants the entire population to be a rental class forever. And you know, our prime minister has walked down street handinhand with the CEO of this big fund saying, "Yeah, come in and and buy up stuff um and financialized houses and that is causing a lot of trouble." And then you've got big companies like Microsoft, like Amazon, and they say, "Hey, we want to do business in your country, but we don't want to pay tax there. We want to pretend that we're in Luxembourg or we want to pretend that we're in Ireland and we're going to send something from our British warehouse to our British consumer, but we're not really in Britain at that time so we don't pay tax. And then you got Starbucks that says, you know, we we want to do business and sell coffee next to mom and dad family business coffee shop, but we have to pay this license fee for the Starbucks logo and that has to go to Bermuda and you know, so so when I look at who's hollowing out the middle class, you've got massive mega corp businesses uh that are the absolutely bigger than we could have ever conceived them to be. They're as big as nations now. Um and you've got mega corp funds which are also trillion dollar funds. And one thing I'm worried about is that a lot of people think that a guy like me who's basically a dynamic entrepreneurial person or even a billionaire like Nick is the enemy. And you know when you get a a James Dyson who invents a cool vacuum cleaner and sells a lot of them, that's not the enemy. When you get Paul McCartney who writes a bunch of songs and becomes a famous beetle and makes a billion dollars, that's not the enemy. The enemy is the financialization of our homes. The enemy is big mega corpse that don't want to pay tax. And that's where we we need to we need to be a little bit more nuanced and clear who's hollowing out the middle class and how do we make policy choices to make sure that doesn't happen.

所以你的意思是对富人征税并不是解决办法。

英文原文

>> So you're saying taxing the rich isn't the answer.

对富人征税就像是一个耸人听闻的口号，它树立了那些实际上并非敌人的敌人。

英文原文

>> Taxing the rich is like a headline that creates enemies who aren't actually the enemies.

但假设在英国，如果你是首相，你会提高对前 1% 群体的税率吗？

英文原文

>> But so let's just say in the UK then if you were prime minister, would you increase the tax rate on the top 1%.

你可以出于政治原因这么做，因为这会让人们感觉良好，但它不会改变经济。真正需要发生的是我们需要一个繁荣的创业阶层。小企业才是答案。英国政府正在犯的最大错误是他们没有看到这 570 万家小企业是他们最大的资产。如果我们能让这些企业运转起来，如果我们能创造一次创业提振，那将创造就业机会，并创造更好的机遇。我肯定会遏制我们在这些巨型基金上面临的问题，我也肯定会停止假装亚马逊在卢森堡、谷歌在爱尔兰。对。所以这类事情我肯定会去做。

英文原文

You could do that for political reasons because it would make people feel good, but it won't change the economy. What needs to happen is we need a thriving entrepreneurial class. Small businesses are the answer. The biggest mistake the the UK government is making is they don't see that the 5.7 million small businesses are their biggest asset. That we could get those going, that we could create an entrepreneurial uplift that would create jobs and it would create better opportunities. I would definitely curb the issue that we're having with these uh mega funds and I would definitely stop pretending that Amazon is in Luxembourg and Google's in Ireland. Right. So those sorts of things I would definitely do.

工资与财富分配

你自己呢，尼克？你想让前 1% 的人缴纳更多的税吗？这重要吗？

英文原文

>> What about yourself, Nick? Would you would do you want the top 1% to pay more taxes? Is that important?

所谓美国最富有的人缴纳大量税款的说法是不真实的，因为美国的税收体系充斥着漏洞，让最富有的公民能够以普通人所缴税率的一半来缴税。我绝对相信，在一个高效运转的民主社会中，最富有的公民所缴纳的税款应该等于或高于典型公民。而在美国，客观上根本就不是这种情况——

英文原文

So, it is not true that the richest people in the United States pay a lot of tax because the the American tax system is riddled with loopholes that allow the richest citizens to pay taxes at a rate of 1/ half of what ordinary people pay. I absolutely believe that in a high functioning democracy, the wealthiest citizens will pay taxes equal to or greater than the typical citizen. And that is just objectively not the case in the United States

按百分比计算。

英文原文

>> as a percentage

按百分比计算。而且我认为那算是让经济运转和让民主前行的基本底线。但这并不是最大的问题。问题在于工资。

这里是美国最重要的社会经济事实：今天全职工作者的中位数年收入在 6 万美元左右。如果那个人自 1975 年以来在经济中所占的份额保持不变，他们的年收入就不会是 6 万美元，而是接近每年 12 万美元。顺便说一下，这种效应一直延伸到第 90 百分位数。如果你在 2018 年、2020 年挣 18 万美元，如果你保持了同样的 GDP 份额，你的年收入就不是 18 万，而是差不多一年 25 万美元。因此，在美国 50 年间，唯一直接从经济增长和生产力提高中获益的人是前 10% 的人，而大部分利益流向了前 1%。这就是问题所在，那原本是普通美国人的工资，每年数以万亿美元计，如今却流入了最富有群体的口袋——顺便说一下，所使用的正是丹刚才概述的机制。而我们所做的，是极大地倾斜了经济竞争环境，曾经偏向中小企业和本土公司的环境，如今向这些巨型企业倾斜。我们曾经拥有一个积极鼓励小企业和创业的经济。我的意思是，基本上就是我们所谓的“新自由主义”，这套在 70 年代和 80 年代生效的围绕经济因果关系的理念。里根经济学、撒切尔主义，所有这些东西。给富人减税，给有权势的人松绑，压制劳动人民的工资。基本上就是涓滴经济学。那些政策在 70 年代、80 年代和 90 年代生效了。结果发生的是，集中度从小企业大幅转向大企业，收入从普通美国人大幅转向极少数富人。这就是问题的核心。当然，我认为富人应该缴纳他们公平的份额。我们应该交。让一个年收入 5 亿美元的人缴纳 15% 的税率，是荒谬的。年收入 20 万美元的人却要缴 40%。我只是觉得这既愚蠢又错误，而这正是美国的情况。在英国这里可能不是这种情况。但更大的问题是工资。如果你想让经济重回正轨，你就必须解决那个问题。丹，你说创业中的自主选择权在提高工资方面能比任何政府政策起到更大作用。

英文原文

>> as a percentage. And I think that that is, you know, sort of table stakes in making an economy function and a democracy go. But it is not the biggest problem. The problem is wages. So here's the most important socioeconomic fact in the United States that the median full-time worker today earns in the range of $60,000 a year. If that person had maintained their same share of the economy since 1975, instead of earning $60,000 a year, they'd earn close to $120,000 a year. That effect, by the way, goes up to the 90th percentile. If you earned $180,000 in 2018, 2020, if you had maintained your same share of GDP, instead of earning 180, you'd earn like a $250,000 a year. So in the United States over 50 years the only people who benefited directly from economic growth and productivity gains were the people in the top 10% and the majority of benefit went to the top 1%. And that is the problem and that is trillions of dollars a year that used to be wages for ordinary Americans and now ends up in the pockets of the richest people by the way utilizing precisely the mechanisms that Dan just outlined. And what we have done is we have massively tilted the economic playing field uh uh which once favored small and medium-sized businesses and local companies towards these giant corporations. We used to have an economy that actively encouraged small businesses and entrepreneurship. I mean basically what we call neoliberalism this set of ideas around economic cause and effect that came into force in the 70s and 80s. regonomics, Thatcherism, all this stuff. Cut taxes for rich people, deregulate powerful people, and suppress the wages for working people. Basically, trickle down economics. Those policies went in went into effect in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. And what happened is a huge shift in concentration from smaller businesses to bigger businesses and a huge uh shift in income from ordinary Americans to the very rich. And that's the core of the problem. And of course, I think rich people should pay their fair share. We should. It is ridiculous for somebody who make half a billion dollars a year and to pay 15% tax rate. Uh somebody who makes $200,000 a year pays 40. I just think that's stupid and wrong, which is which is the case in the United States. May not be the case here in the UK. But the bigger problem is wages. And if you want to get the economy back on track, you have to address that problem. Dan, you say that optionality in entrepreneurship will do more to raise wages than any government policy.

自主选择权与就业

是的。我相信自主选择权是最重要的事情。当某人有很多选择时，他们就不会接受糟糕的条件。

英文原文

>> Yeah. So, I believe that optionality is the is the most important thing. Uh when someone has lots of options, then they don't accept terrible conditions.

那么，具体给我展开讲讲。

英文原文

>> So, give me give me some color on that.

嗯，如果我有 10 家公司想要雇佣我，

英文原文

>> Well, if I have 10 companies that are wanting to hire me,

我就会去选择最好的那个选项，对吧？但如果我住在一个只有一个雇主的小镇上，比如假设有一家雇佣人们的巨型公司，你要么为那家公司工作，要么就失业，那么我就必须接受他们所给予的一切。所以在创造更好的生活质量方面，最重要的事情就是自主选择权。我们需要大量的选择余地。我希望人们拥有的选择之一，就是我希望我们在学校里教授创业，以便让人们拥有创办家庭企业的选择——

英文原文

>> I'm going to choose the best option, right? But if I live in a town where there's only one employer, like let's say there's one massive company that employs people and you either work for that company or you're unemployed, then I have to accept whatever they're dishing out. So the most important thing in creating better quality of life is optionality. We we need lots of optionality. One of the options that I want people to have is I want us to teach entrepreneurship in schools so that people have the option to start a family business

作为他们的选项之一。

他们可能不会选那个选项，但至少那不是一个他们完全不理解的神秘黑箱，那实际上会是他们的……嗯，他们的选项之一。

而且，假设你没有最低工资，但如果你有10位雇主，而能去那些公司工作的人选池又很有限，他们就不得不相互竞价，以创造越来越好的工作条件和越来越高的薪资。

嗯，所以你其实只有在选择权不足时才需要有最低工资。如果有足够的选择权，就会把一切都推高。

英文原文

as one of their options.

They may not take that option, but at least it's not a mysterious black box that they that they just don't understand that that would actually be one of their uh one of their options.

Also, let's say you had no minimum wage, but if you had 10 employers and a limited pool of people who are available to work at those companies, they're going to have to bid against each other to create better and better working conditions and better and better pay.

Um, so you kind of only need to have minimum wages when there's not enough optionality. If there's enough optionality, it pushes everything up.

这也是你的看法吗？

英文原文

>> Is that your view as well?

边际生产力理论与权力不对称

我认同其精神。只是事实证明从来都不是那样。有许多经济学理论听起来很像那样，但它存在于一个人们拥有权力和选择权的虚构世界里，而在现实世界中，那实际上从来都不存在。

举例来说，有一个经济学原理叫边际生产力理论。你听说过吗？

英文原文

>> I agree with the spirit of that. It just turns out that is never the case. So, there's a lot of economic theory that sounds a lot like that, but it but exists in a in a in an imaginary world where people have um power and optionality and and in the real world that actually doesn't ever exist. So can by way of example there's a there's a principle of economics the theory of marginal productivity. Have you heard of that?

没有。

英文原文

>> No.

这是一个植根于经济学核心的理论，它主张因为市场是有效的，所以你赚到的钱恰恰反映了你对它所做的贡献。

英文原文

>> So that's a theory that is embedded in the the center of econ of economics which says that because markets are efficient the amount of money you earn reflects precisely the contribution that you make to it.

如果我一年赚1.5万美元，那是因为我提供了1.5万美元的价值……

英文原文

>> If I make $15,000 a year that's because I'm giving $15,000 of value

提供了1.5万美元的世界价值。好的。没错。而如果我一年赚5亿美元，靠钱滚钱来赚更多的钱，那也是我正在世界上创造的价值的准确反映，

英文原文

>> of value in the world. Okay. Correct. And if I earn $500 million a year rubbing money together to make more money, that is a that is an accurate reflection of the value I'm creating in the world,

这对资本主义来说确实非常核心，不是吗？

英文原文

>> which is really central to capitalism, isn't it?

这对资本主义来说绝对是核心，对经济政策也是核心。但问题在这里。如果你明白那是从哪里来的，就会让你深思。

在1879年，一个名叫亨利·乔治的人在美国写了一本名为《进步与贫困》的书。基本上，这是第一本关于富人掠夺穷人的书。而这本书不只是一本畅销书，它是美国历史上最畅销的书。当权者吓坏了。JP摩根把约翰·贝茨·克拉克这个人带到了哥伦比亚大学——哥大有点像是华尔街之类的大本营，在纽约——然后说，把这个问题解决了。

于是亨利·乔治写了一本叫《财富的分配》的书，他在书中发明了这个叫做边际生产力理论的概念，该理论断言了这一主张，但他把书中的潜台词明明白白地说了出来。他说，听着，我们必须向劳动人民证明，无论他们赚多少钱，不论是多还是少，都反映了他们的价值，因为如果他们断定自己的劳动价值高于他们得到的报酬，他们就会起义并把我们全杀光，而那将是很糟糕的。

了解到这一点你不会感到意外：那个想法对一群富人非常有吸引力，并被席卷进了经济学之中。如今它成了经济学理论中的核心理念。如果市场完全有效，并且所有这些选择权都存在，那它可能确实成立。但从来没有任何事实证明那是对的。它实质上损害了大多数人的福祉，因为正如丹所说，你的挣钱能力与你的谈判能力相关，而不是市场决定的某个神奇数字。

英文原文

>> It is absolutely central to capitalism and is central to economic policym. But here's the thing. If you understand where that came from, it gives you pause. So in 1879, a guy named Henry George writes a book called Progress and Poverty in the United States. And basically it's the first book about the rich stealing from the poor. And this book isn't just a bestseller. It is the best seller in the history of the United States. And the powers that be freak out. And JP Morgan brings this guy John Bates Clark to Columbia University which is sort of the home of like Wall Street and stuff like that New York and says fix this. And so Henry George writes a book called the distribution of wealth in which he invents this idea called theory of marginal productivity which asserts this idea but he says the quiet part out loud in the book. He says look we have to prove to working people that no matter how much they make whether it's a little or a lot it reflects their value because if they conclude that their work is worth more than they are paid they will revolt and kill us all and that would be bad. And that idea, it will not surprise you to learn, was very attractive to a bunch of rich people and got swept up into economics. And today is a core idea in economic theory. And it would be true potentially if markets were perfectly efficient and all this optionality existed. But there has never been a case where that was been true. It has materially harmed the welfare of most people because as Dan says, your ability to earn is related to your power to negotiate, not some magical number that the market decides.

而且取决于你有多容易被取代，因为如果我发了一则招聘广告，有400个人来应聘，对吧？这确实发生过。是的。我知道这对你来说常有，斯蒂芬。

嗯……基本上你发了一则广告，有400个人应聘，所以你不会考虑提高工资，因为有400人申请，而且他们都很优秀，就像他们都真的非常非常资历过硬，而这目前在英国经常发生。

英文原文

>> And it's how easy you are to replace because if I run an ad for a job and 400 people apply for the job, right? Which which really does happen. Yeah. I know this happens for you, Stephen.

uh that that essentially you run an ad and 400 people so you don't think about raising the wage because 400 people applied and they're all good like they're all really like super qualified people and this happens all the time in the UK right now

到处都在发生。

英文原文

>> happens everywhere

我是说，工人的权力超过所有者的情况几乎为零，而且……你知道，就连亚当……就连亚当……就连亚当……就连亚当……就连亚当……就连亚当……就连亚当·斯密在《国富论》中也概述了这种权力的不对称。关键在于，如果你让人们相信他们赚到的就是他们全部的价值，那么你就制造出了这样一种叙事：它让富人更富，让其他所有人更穷。

英文原文

>> I mean and there are almost zero circumstances where where workers have more power than owners and e you know even Ed even Ed even Ed even Ed even Ed

even Ed even Ed even Ed even Ed even Ed even Adam Smith in the in in the wealth of nations outlined this asymmetry of power And and the thing is is that if you persuade people that what they earn is all they're worth, then you've created this narrative that makes rich people richer and everybody else poorer.

政策方案与超时门槛

那么这里的解决方案是什么？是要给社会定一个更高的最低工资吗？

英文原文

>> So what's the solution here? Is it to put a a higher minimum wage on society?

嗯，那是一种政策解决方案。但如果你真的想解决这个问题，出发点是让人们以真正反映经济实际运作方式的途径来理解经济学，而不是这种可以追溯到1787年的程式化捏造；如果你当真并以此为基础制定政策，唯一可能发生的事情就是富人会变得更富，穷人会变得更穷，而这就是过去50年的故事。

英文原文

>> Well, that's a policy solution. But if you if you really want to solve the problem, the starting point is getting people to understand economics in a way that actually reflects how the how the economy actually works, not this stylized invention, dating back to 1787, that if you take seriously and enact policy on the basis of it, the only thing that can happen is that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poor, which is a story of the last 50 years.

那么政策解决方案是什么？

英文原文

>> So what is the policy solution?

政策解决方案绝对是去实施一项标准，要求企业向人们支付……你知道，体面生活的工资。所以最低工资就是一个极佳政策的完美范例。

在美国，另一项非常非常重要的政策是加班门槛，

英文原文

>> A policy solution is most definitely to apply a standard which requires companies to pay people uh you know a living wage. So the minimum wage is a perfect example of a great policy.

Another policy in the United States which is really really important is the overtime threshold

我不知道你们在英国这里有没有。我们有，

英文原文

>> which I don't know whether you have here in the UK. We do

但它是低于该薪资门槛你就会自动获得加班费的标准，在这里也是一点五倍工资。

英文原文

>> but it's the salary threshold below which you automatically get paid overtime which is time and a half here too.

是的。48小时。是的。48……

英文原文

>> Yeah. 48 hours. Yeah. 48

48小时是一个工作周的上限。

英文原文

>> 48 hours is the upper limit of a week a working week.

好吧。在美国是40小时。因此，如果你工作超过这个时间，你就会拿到加班费。所以其中一件事，那项标准在1970年、1965年曾适用于美国几乎每一位劳动者，而今天该标准适用的工人不足10%。

现在，为什么这很重要？因为像我这样的人，在数以千万计的规模上，把三份每周40小时的工作变成了两份每周60小时的工作，并将差额收入囊中。你们在这里可能也在这么做，对吧？你在员工餐厅里放上小熊软糖和一张乒乓球桌，强迫人们每周工作60小时，这样你就可以只要两个员工而不是三个。如果你这么做3000万次，你就从劳动力市场中削减了1000万个工作岗位。

英文原文

>> Okay. So in the United States it's 40 hours. So if you work more than that you get paid overtime. And so one of the things so that that standard used to apply to virtually every worker in America in 1970 1965 today that standard applies to less than 10% of workers. Now why does that matter? Because people like me at the scale of tens of millions have turned three 40hour a week jobs into two 60-hour a week jobs and pocketed the difference. You may be doing that here, right? You put gummy bears in the lunchroom and a and a ping pong table and you force people to work 60 hours a week and then you can have two employees instead of three. If you do that 30 million times, you've taken 10 million jobs out of the workforce.

技术冲击与劳动力价值的侵蚀

那么，丹尼尔，你同意这一点吗？这种做法，

英文原文

>> So, do you agree with this, Daniel? This approach,

不怎么同意。嗯，问题在这儿。我在某个层面上是同意的，但是……嗯，尼克推荐的几乎每一项解决方案，英国在过去20年里都已经有了。所以，我们有挂钩中位数三分之二并逐级递增的最低工资。我们每年有相当于28天的带薪休假。我们有病假。我们有产假和陪产假。嗯，我们拥有……如果某人为你工作了6个月以上，要解雇他就非常非常困难。

因此，我们拥有这套令人难以置信的劳工权利，以及从最低工资一直到如何处理雇佣关系的所有这些建议。但我们拥有最不快乐的国民。我们的经济没有增长。我们有100万年轻人处于失业状态。呃，我们……目前没人招人。嗯，所以它并没有创造……那些条件并没有创造出奔腾式的繁荣。这让我深思，觉得有更深层的事情在发生。

我之所以这样想，是因为我认为我们需要让更多人参与到资本主义中来。资本主义关乎所有权。你必须拥有资产。而如果你什么都不拥有，如果你在当前伴随数字化、人工智能和机器人等诸如此类事物的经济中仅仅是出卖劳动力，工资的真正原因……因为正如尼克所说，人们现在应该赚到的金额像是几十万。而我认为正在发生且构成其中另一个主要部分的是，经济的规则已经改变了。技术淘汰了所有的中间人。技术掏空了中产阶级。

呃，我们过去常去音像店，音像租赁店过去有12个人在那里工作，而现在我们只用Netflix。呃，我们过去常去我们当地的小零售店买一张CD，现在我们只用Spotify，我们只用亚马逊。所以它掏空了过去创造极佳就业机会的所有那些供应链。劳动力的价值被侵蚀了，因为把劳动力外包到另一个国家非常容易。利用技术将一项工作简化为自动化部件非常容易。因此，由于技术的缘故，实际劳动力的根本价值已经缩减了。

英文原文

>> not as much. Well, here's here's the issue. I agree with it at one level, but um almost every solution that Nick has recommended, the UK's had for the last 20 years. So, we have uh a minimum wage that is pegged two/irds of the median and it ratchets up. We've got 28 days worth of paid s uh holiday every year. We've got sick leave. We've got maternity and paternity leave. Uh we've got uh the ability uh very very difficult to h fire someone if they've been with you for more than 6 months.

So, we have this unbelievable set of workers rights and all of these recommendations from minimum wage right through to how how to handle employment. We have the most unhappy population. Our economy is not growing. We have a million young people out of work. Uh we have no one's hiring at the moment. Um so it hasn't created those conditions have not created runaway prosperity. And that gives me pause to think something deeper is going on. And the reason that I think this is that I think we need to make more participation in capitalism.

Capitalism is about ownership. You have to own an asset. And if you don't own anything, if you're just selling labor in the current economy with digital and AI and robots and all this sort of stuff, the real reason that the wages because what Nick's saying is that the amount of money people would should be earning right now is like in the hundreds of thousands. And what I think is happening as another major part of this is that the e- the rules of the economy have shifted. Technology has cut out all the middlemen. Technology has hollowed out the middle class. Uh we used to go to the video store and the video rental store used to have 12 people working there and now we just go to Netflix. Uh and we used to go to our little local retailer and buy a CD and now we just go to Spotify and we just go to Amazon. So it's hollowed out all of those supply chains that used to create amazing jobs. The value of the labor has been eroded because it's very easy to outsource labor to another country. It's very easy to simplify a job down to automated parts uh using technology. So the fundamental value of actual labor has diminished because of technology.

劳动力与技术竞争

技术已经降低了我们所谓的“劳动力”对90%的人的实际效用。

英文原文

Technology has reduced the actual utility of this thing that we call labor uh for for 90% of people

而且随着人工智能的发展，情况只会变得更糟。

英文原文

>> and it's only going to get worse with AI

随着人工智能和机器人的发展，它还会继续下降。所以，如果你只是简单地说“哦，这是为了提高工作标准”，那你就会忽视这一点——我们无法与技术竞争。技术在这类事情上比我们更擅长。而答案、解决方案是所有权。我们必须——这个经济体中的每个人都需要拥有资产。我们需要拥有一套房子，我们需要拥有家族企业，我们需要拥有正在成长的公司的股份。所以这是——你跑不过这个的。这就像试图去和一个坐在车里的人赛跑，而他们却说：“哦，你只需要更好的鞋子。”不，鞋子改变不了什么。我们在英国经济中已经尝试过更好的鞋子了，但没有任何改观。每个人都很痛苦。所以那是……那正是你我产生分歧的地方。

英文原文

>> and with AI and with robots. It's going to go down. So the if you just simply say oh this is about lifting work standards you're going to miss the point that we can't compete with technology. Technology is better at this stuff than we are. And the answer, the solution is ownership. We have to everyone in this economy needs to own stuff. We need to own a house. We need to own a family business. We need to own shares in the companies that are growing. So it's you cannot outrun this. This is like trying to run against someone who's in a car and they say, "Oh, you just need nicer shoes." No, you the shoes won't change things. We've already tried nicer shoes in the UK economy and it's made no difference. Everyone's miserable. So that's one of the things that I that's where you and I would disagree.

英美工资与生活成本对比

我的意思是，两件事都可以成立。美国的最低工资是每小时7.25美元，或者2.13美元加小费。只有英国这里的一半，三分之一。好吧。

英文原文

>> I mean, both things can be true. The minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 an hour or $2.13 plus tips. It's half. It's a third of what it is here in the UK. Okay.

但你们的可支配收入是我们这里的两倍。你们的工资中位数是我们工资中位数的一点五倍到两倍。相对于美国而言，我们现在是一个贫穷的国家。即便你们的最低工资糟糕、可怕且不人道——

英文原文

>> But you have twice the disposable income that we have. Your median wage is one and a half to two times what our medium wage is. We're now a poor country relative to the US. And even though your minimum wage is terrible and horrific and inhuman

是的。不过，它却神奇地做到了。你们的国家和你们的公民比我们富裕得多。

英文原文

>> Yeah. However, it's magically done it. Your your country and your citizens are so much richer than ours.

是的。除非你考虑到从工资中位数中，你每年必须拿出20,000美元来支付医疗保健费用，

英文原文

>> Yeah. Except if you consider that out of that median wage, you have to take $20,000 a year to pay for healthare,

对吧？就像——

英文原文

>> right? Like

我认为即使调整后，你们依然高出30%。

英文原文

>> I think adjusted it's still you're 30% better even adjusted.

我……我觉得如果你看看AIC、经合组织……那会很有趣。我们也许可以去查一下。我记不清了，但我敢和你打赌大概差了10%。嗯。

英文原文

>> I I think if you look at the AIC OECD uh uh it would be interesting. We might be able to look it up. I can't remember. But I I bet you it's about 10% different. Mhm.

即使扣除自付医疗费用和保险费，美国普通员工拿回家的钱仍然明显多于英国普通员工。

英文原文

>> Even when you subtract out of pocket healthare costs and insurance premiums, the average American worker still takes home significantly more money than the average UK worker,

美国平均薪资大约在74,000美元左右。英国平均薪资大约在50,000美元左右。

英文原文

>> the average US salary is around $74,000. The average UK salary is around roughly $50,000.

美国人在医疗保健上花费巨大。美国普通雇员每年在保费和自付费用上支付约6,000至8,000美元。英国人由于有国民医疗服务体系（NHS）而不必为医疗付费。如果一名美国员工赚74,000美元，在医疗保健上花8,000，那么在相对较低的税收之前是66,000美元。英国员工在相对较高的税收之前起薪为52,000。归根结底，基本薪资和税率的差距实在太大，英国的免费医疗根本无法弥合。在纯粹的人均可支配收入上，美国赢了。

英文原文

>> Americans pay heavily for healthare. The average employee in America pays about $6 to $8,000 a year in premiums and out-of- pocket costs. Brits do not pay for healthare because of the NHS. If a US worker makes $74,000 and spends 8are in healthcare, they are they are at $66,000 before relatively low taxes. The UK worker starts at 52,000 before relatively high taxes. The bottom line is the gap in base salaries and tax rates is simply too large for UK free healthcare to close. The US wins on pure disposable income per person.

是的，毫无疑问，美国的经济比英国成功得多。你知道，英国脱欧是一场灾难。

英文原文

>> Yeah, there there's no doubt the US has had a much more successful economy than the UK. Brexit being, you know, a catastrophe.

最低工资对小微企业的冲击

不过，我能在最低工资或这方面反驳一点吗？好。

英文原文

>> Can I push back on one thing though with the minimum wage or or this? Yeah.

掏空了中产阶级的公司是大型科技公司、大型金融公司、那些超级大企业，我同意你的看法，他们有能力付给员工更多的钱。

英文原文

>> The companies that hollowed out the middle class are big tech companies, big finance companies, those mega corporations, and I agree with you, they can afford to pay their workers more money.

我感受到的问题之一，也是我所担忧的，

英文原文

>> One of the issues that I feel, and this is what I'm concerned about,

是在英国，大多数确实支付最低工资的企业——比如我的一位朋友开了一家酒吧，那家酒吧的利润极其微薄。它在亏损。他没有从中拿走一分钱。他受到了税收和最低工资的巨大影响。

英文原文

>> is that in the UK, the majority of businesses that do pay minimum wage, like a friend of mine owns a pub, and that pub has razor thin margins. it's losing money. He's not taking any money out of it. He's massively impacted by taxes and minimum wage.

所以，我看到那些不得不支付员工最低工资、为人们提供进入经济体系切入点的公司——酒吧、小零售店、夫妻店——这些才是真正在经济中被挤压出局的人。他们的利润极薄，而你却给他们施加更多压力。你说：“你们面临更多的政府监管，面临更多的税收，现在又面临更高的最低工资。”他们就只能说：“我受够了。我做不到。”而那些掏空了中产阶级的公司，微软、谷歌，你知道的，亚马逊，他们会说——

英文原文

>> So, the companies that I see that are the ones who have to pay minimum wage workers and give people the on-ramp into the economy, pubs, little retailers, mom and dad businesses, these are the ones that really do get squeezed out of the economy. They have razor thin margins and you put more pressure on them. You say, "You've got more government regulations, you got more taxes, and now you've got more minimum wages." And they just go, "I've had enough. I can't do it. And the companies that hollowed out the middle class, the Microsofts, the Googles, the, you know, Amazons, they go,

星巴克。

英文原文

>> Starbucks.

是的，星巴克，他们会说：“是的，我们可以承受。”嗯，而且，“反正我们也没交税，所以我们大体上就可以这么做。”

英文原文

>> Yeah, the Starbucks, they go, "Yeah, we can we can absorb it." Um, and also, we're not paying tax anyway, so we'll just kind of like do that.

阶梯式最低工资的辩论

所以，你可以做的事情之一，我们建议的事情之一，就是渐进式地推行这些标准——规模最大的公司必须支付最高的最低工资，中型公司少付一点，小企业少付一些。是的。但即使在这种背景下，也要确保每个人都支付足够的报酬，让人们有足够的钱继续买东西。我的意思是，说“听着，我不想在我的酒吧里付高工资”固然很好，呃，但酒吧里工作的人理应赚足够的钱，以便他们自己也能去酒吧买杯啤酒，对吧？你必须——我是说，你知道，美国的全国餐馆协会在这方面就很出名。就好像他们希望美国的每个人都能去餐馆吃饭，除了那些在餐馆工作的人，对吧？

英文原文

>> So, one of the things that you could do, one of the things that we recommend is that you impose these standards progressively that the biggest companies have to pay the highest minimum wage, medium-sized companies pay slightly less, and small businesses pay less. Yeah. But even within that context, ensuring that everyone pays enough for people to have enough money to continue to buy stuff. I mean, it's fine and good to say, "Look, I don't want to pay high wages in my pub." Uh, but surely the people working in the pub should make enough money so that they can go to the pub themselves and buy a beer, right? You have to I mean, you know, the National Restaurant Association in America is, you know, famous for this. It's like they want everybody in America to be able to go to a restaurant and eat except for the people who work in the restaurants, right?

我能针对你开酒吧的朋友也说几句吗？

英文原文

>> Can I just say something with your friend that owns the pub as well?

比如，假设你开星巴克。

英文原文

>> So, say you own Starbucks.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

你开了一家酒吧。

英文原文

>> You own a pub.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

我是一名工人。

英文原文

>> I'm a worker.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

如果你要付我更多，因为你有这种渐进式的最低工资，而你付得较少。对不起，丹尼尔。我就不会去应聘那份工作。我就会想去星巴克工作。所以，这里难道不存在一个问题吗？因为你给不了那么多报酬，你将无法吸引人才？

英文原文

>> If you're going to pay me more because you have this progressive minimum wage and you're going to pay less. I'm sorry, Daniel. I'm not going to apply for the job. I'm going to want to go work at Starbucks. So, is there not an issue where you're not going to be able to attract talent because you're not going to be able to pay them as much?

你选择在小企业工作而不是在大企业工作，是有很多很多原因的。

英文原文

>> There are there are many reasons why you would work for a small business as opposed to a mega corp.

但我的意思是，你给我付4英镑的最低工资。他给我付8英镑。

英文原文

>> But I'm saying you're paying me £4 minimum wage. He's paying me eight.

那么，难道他最终不会网罗所有最优秀的人才吗？

英文原文

>> So, do not does he not end up getting all the the best talent?

他可能会得到最优秀的人才。而且对于我的酒吧来说，我也许能够、也许不得不跟进到8英镑，对吧？所以，也许结果是我照样付8英镑，但我并不一定受法律强制要付8英镑。所以，问题在这儿。更多在于——听着，作为小企业主，你可以对待——有各种各样你可以用来留住员工的手段——

英文原文

>> He might get the best talent. And also for my pub, I might be able to have to I might ma match eight, right? So, maybe it works that I just pay eight, but I'm not necessarily legislated to pay eight. So, here's the thing. It's more look as a small business owner you can treat there's all sorts of techniques that you can use to retain people

而且你将拥有更多选择权——

英文原文

>> and you're going to have more optionality

作为一家大公司。

英文原文

>> as a big company.

是的。因为你可以——你肯定能付我更多钱。

英文原文

>> Yeah. Because you can you are going to definitely pay me more.

嗯，规模更大总是更有利的。这种高标准确实会对整个经济产生压力。但小酒吧的老板也将从中受益，因为所有的——我的意思是，我们是用星巴克还是无论什么，无论我们在用什么例子——所有这些人现在拥有、现在挣得多了很多，他们有能力去酒吧消费买东西了。所以，我曾参与的干预措施之一——

英文原文

>> Well, being bigger is always better. It is absolutely true that that high standard will put pressure on throughout the economy. But the small pub owner is also going to benefit from the fact that all I mean are we using Starbucks whatever whatever whatever example we're using all these people now own now earn so much more that they can afford to go to the pub and buy stuff. So one of the interventions that

我在美国曾参与过的一项干预就是15美元的最低工资。我们在华盛顿州西雅图捣腾出来的。为此我和许许多多的小企业主聊过，他们对此完全吓坏了，因为，你看，我们都是企业主，对吧？所以你可以在几秒钟内就算出更高工资的风险和开销。对不对？

英文原文

>> I was part of in the United States was the $15 minimum wage. We cook that up in Seattle Washington. And so I spoke to many many many many many small business owners who are absolutely terrified by this because you know look we are all business owners right and so you can do a calculation in seconds about the risks and the expenses of higher wages. Correct?

但你无法计算的是在一个每个人都赚得更多的体制下生活、经营公司的收益。对吧？以及由此带给你的好处。听着，一块火腿三明治在——我不知道——索马里卖25美分，在瑞士卖25美元。你想生活在什么样的经济体中，对吧？你知道的——

英文原文

>> But what you cannot calculate is the benefit of living in of operating your company in a regime where everyone earns more. Right? and the benefits that occur to you from that. Look, a ham sandwich in, I don't know, Somalia cost 25 cents. It costs $25 in Switzerland. What kind of economy do you want to live in, right? You know,

你刚才想说你那位朋友的什么情况？

英文原文

>> what were you going to say about your friend?

那个开酒吧的朋友，他的酒吧实际上大部分晚上一周都是满座的。有很多人去那里。问题在于税收和成本。他面临着一个英国的大政府。我们有所有这些东西。就像你提到的一切，我们都有，而且我们已经有了25年了。我们并没有创造出一个富裕的中产阶级。我们拥有的是一个遭到侵蚀的中产阶级。所以这里的实际数字是，我的朋友，他自己一分钱没拿，而酒吧去年亏损了180,000英镑，这就是因为增值税，而且他觉得自己像是在承担培训初入职场者的重担。作为他所在小镇上仅有的雇主之一，他正在创造就业机会。

英文原文

>> Well, the friend who owns the pub, his pub is actually full most nights of the week. They have lots of people going there. The issue is taxes and costs. He's got a big government in the UK. We have all of these things. Like everything that you've mentioned, we have it and we've had it for 25 years. We don't have an affluent middle class that's been created. We have an eroded middle class. So the actual numbers here is that my friends, he took no money himself and the pub lost £180,000 last year and it's because of VAT and he feels like he's carrying the weight of training people in their first job. He's creating jobs as one of the only employers in his little town.

嗯，而且他并没有制造这个烂摊子。是亚马逊、微软、谷歌、Facebook以及大型基金，他们正在从经济中抽走资金。

英文原文

>> Um and and also he didn't create this mess. Amazon and Microsoft and Google and Facebook and big funds, they are sucking money out of the economy.

在这一点上我们完全赞同。

英文原文

>> We're in violent agreement about this.

所以，所以——

英文原文

>> So, so

我只是觉得……

英文原文

I just feel like

问题在于，我真的希望确保我们非常、非常清楚一点：

英文原文

>> the the issue is like I really want to make sure that we're super super clear

目前在英国，小微企业正受到挤压。我不知道美国的情况是怎样的。

英文原文

>> that small businesses are currently squeezed here in the UK. I don't know what's like in the US.

美国也是一样。

英文原文

>> It's the same in the US.

它们受到了如此大的挤压，它们被大型科技公司挤压，而现在人工智能又出现了。它们觉得必须去学习这个新事物，必须开始使用 AI 生成的内容每天在领英上发帖 45 次，否则就会被淹没；而且它们还得剪辑视频，还得去当 TikToker，对吧？所以，这一切持续不断的压力都是由这个科技行业造成的——

英文原文

>> Like they are so squeezed and they are squeezed by big tech and now AI has come along. they feel like they have to learn this new thing and they have to start posting on LinkedIn 45 times a day using AI posts or else they'll get drowned out and they have to, you know, edit videos and become a Tik Tocker as well, right? So, it's all of this constant pressure caused by this tech sector

还有这些大基金。比如对我朋友的酒吧来说，最大的威胁之一就是一家美国大型私募股权基金想收购这家酒吧，嗯，把它变成一栋公寓楼，对吧？所以他们想要把这个社区资产金融化，而他正努力抗争以保住他的酒吧，

英文原文

>> and these big funds like one of the biggest threats to my friend's pub is that a big American private equity fund wants to buy the pub uh and turn it into a block of flats, right? So like they want to financialize this this community asset and he's trying to fight to keep his pup,

对吧？因此我所不希望看到的，就是我不希望大政府制定出一套新的框架，基本上把小型家族企业挤压得更厉害。它们都开始……我们这里每天都在失去两家酒吧，对吧？它们正在倒闭。嗯，它们停业破产了，然后我们最终落入大公司、大基金手里，它们有能力承受并买下它，它们拥有一切。而且我还想说清楚，人们陷入挣扎的原因是他们不拥有任何资产。这并不是因为工作条件。他们不拥有任何资产。而如果他们不拥有任何资产——

英文原文

>> right? So what I what I don't want to have is I don't want to have big government create a new framework that that basically squeezes small family businesses even harder. They all start going, we're losing two pubs a day here, right? They're closing down. Um they they go out of business and then we end up with big corpse, big funds who can afford to absorb it and they own everything. And I also want to be clear that the reason people are struggling is they don't own anything. It's not because of working conditions. They don't own anything. And if they don't own anything,

所有权与劳动分配

不，如果每个人都能拥有属于自己的资产，那当然太棒了。嗯，但是所有权的建立始于挣到足够的钱，这样你才能存钱，然后才能开始拥有资产，对吧？比如我们吸取的教训之一就是，试图给一家公司的每个人都发放股票期权往往行不通。

英文原文

>> no, it would be wonderful if everybody owned something. Um but but ownership starts with earning enough money so that you can save money so that you can begin to own something, right? Like one of the lessons that we learned was that trying to give stock options to everyone in a company often doesn't work.

是的，我同意。

英文原文

>> Yeah, I agree.

这是一场灾难，因为对于一家公司 90% 的员工来说，他们的担忧是眼前的，他们并不看重股票，

英文原文

>> It's a catastrophe because for 90% of the workers in a company that their concerns are immediate and they don't value stocks

如果你给他们现金或股票期权的选择，

英文原文

>> and if you give them the choice between cash or stock options,

那根本没有悬念，对吧？因此，我再次同意这种愿景。只是我从未见过，而且我也不相信在地球上存在能证明它行得通的证据。在美国行之有效达四五十年之久的，是一套标准，要求企业通过各种机制与员工公平分享他们创造的价值，

英文原文

>> it's not even close, right? And so again, I agree with this sentiment. It's just that I have never seen and I do not believe there is an existence proof for it working on planet Earth. What certainly worked great in the United States for 40 or 50 years was a set of standards that required companies to fairly split the value they create with their employees

嗯，通过各种机制，工会——工会确实可能带来问题——但还有劳动标准，比如最低工资、加班费门槛等等，再配合一套旨在遏制整合、遏制我认为你非常精辟阐述的那种剥削的政策，嗯，这样我们才能拥有一个充满活力的经济。

英文原文

uh through a variety of mechanisms, unions, which can be problematic for sure, but labor standards like the minimum wage and the overtime threshold and so on and so forth, coupled with a set of policies to discourage consolidation and discourage the kind of exploitation that you have I think very smartly articulated um so that we can have a dynamic economy.

在你描述的那个工人必须被包容的时代，唯一的不同在于，当时一家公司几乎不可能把客户成功团队外包到菲律宾，一家公司也几乎不可能拿出一款能完成一项工作中 80% 繁重任务的软件。而我们目前面临的问题之一是，当你对各类公司施加很大压力时，我们正生活在人工智能和机器人的时代，公司基本上拥有的选项之一就是：好吧，我们直接把劳动力外包到另一个国家，我们把它自动化，我们把它简化。

英文原文

>> The only difference that happened back in the in the time that you're describing where workers had to be included is that it was nearly impossible for a company to outsource their customer success team to the Philippines and it was nearly impossible for a company to come up with a piece of software that would do 80% of the heavy lifting of a job. And one of the issues that we have right now is that when you put a lot of pressure on on all sorts of companies, we're living in the age of AI and robotics where you essentially, you know, one of the options that companies have is just the option, well, we'll just outsource the labor to another country. We'll automate it. We'll simplify it.

好吧。但允许人们这样做的那些规则，正是由那些整合行业并从中牟利的人制定的。我的意思是，你并不是非得生活在这样一个世界里。还有其他组织这个世界的方式。

英文原文

>> Okay. But those the the rules that enable people to do that were written by the same people who are consolidating industries and and taking advantage. I mean, you don't have to live in a world like that. There are other ways to organize the world.

新自由主义者曾许诺自由贸易会让所有人更加富有。而它的实际结果，就是用来自中国的廉价商品充斥了我们的市场，但这绝对没有明显改善人们的生活。

英文原文

>> The neoliberals promised that free trade was going to make all of us richer. And what it did is it flooded our markets with cheap stuff from China, but it is absolutely not clear that it made people's lives better.

中国人的生活。

英文原文

>> Chinese people's lives.

它让中国人的生活变得更好了，但它肯定没有让英国人的生活变得更好，也肯定没有让美国人的生活变得更好。所以你可以想象以一种截然不同的方式来对待它。我向你保证，如果美国能重来一次，我们一定会重新审视并考虑这件事。

英文原文

>> It made Chinese people's lives better, but it certainly didn't make people in the UK's life better. And it certainly didn't make people in the United States's life better. And so you could have imagined approaching that in a fundamentally different way. I guarantee you that if the United States could go back and do it again, we would have reought it.

我们一定会重新审视考虑的。

英文原文

>> We would have reought it.

主权财富基金与资产持有模式

我认为有几种重要的所有权模式是可以考虑的。第一种是主权财富基金。挪威、嗯、新加坡这些国家，它们通过主权财富基金持有自然资产。实质上，每位公民因此都拥有一份某种资产的份额。有这样一种资产是通过主权财富基金来拥有的。这是一种非常成功的模式。它运作得极其出色，甚至好到了危险的地步。嗯，伦敦有一半现在被卡塔尔主权财富基金、挪威主权财富基金拥有。我们所有的房产实际上都在流失给全世界的主权财富基金。因此主权财富基金模式是非常强大的。

英文原文

>> There's a few ownership models that I think are important that could be looked at. Number one is a sovereign wealth fund. So the countries like Norway, uh Singapore, these countries, they own natural assets uh in a sovereign wealth fund. And essentially every citizen therefore owns a piece of some asset. There is an asset that is owned through a sovereign wealth fund. It's a very successful model. It seems to work so incredibly well that it's dangerously well. Um half of London is now owned by the Qatari self sovereign wealth fund, the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. We're literally losing all of our property to the sovereign wealth funds of the world. So the sovereign wealth fund model is incredibly powerful.

是的。嗯，

英文原文

>> Yes. Um,

那么，对于不知道那是什么的人来说，就是国家在公司内部部分持有拥有的自然资产。

英文原文

>> so just for someone that doesn't know what that is, you you have natural assets within the company own owned in part by the state.

英国做了一件蠢事。我们在上世纪 80 年代（我想是那时）发现了北海，挪威拥有这片挪威……这片北海油田的一半，我们也拥有一半。挪威人说：“嘿，我们直接在一个让全体公民受益的基金里持有它，那将是一个国资基金，然后我们拿着它的利润去重新投资到各类资产中，每位公民都将从这些资产中受益。”而英国却说：“我们直接把许可证卖给英国石油公司吧。”是的。

英文原文

>> So the UK did a stupid thing. We discovered the North Sea back in the ' 80s, I think it was, and Norway had half and we had half of this Norwegian uh this North Sea oil. And the Norwegians said, "Hey, we'll just own this in a fund that all of our citizens will benefit from, and that will be a state-owned fund, and then we'll take the profits of that, we'll reinvest it into assets, and every citizen will benefit from those assets." And the UK said, "We'll just sell a license to British Petroleum." Yes.

对。

英文原文

>> Right.

我们让富人更富。

英文原文

>> We'll make the rich people richer.

是的。澳大利亚也太蠢了。我们拥有所有这些令人惊叹的自然资源，却没有主权财富基金。嗯，英国在占领全世界或者说世界 25% 的时候，我们运作着叫作东印度交易公司之类的主权财富基金，基本上很多很多年来我们的商业模式就是主权财富基金——

英文原文

>> Yeah. And Australia is so stupid. We have all this incredible natural resource, no sovereign wealth fund. uh Britain when we took over the whole world or 25% of the world we operated sovereign wealth funds called the East India Trading Company and all this sort of stuff and basically our business model was sovereign wealth funds for many many years

所以主权财富基金是第一种。

英文原文

>> so sovereign wealth funds number one

所以那是其中一种；另一种是以婴儿的名义存入股份，这样在婴儿出生时，嗯，你就拥有一份股市份额，比如价值 1,000 美元的股票——

英文原文

>> so that would be one the other one is to put shares into baby's names so when a baby's born uh you have a piece of the stock market like $1,000 worth of shares

这是一种婴儿债券的构想，并且——

英文原文

>> it's a baby bond idea and

特朗普这两件事都在做，不是吗？主权财富基金和婴儿债券，他把它称为特朗普基金还是别的什么——

英文原文

>> Trump's doing both of these things isn't he sovereign wealth fund and the baby bond he's calling it the Trump fund or something

是的，他们现在正在试验某种版本。

英文原文

>> yeah well they're They're experimenting with some version of this right now.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

是的。所以，如果一个婴儿到 18 岁时，已经拥有那份资产复合增值了 18 年，那么等到他们年满 18 岁时，他们就切切实实获得了一笔资产，如果愿意的话，他们随后可以把这笔资产转换成另一种资产。嗯，那是非常强大的。然后，最大的问题是住房的金融化。如果你看一下房屋的价值，房屋大约一半的价值可以称为房屋的使用价值，也就是它是一栋用来住的房子，而我想住在里面。而另一半价值则是房屋的金融投机价值，也就是如果我们可以把房子租给人们度过余生，这对一家基金来说能产生多大的价值。

英文原文

>> Yeah. So, if if an a baby by the time they hit 18 has had 18 years of compounding of owning that asset, then by the time they hit 18, they're literally getting an asset that they can then turn into another asset if they want to. Um, that's pretty powerful. And then the the biggest issue is the financialization of houses. So if you take a value of a house, about half the value of the house is what you might call the utility value of the house, which is it's a house to live in and I want to live in it. And then the other half the value is the financial speculation value of the house, which is how much value does a fund have if we can rent this out to people for the rest of their lives.

住房金融化与机构持有

我查过贝莱德那件事，上面说关于贝莱德正在大举收购英国住房的说法纯属神话。他们是金融家，不是房东。他们向房地产开发商提供贷款和债务融资工具，但他们并不直接拥有或管理住宅存量房产。

英文原文

>> I looked at the Black Rockck thing and it said the idea that Black Rockck is buying up UK homes is a is a myth. They are a financeier, not a landlord. They provide loans and debt facilities to to property developers, but they do not directly own or manage residential housing stock.

呃，劳埃德银行正打算购买 70,000 套英国住房用来永久出租。

英文原文

>> Uh Lloyd's Bank is buying 70,000 UK homes to rent forever.

贝莱德在英国直接拥有和管理的独栋住宅数量为零。

英文原文

>> The number of single family homes Black Rockck directly owns and manages in the UK is zero.

好吧，但他说的没错。

英文原文

>> Okay. But he's right.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

嗯，我不知道具体细节是什么，但这是目前在这个国家以及在美国正在发生的一场私募股权现象。

英文原文

>> Um I I don't know what the details are, but this is a private equity thing that's going on in this country and in the United States right now.

是的。在美国，我听说了很多关于贝莱德收购的——

英文原文

>> Yeah. In the United States, I've heard a lot about Black Rockck buying a

我不确定具体是哪些实体。这也许是真的。我同样不知道——

英文原文

>> I'm not sure what the entities are. It may be true. I again I don't know what

他们设计，他们设计出各种架构通过非关联的独立方式来进行操作。是的。但是，嗯，比如——

英文原文

>> they come up they come up with structures to do it at arms length. Yeah. But um like

我想，如果你为其提供了资金支持，你在某种程度上就拥有了它——

英文原文

>> I guess you kind of own it if you're financing it is

好吧，或者你把它借给了一家子公司，或者其他什么人，不管是什么情况。但是……但是……

英文原文

>> well or you loaned it to a subsidiary or somebody else or whatever it is. But the but the

住房所有权与租赁阶层

这里的核心要点在于，住房过去是由个人所有的。

英文原文

meta point here is that homes used to be owned by people.

是的。他们买房是为了居住。

英文原文

>> Yeah. And they bought them to live in.

他们买房是为了自住。而在西方发生的一件极其恶劣的事情——在那种认为经济的唯一目的就是让富人更富的新自由主义共识驱动下——就是认为私募股权应该把所有这些住房都买下来，把普通人变成这种租赁阶层。顺便确认一下，是的，劳埃德银行（Lloyds Bank）正通过一家名为 Citra Living 的机构这样做。他们正在大举收购数以千计的新建房屋和公寓，充当直接的私营企业房东。他们把从拥有住房向长期租房的这种结构性转变，视作他们重大的盈利机遇。

英文原文

>> And they bought them to live in. And one of the nefarious things that's going on in the west driven by this neoliberal consensus that the only purpose of the of of the economy is to make rich people richer is this idea that private equity should buy all these homes and turn the turn ordinary people into this rental class. Just to confirm, yeah, Lloyd's Bank are doing that through something called Citra Living. They are buying up thousands of new built homes and apartments to act as a direct private corporate landlord. Um they view the structural shift away from home ownership towards long-term renting as a major profit opportunity for them.

是的，

英文原文

>> Yes,

就是这样。他们想要形成一个永久的租赁阶层，人们永远……“你将一无所有，并感到快乐”，这就是其理念。但人不是那样的。人们喜欢拥有属于自己的东西。

英文原文

>> that's it. They want to have a permanent rental class that people never you'll own nothing and be happy is the idea. And people are not like that. People love to own stuff.

正下方应该有一个按钮。如果上面写着“已订阅”，说明你已经订阅了。如果上面写着“订阅”，那就意味着你还没订阅。如果你还没订阅，能否帮我们一个忙，点击那个按钮？这对节目的帮助超乎你的想象。而且根据算法，你经常观看我们的节目，但你还没有点击那个按钮。非常感谢。

英文原文

>> There should be a button just down below here. And if it says subscribed, you're already subscribed. If it says subscriber, that means you're not yet. And if you're not subscribed, please could you do us a favor and hit that button? It helps the show more than you know. And according to the algorithm, you're someone that watches our show, but you haven't yet hit that button. Thank you so much.

贫富差距、经济增长与劳工权利

我想回到我们之前讨论的核心问题上，那就是：你该如何解决这个问题？因为对于如何解决这种不平等，你们有着两种不同的看法。我觉得有意思的是，英国拥有更好的劳工权利。

英文原文

>> I want to go back to the central point we were talking about, which is like how do you how do you solve this? Because you've got two different views on how you solve this inequality. What I find interesting is the UK has better worker rights.

但它是……

英文原文

>> But it is

但你们这里的贫富差距也小得多。我的意思是，说清楚一点，

英文原文

>> but you also have much less inequality here. I mean, just to be clear,

确实如此。美国的贫富差距明显更大。是的。美国最富有的 1% 人群拥有全国超过 30% 的财富，相比之下英国大约是 20%。而且美国在 G7 国家中一直被列为最不平等的国家。

英文原文

>> that is true. So the US is significantly more unequal. Yeah. The US top 1% holds over 30% of the nation's wealth compared to roughly 20% in the UK. Um, and the US consistently ranks as the most unequal of the G7 nations.

没错。

英文原文

>> Correct.

然而，美国的增长速度要快得多得多。如果你看 2009 年到 2026 年，美国的增长速度比英国快了超过 100%。

英文原文

>> However, the US is growing much much faster. If you look at 209 to 2026, the US has grown over 100% faster than the UK.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yes.

而且英国对劳工的保护要好得多。我们拥有丹尼尔提到的那些福利，比如带薪休假、带薪产假。英国规定了长达 39 周的法定带薪假。美国规定的则是零，这简直是令人发指。

英文原文

>> Um, and the UK is vastly more protective of workers. We have the things Daniel said like paid vacation, paid maternity leave. The UK mandates up to 39 weeks of statutory pay. The US mandates zero, which is unbelievably correct horrific.

但我的意思是，史蒂夫，英国发生的事情之一是英国脱欧。

英文原文

>> But I mean, one of the things that's happened in the UK, Steve, is is Brexit.

那是什么时候发生的？2016 年。

英文原文

>> When did that happen? 2016.

那剥夺了……那剥夺了多少？把英国的增长率拉低了 8% 到 10%。它让失业率受到了 4% 的影响，生产率增益受到 4% 的影响。我的意思是，诸如此类的例子不胜枚举。所以英国人感到沮丧的部分原因……

英文原文

>> That's taken that's taken, what has that taken? Eight or 10% out of UK growth rates. It has affected unemployment by 4%, productivity gains by 4%. I mean, the list goes on. So that own I mean part of part of why people in the UK are feeling down

就是这个国家犯下的这个难以置信的错误。

英文原文

>> is this unbelievable mistake that the country made.

但德国也是一样。澳大利亚也是一样。德国有着令人难以置信的劳工权利。澳大利亚有着令人难以置信的劳工权利。事实上，美国在所有现代资本主义经济体中都是个异类。

英文原文

>> But it's the same in Germany. It's the same in Australia. Germany has unbelievable workers rights. Australia unbelievable workers rights. In fact the USA is the outlier of all the modern capitalist economies.

绝对是。但我们把事情混为一谈了。全世界各地的人们都很愤怒。到处都是。

英文原文

>> Absolutely. But we're confusing things. People are pissed off everywhere in the world. everywhere.

我也希望把那些干草叉平息下去，但这些劳工权利并没有收起那些干草叉。就像所有这些福利，我们给予了澳大利亚、新西兰、加拿大，以及西欧所有国家，除了美国之外的所有英语民主国家。美国是唯一一个几乎没有任何安全网和保护措施的国家。其他所有地方都有慷慨得多的医疗体系，有更慷慨的福利体系，还有像产假这样的制度。我的意思是，美国没有产假简直是不人道的。所以，所有这些制度，我们虽然全都具备，但我们这里同样面临着挥舞干草叉的愤怒人群。

英文原文

>> I don't I want the pitchforks to go away as well, but these workers rights are not putting the pitchforks away. Like all of this stuff, we've given this stuff to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, uh all of Western Europe, all the English speaking democracies other than the USA. USA is the only one that has virtually no safety nets and no safeguards. Everywhere else has health care systems that are much more generous and welfare systems that are more generous and like maternity leave. I mean, it's just inhumane that USA doesn't have maternity leave. So, all of that stuff, but we've got all of that, but we've got the pitchforks here, too.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yes.

这就是为什么我说，我真正聚焦的核心理念是：人们需要拥有自己的房子，他们需要拥有自己的企业，他们需要拥有股票。如果他们能拥有属于自己的资产……

英文原文

>> Um, and this is why I'm saying I'm really zoning in on the idea that people need to own a house, they need to own a business, and they need to own shares. And it's like if they own stuff,

我完全赞同。可我不知道除非他们能拿到足以实现这些的薪酬，否则怎么让他们达到那个目标。

英文原文

>> I could not agree more. And I don't know how to get them there unless they are paid well enough to to make to do that.

不平等与社会解体

让我给你讲个轶事。在乔治·弗洛伊德抗议骚乱期间，美国有人在到处纵火焚烧东西。当时对一位妇女进行了一场极其精彩的采访，记者说：“我简直不敢相信你对财产权毫无尊重。”那位妇女回答说：

英文原文

>> Let me tell you an anecdote. During the George Floyd riots, people were burning stuff down in the United States. And there was this fantastic interview with this woman and the reporter said, you know, I just I cannot believe that you don't have respect for property rights. And the woman said,

他们一无所有。

英文原文

>> they've got nothing.

“我们根本没有财产。”

英文原文

>> We have no property.

是啊。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

“你说，我凭什么要尊重财产权？我认识的人里面没一个拥有任何财产。”对吧。所以，我百分之百赞同你。但我认为其核心在于，不平等对于承受它的人们而言，远不止是一种经济上的不便。是的。

英文原文

>> You know, why should I respect property rights? No one I know owns anything. Yeah. You know, like, so I am 100% with you. But I think at the core of it, the core of it is that inequality is way more than an economic inconvenience for the people that it affects. Yeah.

它所做的是撕碎了互惠规范，

英文原文

>> What it does is it shreds the reciprocity norms

正是这些规范让社会凝聚力和民主成为可能。是的。变成了弱肉强食。只能全靠你自己。能捞什么就捞什么。我的意思是，显然特朗普那伙人……

英文原文

>> that make social cohesion and democracy possible. Yeah. It's this dog eat dog. You're all on your own. Grab what you can. I mean, obviously the Trump people

还有把这地方烧光。

英文原文

>> and burn the place down.

没错。把这地方烧光。显然，唐纳德·特朗普为最恶劣的行为建立了一种许可机制，对吧？最恶劣的腐败行为。基本上，偷盗又重新流行起来了，对吧？而且，你知道，有各种各样的原因在滋生这种萎靡不振、这种不公感和失控感，对吧？关键是，我百分之百赞同你的看法。我真的赞同，关于创业精神、关于资产所有权；你知道，归根结底，创业的妙处在于由你说了算。

英文原文

>> That's right. And burn the place down. Obviously, Donald Trump has created a permission structure for the worst kind of behavior, right? The worst kind of corruption. Uh, basically stealing has come back into style, right? And you know, there's all sorts of reasons that are generating this malaise, this this sense of unfairness and lack of control, right? And and and the thing is I I just I agree 100% with your sentiments. I really do about entrepreneurship and ownership and you know at the end of the day the cool thing about entrepreneurship is you're in charge.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

就像在这里是你说了算……

英文原文

>> Like you're in charge here

但并不是每个人都能成为创业者。

英文原文

>> but not everybody can be an entrepreneur.

没错。没错。所以我确实认为那有点不太现实。

英文原文

>> Correct. Correct. And so I do think that that's a little bit unrealistic.

创业与 K 型经济的历史重演

问题在于，所创造的所有就业岗位中，大约 70% 是由小微企业创造的，而不是政府，也不是大公司。它们并不能创造就业，小微企业才能创造就业。即便不是每个人都能成为创业者，但如果我们能有 10 万名各雇佣 10 个人的创业者，我们就会拥有 100 万个就业岗位，人们在求职时就会有 10 万个选择。所以我觉得我们不能全盘否定创业是解决办法的重要组成部分这一观点。我能简短地带大家回顾一下历史吗？这并不是第一次发生这种情况。在“恩格斯停滞”（Engels' pause）期间就曾出现过 K 型经济。

英文原文

>> The the issue is is that like 70% of all jobs that get created are created by small businesses and not governments, not big companies. They're, you know, they don't create jobs. Small businesses create jobs. And if we just not everyone can be an entrepreneur, but if we had a 100,000 entrepreneurs who were all hiring 10 people, we'd we'd have a million jobs and we'd have 100,000 options for people with jobs. So like I I don't think that we discount the whole idea that entrepreneurship is a big part of the solution. Can I take us briefly back in time? This is not the first time this has happened. The K-shaped economy has happened in the Engles pause.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

所以……

英文原文

>> So the the

你所说的 K 型经济是什么意思？所谓的 K 型经济是这样的：正常的经济是大家都认同它在上升、下降或走平。大家大致都能说：“哦，是的，大体上来说，现在经济景气，或者经济不景气。它就像潮水一样起起落落。”而 K 型经济则是对某些人极好，而对另一些人极差。这是一种被割裂颠覆的经济。是的，没错。最顶层的那部分人在往上走，而最底层的那部分人在往下走。如今我们看到的头条新闻，与 19 世纪初英国的头条新闻完全一模一样。基本上就是工业家获得了创纪录的利润，而工人们的生活没有任何改善。这完全……你几乎可以把我们今天所有的不满照搬过去，直接套在 19 世纪初，得到的是完全一模一样的说辞。

英文原文

>> what do you mean by K-shaped economy? So the K-shaped economy is where so a normal economy is one where everyone agrees it's going up or down or sideways. Everyone can sort of say, "Oh yeah, roughly speaking, it's a good economy. It's a bad economy. It's it's rising and falling like a tide." A K-shaped economy is where it's really good for some and really bad for others. It's a disrupted economy. Yeah. Right. So the top percentage are going up and the bottom percentage are going down. Now the headlines that we run today are the exact same headlines that were run in the early 1800s in Britain. And it was essentially record profits for industrialists and workers haven't had any improvements. They all like you could almost take every grievance that we have today and you could just overlay it in the early 1800s and you get the exact same words.

在 19 世纪初，当时的主要解决方案之一是：我们需要输出人口，我们需要摆脱这些人口。他们所做的就是把大家都送到澳大利亚。所以他们把人抓起来，送到澳大利亚去，对吧？同样是这种大规模移民，或者不管你怎么称呼，重新迁移。他们就是这样把人清除出这个国家。所以情况非常类似，我们称之为“恩格斯停滞”，但我们明白造成它的原因。

英文原文

>> Um the solutions uh one of the big solutions in the early 1800s was we need to export people. We need to get rid of people. And what they did is they sent everyone to Australia. So they they sent they sent they picked up people and they put them in in Australia, right? So they same sort of thing mass mass immigration or whatever you call it remigration. So they got rid of people out of the country. So it was very similar and we call this the Engles pause but we understand what caused it

1790 年至 1840 年。

英文原文

>> 1790 to 1840.

是的。导致它的原因是技术，是这种全新的……

英文原文

>> Yeah. So what caused it was technology and it was this new

那是工业革命。

英文原文

>> it was the industrial revolution.

是的。那是全新的技术，我们引入了蒸汽机，引入了纺纱机，引入了拖拉机，引入了所有这类新技术；这些新技术的拥有者以及与这些新技术相关联的人，情况就像那样直线上升。他们因科技而实现了跃升，而那些未能融入该技术的人则一路下滑。你脑海中可以勾勒出一幅非常简单的画面：一个有 100 名工人耕作的农场，对比一个拥有一台拖拉机的农场。拥有拖拉机的农场就像那样迅速蹿升，而所有的工人就像……

英文原文

>> Yeah. So it's the new technology where we introduced a steam engine, we introduced a spinning loom, we introduced uh tractors, we introduced all of this sort of new technology and the owners of that new technology and the people associated with that new technology went like that. They leveled up because of tech and the people who were not part of that technology went down. Very simple picture you might want to have in your mind is a farm that had a 100 workers farming versus one farm that had a tractor. The tractor farm went like that and the all the workers went like

这一点。

这是因为科技。

英文原文

that.

It's

because

of

technology.

恩格斯停滞（Engels' pause）有趣的地方在于，在大约两代人的时间里，也就是50到75年间，除了资本所有者之外，地球上的其他人基本上都在倒退。

英文原文

>> The

interesting

thing

about

the

angles

paws

is

that

for

approximately

two

generations,

50

75

years

with

the

exception

of

the

owners

of

capital

basically

everybody

else

on

planet

earth

went

backwards.

It

简直是地狱。

英文原文

>> was

hell.

简直是地狱。嗯，后来发生的事情是，随着时间的推移，政治共识发生了转变，劳动者通过工会、通过劳动标准等等夺回了部分价值。所以，我想我想探究的核心问题之一是——我的意思是，丹，这也是你一直在谈论的一点——如果你开始向这些公司或创业者施压，他们现在直接拍拍屁股就能离开。这与那个时代大不相同，当时我们面对的不是科技企业，面对的不是知识产权和那些东西。所以，如果你开始采取其中一些措施，这些公司会不会直接离开，转而去其他市场条件更好的地方？正如我们最近从一些数据中所看到的，很多英国创业者正选择去其他地方工作。

英文原文

>> It

was

hell.

Um

and

what

and

what

happened

is

that

over

time

the

political

consensus

changed

and

working

people

clawed

back

some

of

that

value

through

unions

through

labor

standards

so

on

and

so

forth.

So

one

of

I

guess

the

essence

of

what

I

want

to

get

to

is

I

mean

something

you've

always

talked

about

Dan

as

well

is

that

if

you

start

applying

pressures

on

these

companies

or

entrepreneurs

they

can

just

now

get

up

and

leave.

And

that

was

quite

different

from

that

era

where

we

weren't

dealing

with

technological

businesses.

is

we

weren't

dealing

with

IP

and

those

things.

So

if

you

start

imposing

some

of

these

measures,

will

these

companies

get

up

and

leave

and

go

somewhere

else

where

market

conditions

are

preferable?

A

lot

of

UK

entrepreneurs

are,

as

we've

seen

from

some

of

the

numbers

recently,

choosing

to

go

work

elsewhere.

跨国税收与企业避税争议

好。是的。我认为需要承认并摆在台面上讨论的一件事是，你在这里面临的挑战之一在于，欧洲或者说全世界建立了这个极其愚蠢的体系：你可以在这里经营企业，利用英国的市场，利用英国的法治，利用英国的基础设施，然后把东西打包装箱，搬去迪拜，一分钱税都不用缴。对吧？这很愚蠢。这完全是愚蠢且次优的。作为美国人，无论我走到哪里都要缴税，对吧？所以我不能跑到某个地方坐享其成，然后逃避法律。因此，这构成了做正确之事的巨大阻碍。

英文原文

Okay.

Yeah.

I

think

one

of

the

things

that

just

needs

to

be

acknowledged

and

put

on

the

table

is

one

of

the

challenges

you

have

here

is

you

have

the

Europe

or

the

world

has

built

this

incredibly

stupid

system

where

you

can

operate

a

business

here,

take

advantage

of

the

UK's

market,

take

advantage

of

the

UK's

rule

of

law,

take

advantage

of

the

UK's

uh

infrastructure,

put

your

stuff

in

a

box,

move

to

Dubai,

and

pay

no

tax.

Right?

It's

idiotic.

It's

just

it's

just

idiotic

and

suboptimizing.

As

an

American,

I

pay

tax

wherever

I

go,

right?

So,

I

cannot

come

to

a

place

and

take

advantage

of

it

and

then

skirt

the

laws.

So,

this

is

such

a

profound

disincentive

to

do

the

right

thing.

嗯，对。是的。但真正的罪魁祸首是企业能做的事情，因为美国企业也能这么做。作为个人你做不到，但你可以把办公室设在爱尔兰、设在卢森堡——

英文原文

>> Well,

yeah.

Yes.

But

the

real

culprit

is

what

companies

can

do

because

US

companies

can

do

it.

You

you

can't

do

it

as

an

individual,

but

you

can

set

up

an

office

in

Ireland

in

Luxembourg,

那更糟糕。

英文原文

>> which

is

even

worse.

——那些大公司才是坏人——

英文原文

and

and

it's

the

corporations

that

are

the

bad

guys,

确实是，但这两种问题都存在。你有英国本土的创业者，他们会想，好吧，我可以留在这里缴40%的税或者不管多少税率，也可以直接溜去迪拜，远程运营业务，一分钱不缴。

英文原文

>> which

is

but

you

have

both

problems

be

you

have

you

have

UK

based

entrepreneurs

who

are

like

well

I

can

stay

here

and

pay

40%

tax

or

whatever

it

is

right

and

just

pop

off

to

Dubai

run

the

business

virtually

and

pay

nothing.

那么你认为应该对那样做的人采取什么措施？

英文原文

>> So

what

are

you

saying

should

be

done

with

those

people

that

do

that?

我认为英国公民无论去哪里都应该缴纳英国税，德国公民无论去哪里都应该缴纳德国税。

英文原文

>> I

think

that

UK

citizens

should

pay

UK

UK

tax

wherever

they

go

and

German

citizens

should

pay

German

tax

wherever

they

go.

你同意吗？我不认为这能解决问题，因为问题不在于公民，大公司才是坏人。

英文原文

>> Do

you

agree?

I

don't

think

that

will

solve

it

because

it's

not

citizens,

it's

corporations

that

are

the

bad

guys.

嗯，这能解决其中一个问题。它不能——这另一个问题也需要处理。

英文原文

>> Well,

it

will

solve

one

problem.

It

will

not

This

other

problem

needs

to

be

handled

too.

世界上那些巨大的吸血乌贼是那些正在从经济体中抽走资金的公司，它们是摸清了怎么玩这套游戏的无形大企业。举个例子，就拿YouTube来说吧。YouTube向这个国家各地的民众推送海量视频，它们投放广告，但却假装位于某个遥远的地方。不是假装。它在英国并没有实体存在。而我们过去在英国的做法是拥有广播许可。如果你想在英国进行广播，你就支付一笔固定费用，然后就可以广播了。为什么YouTube不支付广播许可费呢？如果它们实际上就是一家广播机构，并且在投放广告，它们却坐在那里辩解说：“哦，但有这个规定，而且我们通过这里转移利润，哦，我们必须——实在抱歉，但我们必须从另一个位于瓦努阿图之类地方的公司购买授权许可。”这就好比说：“不，不，不。我们不在乎那些。”这就好比，看看

英文原文

>> The

the

the

giant

vampire

squids

of

the

world

are

companies

that

are

pumping

money

out

of

the

economies

and

they're

faceless

corporations

that

have

figured

out

how

to

play

this

game.

So,

for

example,

let's

take

YouTube

for

example.

YouTube

is

serving

up

a

ton

of

videos

to

people

all

over

this

country

and

they're

running

ads,

but

that

is

pretending

to

be

in

some

distant

place.

It's

not

pretend.

It's

not

being

in

the

UK.

And

what

we

used

to

do

in

the

UK

is

we

used

to

have

a

broadcast

license.

If

you

want

to

broadcast

in

the

country,

you

pay

a

flat

fee

and

you

can

broadcast.

Why

is

YouTube

not

playing

a

paying

a

broadcast

license?

If

they

are

a

broadcaster

effectively

uh

and

running

ads,

they

sit

there

and

say,

"Oh,

but

there's

this

and

we

shift

our

profit

through

here

and

oh,

we

have

to

I'm

so

sorry,

but

we

have

to

buy

our

licensing,

you

know,

from

this

company

over

in

this

other

vanuatu

or

whatever."

It's

like,

"No,

no,

no.

We

don't

care

about

that."

It's

like,

look

at

how

你在英国做生意。你就应该缴税。

英文原文

>> you

do

business

in

the

UK.

You

should

pay

tax.

事情就是这么简单：你有这么多播放量，你的广播许可费就是这么多。

英文原文

>> It's

just

as

simple

as

you

you're

you've

got

this

many

views

and

the

broadcast

license

for

you

is

this

much.

好。那么在这两点上你们都同意吗：既应该根据客户消费所在的地点向企业征税，又应该向个人征税而不管他们决定飞去哪里？

英文原文

>> Okay.

So

do

you

agree

on

both

points

then

that

you

should

tax

corporations

based

on

where

their

customers

are

consuming

and

you

should

tax

individuals

irrespective

of

where

they

decide

to

fly

off

to?

听着，我认为在我们所生活的这个全球化世界里，如果一个人愿意，应该被允许为自己开创新的生活，对吧？比如，如果我真——我20年前在英国为自己开创了新生活。我从澳大利亚来到这里，我不想因为出生在澳大利亚就在澳大利亚缴税。我在澳大利亚缴了价值一百万美元的税，但我现在住在这里。比如我有三个孩子在这里，我在这里买了房子，我的全部生活都在这里。我不喜欢那种仅仅因为我出生在澳大利亚、就无法开创全新生活的想法。

英文原文

>> Look,

I

think

in

a

globalized

world

that

we

live

in

an

individual

should

be

allowed

to

make

a

new

life

for

themsel

if

they

want

to,

right?

Like

so

for

example,

if

I

genuin

I I

I

make

a

new

life

for

myself

in

the

UK

20

years

ago.

I

came

here

from

Australia

and

I

don't

want

to

pay

tax

in

Australia

because

I

was

born

in

Australia.

I

paid

a

million

dollars

worth

of

tax

in

Australia,

but

I

now

live

here.

Like

my

I've

got

three

kids

here

and

I've

got

a

house

here

and

my

whole

life

is

here.

I

don't

like

the

idea

that

just

because

I

was

born

in

Australia,

it's

it's

not

possible

for

me

to

make

a

new

life.

但我们有税收协定。

英文原文

>> But

we

have

a

tax

treaty.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

处理这种情况是有办法的，但这种荒谬的——听着，我在欧洲认识的每一个富人都在玩这种试图避税的荒谬游戏，对吧？我不知道你怎么能看着这种情况还觉得这是一个好体制。但问题在于，你我都清楚，把这变成一场公司游戏太容易了。所以举个例子，如果——

英文原文

>> Like

there

are

ways

of

handling

this,

but

this

ridiculous

Look,

every

rich

person

I

know

in

Europe

is

playing

this

ridiculous

game

of

trying

to

avoid

taxes,

right?

I

don't

know

how

you

can

look

at

that

and

think

this

is

a

good

system.

But

the

issue

is

you

and

I

both

know

it's

so

easy

to

just

turn

this

into

a

company

game.

So

like

for

example,

if

我们必须适当地堵住漏洞。

英文原文

>> we

have

to

appropriately

close

the

loopholes

比如——是的。但比如我看到这么多人把像尼克（Nick）这样的人妖魔化，对吧？他们说：“哦，这家伙，你知道，他是个富人，他不应该这么有钱。”老实说，他不是问题所在。我相信你缴纳了大量税款，而且你也围绕自己创造了经济活动。这些巨型跨国公司从各个经济体中赚取数万亿美元。

英文原文

>> like

Yeah.

But

like

I

just

I'm

seeing

so

many

people

demonize

people

like

Nick,

right?

They

go,

"Oh,

this

guy,

he's

you

know,

he's

a

rich

guy

and

he's

like,

you

know,

shouldn't

be

so

rich."

Honestly,

he's

not

the

problem.

I'm

sure

you

pay

a

bunch

of

taxes

and

also

you

you

create

economic

activity

around

you.

These

mega

corporations

do

trillions

of

dollars

out

of

economies.

如果我们拿一家巨型跨国公司来说——你在脑海中想一家——我们决定在其客户所在的地点对其征税。

英文原文

>> If

we

take

a

mega

corporation,

you

know,

think

of

one

in

your

head,

and

we

decide

to

tax

them

where

their

customers

are.

我之前看了一些研究，研究表明企业很少直接承担税负。当英国或法国等国家根据本地用户征税时，

英文原文

>> I

was

looking

at

some

of

the

research

and

says

corporations

rarely

just

absorb

the

tax.

When

countries

like

the

UK

or

France

introduce

taxes

based

on

local

users,

科技巨头——比如全球最大的那些——立刻提高面向这些具体国家内部消费者和小企业的收费和价格，以转嫁成本。如果我们有一个能阻止这种情况的全球税收体系，他们就不会这么做，也无法这么做了。

英文原文

>> tech

giants

like

the

like

the

biggest

in

the

world

immediately

raised

fees

and

prices

for

the

consumer

and

small

businesses

inside

those

specific

countries

to

offset

the

cost.

If

we

had

a

global

tax

system

that

prevented

this,

then

they

wouldn't

do

it.

They

couldn't

do

it.

如果追踪用户位置和向地方缴税的合规成本超过了该地区的利润，企业往往还会直接屏蔽这些国家的用户，或者完全撤回其产品。

英文原文

>> If

the

compliance

cost

of

tracking

user

locations

and

paying

to

local

taxes

outweighs

the

profit

from

the

region,

companies

also

tend

to

simply

block

users

in

those

countries

or

pull

their

products

entirely.

太好了。太好了。这就为本土公司去做这件事打开了可能性。

英文原文

>> Great.

Great.

And

that

opens

up

a

possibility

of

a

local

company

to

do

it.

更糟，

英文原文

>> Worse,

啊？

英文原文

>> huh?

更糟，

英文原文

>> Worse,

也许更好。

英文原文

>> maybe

better.

我在这里考虑的是大型语言模型，我把它当作一个例子。如果你——如果英国试图挑战Gemini或ChatGPT等，我们使用的技术将会明显更差。

英文原文

>> I

was

thinking

here

about

the

large

language

models

and

I

was

thinking

about

that

as

an

example.

If

you

know

if

the

UK

tried

to

take

on

Gemini

or

Chat

GBT

etc

we

would

be

using

a

significantly

worse

technology.

事实是，那些巨型公司——

英文原文

>> The

truth

is

that

those

those

mega

corps

不过那是准确的。

英文原文

>> that's

accurate

though

那些巨型企业，它们不会这么做。它们想要拥有全世界，想要主导全世界。它们没兴趣彻底切断与某些国家的联系，对吧，它们中没有一家会真正切断与国家的联系。

英文原文

>> those

mega

corpse

they

don't

do

this

they

they

want

to

own

the

world

and

they

want

to

dominate

the

world.

They

they're

not

interested

in

cutting

countries

out

right

none

of

them

actually

cut

countries

out.

你觉得——你觉得Facebook会直接离开英国吗？

英文原文

>> When

do

you

think

you

think

Facebook

is

just

going

to

leave

the

UK?

是的。比如它们不会那么做。所以，另一种方式取决于你怎么做。因此如果你直接——

英文原文

>> Yeah.

Like

they're

not

going

to

do

that.

So

and

the

other

way

is

how

you

do

it.

So

if

you

simply

但在澳大利亚面对新闻出版业务时，又是怎么处理的呢？

英文原文

>> How

do

you

do

that

in

Australia

though

with

the

news

publishing

business?

它们可能会在极短的时间内这么做，作为惩罚政治异见的一种手段，但归根结底它们是在全球范围内运营的。它们拥有全球商业模式，而它们——基本上来说，我们也只需要说：抱歉，你们已经过了二三十年到处不缴税的日子，但我们不再接受这样了。而且你们知道，只要我们想协调，我们是非常擅长协调的，我们必须指出：这里的坏人，我的意思其实就只是从我们的经济体中抽走资金并转移到其他地方，而美国凭借其股市变得如此富有的原因之一，就在于它是所有这些吸血乌贼最终归宿的估值终点。

英文原文

>> They

might

do

it

very

briefly

as

a

way

to

punish

political

uh

disscent

but

ultimately

they

operate

globally.

They

have

a

global

business

model

and

they

uh

essentially

too

we

just

need

to

say

I'm

sorry

you've

had

your

20

30

years

of

not

paying

taxes

anywhere

but

we're

not

doing

that

anymore

and

you

know

we

we

are

very

good

at

coordinating

when

we

want

to

coordinate

and

we

need

to

say

the

bad

guy

here

I

mean

it

is

really

just

pulling

money

out

of

our

economies

and

taking

it

to

other

other

places

and

one

of

the

reasons

that

the

USA

has

become

so

wealthy

with

its

stock

market

is

because

it

is

the

end

valuation

where

all

of

these

vampire

squids

end

up

with.

如果我看看发生过的事情，我想到的正是澳大利亚，但在加拿大也发生过，他们通过了一项名为《在线新闻法》（Online News Act）的法律，要求科技巨头每当加拿大用户分享或浏览新闻链接时，向本地出版商付费。Meta并没有去缴纳针对用户位置征收的税费，而是直接对加拿大的每一位用户屏蔽了所有新闻内容，因为为了这么一个特定的市场，合规成本实在不值得惹这种麻烦。而你面临着

英文原文

>> If

I

look

at

what

happened,

it

was

um

Australia

I

was

thinking

about

um

but

it

also

happened

in

Canada

where

they

passed

a

law

called

the

online

news

act

requiring

tech

giants

to

pay

local

publishers

whenever

Canadian

users

shared

or

viewed

news

links.

And

immediately

instead

of

paying

uh

the

user

location

tax,

Meta

simply

blocked

all

news

content

from

every

user

in

Canada

because

the

cost

of

compliance

just

wasn't

worth

the

hassle

for

one

particular

market.

And

you

have

the

跨国巨头的优势与小微企业扶持

同样的逻辑也发生在亚马逊身上：当时包括加利福尼亚州在内的美国数个州，试图强制亚马逊代收当地销售税，原因仅仅是亚马逊在这些州拥有独立联盟会员（比如博主等）。然而亚马逊并没有选择去应付复杂的当地税收征管，而是直接关停了成千上万个联盟会员账户。如果每个州都强制要求亚马逊代收销售税，那他们显然就无法这么干了，只能老老实实去处理，对吧？问题在于，这些大跨国企业相比其运营所在的司法管辖区拥有巨大的不对称优势，因为它们掌握着大得多的权力和灵活度。

那么 Daniel，面对我们目前经历的这种不平等问题，你的解决方案到底是什么？因为看起来，你对传统的劳动者权益那一套似乎不怎么感兴趣，因为那似乎……

英文原文

same thing happen with Amazon where several US states like California tried to force Amazon to collect local sales tax simply because Amazon had independent affiliates like bloggers etc um living in those states and rather than dealing with the complex local tax collection Amazon instantly terminate thousands of affiliate accounts. If every state required Amazon to collect local sales tax then obviously they couldn't do any of that. they would have to deal with it, right? It's just these big corporations have a massive advantage over the jurisdictions that they're operating in because they have so much more power and so much more flexibility.

So what is the what is your solution then Daniel to solve for this inequality problem that we're experiencing because you know you seem to be less interested in the sort of workers rights piece because that seems to

我们试过了。

英文原文

>> we've tried it.

我们试……你的意思是说我们已经试过了。

英文原文

>> We try you're saying we tried it.

对。我个人更希望看到的，是涌现出多得多的小微企业。我希望政府能向小微企业倾斜，实质上表态说：我们要减轻小微企业的税收负担和经营压力；我们要优待扎根本地并依法纳税的本土小微企业；如果你的企业设在本地且规模较小，我们还将设立特殊的经济贸易区；简而言之，我们要在政策上大力提升自身的竞争力，吸引小微企业落地生根、大展身手。

英文原文

>> Yeah. What I would like personally is I want to see way more small businesses and I want the government to favor small businesses and essentially say we're going to reduce the taxes and the pressure on the small businesses. We're going to advantage local small businesses that are here and paying tax. Um we're going to create special economic trading zones if your business is based here uh and is a smaller size. We're going to basically make ourselves highly competitive for small businesses to show up and do their aame.

那大企业呢？惩罚……惩罚大企业，这个……

我不主张惩罚它们，我只是倾向于倾斜……我百分之百同意他的看法：把天平倾斜过来……

英文原文

>> And what about big businesses? punish punish big businesses that that uh I wouldn't punish them. I would just tilt the pl I'm 100% with him. Tilt the playing field

向小微企业和初创公司倾斜。我不知道你有没有听说过一个叫“企业英国”（Enterprise Britain）的组织，我刚刚加入了它的董事会。它是由创办 Founders Forum 的 Brent Hoberman……是的。

英文原文

>> towards smaller businesses and startups. You know, I I'm not sure if you've heard about this thing that uh I just joined the board of called Enterprise Britain that that um Brent Herman who does Founders Forum. Yep.

还有创立了 OVO 的 Steve Fitzpatrick 刚刚发起的。它就叫 Enterprise Britain。我们这群人聚在一起，其明确目的几乎完全就是为了实现你刚才描述的目标，即努力让英国变成一个更有利于商业发展的环境，主要是针对中小型企业。这里面临的重大挑战之一，是尝试找到一种资本主义结构，能够让小公司发展壮大为大公司，同时又能留在本土，而不是流失到更有利的地区去。但我对此百分之百赞同。否则，你完全可能拥有一个极具活力、增长飞快的经济体，但所有的红利都流向了金字塔尖极少数人，而其他所有人都被压榨掠夺。

英文原文

>> And Steve Fitzpatrick who founded OO just started. It's called Enterprise Britain. It's a group of us who have gotten together uh with the express purpose of doing exactly pretty much what you what you describe, which is to try to make Britain an even better environment for business, mostly small and medium-sized businesses. And one of the great challenges here is to f try to find capitalist structures that allow small companies to turn into larger companies while remaining here and not fleeing to a better place. But I'm I am 100% in agreement with this. And you can have an incredibly dynamic, fast growing economy where all of the benefits flow to the people at the very top and everybody else gets screwed.

而且两手都必须抓。

英文原文

>> And you have to do both.

必须两手都抓。

在过去的十年里，我一直在创办公司和投资企业。很多时候，围绕营销预算的讨论总是遵循完全相同的套路：预算获批了，但随后的成果却未达预期。大部分情况下，创意思路和产品本身并没有问题，症结出在受众上——广告触达的是那些永远不会购买或转介绍的人，或者他们根本没有任何决策审批权。这就是为什么大量的预算被白白浪费。作为本期播客赞助商的 LinkedIn 广告，能让你精准定位目标受众：不仅可以按职位名称、职级层级，还可以按公司规模、所处行业、掌握的技能等维度进行精准投放。你不再是碰运气期望广告能被对的人看到，而是能够确切定义究竟谁能看到它。在所有主流广告网络中，LinkedIn 广告带来的 B2B 广告支出回报率（ROAS）是最高的。欢迎访问 linkedin.com/diary 尝试体验。只要前往 linkedin.com/diary，在你的首轮推广中消费 250 美元，即可获得 250 美元的抵用金用于下一次投放。悄悄了解即可，相关条款与条件适用。

对每位创业者而言，在打造企业的过程中都会经历这样一个转折点：你的职责从企业内部亲力亲为处理各项具体事务的人，转变为对所有事情承担绝对责任的人。在我所负责的各个不同公司与团队中，能够完成这一转变的唯一方法，就是确保建立起能够管理一切运转的正确系统——那些无需我亲自介入也能正常运转的系统。我们的赞助商 Pipedrive 就是这样一套系统，它是一款易于使用、专为不断成长的销售团队打造的智能化 CRM 工具。我的团队在过去十年里一直在使用它，因为它确实是开展销售运营最有效的方式。通过一个统一的仪表盘，每一笔交易都清晰可见，销售流程的每一个阶段都一目了然，下一步需要采取什么行动全部实时呈现。当这样一套系统有效运作时，你无需参加每一场对话，就能确切了解业务是否在向前推进，以及瓶颈究竟出现在哪里、是什么。目前已有超过 10 万家公司依托它来运行销售业务。如果你也想加入他们，欢迎前往 pipedrive.com/ceo 注册，即可享受专属的 30 天免费试用（通常为 14 天），无需绑定信用卡。网址是 pipedrive.com/ceo。

英文原文

>> You have to do both. I've spent the last decade building and investing in companies. And so often the conversation around marketing budgets follows the exact same pattern. The budget gets approved, but then the results don't come back. And most of the time, the creative pitch and the offer is fine. The problem lies with the audience. Ads reach people who will never buy or refer, nor do they have the power to sign off anything at all. And this is why so much budget gets wasted. LinkedIn ads, who a sponsor of this podcast, lets you reach them specifically by job title, seniority, company size, industry, the skills that they have, and much more. You're no longer hoping your ad reaches the right person. Instead, you're defining exactly who sees it. And LinkedIn Ads drives the highest B2B return on ad spend across all major ad networks. Give them a try at linkedin.com/diary. And if you spend $250 on your first campaign, you'll get a $250 credit for your next one just by going to linkedin.com/diary. Keep this to yourself. Terms and conditions apply. For every founder, there comes a point in building a company where your job shifts from being the person inside your business actioning everything to the person responsible for absolutely everything. The only way I've been able to make this shift across the different companies and teams I'm responsible for is by knowing that the right systems are in place to manage everything. Systems that don't need me in order for them to work. Our sponsor Pipe Drive is one of those systems, an easy to use, intelligent CRM tool for growing sales teams. My teams use it and have for the last decade because it's genuinely the most effective way to run a sales operation. Through one dashboard, you get every deal visible and every stage of the sales process is clear and what needs to happen next is all there in real time. When a system like this works, you don't need to be in every conversation to know exactly if your business is moving forward, where and what the blockers are. Over a 100,000 companies are already running their sales on it. So, if you'd like to join them, sign up at piperive.com/ceeo, where you'll get an exclusive 30-day free trial instead of the usual 14 days. No credit card is needed. That's piperive.com/ceo.

人工智能与就业冲击

我是说，当今社会最重要的议题之一就是人工智能。大家大概也看到了，Eric Schmidt 最近在数千名学生面前做了一场毕业典礼演讲，每次他说到……舞台……

英文原文

I mean, one of the most important subjects at the moment in society is artificial intelligence. And we you probably saw recently Eric Schmidt did a commencement speech in front of thousands of students and every time he said the word stage

每次他说到“AI”这个词……领先的 AI 公司之一 Anthropic 最近指出的事情之一是，初级入门岗位正面临危机。我这里有一张图表，展示了入门级招聘岗位的下降趋势。我相信这是来自 LinkedIn……从某个地方调取的，数据表明招聘数量一直在持续下滑、下滑、下滑。AI 的问题我经常在思考。昨晚我还熬夜到很晚，试图梳理其中的一些问题，因为 Anthropic 昨天刚刚发布了一份报告，指出从理论上讲，AI 模型未来将能够实现自我迭代改进，以及这究竟意味着什么。

英文原文

>> every time he said the word AI um one of the things that Anthropic or one of the leading AI companies said recently is that entry- level jobs are at risk and I've got this graph here showing the decline of entrylevel job postings. I believe it was on LinkedIn um pull from somewhere and it shows that they're consistently dropping and dropping and dropping. AI is I think about it so often. I was up late last night trying to think through some of this stuff because Anthropic released a report yesterday showing that the AI models will be able to improve themselves theoretically in the future and what this might mean.

就导致失业而言，你认为 AI 会带来多大程度的颠覆？

英文原文

>> How disruptive do you think AI is going to be as it relates to job losses?

你知道，我认为伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）最近提出的想法并不糟糕。

英文原文

>> You know, I don't think Bernie Sanders latest idea is terrible.

美国将持有所有这些公司 50% 的股份。确实不可否认的是，AI 一直在无偿利用全人类的知识产权来实现商业变现，而只有极少数人能从中直接获益。我认为，就像挪威利用其拥有的庞大资产建立起主权财富基金一样，将 AI 所创造价值的 50% 拿来设立一个主权财富基金，并将其重新循环利用……我认为具体应该如何分配利用这些收益尚不明朗，但努力寻找一种机制，将这部分价值转化为一种缓冲垫，来应对其不可避免带来的社会冲击，我认为这并非一个疯狂的想法。

英文原文

>> US will own 50% of all the companies. It is absolutely true that AI has monetizing for free humanity's intellectual property and a few people are going to directly benefit from that. And I think that um in the same way that Norway created a sovereign wealth fund with this enormous asset that they had uh creating a sovereign wealth fund with 50% of the value created by AI and recycling that into uh I think it's unclear exactly how those benefits should be should be recycled but trying to find a way to make some of that value a cushion for the disruption that it will inevitably cause. I don't think that's a crazy idea.

这对中美两国来说是个好主意。

英文原文

>> It's a good idea for China and the US.

是的，确实如此。

英文原文

>> Yes. Yes.

但对其他地方而言则未必了。这并不能给塞内加尔或南安普敦带来多大帮助。

英文原文

>> But not for anywhere else necessarily. It's not going to help Senagal or Southampton much.

是的。事实上，它还会对许多类似地区造成损害。比如，菲律宾以往作为众多小微企业的离岸外包后台中心，获得了巨大的利益，而现在 AI 已经能够完成其中大量的……大量这类工作了。不过，我常常思考的一个切入点是这样的：假设英国有 570 万家企业，我们有 100 万失业人口，我们只需要五分之一的企业各雇用一个人。AI 确实能让你的企业运转得更好。比如，AI 非常擅长协助进行市场营销，在处理法律合同时表现出色。有上百种途径，AI 可以让这 570 万家企业的状况稍微改善一点点，达到他们愿意雇人的程度。如果我们能够激励促成这些事情的发生——对企业进行培训，指导它们如何利用 AI 建立优势，并对招聘人员的小微企业给予税收减免。实际上我们有 570 万家企业和 100 万失业人口，这里面其实蕴含着很好的匹配空间。

英文原文

>> No. In fact, it'll damage a lot of those places. You know, like the Philippines has benefited enormously by being the outsourced back office uh for a lot of small businesses that AI can now do a lot of those those uh those jobs. Um, one of the things that I always come back to is the idea that say the UK has 5.7 million businesses. We have a million unemployed people. We need 1/5ifth of the businesses to employ one person. AI does actually make your business better. Like AI is really good at helping you with your marketing. AI is great at helping you do legal contracts. There are 100 ways that AI could actually make 5.7 million businesses a little bit better to the point where they want to hire someone. And if we can incentivize those things to happen, businesses are trained on how to use AI to their advantage and tax breaks for small businesses that are hiring. And we will, you know, there's actually 5.7 million businesses and a million unemployed people. That's a good there's a good match there.

你知道，很多人一直在谈论 AI Agent（智能体）。对于还不了解的人来说，AI Agent 所能做的是：它可以进入你的电脑，并在电脑上替你完成任何你想做的工作。无论那是编辑类的任务、手动数据录入的任务，还是无论什么操作，它都能在电脑上进行点击并执行。过去常常分配给初级岗位的很多工作，恰恰就是这种类型的杂务。我想我自己大学辍学后的第一份入门级工作，做的差不多就是这方面的事情；另外还有一点销售的性质，比如给客户打电话进行陌生拜访，而现在 AI 也能做到

英文原文

>> You know, um, a lot of people have been talking about AI agents and, uh, what an AI agent can do, for anyone that doesn't know, is it can go on your computer and it can get any task you want done on the computer. um whether that's you know editing tasks or whether it's you know manual data entry tasks or whatever it is it can click around on a computer and do things a lot of the entrylevel roles were often given are that kind of work I think my entry level entry- level job job after I dropped out of university was kind of doing that kind of thing there was also a little bit of a sales component where I'd cold call people and AI can now do the

AI 对初级岗位与就业的影响

打陌生电话也是如此。而且随着时间推移，如果我们直接把这种发展速度向前推演，我们将能够做到那些事情。所以，如果这些企业变得越来越高效，嗯，再次回到这个初级层面的核心问题：在这些类型的公司中，初级团队成员将扮演什么角色？

对我而言有趣的是，我拥有一群公司，小型企业，呃，充满活力的小型企业。我们在所有这些公司中都应用了 AI，结果我们反而招人了。

英文原文

cold calls too and increasingly if we just play the rate of development forward we'll be able to do those things so if these businesses get more and more efficient um again it comes back this an entry-level point is what what role will entry-level team members have in these kind of companies. So what's interesting for me I have a group of companies small businesses uh dynamic small businesses we've implemented AI in all of them and as a result we've hired people

你们招了谁？

英文原文

>> who have you hired

初级人员。

英文原文

>> entry-level people

我们招了一些通过 AI 得到增强的初级人员，因此他们因为 AI 变得更有价值。不过像预约这类事情，我们最终招了更多的销售人员，因为我们得到了更多的预约。我们将其用于营销，最终招到了能够真正与人进行最后沟通的人员。在我各个组织的核心，我们有一个 AI 层，这个 AI 层具备上下文、技能、模型和安全层，对吧？全都包含在里面。它输出令人惊叹的信息、数据和报告，告诉我们该跟谁谈、为什么跟他们谈，以及跟他们谈些什么。所有这些事情都在因为 AI 而发生。

英文原文

>> we've hired some entry-level people who are augmented by AI so they become more valuable because of AI but like things like appointment setting we've ended up hiring more salespeople because we get more appointments we we use it with our marketing and we end up hiring people who can actually have those final conversations with people at the very core of my organ organizations, we have an AI layer and the AI layer has context and skills and models and security layer, right? All all in there and it spits out amazing information and data and reports and tells us who to talk to and why to talk to them and what to talk to them about. All these things are happening because of AI.

但这并没有避开那个问题，就像如果你想想优步，呃，达拉（Dara）已经说得相当明确，我想是他们拥有的 900 万司机未来都将失去工作。如果你想想我们所描述的另一类白领职业，那些角色未来将不会存在。好吧，我应该说那些角色将会被改变。

英文原文

>> But it doesn't get around the point that like if you think about Uber, uh DAR has been pretty clear that the 9 million drivers they have, I think it is, are going to lose their jobs in the future. If you think about the the other sort of white collar professions we've described, they those roles won't won't exist in the future. Well, I should say those roles will be will be will be changed.

没错。如果我戴上更乐观的帽子，关键在于所有企业都在竞争环境中运作，而竞争的方式有两种：一种是更便宜，另一种是更好。对。而关于 AI 的一点在于，是的，确实有一些任务你可以完全自动化掉，但一个配备了优秀 AI 工具的人可能能够做五个人的工作。

英文原文

>> Correct. If I put on my more optimistic hat, the thing is is that all businesses operate in a competitive environment and there are two ways to compete. One is to be cheaper. The other is to be better. Right. And the thing about AI is that yeah, there are tasks that you can automate away, but one person with good AI tools may be able to do the job of five.

嗯。

英文原文

>> Mhm.

对。是的，你可以取消那个岗位，或者你也可以留住那个人，给他们合适的工具，去胜过你的竞争对手。

英文原文

>> Right. And yeah, you could eliminate that job or you could keep that person, give them the right tools and out compete your competitors.

合适的工具。

英文原文

>> The right tools.

合适的工具。我认为有一种假设是……

英文原文

>> The right tools. I think there's an assumption that

技术变革的历史先例与扩散速度

我是说，计算机的发展当然也是如此，对吧？我是说，我的年纪比你们大，所以我还记得计算器刚出来的时候。

英文原文

>> I mean this is of course what happened with computers, right? I mean I'm I am older than you guys so I I remember when calculators hit.

你必须经历过那个时期，才能体会到当时人们对计算器有多抓狂，

英文原文

>> You had to be there to realize how freaked out people were about calculators,

对吧？就像人们当时在谈论，会计人员该怎么办，还有孩子们以后还会学数学吗？我是说，当时带计算器去学校是极具争议的。然后计算机出现了，而事实是计算机并没有减少人们的工作量，反而增加了人们的工作量。我确实相信 AI 很可能也会以某些方式做到这一点，因此岗位的流失可能不会像现在感觉的那样具有末日色彩，因为归根结底，你依然有两种竞争方式可以选择。如果你，你知道的，你可以裁掉一个人然后做到 X，但你也可以留住那个人，让他们做到 5X，从而在另一个维度上胜过……

英文原文

>> right? Like people were talking about like what are the accountants going to do and and and will kids learn math anymore? I mean it was it was like extremely controversial to bring a calculator to to to school and then along came computers and the truth is that computers didn't reduce the amount of work that people did they increased the amount of work that people did and I do believe that there are ways in which AI is probably going to do that and so the job loss may not be as apocalyptic as it now feels like it may be because again at the end of the day you have two ways to choose to compete. If you, you know, you can get rid of somebody and do X, but you could keep that person and have them do 5X and out compete,

你知道的，胜过你的竞争对手。我认为这将会是人们可能会做的事情。医生只会成为更好的医生。

英文原文

>> you know, your competitors in another dimension. I think that that will be something that people are likely to do. Doctors are just going to be better doctors.

我想我绝对同意某些个体确实会获得这种增强。我认为也许计算器或计算机与这之间的区别在于，AI 正在进入一个技术化的经济体，而且它的进入伴随着即时的规模化。比如上周 Anthropic 发布他们的新模型时，它是瞬间推送到我们所有人面前的。是的。

英文原文

>> I think I I definitely agree that there's going to be this sort of augmentation of certain individuals. I think maybe the difference between like calculators or computers versus this is AI is coming into a technological economy and it is coming in with instant scale in a way that when when anthropic shipped their new model last week it went to all of us at once. Yeah.

全世界各地，我们所有人一下子都发生了阶跃式的转变。对于计算机，我还记得我父亲为我们家订购第一台电脑的那一天，我们等了好几个星期又好几个星期，然后才拿到它。买一台极其昂贵。我们把它拆箱。我记得我们所有人都围着看它，那是一台像是没什么内存的 Windows 95 电脑。

英文原文

>> Everywhere in the world we were all boom step changed with computers. I remember the day that like my dad ordered the first computer for our house and we waited for weeks and weeks and weeks and then we got it. It was super expensive to get one. We unboxed it. I remember us all stood around it looking at and it was like this Windows 95 machine that had like no memory on it.

嗯，所以那种分布、那种颠覆要慢得多。

英文原文

>> Um so the distribution the sort of disruption was much slower.

节奏、节奏要慢得多，

英文原文

>> The the pace the pace was much slower,

对吧？

英文原文

>> right?

企业招聘意愿与自然减员

而且我明白，比如对于我的、对于我们的团队来说，没有任何意图，我们完全无意因为 AI 去解雇任何人。我们在对员工进行技能重塑、进行培训。然而，我们最终招募的人数，特别是在短期内，会不会比本来要招的更少？

英文原文

>> And I understand that like with my with our team there's no intent we have no intention at all to let anybody go because of AI. We're reskilling people, training people. However, would we end up hiring less people, especially in the near term, than we would have otherwise?

我想这或许是可以想象的。

英文原文

>> I think that's maybe conceivable.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

嗯，我认为很多公司都处于那种境地。我昨天其实刚好和一个人聊过，他们说：“我们只是让呼叫中心的自然减员来应对这种转变，这意味着他们呼叫中心自然流失了 25% 的人，他们只是不再招其他人补进来。”实际上 Klarna 的 CEO 也说了同样的事情。他说：“我们只是让自然减员来解决这个问题。”

英文原文

>> Um, and a lot of companies, I think, are in that position where I actually was speaking to someone yesterday and they said, "We're just letting the natural attrition in our call center take care of the shift, which means they they have they lose 25% of people from their call center naturally. They're just not hiring other people back in." And actually, Clown's CEO said the same thing. thing. He said, "We're just letting the attrition take care of it."

不过我可以给你举另一个例子来反驳这一点。嗯，我与英格兰北部的一对夫妻合作，他们有一家小型视频制作公司，还有一两个跟他们做一点外包的人。呃，他们利用 AI 制作了一款软件，那款软件呃有助于自动完成剧本编写以及他们所做的一些其他事情。

英文原文

>> I'll give you another example though, just to counter that. Um, I work with a husband and wife couple in the north of England who they had a little video production agency and like one or two people who did a little bit of contracting with them. Uh, they used AI to create a piece of software and that piece of software uh helps automate script writing and a few of the things that they do.

嗯，他们为此推出了一个候补名单。他们吸引了 5500 人加入候补名单。随后他们将首批 1500 位客户签入了一款他们在四个月内开发成本几乎为零的软件。嗯，现在他们正在招聘一个 10 人的团队。这是一对原本经营着受限小业务的夫妻，现在呃正在建立一家更大的企业。而这是过去绝不可能发生的事情。他们不必去筹集数千万、数亿美元，他们也不必去雇佣三四十人。所以，这个微小的 SaaS 机遇因为 AI 突然成为了可能。拿掉 AI，那种高速增长、充满活力的小型企业就……

英文原文

>> Um, they launched a waiting list for this. They got 5 a half thousand people to join the waiting list. They then signed up their first 1500 clients to a piece of software that cost almost nothing for them to build in four months. Um, and now they're hiring a team of 10 people. And this is a husband and wife who had a small constrained business who are now uh building out a bigger business. And this is something that could never have happened. They haven't had to raise billion millions of dollars. They haven't had to hire 30 40 people. So this this tiny little SAS opportunity is suddenly possible because of AI and take take that AI away and that fast growth dynamic little businesses is

宏观颠覆、杰文斯悖论与财富再分配

是的，我想从个例来看，我也能举出很多例子，说明某些人极具创业精神，他们碰到了机遇。但如果你从人们目前在经济中创造价值的方式拉远视角来看，其中有很大一部分将会发生变化，而且感觉将会相当迅速。

英文原文

>> yeah I think anecdotally I could come up with lots of examples as well where particular people are highly entrepreneurial they come across an opportunity but there's this broad if you just zoom out on the way that people generate value in the economy at the moment so much of that is going to change and it's going to be quite quick it feels like

哦，完全是这样。

英文原文

>> oh totally

而且我不知道该拿……比如面对那种突如其来的转变，该做些什么。

英文原文

>> and I don't know what you do about like what do you do about that sudden shift

嗯，这在杰文斯悖论（Jevons paradox）中发生过。拥有拖拉机的人取代了田地里的 100 个人，那 100 个人便一下子全部进城寻找工作。查尔斯·狄更斯写了《双城记》，他写了呃、《雾都孤儿》。呃，猜猜还有谁出自杰文斯悖论时期？我们的好朋友卡尔·马克思（Karl Marx），他提出了有史以来被创造并写下的最具毒性的思想，对吧？他就是伴随着杰文斯悖论出现的。

英文原文

>> well this this happened in the Jevans paradox The person who had a tractor displaced a hundred people who were in the field and those hundred people went into the city looking for work all at once. And it was Charles Dickens wrote the tale of two cities. He wrote u uh Oliver Twist. Uh guess who else came out of the Jevans paradox? Our good friend KL Marx who came up with the most toxic ideas ever created and written down, right? He came off the back of the Jevans paradox.

那么对此该做些什么呢？

英文原文

>> So what you do about it?

呃，全民基本收入（UBI）。

英文原文

>> Uh UBI.

我目前不是 UBI 的忠实拥护者。伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）搞的那个 50% 的方案不就有点像是要达到这个效果吗？

英文原文

>> I'm not a big fan of UBI at the moment. Isn't that kind of what this 50% Bernie Sanders thing would do?

嗯，基本上就是主权财富基金，但你必须找到一种方法来协助度过这个过渡期，而且我认为必须依靠所创造的价值。听着，整个……AI 所基于的全部估值前提就是对就业的颠覆，对吧？除非你取代大量工作岗位，否则你根本达不到那些数字。

英文原文

>> Well, it's it's sovereign wealth fund basically, but you have to find a way to help manage through this transition and you have to I think depend on the value create. Look, the the whole the the whole valuation that AI is predicated on is job disruption, right? You can't you can't get to those numbers unless you're displacing lots of jobs.

确实如此。如果那是真的，那么我们应该拿走一部分所创造的价值，将其循环回经济中，试图缓冲它所带来的颠覆。

英文原文

>> Exactly. And and if that's true, then we should grab some of that value that is created and recycle it into the economy to try to cushion the disruption that it creates.

这有点像社会主义思想，对吧？

英文原文

>> This is a bit of a socialist idea, right?

我不把那称为社会主义。

英文原文

>> I don't call that socialism.

那你称之为什么？

英文原文

>> What do you call that?

我不知道，只是一种常识。

英文原文

>> I don't know. Just common sense.

但这难道不广泛适用于所有……所有公司和富人吗？如果有……如果他们正在颠覆经济，并从这种颠覆中获取不公平的份额，我们难道不应该直接拿走并循环回去吗？但这正是……这就是世界上每一个高效运转的民主体制赖以运作的基础。我是说，世界上每一个高效运转的民主体制都有累进税制和劳工标准。没收私有财产……呃，那将会是……这之间是有区别的。

英文原文

>> But wouldn't that broadly apply to all all companies and rich people? If there's if they are disrupting the economy and taking an unfair share of that disruption, should we not just grab and recycle back in? But that's the b that is the basis upon which every high functioning democracy in the in the world operates. I mean every high functioning democracy in the world has progressive taxation labor standards. There's a difference between seizing private property uh which would be

一种社会主义的做事方式，一种共产主义的做事方式，以及拥有具有战略意义的资产，

英文原文

a socialist way of doing things and a communist way of doing things and owning strategic assets which

这些资产属于私有财产。举例来说，迪拜政府拥有维系迪拜运转的实体酒店大楼，并将其租赁给酒店运营商，但它把资金保留在主权财富基金中，因为它的基本逻辑是：迪拜很大一部分依托于我们拥有这类土地资产。

英文原文

>> which are private property. So, for example, the the Dubai government owns the uh physical hotel buildings that uh that run Dubai and it leases those out to hotel operators, but it keeps money in its sovereign wealth fund because it says basically a big part of Dubai is that we own these kind of land assets.

所以，你认为我们应该去接管这些公司的一部分股份吗？

英文原文

>> So, do you think we should go and take a a portion of these companies?

嗯，不同之处在于，迪拜政府确实开发了那些资产，

英文原文

>> Well, the difference was the Dubai government actually developed those assets,

对吧？但在一个资本主义社会里，我们已经走得太远了，比如——

英文原文

>> right? But we're we're already too far down the line with within a capitalist society like

我们或许可以说，数据是新的石油，数据是一种公共品，是一项被这些公司非法霸占的共有资产。因此，你并不是在没收他们创造的东西。你基本上是在说：抱歉，但你需要向这个主权财富基金回缴一笔许可费，因为你正在使用的是一项你基本上占为己有的共有资产。

英文原文

>> we might say we might say that data is the new oil and data is a common good and it is a common asset that has been um sequestered illegitimately by these companies. So therefore you're not seizing what they created. You're you're basically saying I'm sorry but you need to pay a license back to this sovereign wealth fund because you're using a common asset that you were able to essentially seize.

你是从非洲人和英国人那里偷来的。你是从澳大利亚人那里偷来的。你是从加拿大人那里偷来的。

英文原文

>> You stole it you stole it from Africans and British people. You stole it from people in Australia. You stole it from people in Canada.

我们面临的最大问题实际上是整个经济的本质正在发生改变。这在250年前就发生过，当时经济的本质是土地，我们有被称为封建主义和殖民主义的经济体系。后来经济的本质变成了工业化，我们有了被称为社会主义和资本主义的经济体系。而现在，经济的本质实际上正在发生根本性的变化。经济学中有四大生产要素：土地、劳动力、资本、企业家才能。我们现在正像钟摆一样，从土地经过资本、劳动力摆动，如今我们实际上处于一个企业家经济中。我们需要某种能够反映金钱和财富创造现实的经济体系。

英文原文

>> The biggest issue that we're having is that we're actually the nature of the entire economy is changing. So this happened 250 years ago where the nature of the economy was land and we had an economic system called feudalism and colonialism. And then the nature of the economy was industrialization and we had a economic system called socialism and capitalism. And now the nature of the economy is actually fundamentally changing. So in economics there's four factors of production. land, labor, capital, enterprise. We're now swinging like a pendulum from land through capital, labor, and now we're actually in an enterprise economy. And we need some sort of economic system that reflects the reality of how money and wealth is made.

那具体是什么？是去找OpenAI，拿走他们公司50%的股份，然后把这50%的利润分给大众吗？

英文原文

>> What is that? Is that go to open AI, take 50% of their company and then pay out the profits of that 50% to the people.

我对任何社会主义想法始终持怀疑态度。如果它出自伯尼·桑德斯之口，我就持怀疑态度。

英文原文

>> I'm always skeptical of any socialist ideas. If it comes from Bernie Sanders, I'm skeptical.

好吧。但伯尼·桑德斯并不是社会主义者。我们来谈谈社会主义——他说他是一个社会主义者。社会主义——社——不，社——社会主义是——

英文原文

>> Okay. But Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. Like let's be socialist. He he says he's a socialist. Socialism social no social socialism is

你知道的，是政府拥有所有的生产资料，对吧？听着，资本主义有一百万种形式，对吧？我们——每个国家的运作方式都略有不同，而且在——我不认为伯尼·桑德斯在主张我们应该放弃市场。他的主张是我们应该为了公众利益来管理市场，而不是完全为了资本所有者的利益。我认为这确实有着本质区别。

英文原文

>> you know the government owning all the means of production right look there are a million forms of capitalism right we I every country operates slightly differently and there I don't think that Bernie Sanders is saying that we should abandon markets. What he is saying is we should manage markets for the public benefit, not exclusively for the benefit of the owners of capital. And I think that's really different.

你知道，就像亚马逊，他们在使用公路。

英文原文

>> You know, with like an Amazon, they're using the roads.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

还有基础设施，

英文原文

>> And the infrastructure,

没错吧？

英文原文

>> correct?

那么你是否也会为了公共利益去接管这些公司50%的股份，然后把收益分发给——

英文原文

>> So would you go take 50% of those companies as well for public benefit and then pay it out to

不，但公民——

英文原文

>> No, but the citizens

我们实际上通过税收的形式拿走了他们的一部分，对吧？然而，我们向这些公司征收的税款，我认为——丹可能也同意——是不充足的。

英文原文

>> we effectively do take part of them in the form of taxes, right? Now, now, now the taxes that we impose on those companies, I would argue, and Dan may may agree, are insufficient.

它们并没有准确体现我们赋予它们的价值。它们没有回馈同等的价值，那些——

英文原文

>> They do not accurately reflect the value that we give them. They don't return equal value that

所以，你认为应该对亚马逊这样的公司增加税收？你们两位都同意吗？

英文原文

>> So, you think increase the taxes on companies like Amazon? You both agree?

嗯，亚马逊非常成功地避开了税收。额，所以——

英文原文

>> Well, Amazon is very successfully avoiding taxes. Um, so

那么你同意增加吗？

英文原文

>> so would you agree to increase?

我认为我们需要——我们需要堵住税收漏洞。

英文原文

>> I think we need to have we need to close tax loopholes.

像所有其他在经济体中运作的公司一样纳税

英文原文

taxes like all other companies that operate within the econom

以及所有那些与亚马逊竞争的等等事物。听着，我们面临的最大问题之一是政府内部普遍存在无能。我可以就此给你一个速览数据：在英国政府中，你死掉的概率是因表现不佳被解雇概率的10倍，而且英国政府因无能解雇人员的比例只有普通企业的千分之六点二五。因此，我们在政府中积累了巨大的无能。所以这种想法——我们在张桌子旁可以想出天下最好的主意，但我们面对的是一群根本上无能、且激励机制错位的人。我们在金融工业复合体、技术工业复合体之间基本上存在着一道旋转门。而在新加坡政府，他们基本上表示我们将在政府中实行极高程度的精英任用制，本质上我们完全依据结果和功绩来提拔和解雇。

英文原文

and all that sort of stuff who in competition with Amazon look one of the biggest issues that we have is we have widespread incompetence in governments and I'll give you a quick stat on this in the UK government you are 10 times more likely to die than to be fired for poor performance and the UK government fires people at 1600th the as normal businesses for incompetence. So we have an accumulation of massive incompetence in government. So the idea you can come up we can come up with all the best ideas under the sun at this table. We have a uh fundamentally incompetent set of people who have misaligned incentives. Uh we have basically a revolving door between financial industrial complex, technology industrial complex. Well, the Singaporean government, they basically said that we're going to have a very high degree of meritocracy in government that essentially we promote and fire based on outcomes and merit merit.

新加坡是治理的奇迹。令人惊叹的治理。

英文原文

>> Singapore is a miracle of governance. Amazing governance.

这确实是治理上的奇迹，但它是一个非常小的地方。

英文原文

>> It's it's a it's a miracle of governance, but it is a very small place.

不，完全同意。而且也许是地球历史上唯一一个受益于一位善意独裁者的地方，对吧？

英文原文

>> No, totally. And perhaps the only place in the history of planet Earth that has benefited from uh a well-meaning dictator, right?

嗯，是的。这是一个展现能力、胜任力和远见的惊人故事。额——

英文原文

>> Well, yeah. It's an astonishing story of capability, competence, for foresight. Um,

人工智能与就业变革

那么面对这场AI革命，解决方案是什么？我认为我们都认同会有工作岗位受到冲击，并且会出现新型的工作。很可能还会有一批在向这些新型工作过渡的人口差值。额，我之前说过这一点，但我甚至注意到，现在在我们自己的招聘流程中，我们确实在物色具备某种特定技能的人。

英文原文

>> so what is the solution with this AI revolution? It's I think we all agree that there's going to be job disruption and there's going to be a new type of job. There's going to be probably a delta of people transitioning to those new types of jobs. Um, I I've said this before, but I even noticed that within our recruitment processes now, we are really looking for people that have a certain set of skills.

我们总会问，

英文原文

>> We always ask,

而且找到这样的人变得越来越难、越来越难。额——

英文原文

>> and it's harder and harder and harder to find those people. Um,

嗯，那是培训的问题。那是教育和培训。确实，那需要时间。

英文原文

>> well that's training. That's education and training. It is that takes time.

学校体系需要培养出你们愿意雇佣的人才。

英文原文

>> The school system needs to produce people that you would want to hire.

是的。而且这需要耗费大量时间。

英文原文

>> Yeah. And that takes a lot of time.

在我的招聘中，我会问这样一个问题：“你在AI这个兔子洞里钻得有多深？”任何只要回答“哦，钻得很深”的人，我就会说，行，加入团队吧。

英文原文

>> In my hiring, I ask the question, how deep are you in the AI rabbit hole? And anyone who says, oh, a lot. I'm like, okay, join the team.

而且——而且如果你想想人形机器人，埃隆·马斯克的薪酬方案要求他交付数百万台人形机器人，否则他就拿不到他的巨额薪酬。如果我们想想正在涌现的机器人技术和人形机器人，前几天我们看到Figure AI发布了这段视频，展示了一台人形机器人在生产线上连续八天分拣包裹，击败了在生产线上分拣那些包裹的人类。我在洛杉矶的车现在自己开，出租车也是如此，而且在制造自动驾驶汽车方面存在着激烈的竞赛。额，我相信会有新的工作被创造出来，我也明白在未发生前很难预先知道那些工作具体会是什么。我设想会有更多以人为主的工作，更多的销售工作。我唯一能确定的是，未来属于小型企业。属于十个人做YouTube频道的微型团队。属于十个人开发软件的小团队。就像——当你拥有成千上万个小型微型企业时，每个人都会更快乐。

英文原文

>> And and also, if you think about humanoid robots, Elon Musk's pay packet mandates him to deliver millions of humanoid robots or else he doesn't get his big pay packet. If we think about robotics and humanoid robots coming through, we watched the other day Figure AI released this video showing a humanoid robot sorting packages on a production line for eight days straight, beating a human sorting those packages on the production line. My car in Los Angeles now drives itself and as do the taxis and there's a huge race to make autonomous vehicles. Um, I'm sure there's new jobs created and I understand in foresight it's hard to understand what those will be. I assume there'll be more human jobs, more sales jobs. My only thing that I can say is that the future is small businesses. It's it's small teams of 10 people making YouTube channels. It's small teams of 10 people making software. It's like the the when you have millions and millions of little small businesses, everyone's happier.

但如果你读了Anthropic昨天发布的内容，他们提出的论点是，实际上我们正在达到这样一个节点：届时一个人带着一个智能体团队，就能在不雇佣一个人的情况下打造一家万亿美元规模的公司。实际上，当你刚才谈到开发软件时，他们可能会争辩说，软件将由智能体来开发。Anthropic表示，现在每个人独立产出的代码量是过去的多达八倍。我昨晚甚至在手机上截图的一句原话，出自Anthropic的一位工程师，他说他们感到自己毫无用处，因为他们说自己已经好多个月没有写过一行代码了。这位Anthropic的工程师基本上是在说：我来上班，这个智能体帮我写代码，我基本上就是坐着看，觉得自己毫无用处。额，所以你给出的所有那些例子——

英文原文

>> But if you read what Anthropic released yesterday, they're making the claim that actually we're getting to a point where it will be an individual with a team of agents who can now make a trillion dollar company without hiring a single person. And actually when you said about making software making that they would they might argue that that'll be agents making that software. Anthropic said that the amount of code each individual's producing on their own is eight times. And this one particular quote which I actually screenshotted on my phone last night comes from an engineer at Anthropic who was saying they feel useless because now they they say they haven't written a line of code in months and months and months. This anthropic engineer was basically saying like I come to work this agent writes the code for me and I kind of sit and watch and I feel useless. Um so all those examples you gave

我——好吧，但在那种情况下会发生的是，你会面临巨大的通缩效应。在经济中，如果是一个人在做各种各样的事情，那么其成本就会趋向于运行它所需的电力成本，对吧？所以会带来巨大的通缩。然后问题就变成了：那所有人去做什么呢，对吧？我们大家都做什么？我们去做人类该做的事，对吧？人类总能想出可以彼此互动去做的事情，额，这就好比如果我告诉我祖父，有一种职业叫私人健身教练，带你去健身房并数你做了几次动作，对吧？我祖父肯定会说：“那太荒唐了。”而我会说：“哦，全美各地的健身房里有5万名私人教练。”所以，总会有这些不可思议的新职业被创造出来。我看看那些信托基金富二代做的事，对吧？因为

英文原文

>> what I'm okay but what would happen in that situation is you would have a massive deflationary effect the cost of if if there was one person doing all sorts of things in the economy then the cost of that would go to the cost of the electricity to run it right so massive deflationary and then the question becomes well what does everyone do right what do we all do we do human things right humans always come up with things to do with each other uh like if I was to tell my grandfather that there is a job called a personal trainer who takes you to the gym and counts your reps, right? My grandfather would go, "That's insane." And I say, "Oh, there's 50,000 personal trainers in gyms all over the country." So, there are always these crazy new jobs that get created. I look at what trust fund kids do, right? Cuz

很多信托基金富二代，他们不用为钱发愁，也不用为资源发愁，他们就去找点事情做，而这往往显得很怪异。我们将会经历，你知道，我们现有的工作可能会非自愿地经历这样一个转型时刻，我认为历史对于这些转型时刻会发生什么已经揭示得很清楚了。

英文原文

a lot of trust fund kids, they go, they don't have to worry about money and they don't have to worry about resources and they go find something to do and it's always weird. We're going to traverse through, you know, potentially the jobs we have now involuntarily go through this transition moment where I think history is quite clear on what happens in these transition moments.

场面会变得很难看。

英文原文

>> It gets ugly.

场面会变得很难看。

英文原文

>> It gets ugly.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

然后我们就会迎来，你知道，我听到的意思是说，在这一切的另一端，我们将会迎来某种乌托邦。

英文原文

>> And then we'll come to, you know, what I'm hearing is that you're saying we will come to some kind of utopia on the other end of this.

不，

英文原文

>> No,

不，

英文原文

>> no,

不。我不认为，我不认为会有乌托邦。

英文原文

>> no. I don't think I don't think there's going to be utopia.

你怎么看？

英文原文

>> What do you think?

呃，听着，我不认为乌托邦存在。我确实认为，市场是有史以来为了创造繁荣和升华人类精神所发明的最伟大的社会技术。这并不是因为市场是稀缺资源的有效配置者——那是传统观点。市场是一个演化系统，它让群体能够聚集在一起解决复杂问题，而人类问题的解决方案才是繁荣的真正本质。它不是 GDP 或金钱。我认为你在地球上所能建立的最佳世界，是一个由稳健的民主制度治理的市场经济，而该制度有力地将所有公民都纳入到该经济体系中。你的答案是小企业，我百分之百支持你，并祝你取得一切成功。我的答案是，很多人最终都会为大公司或中型公司工作，我们必须确保——或者我这部分的答案是——我们必须建立适当的标准，以确保这些公司善待人们，使他们能够成为社会和经济中有尊严的参与者。这需要法律、规则和各种机制的创新来加以实现。但是，如果你想生活在一个体面的社会里，就别无选择。而且……但对我来说最重要的核心点，也是我从事经济学研究的原因在于，现有的经济学范式基本上认为市场是完全有效的。我们应该听任其自行运转，你知道的，该来的总会来。所以你真正关注的是改善劳动者的生活和薪资。

英文原文

>> Uh, look, I I don't think utopias exist. I do think that markets are the greatest social technology ever invented for creating prosperity and for enobbling the human spirit. That is not because markets are efficient allocators of scarce resources which is the conventional view. Markets are an evolutionary system that enables groups of people to come together and solve complex problems and solutions to human problems is what prosperity actually is. It isn't GDP or money. And the best world that you can build, I think, on earth is a market economy governed by a robust democracy that robustly includes all citizens in that economy. And your your answer is small business. And I I'm 100% behind you and I I wish you all the success. My answer is that a lot of people are going to end up working for large companies or medium companies and that we have to ensure or my part of the answer is that we have to have standards in place to ensure that those companies treat people well enough so that they can be dignified participants in both the society and the economy. And that will require innovation in laws and rules and all sorts of mechanisms to enable that. But that there is no alternative if you want to live in a decent society. And and the but the high order bit for me and the reason I work on economics is that the existing economic paradigm basically says markets are perfectly efficient. We should just let them run and you know what comes will come. So you're really focused on increasing the workers lives and pay.

所以，如果你从传统观点来理解经济，将人们纳入经济体系是一种自由派的奢侈品，只有在你拥有增长的前提下才能承受得起。而我认为新经济学所阐述的一切表明，更有力地将更多人纳入经济体系，实际上才是推动经济增长和维持民主运转的真正技术机制。

英文原文

>> So if you understand the economy from the conventional point of view, including people in the economy is a liberal luxury that you can afford if and when you have growth. And I think everything the new economics says is that including more people in the economy more robustly is actually the tech technical mechanism that makes both economies grow and democracies function.

那么简而言之，从政策角度来看这究竟意味着什么？

英文原文

>> So to simplify that what does that mean if you from a policy perspective

在一个充满不确定性的人工智能未来中，如果你不知道经济会发生什么，这是很难回答的。我是说，我们根本不知道会造成多少失业。我们……我认为丹说得很对，我们正在经历一场转型，经济的形态将会发生改变。

英文原文

>> it is very hard to answer in an uncertain future in an AI if you don't know what what's going to happen with the economy. I mean we have no idea how much job loss there will be. We have we are we are I think Dan says quite rightly going through a transition where the shape of the economy will change.

那我们在转型期就什么都不做吗？

英文原文

>> So do we do nothing through the transition?

不。

英文原文

>> No.

不。我们积极尝试各种让更多人融入经济的方法。伯尼·桑德斯的想法就是一次实验。最坏的结果会是什么？想想看，最坏的结果能怎样？

英文原文

>> No. We aggressively experiment with ways to include more people in the economy. Bernie Sanders idea is an experiment. What's the worst that can happen? Like just think about it. What is the worst that can happen?

最坏的结果是，你给了政府更多的钱，他们撬动了更多的债务。而一旦政府拥有……

英文原文

>> The worst would be is that you give government more money and they leverage more debt. And as soon as the government has

美国的经济并不需要资产来撬动更多债务。我们刚刚创造……我们刚刚创造……我们不需要，那不是真的。那绝非事实。我们有 37 万亿美元的债务，基本上全都是在战争或给富人减税中白白送出去的。所以……

英文原文

>> the the economy of the United States does not need assets to leverage more debt. We just created we just created we we didn't need that is not true. That is just not true. We have $37 trillion of debt all of which was basically given away in wars or tax cuts for rich people. So

但他们可以印更多的钱，而且……

英文原文

>> but they they can print more money and

确实，但这两件事并没有关联。不过事实是，进行这项实验可能发生的最坏结果，无非是会有几十个身价千亿的人资产变成了 1000 亿而不是 2000 亿。这就是那件事能带来的最坏结果。这会是万全之策吗？它会完美运作吗？我不知道。但我确实知道的是，民主体制需要积极采取行动，努力确保这些技术创新惠及广泛的社会大众，而不仅仅是狭隘的少数人。

英文原文

>> absolutely but these two things they are not connected. But the truth is that the worst that can happen by running that experiment is that there will be a few dozen guys who are worth a hundred billion and not 200 billion. Like that is the worst that that can do. Is that going to be the end all beall? Will it work perfectly? I have no idea. But what I do know is that democracies need to move aggressively to try to make sure that these technological innovations benefit the society broadly, not just a few people narrowly.

监管与资本外流的担忧

如果我想想英国，如果你在这里实施类似那样的措施，大家会离开吗？所以如果你实施了——比方说我们这里有一家 AI 公司，然后你说，英国政府要拥有它的一半。那家公司会不会直接……

英文原文

>> If I think about the UK, if you implemented something like that here, would would people leave? So if you implemented, say we had an AI company here and you said, well, the UK is going to own half of it. Would that company just

因为是数字业务而把架构重组到别处？他们很可能会这么做。

英文原文

>> restructure somewhere else because it's digital? They they probably would.

但你现在又回到了这个老问题上。

英文原文

>> But you're now you're back to this old problem.

我们甚至在数据中心方面已经见识过了。人们正在离开，我读过一篇报告说，OpenAI 最终没有按他们原来说的那样在英国建立数据中心，原因就是这里的能源成本要高出四倍。

英文原文

>> We've even seen this with the data centers. People are going I read a report that said the reason Open AI didn't open their data center in the UK, which they said they were going to, is because energy costs four times more here.

所以他们说我们不去便宜的地方。

英文原文

>> So they said we're not going to go somewhere where it's cheap.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

在这种情况下难道不也是一样吗？你会遭遇某种人才流失，在那里……

英文原文

>> And would that not be the case here where you'd get the sort of brain drain where

而且你采用这种伯尼·桑德斯模式所承担的风险是，我们利用政府的资产负债表——或非资产负债表——以我们的子孙后代的名义背负巨额债务，而他们必须偿还这些债务。他们收购所有这些无形资产，然后最终由他们承担这些可能表现良好也可能表现不佳的资产，而无论如何债务都是存在的。然后 Anthropic 那帮极其聪明的家伙就会说：“哦，实际上我们现在要把架构重组转移到瓦努阿图去。留下你们承担所有那些有毒债务，我们要去别的地方运营它了。”这是可能发生的。另一件可能发生的事情是，比方说，目前作为例子的 OpenAI 正在产生 100 美元的利润，目前有 100 美元的利润，而伯尼·桑德斯说我们要拿走其中的 50 美元利润。中国理论上就将额外拥有 50 美元用于投资他们的前沿模型，以取得领先。

英文原文

>> and the risk that you run with this Bernie Sanders model is that we leverage the the government's balance sheet or non-balance sheet to take out huge debt in the name of our kids and our grandkids that they have to repay. They buy up all these intangible assets and then they're left holding those assets that may or may not perform and may and will have debt regardless. And then the super clever little anthropic guys say, "Oh, actually we're just going to restructure to Vanuatu now. Leave you guys holding all of that toxic debt and we're going to go run this from somewhere else." That could happen. The other thing that could happen is if let's say OpenAI as one example are making $100 profit at the moment $100 profit at the moment and Bernie Sanders says we want $50 of that profit. China are going to have an additional theoretically an additional $50 to invest in their frontier models in getting ahead.

伯尼并没有说我要拿走你 50 美元，你 50% 的利润。

英文原文

>> Bern isn't saying I I'll take $50 your 50% of your profit.

他是怎么说的？我要拿走你 50% 的股份。

英文原文

>> What is he saying? I'll take 50% of your stock

这意味着美国政府将拥有同等的投票权。

英文原文

>> which means that then the US would have a equal voting.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

那么在投票方面就会出现僵局，对吧？所以，如果美国政府拥有公司 50% 的股份，比方说萨姆·奥尔特曼拥有 50%。他们在决策时就必须进行表决。

英文原文

>> Well, then you're going to get gridlock in terms of voting, right? So, if the US own 50% of the company and Sam Alman, let's say, owns 50%. They're going to have to vote on decisions.

嗯，你可以从公众中安排一些董事进入该董事会。

英文原文

>> Well, you could put some directors from the from the public on that board.

当一家公司……当你的有投票权的董事会里有政府成员时，公司会发生什么？这种事情，我是说在很多国家实际上都是这样，工会在谈判席上占有一席之地，

英文原文

>> And what happens when to a company when you have the government on the on the voting board? The thing I mean you effectively have this in lots of countries where labor has a seat at the table,

对吧？

英文原文

>> right?

就你的其中一家公司而言，如果你的董事会有一半是政府成员，

英文原文

>> With one of your companies, if half of your board were a government,

你认为你还能保持同样的创新力，运转得同样快吗？我是说，我们谈论过政府的官僚作风。

英文原文

>> do you think you'd be able to be as innovative, move as fast? I mean, we talked about the bureaucracy of of the government.

是的。我并没有建议董事会的一半应该由政府组成。

英文原文

>> Yeah. I I'm not suggesting that half the should be on the government.

是的。不过提醒你一下，中国也是这样的。中国基本上也是让中共进入所有这些公司的董事会。

英文原文

>> Yeah. Mind you, that's what China has as well. China has got essentially the the CCP on the board of all of those companies as well.

而且他们运转良好，行动相当迅速。

英文原文

>> And they work and they move pretty fast.

那是略有不同的政府，不是吗？

英文原文

>> There slightly different government, isn't it?

是的，确实不同。而且能力水平以及精英治理的层级结构也不一样。我对所有这些给政府赋权的解决方案都感到担忧，因为我不信任政府。我的一生中，事情总是一桩接着一桩被政府搞得更糟。对。那就是我的现实。1981 年出生，我从来没有过对政府的美好体验。

英文原文

>> Yeah, it is. And there's different levels of competence and and meritocracy hierarchy. I I I worry about all of these solutions that empower government because I don't trust government. My entire life has been one thing after the next made worse by government. Right. That's that's my reality. Born in 81 1981. I've never had a good experience with government.

好吧。但是老兄，你在澳大利亚长大，生活在英国。如果你那么讨厌政府，搬去刚果好了。

英文原文

>> Okay. But dude, you you grew up in Australia and you live in the UK. If you hate government so much, move to the Congo.

认真的吗？是的，

英文原文

>> Seriously? Yeah,

你……听着，我的意思是，没有人喜欢受到约束。大家都希望用高标准来要求别人，而这……说真的，世界上根本不存在自由意志主义的天堂，

英文原文

>> you are look I mean it is just no one likes to be constrained. Everyone wants other people held to a high standard and it it just seriously there is no libertarian paradise in the world

那里没人遵守任何规则，没人缴任何税，而且人人都过得像国王一样。如果你讨厌政府，世界上有大把……世界上有 220 个国家，其中 150 个实际上没有政府。你为什么不把你的运营基地搬到那些地方去呢？因为你瞬间就会变成某人的，你知道的，美餐。

英文原文

>> where nobody follows any rules, nobody pays any taxes and everybody lives like a king. If you hate government there are plenty there are 220 countries in the world. 150 of them effectively have no government. Why do you not move your base of operations to those places? Because you would instantly be somebody's, you know, munch.

我不是……我不是无政……我不是无政府主义者。当一个政府不解雇无能之辈时，

英文原文

>> I'm not I'm not an anarch I'm not an anarchist. When a government doesn't fire incompetent people,

行，但是大家都认同历届政府……

英文原文

>> okay, but everybody agrees the previous governments.

大家都认同民主是最差的经……是最差的

英文原文

>> Everybody agrees democracy is the worst econ is the worst

……除了其他所有制度之外，对吧？当然，把矛头指向这些事情并指责它们无能是很容易的，但如果说政府没有改善我们的生活，那绝非实话。在这个地球上，根本就没有任何一个运作良好的社会是不存在大政府的。

英文原文

except all the others, right? Like of course it is easy to to to point to these things and say they're incompetent, but it is it is just not honest to say that government doesn't improve our lives. There is literally no example on planet earth of a high functioning society without big government.

我并不是在说……好吧，没有大政府。那并不是真的。

英文原文

>> I'm not saying well without big government. That's not true.

给我举个例子。

英文原文

>> Give me an example.

新加坡。新加坡有着极其庞大的政府。

英文原文

>> Singapore. Singapore is insanely big government.

占GDP的22%。

英文原文

>> 22% of GDP.

好的。但他们介入了人们生活的方方面面。

英文原文

>> Okay. But they are involved in every element of people's lives.

高度能干。他们会开除无能的人。

英文原文

>> High competence. They fire incompetent people.

再次强调，我们对此高度一致，即我们应该拥有能做到这一点的政府。

英文原文

>> And and again, we're in violent agreement that we should have governments that do that.

你应该在英国的政治上多下功夫，去推进那些能加快提升能干程度的改革。这才是答案。真正的答案就是要努力构建一个尽可能高效运作的政府。但事情在于——而且我认为你也会同意——你看，微软……大公司同样也是无能的。微软以64亿美元收购了我的公司aQuantive。这是一家年增长率达40%的公司。已经过去太久了，年增长率30%、40%。7.5亿美元的营业额，2亿美元左右的EBITDA之类的。拥有地球上3,000到4,000名最顶尖的网络广告人才，结果在一年内就灰飞烟灭了。

英文原文

>> You should work hard on the politics in the UK to to bring in reforms that would increase the velocity of competence. Now, that's the answer. That is the answer is to is to work hard, build a government that is as high functioning as they can be. But here's the thing and I think you would agree. Look, look, Microsoft I big companies are equally incompetent. Microsoft bought my company Aquana for $6.4 billion. This is a company that was growing at 40% year-over-year. It's been so long. 30 40% year-over-year. 750 million in sales. 200 million at IBA or something like that. 3,000 4,000 of the best internet advertising people on planet Earth and in one year it was gone.

哇。是的。

英文原文

>> Wow. Yeah.

没了。五年后，他们把整整60亿美元全部注销了。无能无处不在。我……

英文原文

>> Gone. And they wrote the entire $6 billion off five years later. Incompetence lives everywhere. I

而且我只是觉得说“噢，讨厌他们，你知道的，他们太差劲了”是不现实的。我只是觉得，丹，地球上没有任何一个地方可以在没有政府共同创造繁荣的情况下……

英文原文

>> And and I I I just don't think it is realistic to say, "Oh, pucks and them, you know, they suck." I I just Dan, there is no place on earth without government cocreating prosperity for

确实如此。在这个后AI时代的世界里，我的希望寄托于此：我希望向小企业和家族小微企业倾斜，我希望让经济偏向他们。

英文原文

>> for sure. Here's where I put my hope in this post AI world. I want to stack the favor I want to stack the economy in the favor of the small family business and the small business.

市场失衡与制衡力量

我百分之百支持你。是的，我同意。我同意。问题是我们如何达成这一目标？在某些方面，你和我完全是一致的。我们需要大刀阔斧地将经济中的权力平衡，从那些最大规模、最具剥削性的大公司倾斜到中小企业。

英文原文

>> I'm 100% with you. Yeah, I agree. I agree. The question is how do we get there? And you and I are completely aligned in some ways. We need to aggressively tilt the balance of power in the economy from the biggest from the biggest most exploitive companies to small and medium-sized businesses.

所以在我看来，是大政府和大企业……呃，正在吸干普通老百姓和小微企业的生机……

英文原文

>> So I see big government and big corporate uh sucking the life out of little people and little businesses

我认为你在某些情况下的看法毫无疑问是正确的，但在人类社会中，唯一有力量去对抗大企业的就只有大政府。

英文原文

>> and I think you are ab no doubt correct in some cases but the only thing in human societies that has the power to confront big business is big government.

没错。在世界历史上，从来没有出现过另一种力量曾经具备……具备解决这一问题的力量。而我之所以如此关心这种经济范式……

英文原文

>> Right. There's ne in the history of the world, there has never been another force that w that had the power to to address this problem. And the reason I care so much about this economic paradigm

是因为你所描述的所有问题……

英文原文

>> is that all of the problems you were describing

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

都是某种旨在制造这些问题的经济范式所带来的后果。这就是为什么我们陷入了当下的困境，因为新自由主义确实声称越大越好，声称我们不应该向小企业提供任何保护，声称我们应该主动给予最大参与者优势，声称自由贸易对所有人都有好处。所有这些并非事实的事情，最终实际上让这个房间里的我，以及你知道的、全世界几千人获益，却损害了其他所有人的利益。我认为改变的起点，在于正视我们对经济因果关系的理解是不充分的这一事实——即我们原本以为能带来增长的做法，结果却导致了垄断集中。

英文原文

>> are a consequence of an economic paradigm that was designed to create those problems. That's why we are in the box we're in is because neoliberalism literally said the bigger is better and that we should afford no protection to small businesses that we should actively advantage the largest players that that free trade is good for everyone. all of these things that weren't true and dis and ended up advantaging in this room me effectively and you know a few thousand people from around the world and disadvantaged everyone else. And I think the starting point for for change is is addressing the fact that we just understood economic cause and effect in inadequately that the things that we thought would lead to growth led to concentration.

对吧？而那些我们过去认为对经济不利的事情，在很多情况下反而对经济有益。因为你看，再说一遍，你比我更了解英国，我真不想在这点上跟你争辩，但事实是，除非大多数人的薪水足够买得起这个体系生产出的东西，否则资本主义体系是无法维持下去的。必须存在一种平衡。而且，在世界历史上，同样没有任何一个繁荣的经济体，是不曾推行那些标准，或者没有通过某种机制创造出制衡力量，从而使资本所有者与其他所有人能够携手合作、长期惠及所有人的。

英文原文

Right? And the things that we thought were bad for the economy, in many cases, those were good for the economy. Because look, again, you know the UK so much better than me, and I I hate to argue with you about it, but the truth is that you cannot sustain a capitalist system unless most people are paid enough to buy the stuff that that the system produces. And there has to be a balance. And there and again in the history of the world there is no example of a thriving economy that did not impose those standards or or create through some mechanism the counterveiling power that enabled the the the the owners of capital and everybody else to work together to benefit everyone in the long term.

你、你和我大部分……大部分……

英文原文

>> You are you and I are in so much agreement on on most on most of

所有权与资本主义的本质

几乎完全一致。就差那么一点点，对吧？那么这一点点的差距是什么？我看到过尼克的政策被付诸实施，但我感觉这还不够。我之所以觉得不够，是因为我认为人不仅仅是消费者。他们不仅仅是钱包。

英文原文

>> it. Like an inch apart, right? And what is that inch? So, I've seen Nick's policies implemented and I don't feel it's enough. And the reason I don't feel it's enough is I think people are more than consumers. They're more than wallets.

好的。你只听我讲过最低工资和其他一些东西。你并没有看到全部的政策。所以……

英文原文

>> Okay. You've only heard me talk about the minimum wage and something else. You haven't seen all of the policies. So,

但对我而言，缺失的那一块是所有权。当人们拥有房产时，他们对社区的感觉非常好。当人们拥有属于自己的小企业时，他们对自己的社区感觉非常好。而当人们在经济中增长最快的公司中拥有一些全盘经济的股份时，他们就会觉得自己真正参与了其中。所以对我来说，解决这个问题的不可妥协的底线，就是人们能够轻松地拥有住房、拥有企业，并拥有增长最快经济领域的股份。

英文原文

>> but the missing piece for me is ownership. When people had houses, they felt really good about communities. When people had small businesses that they owned, they felt really good about their communities. And when people own some shares in the overall economy of the fastest growing companies in the economy, then they feel like they're participating. So for me, the non-negotiables of fixing this problem is that people can easily own a house, own a business, and own shares in the fastest growing economy.

没错。没错。确实。但我们如何达成呢？

英文原文

>> Yes. Yes. Yes. And how do we get there?

没错。没错。没错。我完全赞同。而我认为，我只是觉得丹和我在实现路径上的看法稍有不同。

英文原文

>> Yes. Yes. Yes. I totally agree. And I think I I just think that Dan and I have a slightly different view on the path.

我认为资本主义就是所有权。就是所有权。资本主义的本质就在于此。否则，如果你什么都不拥有，你就不是资本家。如果我们……你们……

英文原文

>> I think capitalism is ownership. It's ownership. That's what capitalism is. Otherwise, you if you don't own anything, you're not a capitalist. If we your

在路径上有分……但在……抱歉，你们对结果认同，但路径不同。

英文原文

>> grew on the path, but the the sorry, you agree on the outcome, but the path.

没错。但尼克是怎么富起来的？就像尼克创办了公司。他拥有……他拥有一个家族企业。他把家族企业转化为对亚马逊的投资。

英文原文

>> Yes. But how did Nick get rich? Like Nick started companies. He owned he owned a family business. He leveraged the family business into an investment into Amazon.

这就是……但这就是所有权。所有权。所有权。并以此做成了很多事。好的。没错。

英文原文

>> It's it's own but it's ownership. Ownership. Ownership. And did a lot with it. Okay. Right.

这很公道。但是，我是说……

英文原文

>> Fair. But but I'm saying

我们客观一点。但这要如何适用呢？你的意思是其他人应该照着尼克做的去做。

英文原文

>> let's be let's be fair. But how is that applicable? You're saying other people should do what Nick did.

是的。但是出生在一个拥有小企业的家庭是很难由自己决定的。而且……

英文原文

>> Yeah. But it's hard to get born into a family that owns a small business. And

嗯，如果有更多的人拥有小微企业，那么就更……那么就会更容易，对吧？我只是希望……我确实希望有更多的人。

英文原文

>> well, if there's more people who own small businesses than there are more than there it is easier, right? I I just want I I do want more people.

你这是什么意思？

英文原文

>> What do you mean by this?

嗯，这完全取决于你如何达成目标，对吧？

英文原文

>> Well, it it's all about how how you get there, right?

但你忽略了“生来就在三垒”这一事实。我们的目标应该是让更多的人能生来就在三垒。如果更多的人……

英文原文

>> But you overlook the fact being born on third base. We should aim for more people to be born on third base. If more people

所谓的三垒，就是来自一个家族……

英文原文

>> the third base is coming from a family

拥有一家小企业……

英文原文

>> that owns a small business

拥有……或者其父母挣得足够多的收入来让这一切成为可能，对吧？而且，而且你看，并不是每个富裕的人——事实上，富裕人群中只有极少数人是小微企业主，对吧？他们大多数是医生、律师以及各类专业人士，在大企业中担任中层管理职位，他们……

英文原文

>> with ex or whose parents earn enough income to enable all of that, right? And and and and look, not everybody who is affluent, in fact, a a tiny minority of people who are affluent uh uh uh are are small business owners, right? that they are mostly doctors and lawyers and professionals of a variety of kinds who work in med in big companies in middle management roles and they

我并不是说每个人都应该做小微企业。

英文原文

>> I'm not saying everyone should be a small business.

是的。所以不管怎么说，我只是觉得……我认为这里最高维度的核心点在于，我是说对我而言——这在你听来可能太模棱两可了——社会既有权利也有责任以让所有人获益的方式来组织其经济。

英文原文

>> Yeah. So anyway, I just think that I I think the high order bit here, I mean, for me, and and this may sound like too squishy for you, is that is that societies have both the right and the responsibility to organize their economies in ways that benefit everyone.

市场机制与繁荣的创造

社会主义是答案吗？

英文原文

>> Is socialism the answer?

不是。社会主义绝对不是答案，因为社会主义……再次声明，我们需要从操作层面上给这个术语下个定义。是的。如果社会主义指的是——查查字典——生产资料归国家所有，那就是一场灾难，对吧？它之所以是一场灾难，是因为社会主义所能做的一切，不过是以一种更公平的方式来瓜分现有的繁荣。它确实能做到这一点。问题在于，社会主义不知道该如何创造更多的繁荣。明白吗？所以在一时之间你可以让每个人的境况都变好，但10年之后每个人都一贫如洗。因为一旦……因为这就是市场的力量：市场作为演化系统所发挥的作用，就是不断创造繁荣。它们……那就是解决人类问题的方案，对吧？从阿司匹林走向抗生素就是经济进步，对吧？而市场之美就在于它们是演化系统，其中每家企业实际上都是一个有机体，在相互竞争以填补某个生态位，也就是为他们正在开拓的任何细分市场提供最完美的产品。你就是这方面一个绝佳的典范，对吧？你在这里所做的一切，谢天谢地能有这一切，对吧？因为在一个没有资本主义的世界里，你根本不可能……你实际上独立创造出了一种曾经被称为电视……

英文原文

>> No. Socialism is most definitely not the answer because socialism, again, we we need to operationally define that term. Yeah. If socialism means, look it up in the dictionary, the state ownership of the means of production, that is a catastrophe, right? And it's a catastrophe because all socialism can do is split up existing prosperity in a fairer way. It can do that. The problem is is that socialism does not know how to create more prosperity. Okay? So for one minute you can make everybody better off but 10 years later everyone is poor because once because this is the power of markets is what markets do as evolutionary systems is they generate increasing prosperity. They that that's what solutions to human problems is, right? Going from aspirin to antibiotics is economic progress, right? And the beauty of markets is that they are evolutionary systems where every business effectively is an organism competing to fill a niche which is the perfect product for whatever market segment they're creating. You are you're a canonical example of this, right? What you have done here and thank goodness for it, right? Because in a world where there wasn't capitalism, there's no way you you you have effectively independently created what was a television

网络。这太不可思议了。

英文原文

network.

It's

miraculous.

比如，你的受众覆盖面比 MSNBC 还要大，老兄。这就是市场的力量，但是，你知道，必须对它们加以利用，让广泛的大众受益。这并不意味着盈利动机不应该存在，但是，而且……

英文原文

Like

you

have

more

reach

than

MSNBC,

dude.

That

is

the

power

of

markets,

but

you

know,

they

have

to

be

harnessed

to

benefit

people

broadly.

This

does

not

mean

that

the

profit

mo

motive

shouldn't

exist,

but

and and

不过该怎么做呢？这就是我想弄明白的。听起来有点像我们在探讨某种中间地带：一头是社会主义，好吧，也就是你刚才说的短期之类的情况；而在另一头，则是这种极端的资本主义方式，我一直在看……

英文原文

>> how

though

this

is

what

I'm

trying

to

get

to.

And

there

sounds

a

little

bit

like

there's

this

middle

ground

we're

like

playing

with

where

socialism

on

one

end

is

okay

you

know

short-term

whatever

you

said

then

on

the

other

end

you've

got

this

like

extreme

capitalist

approach

and

I

was

looking

是的，那些是自由放任的资本主义，对吧，以及社会主义国家控制。这两种做法都是糟糕的主意。

英文原文

>> yeah

those

are

the

less

a

fair

capitalism

right

and

this

socialist

status

control

both

of

those

things

are

terrible

ideas

我说得对吗？

英文原文

>> am

I

right

我们需要介于中间的东西。

英文原文

>> we

want

something

in

the

middle

那么在左侧，在社会主义这一端，长期来看你的经济增长会更低。

英文原文

>> on

on

the

left

side

then

on

the

socialism

side

you

get

lower

growth

in

your

economy

over

the

long

term

没错。

英文原文

>> correct

好，然后在资本主义经济中，你可能会有更高的增长，但同时也会有更多的不平等。

英文原文

>> okay

and

then

in

a

capitalist

economy

you

might

have

higher

growth

growth

but

then

you

have

more

inequalities.

中间地带与包容性经济增长

没错。而最理想的平衡点——这也是最重要的点之一，我想强调的最重要的观点之一——就是所有证据都表明，当你走向中间，拥有一个真正被积极管理、让大众参与进来的市场经济时，那才是增长的黄金平衡点。你会获得更多增长。所以你会有更多增长。

英文原文

>> Correct.

And

the

sweet

spot

and

this

is

this

is

the

one

of

the

most

important

this

is

the

important

matter

one

of

the

most

important

points

I

would

like

to

make

is

that

all

of

the

evidence

suggests

that

when

you

come

to

the

middle

and

you

have

a

market

economy

that

is

actually

actively

managed

to

include

people

that

is

the

growth

sweet

spot.

You

have

more

growth.

So

you

have

more

growth.

当然。几十年来，在四五十年代和六十年代，美国的 GDP 增长率都是 4%、4.5%，然后就在 1975 年新自由主义者接管之后，GDP 增长率立刻下降，先是降到 3%，现在降到了 2%。

英文原文

>> Absolutely.

GDP

growth

rates

in

the

United

States

were

four

four

and

a

half%

for

decades

40

50s

60s

and

then

as

soon

as

the

neoliberals

took

over

in

1975

GDP

growth

rates

fell

first

to

3%

and

now

to

2%

他们做了什么之后降下来的？

英文原文

>> when

they

did

what?

给富人减税，给有权势的人解除监管，并压低其余所有人的工资。所以，正如我之前多次说过的，美国最重要的社会经济事实是：如今全职员工的年收入中位数约为 6 万美元；如果自 1975 年以来他们一直保持自己在 GDP 中相同的份额，那么他们现在的年收入就不是 6 万，而是 12 万美元了。

英文原文

>> Cut

taxes

for

rich

people

deregulated

powerful

people

and

suppressed

wages

for

everybody

else.

So,

the

most

important

socioeconomic

fact,

as

I've

said

many

times

before,

in

the

United

States

is

that

the

median

full-time

worker

earns

about

$60,000

a

year

today,

if

they

had

maintained

their

same

share

of

GDP

since

1975,

instead

of

earning

60,

they

would

earn

$120,000

a

year.

所以，你的意思是说中间不存在权衡取舍？因为两头都存在权衡取舍，对吧？我们刚才描述了那些权衡取舍。你说在中间存在这样一个……

英文原文

>> So,

there's

you're

saying

there's

no

trade-off

in

the

middle

because

there's

trade-offs

on

both

ends,

right?

We

just

described

the

trade-offs.

You're

saying

that

in

the

middle

there's

this

那就是最佳平衡点，在那里会有……

英文原文

>> that's

the

sweet

spot

where

there's

在那里有最大程度的增长、最大程度的参与、最大程度的政治稳定。这就是达龙·阿西莫格鲁和詹姆斯·罗宾逊所说的“狭窄廊道”。这种在自由放任资本主义与社会主义之间的完美平衡。我是说，社会主义是愚蠢的，因为它扼杀了市场。但是这种追求更公平分享的冲动——我们就称之为社会主义的起源吧——这种追求建立一个更平等社会的冲动。但所有数据都表明，当你建立起一个基本上致力于确保每个人都能参与的市场经济时，工人们能够获得公平份额的工资，随着经济的发展（正如它多年来那样发展），而且你还有另一张……你这里有一张很棒的图表。所以几十年来，随着生产力增长，每个人都受益了，然后在 70 年代，两者脱钩了。一脱钩，GDP 增长率就下降了，对吧？如果我们有……而这一切，这一切都是政策带来的结果，是政策的结果。所以新经济学教给我们的另一件事是：有一种观点认为，中产阶级、一个蓬勃发展的中产阶级是经济增长的结果，只要我们任由经济增长，我们就会得到庞大的中产阶级；这是因为经济学家假定经济是某种所谓的“遍历性”的。那么，“遍历性”意味着——让我给你展示两个游戏之间的区别，一个是遍历性的，一个是非遍历性的。石头剪刀布是一个遍历性游戏，那意味着下一局游戏的结果与前一局游戏毫无关系，对吧。

英文原文

>> where

there's

maximum

amounts

of

growth,

maximum

amounts

of

participation,

maximum

amounts

of

political

stability.

This

is

what

Darren

Oasamuglu

and

James

Robinson

call

the

narrow

corridor.

This

perfect

balance

between

less

afair

capitalism

and

socialism.

I

mean

socialism

is

stupid

because

because

it

kills

markets.

But

this

impulse

to

more

fairly

share,

let's

call

that

where

socialism

comes

from.

This

impulse

to

have

a

society

which

is

more

egalitarian.

But

what

all

the

data

suggests

is

that

when

you

build

a

market

economy

that

basically

tries

to

make

sure

that

everyone

participates,

where

workers

get

a

fair

share

of

the

wages,

where

as

the

company

as

the

economy

grows,

as

it

did

for

years,

and

you've

got

another

you

have

a

you

you

have

a

you

have

a

a

great

graph

in

here.

So

for

decades

as

productivity

grew

everybody

benefited

and

then

in

the

70s

it

decoupled

and

as

soon

as

it

decoupled

GDP

growth

rates

fell

right

if

we

had

and

and

all

of

this

that

all

of

this

was

a

consequence

of

policy

of

policy

so

here's

another

thing

the

new

economics

teaches

is

that

there's

this

idea

that

a

middle

class

a

thriving

middle

class

is

the

consequence

of

economic

growth

that

if

we

just

let

the

economy

grow

we'll

get

this

great

middle

class

and

that

is

because

economists

assume

the

e

the

economy

is

something

called

ergotic

now

erotic

means

let

me

show

you

the

difference

between

two

games

one

is

erotic

one

is

non-orgotic

rock

paper

scissors

is

an

ergotic

game

and

what

that

means

is

the

outcome

of

the

next

game

has

nothing

to

do

with

the

game

before

yeah

right

《大富翁》是一个非遍历性游戏。在《大富翁》里，不管你去过多少次《大富翁》学校，如果你玩《大富翁》玩得足够久，一个人就会拥有一切，而其他人将一无所有。这就是市场经济的本质。它的特点是运气、路径依赖和复利效应。

英文原文

>> monopoly

is

a

non-urgotic

game.

And

in

Monopoly,

no

matter

how

much

how

many

times

you

go

to

Monopoly

school,

if

you

play

a

game

of

Monopoly

long

enough,

one

person

will

own

everything

and

everybody

else

will

have

nothing.

And

that

is

what

a

market

economy

is.

It

is

characterized

by

luck,

path

dependence,

and

compounding.

过去。

英文原文

>> The

past.

过去……好吧，就是过去，对吧？你的起点在哪里。

英文原文

>> The

p

well,

it's

the

past,

right?

Where

you

start.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

没错。我们中有些人是从三垒起步的。我们中有些人，比如据我回忆的你，其实是从一垒或者本垒之类的地方起步的。

英文原文

>> Right.

Some

of

us

started

on

third

base.

Some

of

us

like

you,

as

I

recall,

started

on

actually

first

base

or

home

plate

or

something

like

that.

额，我想，是的，大概、大概是二垒吧。

英文原文

>> Well,

I

think

yeah,

probably

probably

second

base.

好吧，也许是二垒，但不管怎样。不过我们可以……

英文原文

>> Okay,

maybe

second

base,

but

whatever.

But

we

can

我有爱我的父母，家里通着电。

英文原文

>> I

have

parents

that

love

me

electricity

at

your

house.

好吧，说得有道理，对吧？而且你非常有能力，长得也好看，诸如此类的，对吧？它可以……不，我是说，咱们要是实事求是的话，对吧？咱们就实事求是。你确实拥有一些先天的优势。

英文原文

>> Okay,

fair

point,

right?

And

you're

very

capable

and

good-looking

and

all

the

rest

of

it,

right?

It

could

it

No,

I

mean,

just

if

we're

just

being

honest,

right?

We're

just

being

honest.

You

had

some

natural

advantages,

但是，你知道，在《大富翁》里，你第一次掷骰子就停在“公园广场”，你就顺风顺水了。你在《大富翁》里掷出四次好运气，你就赢定这局游戏了，对吧？还有复利效应。你越占优，就越占优。而在非遍历性系统中，关键在于优势和劣势都是会复利累积的。你生活中肯定认识一些遭遇了几次坏运气的人，对吧？然后他们就一路滑向万劫不复，对吧？所以这意味着，一个中产阶级，进而一个具有社会凝聚力的高运转社会，永远、永远是一种人为刻意的构建。它永远是由政策塑造出来的。永远如此。而我们所反对的所有这些事情——他用他的方式反对，我用我的方式反对——基本上都是一项对决策者说“就这么做”的经济理论所导致的后果。那是一个错误。我们应该认识到那个错误，并努力弥合这些错误，这是我们能做到的。我们可以拥有一个伟大的社会。我们可以拥有一个资产所有型社会。我们可以拥有我们想要的任何东西。我们只需要下定决心去做，而不让一小群极其富有的人来决定经济规则。这是我们力所能及的。

英文原文

>> but

you

know,

in

Monopoly,

you

land

on

Park

Place

the

first

roll,

you're

rolling.

You

get

four

good

roles

in

Monopoly,

you're

going

to

win

the

game,

right?

And

compounding.

The

better

you

do,

the

better

you

do.

And

the

thing

about

in

a

in

an

honoric

system

is

that

both

advantages

and

disadvantages

compound.

Surely

you

know

people

in

your

life

who

have

had

a

couple

of

things

of

bad

luck,

right?

And

then

they

spiral

into

oblivion,

right?

And

so

what

that

means

is

that

a

a

middle

class

and

thus

a

high

functioning

society

with

social

cohesion

is

always

always

a

a

deliberate

construction.

It

is

always

created

by

policy.

Always.

And

all

of

these

things

that

we

are

pushing

back

against

him

and

his

way,

me

and

my

way

are

a

consequence

of

basically

an

economic

theory

that

said

to

policymakers,

do

it

that

way.

And

it

was

a

mistake.

And

we

should

recognize

that

mistake

and

try

to

heal

these

mistakes,

which

we

can.

We

can

have

a

great

society.

We

can

have

an

ownership

society.

We

can

have

anything

we

want.

We

just

have

to

decide

to

do

it

and

not

let

a

small

group

of

incredibly

rich

people

dictate

the

terms

of

the

economy.

This

is

within

our

grasp.

那么你的想法是什么？

英文原文

>> What

are

your

thoughts

then?

金融化、科技与中产阶级的挤压

原则上我同意所有这些，尤其是最后那点：一小群非常有权势的人在达沃斯聚会，决定经济走向，决定我们的生活该怎么过。嗯，这里面还有更多的内情。在 70 年代初，他们将美元与黄金脱钩，建立了法定货币体系，这意味着他们可以印钞，从而推高资产价格，导致资产金融化，包括家庭住宅；这意味着一旦我们可以印钞，我们就可以推高家庭住宅的价值，让大多数人买不起。

英文原文

>> I

agree

in

principle

with

all

of

that,

especially

the

last

bit.

A

small

group

of

very

very

powerful

people

dictating

the

economy,

meeting

up

in

Davos,

coming

up

with

our

how

our

lives

should

live.

Um

there's

there's

more

to

the

story

here.

In

the

early

'7s,

they

decoupled

uh

the

the

dollar

from

uh

gold

and

they

created

the

fiat

system,

which

meant

they

could

print

money

that

inflated

assets

that

financialized

it

financialized

assets,

including

the

family

home,

which

meant

that

as

soon

as

we

could

print

money,

we

could

inflate

the

value

of

family

homes

and

make

it

out

of

reach

of

most

people.

嗯，然后金融业接管了一切，占到了经济的 20%，我们其余的人……

英文原文

>> Well,

and

then

finance

took

over

and

became

20%

of

the

economy,

the

rest

of

us.

是的。我们最终形成了这两大庞大体系：科技工业复合体和金融工业复合体。这两个体系在社会中打入了契子。我和尼克的唯一分歧——而且只是一个微小的分歧——在于我不相信光提高底线就足够了。我真的……

英文原文

>> Yeah.

We

ended

up

with

these

two

massive

institutions

which

is

the

technology

industrial

complex

and

the

finance

industrial

complex

and

those

two

institutions

have

driven

a

wedge

in

society.

My

only

difference

with

Nick

and

it's

a

small

difference

is

that

I

don't

believe

raising

the

floor

is

going

to

be

enough.

I

I

really

do

我……我可没说这就够了。这是起码的准入筹码。

英文原文

>> I

I

I

didn't

say

it's

enough.

I

I

it's

table

stakes.

是的，它……我对此的体会是，那是个最低限度……

英文原文

>> Yeah.

it

and

and

and

I

my

experience

with

that

it's

a

minimum

是因为……是因为我已经见识过最低限度了，大家已经拿起干草叉要反抗了……

英文原文

>> is

because

it's

because

I've

seen

the

minimum

and

and

the

pitchforks

are

out

在我们拥有那个最低限度的英国这里就是如此。我在这里担心的是，我们当前的境况是科技经济和金融经济像开着车一样飞驰，而所有那些出卖时间换取金钱、出卖劳动力换取金钱的工人们，就好像在用双腿奔跑；而我们却在说：“啊，你们只是需要更好的鞋、更舒服的鞋。如果我们给你们一双耐克，你们会开心吗？”这就好比，这根本不可能弥合差距。不可能。额，我们必须承认，科技与金融是两个……大基金与大型科技公司基本上正在掏空中产阶级。如果我们不承认谁是真正的坏人——当我说坏人时，我不能确定他们是不是真正的坏人，但从系统层面上讲，他们在系统性上就是坏人。我们基本上需要说：“嘿，大金融、大科技，你们不能把我们的住房金融化。那是给我们住、给我们拥有的。”额，而且你们也不能直接消灭我们所有的小微企业。我们需要把天平重新向那些小企业倾斜，因为那些小城镇——你走进英格兰的任何一个小城镇，像英格兰的小城镇，那些每个人都想在其中生活的繁荣城镇……

英文原文

>> here

in

the

UK

where

we

have

that

minimum.

My

my

worry

here

is

that

where

we

are

the

technology

economy

and

the

finance

economy

is

racing

as

if

it's

in

a

car

and

then

all

of

the

workers

who

are

selling

time

for

money,

labor

for

money,

it's

as

if

they're

running

and

we're

saying

ah

you

guys

just

need

better

sho

comfier

shoes.

If

we

give

you

a

pair

of

Nikes

will

you

guys

be

happy?

And

it's

like

this

is

not

going

to

close

that

gap.

No.

Um

we

we

have

to

acknowledge

that

technology

and

finance

are

the

two

like

big

funds

and

big

tech

are

the

comp

are

basically

hollowing

out

the

middle

class.

And

if

we

don't

acknowledge

who

the

real

bad

guys

are,

when

I

say

bad

guys,

I'm

not

sure

they're

real

bad

guys,

but

essentially

systemically

they're

systemically

they're

the

bad

guys.

We

need

to

essentially

say,

"Hey,

big

finance,

big

tech,

you

can't

financialize

our

houses.

That's

for

us

to

live

in

and

for

us

to

own."

Um,

and

you

also

can't

just

eradicate

all

of

our

little

to

small

businesses.

We

we

need

to

tip

the

scales

back

in

the

favor

of

those

small

businesses

because

little

towns,

you

go

into

any

town

in

England,

little

like

little

towns

in

England,

the

thriving

towns

that

everyone

wants

to

live

in,

他们有许多小型企业。他们有肉铺、面包铺、蜡烛匠之类的店铺，诸如此类的事情在进行着。

英文原文

they have lots of small businesses. They have a butcher, baker, candlestick maker type, like stuff is going on.

顺便说一句，伦敦最好的商业街就是我住的那条，马里波恩高街（Maran High）。马里波恩高街。你同意吗？

英文原文

>> By the way, the best high street in London is the one I live on, Maran High. Maran High Street. So, you agree?

100% 同意。

英文原文

>> 100%.

赞助商与产品推荐

是的。我有 60 秒时间，我打算向你展示由于我们的赞助商 Whisper Flow，我能完成多少事情。这是我投资的一家企业，它能把你的语音在任何应用程序或设备上转换成文字。我正要发布到我们的 Slack 频道，该频道会奖励本周进行实验最多的团队成员。大家好。这是本周的“每周实验者”。祝贺 Dio 预告片团队，也就是 Aunt、Liv、Dom 和 Cam。你们赢了。好的，现在我要打开 Gmail。这是一位在邮件往来里的创始人，我想让我的团队和他建立联系。我只需要说“添加我团队的邮箱”，Whisper 就会完全照办。现在，给每周为我安排日程的 Juan 发一条简短消息。嘿，Juan，我是 Steven。我能在周三两点录音吗？其实不行。你知道吗？咱们周三下午三点录吧。Whisper Flow 比打字快四倍，而且极其简单易用。所以，如果你想试一试，你只需前往 whisperflow.ai. AI/Steven，今天就可以下载。

英文原文

>> Yeah. I've got 60 seconds and I'm going to show you how much I can get done because of our sponsor called Whisper Flow. It's a business I invested in that turns your speech into text in any app or device. I'm going to post into our Slack channel which rewards whichever team member conducted the most experiments this week. Hi everyone. Here is this week's experimentter of the week. Congratulations to the Dio trailer team which is Aunt, Liv, Dom, and Cam. You guys have won. Okay, now I'm going to open Gmail. So, here is one of our founders on an email chain that I want to connect my team with. All I have to say is add my team's emails, and Whisper will do exactly that. Now, a quick message to Juan, who does my schedule every single week. Hey, Juan, it's Steven here. Can I record on Wednesday at 2:00? Actually, no. Do you know what? Let's record at 3 p.m. on Wednesday. Whisper Flow is four times faster than typing, and it is incredibly easy to use. So, if you want to give it a go, all you have to do is head to whisperflow.ai. AI/Steven to download it today.

我已经对世界上一些最有趣的人进行了近 700 场采访。你学到的意想不到的事情之一就是，展现脆弱是通向连接的大门。在和一位嘉宾在这里坐上两三个小时后，我感到了与他们的一种深切连接。当他们离开时，我让他们做的是在《CEO 日记》（the diary of a CEO）里写下一个问题。我们把《CEO 日记》里所有的问题都收集了起来。我们把问题放在这张卡片上，上面写着写下它的人的名字。所以你可以像我与我的未婚妻、我的工作同事以及我生活中的其他人那样，坐在家里。只要有一点空闲时间，我们就会玩 Dio 对话卡牌，发生的事情不可思议。如果你正处于恋爱关系中，想要与伴侣建立更多连接，这些卡片非常棒。如果你在一个团队中，想要把团队凝聚在一起，这些卡片也很棒。我不得不说，对于想要更多了解彼此、并且需要一个好借口在数字世界里花些时间在模拟环境中实现人与人连接的家庭来说，它们也非常棒。在合适的时间提出合适的问题，其作用是显著的。前往 thediary.com，你现在就可以获取这些对话卡牌。

英文原文

I've done almost 700 interviews with some of the most interesting people in the world. And one of the things you learn which is unexpected is that vulnerability is the doorway to connection. And after sitting here for 2 three hours with a guest, I feel a deep sense of connection to them. And as they leave, what I get them to do is to write a question in the diary of a CEO. We've taken all of the questions from the diary of a CEO. We have put the question here on this card with the name of the person that wrote it. So you can sit at home as I do with my fiance and my colleagues at work and other people in my life. Whenever we get a minute, we play the diio conversation cards and it is incredible what happens. These are great if you're in a romantic relationship and you want to connect your partner more. These are also great if you're in a team and you want to bond your team together. And I have to say they're also great for families that want to learn more about each other and that need a good excuse to spend some time in a digital world in the analog environment connecting human to human. It is remarkable what the right question at the right time can do. Go to the diary.com and you can get these conversation cards right now.

经济模式与中间平衡点

我觉得有趣的一点是，你说中间存在这样一个最佳平衡点（sweet spot）。

英文原文

>> One thing I find interesting is you're saying that there's this sweet spot in the middle.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yes.

在那里你仍然能获得积极的一面。

英文原文

>> Where you you still get the the upside.

你能获得活力。你认为中间存在一个最佳平衡点——

英文原文

>> You get dynamism. You think there's a sweet spot in the middle

以及体面？

英文原文

>> and decency?

这是一个非常狭窄的平衡点，而且非常难以实现，因为德国真的非常努力地尝试过，而他们的经济正在崩溃。目前他们的经济运行得非常糟糕。嗯，他们什么都试过了。他们让工人必须进入董事会，例如每家公司你必须有一名工人在董事会里。所以他们正尽其所能实现包容，而德国经济——

英文原文

>> It's a very narrow sweet spot and it's very hard to achieve because Germany has really tried so hard and they've like their economy is collapsing. Their economy is going so badly at the moment. Um, and they've tried everything. They've got workers have to be on the board for example of every company you've got to have a worker on the board. So they're like doing as much as they can to do inclusion and the German economy.

好吧。那么在哪里行得通呢？好吧，但问题在于，说德国经济正在崩溃完全是不公平的。比如，你去过德国吗？

英文原文

>> Okay. So where is it worked? Okay, but here here's the thing is it's it is simply not fair to say the German economy is collapsing. Like have you been to Germany?

比如得了吧。比如你去过斯德哥尔摩吗？像这些地方运转得极其良好。

英文原文

>> Like come on. Like have you been to Stockholm? Like these places are incredibly functioning.

是的，确实有一种向前的势头，但德国的汽车工业目前正在被掏空。中国，对吧？是中国在造成这种局面。好吧。但仅仅因为工人在德国公司的董事会里，而且德国人民不快乐，你不能必然将这些事情联系在一起。

英文原文

>> Yeah, there's definitely a Ford momentum but the German car industry is getting hollowed out right now. China, right? China's doing that. Okay. But just because workers are on the board of German companies and German people are unhappy the you you can't necessarily connect these things.

不过我只是想承认，像迪拜这样的地方，非常接近拥有主权财富基金的自由放任资本主义（laissez-faire capitalism）。而且先等等，如果你和住在迪拜的人交谈，他们极其喜欢迪拜。他们是那么——他们是最快乐的人，而且他们谈论——他们谈论百万富翁、有创业精神的人。

英文原文

>> I just want to acknowledge though that like there are places like Dubai which are very close to lay fair capitalism with a sovereign wealth fund. And just just hold if you talk to someone who lives in Dubai, they freaking love Dubai. like they they are so they're the happiest people like and they talk they talk millionaires entrepreneurial people.

是的。有钱人，不是那些贫穷的有色人种，他们——

英文原文

>> Yeah. The rich people not the not the poor brown people who are

嗯，我是说——

英文原文

>> well I mean

因为他们用大巴运进印度人，而且不——

英文原文

>> because they bust Indians and don't

嗯，他们——是的。而且当我和那里的很多 Uber 司机交谈，我和在那里咖啡馆工作的人以及所有那一类人交谈时。他们也全都相当支持迪拜。

英文原文

>> well they they Yes. And also when I talk to a lot of the Uber drivers there and I talk to people who work in cafes there and all that sort. They're all quite pro Dubai as well.

但那是由于他们其他的选择非常可怕。

英文原文

>> But that's because their other options are horrific.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

那可能是更极端的不平等，不是吗？

英文原文

>> That it's probably more extreme inequality, isn't it?

这确实是更极端的不平等。由于这个地方在增长——显然直到最近，对吧——但因为这个地方在增长，感觉就像水涨船高，惠及所有人。经济增长确实存在某种能让人非常非常快乐的东西，而缺乏经济增长也确实存在某种让人痛苦的东西，比如在英国这里。

英文原文

>> It it's more extreme inequality. quality of it because the place is growing until recently obviously with right but because the place is growing it feels like there's a rising tide for everybody there's something about economic growth that makes people very very happy and there's something about a lack of economic growth that makes people miserable here in the UK for example

好吧，但再说一次，迪拜是一个——阿联酋一直由地球上可能见过的最非同寻常的巨额免费资金喷涌所驱动。我是说，你可以在那边的 iPad 上查一下，那里的经济从无限资源中获得的顺风助力。

英文原文

>> okay but but just again Dubai is a place the UAE has been powered by the most extraordinary gusher of free cash probably the planet has ever seen I mean You can look up on your iPad there the like the tailwind that economy gets from the unlimited resources.

我不会说那就是人们喜欢迪拜的原因。他们喜欢它是由于那种创业氛围。比如谁喜欢它？

英文原文

>> I wouldn't say that's why people love to buy it. They love it because of the entrepreneurial vibe. Like who loves it?

比如有抱负的人。

英文原文

>> Like ambitious people.

是的。所以这就是富人的兴奋。好吧，人们——不，我看到那些想要尝试一下的年轻人——

英文原文

>> Yeah. So this is the rich excitement. Well people no I see young people who want to have a crack

而且他们，因为相对于从事劳动、从事体力劳动的人来说，他们是富有的。

英文原文

>> and they're because they're they're rich relative to the people doing the work the labor.

嗯，他们寻找的是一个他们的工作能得到回报的地方。让我们想象一下英国，在那里你进入资本主义、赚到第一个一百万或头两百万的能力很容易被课以低税，从而让你在经济上把事情运转起来。我只是想看到一个有抱负的……是的。像你那些有抱负的人，像我所讨厌的是，我看到这些非常超级聪明的年轻人。我希望他们留在这里建设，但他们会觉得你在英国不可能成功。你一旦赚到任何钱，他们就会直接把它税走。他们全拿走了。

英文原文

>> Well, what they're looking for is a place where their work will be rewarded. Let's imagine the UK where your ability to get onto capitalism, your first million or your first 2 million is very easily low taxed in order to get things going for you economically. I I just want to see a situation where ambitious. Yeah. Like your ambitious people like what I hate is that I see these young people who are really super smart. I wish they were here building and they're like you can't succeed in the UK. They'll just tax it off you as soon as you earn anything. They take it.

如果你没有抱负呢？

英文原文

>> What if you're not ambitious?

然后他们离开了。

英文原文

>> And they leave.

我认为你能从很多有抱负的人身上受益。所以当你在十个人里有一个人具有创业精神，或者在一百个人里有一个人具有创业精神时，他们就在创造选择权。他们正在创建公司。

英文原文

>> I think you're benefited by a lot of the ambitious people. So when when you get one in if you get one in 10 people who are entrepreneurial or one in 100 people who are entrepreneurial, they're creating optionality. They're creating companies.

美国是——美国有点像是这样建立起来的，你知道的，美国梦。这更像是一种美国的模式，不是吗？

英文原文

>> The US is this the US is sort of set up, you know, the American dream. This is more of a US approach, isn't it?

而我们在那里看到的是更高的不平等。

英文原文

>> And what we have there is higher inequality.

税率对比与社会反应

我给你举两个走向极端的例子。在美国，当你达到 70 万美元时，才会触及最高个人所得税税率。在英国，这个门槛是 10 万美元，而且立刻就变成 60% 的税率、62% 的税率，随后降到 45%。就像，但有这样一种——

英文原文

>> I'll give you two to to one extreme. the US, you hit the top rate of income tax when you hit $700,000. In the UK, it's $100,000 and and it immediately goes to 60% tax, 62% tax, and then it drops to 45% after that. Like, but there's this kind of like

真的如此吗？

英文原文

>> Does it really?

是的。就是这种，就是这种，就是这种怪异的。不，就是这种荒谬的事情：你基本上要交 20%、40%、60%、45%，这是一种很怪异的……

英文原文

>> Yeah. It's this it's this it's this weird. No, it's this insane thing where you basically pay 20% 40% 60% 45% and it's this kind of weird.

但回到刚才的观点，

英文原文

>> But to the point,

也许应该解决这个问题。

英文原文

>> you should probably fix that.

更倾向美国——美国的模式听起来更像你所说的——

英文原文

preferred the US the US approach sounds more like what you're saying

离开前往美国，像很多英国人实际上正前往——

英文原文

>> leaving to the US like a lot of Brits are actually going to

而且美国的不平等——拥有更高的不平等——

英文原文

>> and the US has an inequality has higher inequality

这意味着可能更有可能会激起民愤（pitchforks will come out）——

英文原文

>> which means it's probably more likely that the pitchforks will come out

嗯，对于一个有抱负的人来说，他们并不关心不平等，对吧？不平等是脱颖而出的机会。

英文原文

>> well for an ambitious person they don't care about inequality right inequality is the opportunity to get ahead

是的，他们可能不关心，但从社会角度来看，由于这种不平等，美国的民愤可能比其他地方更快爆发——

英文原文

>> yeah they might not but from a social perspective the pitchforks are probably going to come out sooner in the US because of that inequality than in somewhere else

我们说的是，它们在这里似乎正大规模爆发，就像在这里爆发一样，但它们在合众国也正在爆发。

英文原文

>> we're saying they seem to be coming out here in a big way like here out here, but they're also coming out in the United States.

看看——看看 Zack Polanski，呃，正在赢得巨大的政治运动支持。

英文原文

>> Look at look at Zack Palanski uh is is gaining a huge political movement.

Zohran Mamdani 在英国，抱歉，在纽约，我们正看到社会主义在合众国抬头。

英文原文

>> Zoran Mandani in the UK, sorry, in New York is we're seeing a rise of socialism in the United States.

好吧，但 Zohran Mamdani 自称是社会主义者，是因为他找不到另一个词来描述他在做的事情。

英文原文

>> Okay, but Zoran Mandami calls himself a socialist because he does not have another word for what he is doing.

他说过“剥夺生产资料所有权”（seize the means of production）。他说过这个，而且他说过把房屋从房东手中收走，比如他是一个——他是一个货真价实的社会主义者。呃，但他并没有真正做过任何社会主义性质的事情。我只是觉得这里有一点混淆。但是向富人索取——

英文原文

>> He has said seize the means of production. He said it and he said take houses off landlords like he is a he's a card carrying socialist. Uh, but he hasn't done any really socialist things. I I just think that there there's a bit of a confusion. But asking wealthy

要求人们多交一点税并不是社会主义。呃，在“食品荒漠”地区开办杂货店，只因为没有杂货店愿意去做——因为那里的利润不够高——这并不是社会主义。这是政府向公民提供福利、修补路面坑洼、修建自行车道，诸如此类他正在做的事情。这些都不是社会主义性质的事物。它们所体现的，不过是不严格遵从新自由主义的那一套，即任由富人对其他人肆意践踏。依我看，对于所谓的食品荒漠和杂货店，真正的问题在于税收体系惩罚性太强，以至于像开办杂货店这样一个小小的机会，面对政府施加的所有税收、所有繁文缛节和所有负担，根本就不值得去做。外面有更好的机会。我不是说要免除富人的税负。我说的是针对初创企业、小企业、雇佣人数少于200人的企业。如果你基本上为小企业的起步创造了非常良好的体验，他们就会在状况欠佳的社区里开办杂货店，因为他们会觉得：“是啊，你猜怎么着？我能摸索出在这里怎么把生意做通。”

英文原文

people to pay a little bit more tax is not socialism. Uh, standing up grocery stores in food deserts because no grocery store will will will do it because it's not profitable enough is not socialism. This is the government provisioning benefits to citizens, fixing potholes, making bike ramps, whatever the stuff he's doing. These are not socialist things. What they are is not strictly neoliberal things, which is just like letting rich people run rough shod over everybody else. The thing that I see with say a food desert and a a store is that the tax system is so punitive that a small opportunity like setting up a grocery store with all the taxes and all the regulations and all the stuff the government puts on you, it's just not worth doing it. There are better opportunities out there. Like I'm not talking about remove it for rich people. I'm saying for startups, for small businesses, for businesses that employ less than 200 people. If you basically create very positive experience for small businesses to get started, they will set up a grocery store in a in a bad neighborhood because they go, "Yeah, you know what? I can figure out how it works in this."

你觉得有没有一种可能，作为创业者，我们多少是带有一点偏见的？在座的每个人都是创业者，出于某种原因——而且我觉得我的这种原因很大一部分可能是某种类似于……我不知道，心理创伤之类的。我本身就有一种偏向，偏向于去创办企业并承担那种风险。而比如我的另外三个兄弟姐妹，他们就没有那么做。我也不知道自己身上为什么会有这种倾向。如果你仔细想想的话，这大概也是我父母无意中造成的，这意味着在18岁时，当我的四……三个兄弟姐妹去上大学、走上了人们可以说是更稳妥的道路时。嗯，对，更稳妥的道路。我退学了。

英文原文

>> Do do you think there's a chance that we have a a bit of a bias as entrepreneurs? Everyone at this table is an entrepreneur and for whatever reason, and I think a lot of mine might be some like I don't know, trauma or whatever. I had a bias towards setting up a business and taking that risk. Whereas like my other three siblings, they didn't do that. And I don't know what I did to have that bias within me. Like if you really think about it, I it's it was probably something my parents didn't intend to do, which meant that at 18 when my four three siblings went to university and sort of followed that more one could say safer path. Well, yeah, safer path. I dropped out.

你退学的时候你父母有多生气？

英文原文

>> How angry were your parents when you dropped out?

他们都不跟他们讲话了。我妈妈当时……是的，我妈妈也是尼日利亚人，所以她没……她还是个孩子的时候就辍学了。没有受过教育。不识字。一定觉得他陷入了艰难的境地——

英文原文

>> They didn't speak to them. My mom was Yeah, my mom's Nigerian as well, so she didn't she left school when she was a child. Didn't get an education. Can't read. must have him in a tough

“艰难”绝对低估了当时发生的事，但不管是什么原因，这就是我走上的道路，我……我能承认我属于少数人——

英文原文

>> a tough certain understatement of what happened but for whatever reason that's the path that I took and I'm I I can acknowledge that I'm in a bit of a minority

而且我觉得我有时的确在思考，比如也许我没有意识到，出于特权或是某种基因上的优势之类的，我拥有这种对创业的特定偏好，而其他人可能并不总是有这种偏好，那意味着他们去开杂货店——

英文原文

>> and I think I sometimes consider like maybe I don't realize that through privilege or through some genetic privilege or whatever I had this particular orientation towards like entrepreneurialism that maybe other people don't always have and that means that they start the grocery store

我在评论区被骂惨了，“不是每个人都能当创业者的”。没错。我并不是说每个人都能成为一种选择。我从没那么说过。

英文原文

>> I get crucified in the comments not everyone can be an entrepreneur Right. I'm not saying everyone could be an option. I've never said that.

但杂货店那个类比的意思是，如果事情容易一些，就会有人去开那家杂货店。

英文原文

>> But the grocery store analogy there is someone would start that grocery store if it was easier.

呃，并不是每个人都会去开。

英文原文

>> Well, not everybody would.

总有一个风险收益比的问题，而且政府引入了各种各样的监管，政府真正考虑的其实只有大企业。如果你跟政府里的任何人交流，小企业根本不存在，他们就只是在想：为什么乐购（Tesco）没去做，或者为什么沃尔玛（Walmart）这类企业没去做。

英文原文

>> There's always a risk-to-reward ratio and government brings in all sorts of regulations and government only really thinks about big businesses. If you talk to anyone in government, small businesses don't exist and they just simply think why hasn't Tesco done it or why hasn't like Walmart done it.

小企业的监管壁垒与规模劣势

是的。我……我从来没在英国创办过企业，但我可以告诉你，在美国，在食品荒漠里开办杂货店的门槛并不是监管。而是西夫韦（Safeway）。是供应链。是……是你刚才所描述的那一切，正是那些让某个人经营单店面的杂货店变得无比艰难——

英文原文

>> Yeah. I I've never started a business in the UK, but I can tell you that in the United States, the the barrier to setting up a grocery store in a food desert is not the regulation. It's Safeway. It's the supply chain. It's the It's all the stuff that you've described, which makes it incredibly difficult for for for somebody to operate a single location grocery store

就像你朋友的那家店一样。

英文原文

>> like your friend's.

是的。对此该怎么办呢？呃，那么我的做法会是，我会……我会……再次重申，在美国我们过去曾有很多法律引导经济偏向小企业。因此如果由我负责，我会推行高得多的最低工资标准，但我会采取累进的方式。所有的劳动标准、所有的……所有的监管规程都将按渐进累加的方式推行。而在监管方面，我会让它远远……比如对于大公司，规章制度非常多，对吧？每一条规则你都必须一板一眼地遵守。而对于小企业——

英文原文

>> Yeah. What do you do about that? Uh, so what I would do is I would I would and again in the United States we used to have lots of laws that pointed the economy toward small businesses. So if I was in charge, I would impose a much higher minimum wage, but I would do it progressively. All the labor standards, all the all of the regulations would be imposed progressively. And in terms of regulation, I would make it far like for a big company, there's a lot of regs, right? You have to follow every rule to the tea. For a small business,

你拥有大得多的灵活性。这很重要，因为……因为我们确实需要这些标准——

英文原文

>> you have a lot more flexibility. It's impo because because we need the standards,

但事实证明，作为个体业主，甚至连通读这套手册、弄明白自己到底应该做什么，都是极其困难的，对吧？所以在看来，这一切都应该推行累进制。这样一来，获取资金就会变得容易，创办企业也会变得容易，相对不受监管的拖累，尽管在一定程度上仍会受到约束。小企业从业者做起坏事来也是有的。

英文原文

>> but it turns to be really hard as a single proprietor even to even to read the manual, right? To know what you're supposed to do. So to me, it would all be progressive. So it would be easy to get capital, easy to start a business, relatively unencumbered by by regulation, although constrained to a certain extent. There are terrible things that small business people do, too.

等等，你怎么让获取资金变得更容易？

英文原文

>> Wait, how'd you make it easier to get capital?

噢，你可以设立专门旨在帮助小企业起步的政府项目。

英文原文

>> Oh, you could have government programs that were designed to help small businesses get off the ground.

我们有英国银行（British Bank）为最开始的25,000贷款提供承保。在美国，我们过去有小企业管理局（Small Business Administration）承担大量的这类工作。

英文原文

>> We have the British Bank that uh underwrites for the first 25,000 of loans. We used to have the Small Business Administration in the United States that did a lot of that work.

是的。所以，我们……我们这里有一个贷款机构，是由政府提供75%承保的25,000英镑初创贷款。没错。所以，确实有一些方案是可以起作用的。我所有的公司起步时用的都是信用卡。关键在于这一点：那些旨在做大规模的创业者与初创企业，同那些纯粹希望作为小企业存在的小企业之间，是有区别的。我非常认同这样的理念，即我们希望……我们希望社区拥有大量的小企业，即便它们根本无意做大规模并套现退出，也无意做任何那一类的事情，只要——

英文原文

>> Yeah. So, we we have a lending institution here that is uh 75% underwritten by government for £25,000 startup loan. Right. So, there is some some schemes that can can work. I started all my companies on a on a credit card. The key thing is this. There's a difference between entrepreneurials and startups that are intending to scale and just small businesses that want to exist as a small business. I'm really big on the idea that we want to we want communities that have lots of small businesses even if they have no intention to scale and exit and any of those sorts of things that

那种老式的生活形态，对吧，你单纯就是开了一家杂货店。

英文原文

>> that old fashioned thing, right, where you just had a grocery store.

是的。而且……而且这是一件好事，并且——

英文原文

>> Yeah. And and it's a good and

你并不想打造下一个沃尔玛。是的。

英文原文

>> you weren't trying to create Walmart. Yeah.

你就只是想经营一家杂货店。

英文原文

>> You just wanted to run a grocery store.

但这很难，不是吗？因为——

英文原文

>> It's hard though, isn't it? cuz

你想成为CVS，或者你……你想成为……你想做成连锁网络——

英文原文

>> you want to be CVS or you you want to you want to be a network

但以杂货店这个设想为例，如果你这里有一家夫妻便利店，紧挨着它开了一家——比方说，我不知道在英国叫Spar，也就是那种杂货铺——7-Eleven便利店，问题在于，如果这两家店开在一起，而其中一家具备……嗯，规模经济，也就是7-Eleven采购黄瓜的成本——

英文原文

>> but with a grocery store idea if you've got mom and pop grocery store here then next to it you have let's say I don't know in the UK it's called spa which is a grocery store 7-Eleven the problem is if those are next to each other and one has um economies of scale i.e 7-Eleven can buy the cucumber

只要夫妻店成本的20%。那么同一条街上，7-Eleven就一定会存活下来。

英文原文

>> for uh 20% of the cost of the mom and pop shop. Then if you're on that street, the 7-Eleven is going to survive.

这就是为什么……这就是为什么我们倾向于——

英文原文

>> That's why that's why we tilt towards the

美国过去曾有法律明文禁止那种做法。

英文原文

>> United States used to have laws that expressly prohibited that.

那他们为什么废除了这些法律？

英文原文

>> And why did they get rid of them?

新自由主义。

英文原文

>> Neoliberalism.

所以他们取消了限制——

英文原文

>> So they got rid of the restrictions on

是的。过去曾有明确的法律规定，确保大公司不能以比小公司更低的价格购买原材料。比如在我年轻的时候，在我像你这个年纪的时候，如果你想要收购一家竞争对手，你都会紧张得汗流浃背，因为你必须……那项收购必须经过专门机构的审查，如果他们认为你整合兼并得过头了，他们就会直接否决。但如果你想一想——我想了想我所有通过各自公司开设线下零售店的朋友，他们只有在公司做到了非常庞大的规模时才会这么做，因为他们有电商业务在支撑它。所以如果你想一想……我知道的像Gymshark、Represent、Honor The Gift。所以你不能——

英文原文

>> Yeah. There there used to be express laws to make sure that big companies could not buy raw materials cheaper than than small companies. Like when I was young, when I was your age, if you wanted to buy a competitor, you were sweating bullets because you had that had to be reviewed by a body and if they thought that you were consolidating too much, they would just say no. But if you think I think about all my friends that have opened retail stores through their companies and they they only do that when they get really big because their ecom business is supporting it. So if you think about I know the gym sharks, the represents, honor actors. So you can't

好吧，关于零售业，你大体上是对的，这取决于具体是哪种零售。比如你可以开一家健身房，健身房总没法做成电商，或者你知道，有各种各样的零售业，其中有些对电子商务有某种免疫力，而有些正在被电子商务摧垮。这……不管我们是不是在谈论零售业，过去都曾有过区域性的制造企业、区域性的一切，当然——

英文原文

>> okay with respect to retail you are largely correct it depends on what kind of retail like you could have a gym you can't e-commerce a gym or you know there are all kinds of retail some of which is somewhat immune from e-commerce and some of which is getting destroyed by e-commerce doesn't it doesn't matter if we're talking about retail they were regional manufacturing companies regional everything sure

而这一切全都荡然无存了，你从未体会过曾有那种景象存在的世界，比如你……你的整个商业经历所面对的都是这种充斥着巨头企业的新自由主义世界。

英文原文

>> and it all went away and you have never experienced a world in which that used to exist like your your entire business experience is this sort of neoliberal world of giant companies.

确实如此。而在我成长的那个世界里，我们年轻——

英文原文

>> True. And the world I grew up in, we young,

对吧？但我……我记得以前是怎样的——

英文原文

>> right? But I I remember what it was like

去录像带租赁店，从店里挑选录像带。我记得那是什么样的。是的。比如我记得我小时候去CD店，听音乐，跟零售店里的员工聊天。当时最酷的孩子在CD店打工，最书呆子气的孩子在书店打工，而其他所有人……其他所有人都在杂货店打工。是的。而所有那些商业模式如今都不复存在了。这就是我想要表达的意思。我们得把天平重新倾斜向保护小企业进行探索尝试以及所有那些事情。另外还有一件事也是如此，而且我——

英文原文

>> to go to the video store and select videos from the video store. I remember what it was. Yeah. Like I remember going to the CD store and listening to music and talking to the retail employees when I was growing up. The cool kids worked at the CD store, the geeky kids worked at the bookstore, and everybody worked at the everyone else worked at the grocery store. Yeah. And all of those business models are gone. And this is what I mean. We need to kind of tip back towards small business experimentation being protected and all of that. The other thing, too, and I

应该提这个关于最低工资和给人们更多钱的事情。

英文原文

should should raise this about minimum wage and giving people more money.

英国处于后半部分的纳税人只缴纳了全部个人所得税的 9.5%。政府完全可以通过一次举措免除 50% 劳动者的税负，成本为 330 亿，只要免掉这笔税，那么处于收入后半段的每一个人就能获得 10% 到 15% 的实际加薪，对吧？

英文原文

>> The bottom half of taxpayers in the UK pay 9.5% of all the uh income taxes. The government could remove taxes off of 50% of workers in one move and it would cost 33 billion and you just get rid of that and then every single person in the bottom half of income earners gets a 10% pay rise to 15% payriseise, right?

我很赞同。那我们从哪里弄来这 320 亿呢？

英文原文

>> I love it. So where do we get the 32 billion from?

只要记住他们的预算是 1.4 万亿就行了。

英文原文

>> Just just keep in mind their budget is 1.4 trillion.

我知道。我知道。我知道。但我们得……如果……

英文原文

>> I know. I know. I know. But we're going to have if

万亿……你说的这可是涉及 1500 万人啊。

英文原文

>> trillion you're talking about this to take 15 million people.

是的，我同意。我只是在问钱从哪里来，因为我知道接下来会发生什么。斯塔默（Karma）说他们发现了财政上有 2000 万、200 亿——200 亿的黑洞，他们……这就是他们声称不得不削减养老金及这类开支的原因。所以如果我们再增加 300 亿，那……那我们要从哪里弄到这笔钱呢？

英文原文

>> Yeah, I agree. I'm just saying where does the money cuz I know what's going to happen. Karma is saying they found this 20 million billion 20 billion black hole in the finances and they and that's the reason why they're saying they've had to cut back on pensions and these kinds of things. So if we add another 30 billion to that where where do we where do we get the money from?

你想想看，对 1500 万人征税并持续追踪这 1500 万人的税务，能减少多少行政负担。仅仅是在英国税务海关总署（HMRC）工作的人数就极其庞大，这一切简直太疯狂了。

英文原文

>> You're talking about reduce the amount of administrative burden to tax 15 million people and keep on top of the tax on 15 million people. Just the sheer volume of people who have to work at HMRC all of this insanity.

不，但我是在问钱从哪里来？

英文原文

No, but I'm saying where does the money come from?

是的。所以在 1.4 万亿里面，我很确定我们能找出 0.5% 或 1% 左右的资金，来让这部分人免税。呃，我认为我们可以向那些肆意妄为的大公司征税。

英文原文

>> Yeah. So, out of 1.4 trillion, I'm pretty sure we could find half of 1% 1% of it or whatever to to get these number of people out of tax. Um, I think we could tax big corporations who are taking the piss.

呃，而且我也认为，让那些人——那些较贫困的、占人口后半部分的人——不交税所带来的经济消费循环效应……如果你给他们更多钱，他们就会消费更多，对吧？他们不会……

英文原文

>> Uh, and I also think the economic spending rounds of getting those people, those poor, the poorer half of people should not be paying tax. If you give them more money, they'll spend more money, right? They're not

好吧，我同意你的看法。所以你是说在消费端对英国境内的大公司征收更多税。

英文原文

>> Okay, I agree with you. So you're saying tax big corporations more in the UK at point of consumption.

对科技巨头征收固定牌照费与税负转嫁

就我个人而言，我会把它设定得非常类似于广播电视牌照费，是一笔很难钻空子逃避的固定费用。

英文原文

>> Personally, I would make it a like very similar to a broadcast license that it's a fixed fee that's very hard to wiggle out of.

所以如果我是一家……假设我是 OpenAI……

英文原文

>> So if I'm a let's say I'm an open AI,

对，为了进入这个市场，你可能得支付一笔广播牌照费。

英文原文

>> yeah, you might have a broadcast license to pay uh to to access this market.

这么说你要收费……比如你说：“我要向 OpenAI 收取 40 亿、50 亿来准入我们的市场。”

英文原文

>> So you're going to charge say you say I'm going to charge Open AI 4 billion, 5 billion to access our market.

嗯，举例来说，Facebook 始终在大量播放视频和内容。YouTube 也是如此。Google 也是，诸如此类的都是。所以你只要说：“各位，如果你们想进入这个市场，在这个国家开展业务的成本就是每年 5 亿的固定广播牌照费，或者随便多少金额。”然后你就说，根据你们获得的浏览量以及从我们的经济中吸走了多少注意力，我们本质上就是对注意力征税。实际上，如果人们每天花一小时在手机上刷负面内容（doom scrolling），那这就是一种广播。你们在向我们的民众播送内容，因此我们设立了广播牌照。呃，这些就是我会考虑的做法，因为它们很难逃避。

英文原文

Well, for example, Facebook is very much broadcasting videos and content all the time. So is YouTube. So's Google, all that sort of stuff. So you just simply say, "Guys, the cost of doing business in this country if you want access to this market is a fixed broadcast license fee of 500 million a year or whatever it is." And you just say based on the number of views that you guys get and how much attention you suck out of our economy, we just essentially tax the attention. You're literally if people are spending an hour a day on their phone doom scrolling, we're that that is a broadcast. you're broadcasting to our people, so therefore we've got a broadcast license. Um, so those are the types of things that I would look at because they're very hard to wiggle out of.

那你觉得这些……像 OpenAI 这样的公司，会不会像我们刚才提到的那样，直接提高该市场的订阅费？有时你确实会看到这种情况，在某些国家某些东西会更便宜。我记得去美国……我以前常去美国买 Apple 产品，因为那里更便宜。

英文原文

>> Do you think then these these companies like an open eye would would then as we said earlier just increase the subscription fee in this market and you see this sometimes where in certain countries something is cheaper. I remember going to the United I I used to go to the United States to buy my Apple products cuz it was cheaper there.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

然后在英国，买一台笔记本电脑的花费……甚至都不止多一点点，而是要贵上几百美元。同一台笔记本电脑，在这个市场与那个市场相比，价格却截然不同。

英文原文

>> And then in the UK it cost me like not even not even a little bit it was like hundreds of dollars more to buy a laptop here. the same laptop in this market versus this one cost different amounts of money.

他们可能会选择尝试把这项消费税转嫁给消费者。也许他们真会这么做。呃，也许我们可以尝试避免……也许我们可以尝试立法来阻止这种情况，规定他们在定价上必须与其他市场基本持平，必须统一定价。呃，如果我们什么都不做，实质上就是让护士、教师以及所有身处普通 50% 经济群体的人，他们的工作现在变成了支撑整个经济，而星巴克不交税、亚马逊不交税、Google 也不交税。史蒂夫（Steve），我认为你提出的所有问题都非常好，但它们都指向同一件事，那就是：你知道，经济是一个集体行动难题，

英文原文

>> They they may choose to try and pass on that consumption tax to to consumers. Maybe they do do that. Uh maybe we could try and avoid maybe we could try and legislate against that that they have to essentially be on par with where they are in other markets that they they have to charge par. Um if we don't if we don't do anything we essentially have nurses and uh you know like teachers and all the people who are in the normal 50% of the economy whose job is now to hold up the economy while Starbucks doesn't pay taxes while Amazon doesn't pay taxes while Google doesn't pay taxes. And and Steve, I think all your questions are really really good, but they all point to the same thing, which it which is that, you know, the economy is a collective action problem,

对吧？而且……

英文原文

>> right? And

你知道，这是一个全球性的行动难题。

英文原文

>> you know, it's a global action problem.

这是一个全球性的……这是一个全球性的集体行动难题。如果我们想要切实解决这些问题，我们就必须在全世界范围内扎实地协调行动。你知道，就像在拜登政府时期，他们非常努力地试图推行这项全球利润税，但是……呃，但它在重重压力下崩溃了。不过，正如你所知，再次重申，我认为你的所有问题都非常好，但它们都指出了治理方面同一个根本性的弱点……

英文原文

>> It's a global it's a global collective action problem. And if we want if we want robust solutions to these problems, we're going to have to robustly coordinate activity across the world. And you know like for during the Biden administration they tried really hard to do this global profit tax where where uh but that collapsed under the weight of pressure but all you know again all of your questions I think are really good but they all point to the same fundamental weakness of of of governance

还有尼克（Nick），你需要和你那些亿万富翁朋友谈谈，并且也告诉他们，如果我们不开始对与我们有业务往来的经济体进行投资——就像你所说的，对，当然，对……

英文原文

>> and Nick you you need to talk to your billionaire mates and also say if we don't start investing in the economies that we do business with which you are saying right of course right

这是个孤独的差事，我只能这么说了……但……但这就好比……就好比那些公司的首席执行官们，你知道，你们把整个经济都榨干了，然后呢？接下来怎么办？就像……

英文原文

>> it's a lonely business I'll just tell But but it's like it's like it's like with those CEOs of those companies, you know, you drain this you drain the whole economy out and and and then where then what next? Like

转嫁成本与监管壁垒

我觉得针对这个成本转嫁问题，我一直在思考，一直在观察它最终被付诸实施的不同方式。如果你想想巨无霸汉堡，由于每个州收税高低不同，巨无霸在不同州的售价也不同。在俄勒冈州一个巨无霸是 8 美元，而在芝加哥则接近 9 美元。呃，如果你想想书店，在商业街上一本书你可以花 20 美元买到；同样一本书在网上只要 10 美元，因为他们把成本转嫁出去了。因此完全可以想象，如果我们对大公司说：“好，你们向英国销售产品所要缴纳的税费，要高于向英国消费者征收的税费”，他们就可能会把这部分税负转嫁给英国消费者；他们可能会审视不同的市场，因为你知道，他们作为一家公司可能会表示“我们希望获得 30% 的利润率，而在英国实现 30% 利润率的办法就是提高售价”。消费者可以说：“我要用 VPN 假装自己在另一个市场，支付更低的价格；不过无所谓，如果你想在我们国家提供服务，你仍然必须支付广播牌照费。”这些都是棘手的难题，我们需要明确我们针对的目标究竟是谁。是像黑石（BlackRock）这样的机构，是全球的各大银行，是大型房屋抵押贷款机构，诸如此类的。

英文原文

>> I think on this pass through problem I was thinking I was looking at different ways that this ends up being applied. So if you think about the Big Mac, the Big Mac costs different things in different states depending on how much tax the that state charges. So in Oregon the Big Mac is $8 whereas in Chicago it's almost $9. Um, if you think about like bookstores, you can buy one book on the high street for $20. The same book online is $10 because they're passing through the cost. So, it's conceivable that if we we say to big corporations, right, you guys are going to pay a bigger tax to sell into the UK than the UK consumer that they'll they might pass that on to the UK consumer and they might look at different markets and because you know they might say as a company we want to make 30% margin and the way to make 30% margins in the UK is to bump the cost. consumer could say, "I'm going to use a VPN and pretend that I'm going to be in a different market and pay a lower price and doesn't matter. You still have to pay the broadcast license if you want to be available in our in our country." These are hard problems and we need to know who is the person that we're targeting. It's it's the Black Rocks of the world. It's the it's the big banks of the world. It's the big mortgage. like

我曾……比如说我和一家非常大型的技术公司的首席技术官有过一次私下交流，他对我说，他表示：“我认为英国没有意识到自己正处于何种境地，还有欧盟及其出台的所有这些监管。”他对我讲，呃，他们销售某款特定产品，这是一款实体硬件产品，由于英国以及我认为还有欧盟出台了这项必须采用可拆卸电池的新法规……

英文原文

>> I had um say I had a private conversation with the CTO of a very large company technology business and he was saying to me he goes I don't think the UK understands the situation it's putting itself in and the EU with all this regulation he said to me um that we sell this particular product it's a physical product and because the UK and I think EU have put this new law in where you have to have removable batteries

更有意思的是，这项法规带来的意想不到的后果是，我们不得不储备更多的锂电池。更多的电池被填埋，而且你的设备也更容易坏，因为它们不再具备防水功能了。

英文原文

>> interestingly the unintended consequence of that is we have to stock more lithium batteries. More of them go into landfill and also your devices break because they're no longer waterproof.

所以你发现实际上这反而破坏了环境；而且他还说，你们大家没有意识到的一点是，对我们而言你们其实已经不再是一个大市场了，而且随着南美市场的兴起，我们实际上根本没必要在这里销售该产品。你也可以从针对人工智能的一些监管法规的角度来考虑这个问题。当一款新产品在一个平台上推出时……

英文原文

>> So you're going actually it's harming the environment and also he said the thing you guys don't realize is that you're actually not a big market anymore for us and because South America's coming online we actually don't have to sell the product here and you think about this in terms of some of the regulations around AI as well. When a new product launches on a trackt,

是的。

英文原文

>> yeah,

由于监管的原因，它会首先在美国上线，然后也许……不……

英文原文

>> it goes in the US first because of regulations and then maybe no

首先在美国上线是因为那是最大的市场。最大的市场，但同时我们针对某些软件的监管、GDPR 以及所有这类法规，也意味着有时我们就是无法获得相应功能……

英文原文

>> goes in the US first because it's the biggest market. biggest market but also we have we're our regulations around some software and GDPR and all these kinds of things means that sometimes we just don't get the features

有时候在我的经历中，在我们过去创办上一家企业的经历中，作为创作者，我们有时不得不等待 12 或 18 个月才能用上那些同样的工具，而我知道我在美国的竞争对手……

英文原文

>> and sometimes in my history in our history of building a the previous business I was in as creators we would sometimes have to wait 12 or 18 months to get the same tools that my competitors I know

在美国就可以使用变现工具，他们可以先拿到变现工具，而我们却不得不等待 18 个月……

英文原文

>> in the United States could use monetization tools they'd have the monetization tools first and then we'd have to wait 18 months

经济就是一系列的权衡取舍，这就是问题所在，就像经济学就是……

英文原文

>> the economy is a set of trade-offs like that is the problem like economics is

称为一组……经济学的真正定义是权衡取舍，做出权衡取舍。我完全理解。比如，监管对消费者和企业来说确实很糟糕。比如欧盟现在过度监管到了这种程度：你甚至开个瓶盖，开瓶盖的方式都会有政府的介入。这正在扼杀我们的活力。我们真的是就像……

英文原文

called a set of the the actual definition of economics is making trade-offs um and picking picking your trade-offs. I totally get it. Like regulation does actually suck for consumers and for businesses. Um and like the the EU is now overregulated to the extent that you can't even take a a lid off of a bottle without, you know, the government being involved with how the lid comes off the bottle. And it's killing it's killing our dynamism. We are really just like

而美国则是监管不足。如果你在商店买鸡肉却不煮熟，

英文原文

>> and the US is underregulated. And if you buy chicken in a in a store and and don't cook it,

就可能会有什么都说不准。

英文原文

>> could be anything.

有三分之一的概率，你会感染大肠杆菌或沙门氏菌。

英文原文

>> One in three chances you'll you'll you'll you'll get uh either E.coli or salmonella.

而且你的预期寿命也更低。

英文原文

>> And your life expectancy is lower.

没错。这全是权衡取舍。每个在美国吃过饭的人……权衡取舍。

英文原文

>> Exactly. It's all trade-offs. Everyone who eats in the US trade-offs.

从美国回来都会说：“天呐，我讨厌在美国吃东西。”

英文原文

>> Comes back from the US and goes, "Oh my goodness, I hate I hate eating food in the US."

这全都是权衡取舍。这全都是权衡取舍。这难道不意味着，我们这场对话的最终结论是围绕道德和伦理，围绕我们认为哪些是应该做出的正确权衡取舍？

英文原文

>> It's all tradeoff. It's all trade-offs. Does this not then mean our ultimate conclusion of this conversation is around morals and ethics around the trade-offs that we think are the right ones to make?

是的。

英文原文

>> Yes.

所以这实际上是一个道德与伦理的问题。

英文原文

>> And so it's a question really of morals and ethics.

是的。人类的繁荣与福祉。是的，百分之百。

英文原文

>> Yes. Human flourishing. Yes. 100%.

经济的目的是改善人类的生活。做到这一点的方法就是极大地最大化小企业的力量。因为当人们变得更复杂……当人们必须……当我必须与我的工人并肩工作时，我会善待他人，对吧？而当我是一家大型跨国企业，工人们在工厂车间里连面孔都看不清，我永远不会见到他们，永远不会在飞机上坐在他们旁边，永远不会与我的工人发生接触，那我爱怎么对待他们就怎么对待他们。

英文原文

>> The the purpose of the economy is is to improve human human lives. The way to do this is to massively maximize small business power because when people get more complicated when when pe when people have to when I have to work shoulderto-shoulder with my workers, I treat people well, right? When I'm a mega corporation who have faceless workers down on the factory floor that I will never meet. I will never sit next to on a plane. I will never come in contact with my workers. I can treat them however I like.

尼克，你为什么觉得这种说法把问题简单化了？

英文原文

>> Why do you think that's reductive, Nick?

呃，我认为丹说的是事实，但远远不够。

当然，我的意思是，关于小企业这一点，我们是极其一致认同的。我并不想天真地认为我们应该回到60年代或者类似的那种时期，我不认为那是对的。但话又说回来，新经济学表明的是：企业合并垄断会推高物价、拉低工资、减少消费者的选择，并降低创新的速度。对吧？

英文原文

Uh, well, I think that what Dan is saying is true and massively insufficient.

Of course, I mean, we're in violent agreement about the small business point. Like, I don't want to be naive and think we should go back to the 60s or something like that. Like, I don't think that's true. But again, here's what the new economics shows. that corporate consolidation increases prices, lowers wages, decreases consumer choice, and decreases the rate of innovation. Right?

我百分之百同意。

英文原文

>> And I 100% agree

因为创新……关于创新的传统看法，传统的经济学创新观是这种所谓的英雄理论：有这么一个聪明又有钱的人坐在某个地方，他或她有这么一个绝妙的想法，这就是创新。创新根本不是这样的。创新永远是组合式的，技术是在自身之上孕育出新技术。你从一块石头开始，石头是我们的第一项技术，你用石头做了很多事情。我们还有木棍。实际上，木棍才是我们的第一项技术。但你把石头绑在木棍上，就有了锤子、长矛、箭、斧头、铲子。如此等等，层出不穷。这在政策层面的含义是：正因为创新是组合式的，网络中越多元化的人聚在一起，带来不同的想法和不同的经历经验，这才是推动创新速度的力量。而且这在数学上已经得到证实：一组解决问题的多元化人群，其表现绝对且始终优于一组能力出色但背景单一的人群。

英文原文

>> because innovation again that the conventional view of innovation, the conventional economic view of in innovation is this sort of great man theory is you have this smart rich guy who's sitting somewhere and he he or she has this amazing idea and that's innovation. That is not what innovation is. Innovation is always combinatorial in technology makes itself out of itself. You you start with a rock. The the rock was our first technology. And you did a lot of stuff with rocks. And we also had sticks. Actually, sticks were our first technology. But you tie a rock to a stick, you have a hammer, a spear, an arrow, an axe, a shovel. It goes on and on and on. And what that means in terms of policy is that because innovation is combinatorial, the more diverse people in a network who come together with different ideas and different sets of experiences, that is what drives the rate of innovation. And this is mathematically demonstrated that a diverse group of people working on a problem will absolutely consistently outperform a a a homogeneous group of high performers.

然后，当他们变得非常成功时——如果你让这个系统自然发展下去，这最终必然会发生——你就会面临这种不平等，除非你在某个时刻进行干预……

英文原文

>> And then when they when they become really successful, which will happen eventually if you let that system play out, you have this inequality unless you intervene at some point

并对其进行重新循环分配。然后当你打算去重新循环分配时，你又回到了这个需要全球凝聚力的问题。是的。因为有些人不希望被重新分配。

英文原文

>> and recycle it. And then when you go to recycle it, you go get back to this issue of us having needing global cohesion. Yes. Because some people won't want the recycling.

没错。

英文原文

>> Correct.

他们会说，那我就去爱尔兰，或者去迪拜，或者去别的地方。这也许是新经济的一个特性：人们可以直接拍拍屁股走人，把他们的价值带走。

英文原文

>> And they'll say, well, I'm just going to go to Ireland or I'm going to go to Dubai or I'm going to go somewhere else. And this is maybe a function of the new economy where people can just get up and leave and take their value with them.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yes.

这就是难题所在。

英文原文

>> And this is the conundrum.

这就是难题所在。但在这个难题之上的元问题是：要认识到公民既有权利也有责任去希望解决这个问题。而我们、还有你，是在这样一个世界里长大的：在这个世界里，去解决那个问题被认为是不合理的，经济学告诉你别担心那些问题，市场自会解决。

英文原文

>> This is the conundrum. But the meta issue above the conundrum is recognizing that citizens have both the right and the responsibility to want to address that problem. And we and you grew up in a world where it was illegitimate to address that problem that that that economics told you don't worry about those problems. The market will sort it out.

反垄断与拆分巨头

有没有某种解决这个问题的激进想法？我们是否需要全世界所有极度富有的人集体聚在一起，说我们要创造一种新模式？这到底该怎么弄，我不知道。有没有什么激进的方法来解决这些问题，或者这终究又只是民主体制下的权衡取舍？

英文原文

>> Is there like a radical idea of how to solve this? Do we need like all the the very very rich people in the world to come together collectively and say we're going to create a new model? Like how do how do you I don't know. Is there any radical ways to solve this stuff or is it just all trade-offs once again democracy?

重大的激进方法之一就是拆分大公司，而这在以前是不可想象的。你知道公关手段做成了什么。

英文原文

>> One of the big radical ways is breaking up companies and it's unthinkable. You know what PR did.

你认识杰夫·贝索斯，对吧？是的，我认识。

英文原文

>> You know Jeff Bezos, right? Yes, I do.

那么……

英文原文

>> So

他参加过我的婚礼。

英文原文

>> it was in my wedding.

我想知道，是面对更高的税收会让他更睡不着觉，还是面对公司被拆分？

英文原文

>> I wonder if he would lose more sleep about higher taxes or having his company broken up.

哦，肯定是拆分。因为如果你把谷歌和YouTube拆开，如果你把AWS、Amazon Prime和亚马逊拆开，如果……亿万富翁们最害怕的事情就是重新回到市场竞争中，这就像是：“天呐，我不想去竞争。我有这个运行良好的绝佳垄断地位。”

英文原文

>> Oh, for sure. Broken up. Because if you broke up uh Google from YouTube, if you broke up AWS, Amazon Prime and Amazon, if you like the biggest thing that scares the billionaires is backing competition with the market and it's like, "Oh my goodness, I don't want to have to compete. I've got this amazing monopoly that just works."

对。所以……

英文原文

>> Right. So,

但这是一个完美的解决方案吗？因为我在想……

英文原文

>> but is is that a perfect solution? Cuz I was thinking if

这不是一个完美的解决方案。

英文原文

>> it's not a perfect solution.

这是现有方案中最不坏的一个。

英文原文

>> It's the least worst solution available.

这是一个好方案，相当不错，相当有效。

英文原文

>> It's a good It's pretty It's pretty good. It's pretty effective.

我的意思是，这正是西奥多·罗斯福当年所做的……

英文原文

>> I mean, this is what Teddy Roosevelt did in

可是这些业务根本不赚钱啊。它们就像是由母体公司补贴着。比如在……比方说Amazon Prime在和Netflix竞争。

英文原文

>> these companies aren't making any any money though. They're like being subsidized by the mothership. So like in an let's say Amazon Prime that's competing against Netflix.

伙计，这些公司是在它们想赚钱的地方去赚钱。是的。

英文原文

>> Dude, these companies make money where they want to make money. Yeah.

出于税收筹划优化和战略原因。你看，我的意思是，比如当年我们创立亚马逊时，我不知道你们是否还记得，当时对它铺天盖地的攻击就是它不盈利，对吧？亚马逊成功的秘诀在于负现金转换周期，对吧？对于地球上几乎所有的企业来说，增长都需要资本，对吧？对于你们所有的企业来说，增长都需要资本。但对亚马逊来说，我们接下一笔订单，我们建好网站，你接下一笔订单，你瞬间把订单传送到一家拥有全部图书现货库存的图书仓库。第二天发货，第二天收到。你发货出去，刷买家的信用卡扣款，但你90天内都不用向图书销售商付款，

英文原文

>> For for tax optimization and strategic reasons. Look, I mean, you know, like when we started Amazon.com, I'm not sure if you guys remember the whole hit on it was it's not profitable, right? The secret to Amazon.com success is the negative cash conversion cycle, right? For virtually every business on planet Earth, to grow requires capital, right? For all of your businesses, growth requires capital. But for Amazon.com, we took an order, we put up the website, you take an order, you instantaneously transmit that order to a book warehouse, which has all of the titles in stock. It's shipped the next day, it's received the next day. You ship it out, hit the hit the person hit the person's credit card, but then you don't have to pay the book seller for 90 days,

对吧？这意味着公司规模越大，现金流就越好，无论你是否盈利。所以，我们当时不需要赚钱，因为我们拥有……大多数公司必须赚钱，

英文原文

>> right? And what that means is the bigger the company gets, the better cash flow gets whether you're making money or not. So, we didn't have to make money because we had most companies have to make money

因为如果他们不赚钱，他们就没有现金流继续运转……

英文原文

>> because if they don't, they don't have the cash flow to continue

比如Amazon Prime这类的业务，还有……

英文原文

>> like Amazon Prime businesses and

是的。所以有些现成的手段，我们只要把价格提高3%或4%，分分钟就能赚到钱。

英文原文

>> Yeah. And so there are things available that we could have made money in one minute just by increasing our prices by 3 or 4%.

是啊，这些公司身价数万亿美元，也并不是因为它们不盈利。它们值数万亿美元是因为它们在赚钱。但问题在于，它们拥有战略性垄断。如果你真想让他们睡不着觉，你就必须打破战略性垄断。你必须说，一个基金的规模是有实际限制的。战略性垄断的规模也是有实际限制的。你不能让不同业务之间天然形成对冲，从而阻碍真正的竞争。所以说，这些手段能够……而且还能分散他们的注意力。因此，当他们在考虑如何不被拆分时，他们也就无法去和外面的所有其他竞争对手竞争。所以说，资本主义基本上是靠竞争运行的。而这正是我们忽视的一点……

英文原文

>> Yeah, these companies are also not worth trillions of dollars because they're not profitable. They're they're worth trillions of dollars because they are making money. But the issue is is they have strategic monopolies. And if you really want to make them lose sleep, you need to break up strategic monopolies. You need to say there's an actual limit to how big a fund can be. There's an actual limit as to how big a strategic monopoly can be. uh you can't have things that hedge naturally against each other and prevent real competition. So like these things are ways of and also ties up their attention. So while they're thinking about not getting broken up, they're also not competing with all the other guys out there. So like it's it's basically capitalism runs on competition. And this is the one thing that we've missed

也就是我们的竞争变少了。

英文原文

>> that the we have less competition.

是的。就像亚当·斯密说资本主义行得通时，他说的是只有存在竞争时才行得通。如果城里只有一家面包店，不管是什么质量、什么价格的面包，你都必须买单。一旦城里有了两家面包店，就必须是以最好的价格提供最好的质量。

英文原文

>> Yeah. Like when Adam Smith said capitalism works, he said it only works when there's competition. If there's one bakery in town, any bread at any quality at any price is what you have to pay. As soon as there's two bakeries in town, it has to be the best quality at the best price.

尽管只有两家时可能会串通勾结。但如果你有五家，就很难勾结了。

英文原文

>> Although with two, you can collude. But if you have five, it's very hard.

所以，亚马逊垄断了……

英文原文

>> So, so Amazon has a monopoly over

战略性垄断。

英文原文

>> strategic monopoly.

一种战略性垄断。那么，该怎么处理亚马逊呢？

英文原文

>> A strategic monopoly. So, what does one do with Amazon?

把它拆分掉。

英文原文

>> You break it up.

对。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

拆成什么？

英文原文

>> Into what?

AWS、Amazon Prime、亚马逊零售业务。

英文原文

>> AWS, Amazon Prime, Amazon retail.

行。但理论上他们在在线电商领域依然拥有垄断地位。

英文原文

>> Fine. But they've still got a monopoly in online e-commerce theoretically.

对。嗯，只是变难了。换作现在，有人想加入竞争会更容易一些。对我来说，要和亚马逊竞争是非常非常难的，因为他们能从 AWS 抽调资金，从所有这些其他订阅服务中抽调资金。还有 Amazon Basics 这种自营品牌。

英文原文

>> Yeah. Well, it's just harder. it's easier for someone to come along and compete right now. It's very very hard for me to compete with Amazon because they are pulling in cash from AWS. They're pulling in cash from all these other subscriptions. There's so Amazon basics.

你可以把零售业务拆分。你可以规定：你只能开书店；你只能开电器店；你只能做这个。

英文原文

>> You could you could break up the retail. You could say you can have a bookstore. You can have an electronic store. You can have this.

你只能——你不能做“万货商店”，对吧？所以你可以……有各种各样的方式，但你必须承认，当某人取得了某种战略上的……

英文原文

>> You can only you can't be the everything store, right? So you could there's all sorts of ways that you but you have to acknowledge when someone has achieved a strategic

觉得这是个好主意。你现在还持有亚马逊的股票吗？

英文原文

>> think that's a good idea. Do you still own shows on Amazon?

没了，很遗憾。

英文原文

>> No, sadly.

好吧。我要是还持有，就不会坐在这儿跟你们聊了，要是我……

英文原文

>> Okay. I wouldn't be here talking to you guys if I

不不不不。

英文原文

>> No, no, no, no.

确实。杰夫是不会来的。

英文原文

>> That's true. Jeff won't come.

应对集中权力的基本原则与希望来源

呃，不。我很遗憾把股票卖了。不过，嗯，你知道，我对所有这些想法都持开放态度，因为我知道——我的意思是，我完全赞同丹的看法。我知道，如果这些公司规模小一些、我们拥有更多竞争，世界会变得更美好。另外，世界面临的这些复杂问题根本没有灵丹妙药。坐在这张桌子旁的我们，不可能想出某种算法式的点子，就能直接让世界变得更美好。这些解决方案没有一个是完美的，它们永远都只是我们所能想出的“最不坏的选择”。但在原则层面上，我认为……

嗯，生活在一个我们积极尝试限制各种形式的集中权力的世界里。

在这个世界里，我们积极尝试尽可能扎实地吸纳人们参与进来，无论是以创业者的身份还是仅仅作为劳动者。

在这个世界里，我们努力确保人们对经济有足够深入的参与，从而让他们支持民主，而不是想要把它烧毁摧毁。

我认为，这些是讲道理的人都能认同的高层原则，而这些原则与埃隆·马斯克、杰夫·贝索斯和马克·扎克伯格这样的人产生了冲突——他们不想生活在这样的世界里，他们想生活在一个寡头统治的世界里，而我认为我们应该去打赢这场仗。

我们有一个收尾传统，上一位嘉宾会为下一位留一个问题，却不知道这个问题是留给谁的，我觉得这是个相当切题的问题。

嗯，我先问你，丹。这个问题是：在一个面临如此多挑战的世界里，我们能做些什么来恢复希望并激发参与感？

呃，回到我们刚才讨论的话题，我们需要让人们知道博弈的规则、游戏的规则已经改变了。我们成长过程中所依循的规则，对应的是一个特定的工业化、后工业化时期的世界，那个世界拥有那套规则，而我们现在生活在一个数字革命初期的世界。让我看到希望的是，我知道那个世界的规则是如何运作的，对吧？有人曾向我解释过。他们切实解释了：你该如何创业，你该如何发展业务，你该如何赚到一百万，你该如何招募员工，你该如何组建一支并肩作战的优秀团队。这给了我巨大的希望。从我出生的起点和生来拥有的财富，到我如今所处的位置，我有了一条走出来的路径。有人向我解释了这条路径：规则是这样运作的，你该如何去取得成功。让人们感到绝望的因素之一，就是他们被困在一场没人解释规则的游戏之中。

英文原文

>> Uh, no. I sadly I sold my shares. But, uh, you know, I I am open to all of these ideas because I know I mean I am completely with Dan. I know that the world would be a better place if these companies were smaller and we had more competition. And again there is not there are no silver bullets to these complex problems the world faces. We are not at this table going to come up with this algorithmic idea that is just going to make the world a better place. It it none of these solutions are perfect. They are always going to be the least worst thing that we can come up with. But I think at at the at the level of principle

um living in a world where we try actively to limit concentrated power in all its forms.

Where we try actively to include people in whatever way whether as entrepreneurs or just workers as robustly as possible.

Where we try to make sure that people are engaged enough in the economy so that they will be supportive of the democracy. not want to burn it down.

These are highlevel principles that I think reasonable people can agree with and they come into conflict with people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg who do not want to live in that world, who want to live in an oligarchical world and I just think that we should have that fight and win.

We have a closing tradition where the Lask leaves a question for the next not knowing who they're leaving it for and I think it's quite a relevant question.

Um, I'll ask you first, Dan. The question is, in a world with so many challenges, what can we do to restore hope and trigger engagement?

Uh getting back to what we were talking about,

we need we need people to know that the game the rules of the game have changed and that the rules that we grew up with where we grew up in a particular industrialized late stage industrialized world that had those rules and we now live in an early stage digital revolution world. And the thing that gives me hope is I know how the rules of that world work, right? Someone explained it to me. They actually explained this is how you start a business. This is how you grow a business. This is how you make a million. This is how you hire some people. This is how you get a great team working side by side. That gave me an enormous amount of hope. I have a pathway out of where I was born and the wealth I was born with and where I am now. Someone explained to me the pathway. Here's how the rules work and here's how you make make success. One of the things that makes people feel hopeless is that they're stuck in a game where no one explains the rules.

所以说是解释规则。那么我认为，我们需要一个学校教育体系。我们谈论得不够多的一点是，学校体系必须向孩子们解释关于如何在当前经济中运转的相关信息。

于是，我在脑海中顺着这个逻辑推演了一下，我在想：好吧，就算你找来一百万个孩子，把所有的规则都解释给他们听。在某一刻，哪怕只要过个一两年，假设他们都懂得了规则……

英文原文

>> So explaining the rules. So I would say we need a schooling system. The thing we don't talk about enough is that the schooling system has to explain to kids the relevant information as to how to function in the current economy.

So, I played that forward in my head and I was thinking, okay, you get a million kids and you explain all of the rules to them. At some point, if you just give it a year or two, say they all knew the rules,

嗯，依然存在竞争优势……

英文原文

>> um, there's still an edge

……而且其中一部分人会琢磨出这种优势。

英文原文

>> and some of them would figure out the edge.

完全如此。

英文原文

>> Totally.

然后你就会看到这么一小群人，每个人都知道规则，但有些人却掌握了击败这套系统的特定方法。那可能是通过——我不知道——他们了解了 AI，了解了某些东西，然后你就又回到了原点。而你就是获得过这种优势的这样一个人。有人来到你面前对你说：你看，大家都说规则是这样的，但其实有一种方法可以建立优势；而不管出于什么原因，你身上恰好具备把握这一优势的潜质，并将其变现，如今你成了一位千万富翁。

英文原文

>> And then you've got this pocket that know, everyone knows the rules, but then others know this particular way to beat the system. And that could be with, I don't know, they learn about AI, they learn about whatever, and then you're kind of back into the same place. And you were one such person who got the edge. Someone came to you and went, you know, they're saying the rules are this. That's actually there's a way to get an edge and you had it within you for whatever reason to capitalize on that edge and now you're a multi-millionaire.

所以，永远都会有现行规则，然后规则会变……在你向某人解释完规则后的每一天……

英文原文

>> So, so there's always going to be the rule and then the rules get every single day after you explain the rules to someone

都会出现一套全新的规则。

英文原文

>> there's a new set of rules.

唯一不变的就是变化。眼下，我遇到的大多数从未有人向其解释过当下世界如何运作的人，他们都是绝望的。他们感到彻底的绝望。就像我看到有些年轻人向微软或者某家大公司投递简历，他们并不知道那些公司会收到 3500 份申请。

英文原文

>> The only consistent is change. And at the moment, most people I encounter who have never had any explanation going on about how the world works now, they are hopeless. They feel completely hopeless. As in like I see kids who are sending out um CVS to Microsoft or to like some major company, they don't realize that those companies are getting 3500 applications.

在你向他们解释完规则的第二天，这些规则的实用性就减少了一天。所以确实如此，你必须每一天都去上学。

英文原文

>> The day after you explain the rules to them, the rules are one day less relevant. And so it's true. You'd have to go to school every single day.

嗯，对啊。终身学习。你确实必须进行终身学习。规则中有一部分就是终身学习。这其实就是规则之一，即唯一不变的就是变化。

英文原文

>> Well, yeah. You lifelong learning. You do have to do lifelong learning. Like there is a lifelong part of the rules is lifelong learning. That is actually one of the rules which is the only consistent is change.

商业规则、创业工具箱与制度目的

不过听起来你的意思好像是，如果我们教给人们商业规则，人们就会更有希望；可是我认识的很多人，比如我的未婚妻，她关心的其他事情远胜过关心商业，她关心的是比如……

英文原文

>> It sounds like you're saying though that if we teach people the rules of business then people will have more hope and but but there's so many people that I know like my my fiance who she doesn't she cares about something else much more than she cares about business. cares about like

她刚刚创办了巴厘岛呼吸法工坊，而且她能够……

英文原文

>> she just start she set up Bali breath work and she was able

对，她能够创立巴厘岛呼吸法工坊……

英文原文

>> right she was able to create Bali breath work #

因为……好吧，这是我说的不是你说的……

英文原文

>> because well I said it not you

她能够摸索出如何将自己的热情转化为在商业上可持续的事业……

英文原文

>> she was able to figure out how to turn her passion into something that is commercially sustainable

我拿她举例只是因为我们……她是打学校体系里学到这些的吗？

英文原文

>> I'm just using her as an example cuz we did she get that from the school system

从根本上说，她也许能在一定程度上做到这一点，是因为她有一位创业者父亲，她有一个向她解释规则的人，嗯，她有支持的网络，比如她支持我、我支持她。

英文原文

>> fundamentally she maybe she got it in part because she has a dad who's an entrepreneur she has a explain the rules to her um she has the support network like she supports me, I support her.

她懂得如何吸引人们参与到她的成功中来。所有这些都被称为商业路演、发布内容、打造产品方案。我只知道一件我一次又一次、反复看到行之有效的事，那就是我向人们传授——那些学会了创业方法的人，会突然感受到自主能动性与希望。

英文原文

>> She knows how to enroll people into her success. All of that is called pitching, publishing content, creating a product offering. I only know one thing that I've seen work again and again and again and again, which is I teach people the people who learn the entrepreneurial method suddenly feel agency and hope.

我同意。我也并不是说这适合所有人。

英文原文

>> I agree. And I saying that's for everyone.

对，但这正是关键——它并不适合所有人。它适合那些拥有某种条件的人，比如你所拥有的成长背景、运气，以及无论是什么样的机缘和财富。

英文原文

>> Yeah, but this is the it's not for everyone. It's for people like that had whatever mean you had in terms of like the upbringing, the luck, the whatever, the fortune.

我并不是说每个人都要成为创业者。我对那个问题的回答……

英文原文

>> I'm not saying everyone's going to be an entrepreneur. My answer to that question

是创业精神？

英文原文

>> is entrepreneurship

是创业工具箱能给予人们极大的希望。

英文原文

>> is the entrepreneurial tool set gives people a lot of hope.

我理解这一点，而我们必须承认的其中一件事就是，那是特定类型的人，拥有特定类型的目标。有些人其实只想走到户外，他们不想——也许他们只想每周工作一天或者每周工作两天。

英文原文

>> I get that and that one of the things that we have to acknowledge there is that's a certain type of person who has a certain type of goals. There are some people who actually just want to go outside and they don't they want to work maybe they want to work one day a week or two days a week.

当然，我也不想做俯卧撑，我也不想做仰卧起坐，我也不想去健身房。但如果你去问一位健身专业人士：怎样才能改善体魄？怎样才能感觉良好？对吧？那位健身专业人士会说：“嘿，关于走出去锻炼身体，这些都是我见过对很多人奏效的办法。”你一开始可能并不想做这些事，但实际上，那些做了这些事的人，那份希望……

英文原文

>> Sure I don't want to do push-ups and I don't want to do sit-ups and I don't want to go to the gym. But if you ask a fitness professional how do you improve your body? How do you feel good? Right? The fitness professional says, "Hey, these are all the things that I've seen working for a lot of people about going out and getting fit." And you might not want to do them initially, but actually the people who do these things, the hope

那些能做这些事的人可能本身就拥有内在特权，对吧？

英文原文

>> the people that do those things might have an inherent privilege, right?

等等，垄断……世界本来就不是公平的。这个世界就是不公平的。有些人一出生就身处……

英文原文

>> Wait, the monopoly the world's not fair. Like the world's not fair. Some people are born on

我想知道你对同一个问题的回答。我认为我们需要拥有充满生机的民主体制，以围绕人的全面发展而非资本效率、非资本积累进行优化的方式来管理经济。我们生活在一个——你完全是在一个将资本效率视为最高价值的世界里长大的。资本效率与……

英文原文

>> I need to know your answer to the same question. I think we we need to have vital democracies that manage economies in ways that are optimized around human flourishing and not capital efficiency, not capital accumul accumulation. That we live in a world, you completely grew up in a world where the highest good was capital efficiency. The capital efficiency and

敬虔是一回事。

英文原文

godliness were the same.

股东价值迷思与经济范式

我们就是以这种方式组织社会的。在美国，我们确确实实存在一套围绕让企业股东价值最大化的规范和规章制度。对吧？这完全是 20 世纪 70 年代凭空捏造出来的。整套理念认为，企业的目的仅仅应当是让股东富裕起来。而这种理念的恶毒之处，并不在于他们明说“去他的穷人”。他们当时说的是：如果你让股东价值最大化，那将对所有人都有利。

而那就是谎言，因为这并没有对所有人都有利，仅仅造福了极少数人。而且那个谎言还声称，当你这样做时，增长率会上升，GDP 会增长，我们会迎来水涨船高。可潮水并没有上涨，反而退去了。现代经济学所说的是，我们可以建立一种不同的构想。我们可以建立一个不同的社会，以扎实有力的方式有意识地把人们包容进来，无论他们是劳动者，还是小企业。如果我们这样做，每个人都会受益。经济会增长得更快，人们的薪资会更高，物价会更低，我们将拥有更多创新。

这是我们触手可及的。我们只需要下定决心去做。

英文原文

>> And we have organized society in this way. We in the United States it we literally have a norm and a set of regulations around maximizing shareholder value for corporations. Right? This was invented out of whole cloth in the 1970s. This whole idea that the purpose of the corporation should be merely to enrich shareholders. And the evil of that idea isn't what they weren't saying was screw the poor. What they said was if you maximize value for shareholders, it will be good for everybody. And that was the lie because it wasn't good for everybody. It was good for a tiny minority of people. And the lie was that when you do that, growth rates will go up, GDP will go up. We'll have a rising tide. And the tide didn't rise, it fell. And what modern economics says is that we can have a different construct. We can have a different society that purposefully includes people in a robust way, whether they're a worker, whether they're a small business. And if we do that, everyone will benefit. The economy will grow faster. People will be paid better. Prices will be lower. We will have more innovation.

This is within our grasp. We just have to decide to do it.

你应该去从政。

英文原文

>> You should go into politics.

我就在政治领域里。

英文原文

>> I am in politics.

嗯，我我听到了。有一点我不喜欢的是坐等世界改变。我喜欢——我喜欢个人能动性。而在尼克所处的那种运作层面上，我由衷赞赏他身处政治之中，并且他正——他正在利用自己的财富、权力和影响力去改变体制。对大多数人来说，坐等世界改变并不会感到被赋予了力量。而且——而且我想我所持的立场就像是：是的，朝着这个方向努力，因为要确保世界在资本主义中包容更多人，这种政治运动是必需的。我赞赏这一点。呃，而在那发生的同时，承担起个人责任，发挥个人能动性，弄清楚你的下一步行动是什么。看遍《CEO 日记》的所有期目，向他人学习，并且，你知道的，迎头赶上——

英文原文

>> Well, I I hear that. One thing I don't like is waiting for the world to change. And I like I like personal agency. And at Nick's level that he's playing at, I love the fact that he's in politics and he's he's using his wealth and his power and his influence to change the system. For most people, waiting for the world to change does not feel empowering. And and I guess what where I'm coming from is like, yes, tilt towards this because that's the political movement that's required to make sure the world includes more people in capitalism. And I love that. Um, and while that's happening, take personal accountability, personal agency, figure out what is your next move. Watch all the episodes of Diary of a CEO, learn from people, and you know, and jump on

去搞清楚……对。订阅，对吧？帮我个忙，订阅这个频道。但如果——如果把那件事做到了，做那些事的人最终会感到充满希望，因为希望源于拥有个人能动性。而个人能动性，就是明确知道那步能让你受益并推动你前行的下一步棋。

英文原文

>> and and figure out Yeah. Subscribe, right? Do me a favor, subscribe to the channel. But if if that if that is done, like people people who do that end up feeling hopeful because hope comes from having personal agency. And personal agency is knowing your next move that's going to benefit you and move you forward.

特权的反思与普遍适用性

我同意。我同意。而且我意——你知道，随着年纪渐长，我越发意识到自己的特权。

英文原文

>> I agree. I agree. And I real I' you know, the older I've gotten, the more I realize my own privilege.

而我的特权并不一定是我建立了一家企业，我现在拥有财富等等这一切。我的特权是年轻时发生的一些事情，甚至从我父母关于这一点的节点开始。我对此并不感到愧疚，但这让我看清了自己的偏见，意识到自己有这层未知的未知。

不幸的是，随着我越来越深地陷在自己的特权中，这种未知与日俱增。我所指的是，比如我从理论上推演这种情景：我父亲离开了我母亲，而我母亲……呃，依然在艰难地识字写字，假使她要抚养大约四个孩子，既无法读写，又没办法真正找到工作——她在圣卢克收容所做志愿者——我就会想：“天哪，要是那一件事情发生了，我的整个人生将会多么不同。所以那就是一种特权，我——我从未承认过的特权，因为它某种程度上是与生俱来的，就像内置在我的生命里一样。那么我现在还会坐在这里吗？如果那一件小事发生了，我还会是今天的自己吗？”不会。我还会对世界充满雄心和乐观吗？或者我理论上——我是否可能会充满怨恨？我是否可能会像我的其他一些朋友一样？他们来自我长大的同一座城市，他们没有父亲，他们也许……

我曾对我的某些朋友说过——我对我老家一位特别的朋友说过：“如果你只要能去找份工作干上几个月，我就会替你付好几年的房租。”没能实现。他无法在赛百味找份工作干上 3 个月来换取我替他付几年房租。最终我还是帮了他，但我——我只记得 10 年前说过那番话，它恰恰向我凸显了：我拥有一种真正深层的、与生俱来的特权，我甚至没有意识到我——它有时候是创伤，是我的 DNA。我的兄弟们生来全都非常聪明，呃，要是当年我没有——要是当年我没有那样的双亲，要是我没有自己所拥有的那套基因构成，那么这套建议还适用吗？那我给这个世界的那些建议，还适用吗？所以我——我——我——我咀嚼着这些，心想：它必须经受住那个视角的检验，才能具备广泛的适用性，从而我认为，才能成为有效的建议。

英文原文

>> And my privilege isn't necessarily that I built a business and that I have money now and all those things. My privilege is something happened when I was young from the point of maybe even where my parents about it. I don't feel guilty about it, but it just has allowed me to see my own bias and to realize that I have this unknown unknown.

Unfortunately, that's growing by the day because I'm getting more entrenched in my own privilege. And what I mean by this is like I play out the scenario theoretically. My dad left my mom and my mom um still struggles to read and write and she would have had like four kids, can't read or write, can't really get employment. She worked at St. Luke's hospice as a volunteer and I go, "God, if that one thing had happened, how different would my of life have been and and so that's like a privilege that I I've never even acknowledged because I it's kind of inherent. It was like built into my life. And then would I be sat here now? Would I be be the person I am today if that one little thing had happened?" No. Would I be ambitious and optimistic about the world? Or would I be theoretically could I be resentful? Could I be like some of my other friends who came from the same city where I came from who didn't have a father who may

I've said to some of my friends I said to one one of my particular friends back home if you would just get a job for a couple of months I will pay your rent for years didn't happen can't get a job at his subway for for 3 months so that I would pay his rent for years I ended up helping him anyway but I it just I remember saying that 10 years ago it just highlighted to me that there's a real deep inherent privilege that I have that I'm like not even aware that I it sometimes it's trauma my DNA my brothers are all very smart naturally um and what if I didn't what if like I didn't have those two parents and what if I didn't have the whatever genetic composition I had like then would the advice apply that then would the advice I give to the world would it apply so I I I I mle that and go it's got to pass that lens for it to be broadly applicable and therefore I think effective advice

能动性与普遍现实的冲突

我——我赞赏你对人们抱有的同情与同理心，并且你能进行这种自我探——探索，意味着你是不可多得的一类人。面对每个个体，每个人都希望用自己所拥有的东西做到极致。我的意思是，如果我去造访一个小镇，里面有蓬勃发展的 10 家、15 家、20 家企业，那里有足够多的创业者为人们创造选择余地，那会是一个值得去的好城镇，对吧？而如果我走进一个没有创业者的城镇，那里就像——每个人都感到受压迫，那里只有一家大型开市客，那是镇上唯一的雇主，那将会是一个——城镇。所以我要说的仅仅是，你需要达到具备能动性的人群的关键多数，而这会提振——就像拥有少数……你知道在日本他们称之为“将军家族”，对吧？将军家族带动起那一小片社区，围绕着那个将军家族，最终会产生许多其他企业和许多其他——它会向外扩散。但当你在世界上拥有一家庞然大物，它是镇上唯一的公司，是唯一向你家门口送货的地方，是唯一的——是买 CD 唯一的地方，是看 Netflix 唯一的地方，那么几乎其他所有人都沦为了纯粹的消费者。

英文原文

>> I I love your level of compassion and empathy for people and the fact that you're having that self explo exploration means you're an incredible type of person with each individual. Each person wants to do the most with what they've got. I'm saying that if I was to visit a small town that had a thriving 10, 15, 20 businesses in there, there were enough entrepreneurs to create optionality for people. That would be a good town to go to, right? And if I go to a town where there are no entrepreneurs and there are like everyone feels downtrodden and there's one big Costco and that's the only employer in town, that's going to be a town. So all I'm saying is you need a critical mass of people who have uh agency and that lifts up the like having a few do you know in in Japan they call it the Shogun family, right? and the Shogun family lifts up that that little community and that around that Shogun family you end up with lots of other businesses and lots of other like it it it flows out. But when you have one monolith in the world that is the only company in town and it is the only place that ships stuff to your door and it's the there's only one place to get your CDs and there's only one place to get your Netflix then pretty much everyone else is just reduced to being a consumer.

你怎么看，尼克？

英文原文

>> What do you think, Nick?

还是那句话，我之前就说过。我——我——我百分之百赞同这种观点。我自己也是一名创业者，但我——我预计，在赋权状态下运作适用于——毫无疑问会适用于观看你节目的很大一部分受众，对吧？看这个节目的许许多多人都有创业精神，想要去创业，诸如此类。但我猜想，在地球上符合那种范式的人连 5% 都不到。而我想要创造的是一个对每个人都奏效的范式。

英文原文

>> Again, I've said it before. I I I I agree with this sentiment 100%. I am an entrepreneur myself, but I I expect that operating in empowerment applies to it will no doubt apply to a high percentage of the people who watch your show, right? Lots and lots of people who watch this show are entrepreneurial, want to be entrepreneurial, so on and so forth. But I suspect you're talking about less than 5% of people on planet Earth that fit that paradigm. And I want to create a paradigm that works for everybody.

而你的意思是，如果你触达了那 5%……

英文原文

>> And you're saying if you hit those 5%.

话说回来，即便在英国，3000 万劳动人口中也有 600 万个体经营者。这并不——这并不算微不足道。这是个相当可观的比例。没错。这——这是一项重大的机——机遇，参与其中的人比以往任何时候都多。如果你去问一位卫生专业人士：“你如何获得希望？”去健身房，去跑步，诸如此类。你现在是在问一位创业者：“你如何通过个人能动性获得希望？”我要告诉你行之有效的方法。对我有效的方法就是创业途径。

英文原文

>> Well, even in the UK, it's six million self-employed people out of 30 million workers. It's not it's not tiny. It's a pretty decent percent. Right. It it is a major opport opportunity that more people than ever could take part in. If you asked a health professional, how do you get hope? Go to the gym, go for a run, all that stuff. You're asking an entrepreneur, how do you get hope through personal agency? I'm going to tell you what's worked. What's worked for me is the entrepreneurial method.

所以也许我们需要去问问更广泛的人群。

英文原文

>> So maybe we need to ask a broad group of people.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

但我料想，他们给你的回应会是：平凡生活的宁静奇迹。

英文原文

>> But I suspect that what they will come back to you with is the quiet miracle of a normal life.

如果你想要那个，那太棒了。我——我想要那个，而且我希望每个人都能拥有那个。但那已经消失了。它已经不复存在了。房子买不起，抱歉；本地的工作机会不存在；没有人支付体面的薪资。比如所有那些东西，我也同样想要。坐在那里渴望它是很棒，对吧？但那给不了我希望。那带给我的只有失望，因为那种生活曾经存在过，对吧？我——绝大多数人梦寐以求用来抚养家庭的房子，现在要 120 万英镑了，

英文原文

>> If you want that, that's great. I I want that and I want that for everyone. That's gone away. It's gone. Houses are unaffordable. Sorry. Local jobs don't exist. No one's paying healthy wages. Like all of that stuff that I want as well. It's great to sit there and want it, right? But that doesn't give me hope. That gives me disappointment that it used to exist, right? My the family home that most people would love to raise a family in, it's 1.2 million pounds now,

对吧？而如果你想解决这个问题，你就必须施行这个。

英文原文

>> right? And if you want to fix that, you have to enact this.

是的。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

你必须那样做。大多数人……

英文原文

>> You have to do that. Most people

那是什么……人们会好奇那张纸上写了什么。所以这——这是，你知道的，我的意思是，我工作的主要核心就是构想出一套不同的经济范式，一种理解经济因果关系的方式，它能导向丹所偏好的世界，我所偏好的世界。我认为——我不知道，但我感觉到那也是你所偏好的世界。而你必须要做的是，你必须推倒现有的经济框架，用一个能够促使……的 21 世纪产物去取代它。

英文原文

>> What is People are going to wonder what's in that piece of paper. So th this is, you know, I mean, the the the main body of my work is coming up with a different economic paradigm, a way of understanding economic cause and effect that leads to the world that Dan prefers, that I prefer. I think I don't know, but I sense it's the world that you prefer. And what you have to do is you have to rip down the existing economic framework and replace it with a 21st century thing that inclines

政策制定者做出好的决策，而不是坏的决策。而这本小册子本身——你能展示一下那本小册子吗？

英文原文

policymakers to make good decisions not bad ones. And the booklet itself that that can can you show the booklet?

行。

英文原文

>> Yeah.

这本小册子是《21世纪经济学》。它是面向政策制定者和专业人士的，不过如果你访问 marketsbuiltforhumans.org，就可以免费下载。这不过是范式本身的一种体现：从认为我们只应提高资本效率，转向增进人类福祉；从将人类理解为理性经济人（homo economicus），转向理解为智人（homo sapiens）；从将经济理解为帕累托最优均衡，转向一个复杂的生态系统等等。但当你以一种新的方式理解它时，你就会对应该如何组织这个世界得出截然不同的结论。而那是全球转型的起点。

英文原文

>> So this booklet is 21st century economics. Now this is aimed at policy makers and professionals just but but if you go to uh marketsbuilt forhumans.org org. You can download this for free and that is merely an expression of the paradigm itself. Going from believing that uh we should just increase uh capital efficiency to human flourishing. Going from understanding human beings as homoeconomicist to homo sapiens. Going from understanding the economy as a parto optimal equilibrium to a complex to an ecology all this stuff. But when you understand it in a new way, you come to very different conclusions about how you should organize the world. And that is the starting point for global transformation.

我很赞同。他已经是亿万富翁了，他有时间，也有钱坐飞机去全世界做这件事。尽管去做吧。而在他做这件事的同时，

英文原文

>> I love it. He's already a billionaire. He's got time on his hands and he's got money to fly around the world doing it. Do it. And while he's doing it,

我所需要的只是像你这样的人帮我解释它。

英文原文

>> all I need is for people like you to help me explain it.

是的。我很赞同，我并不反对它。我只是说，真正能给大多数人带来希望的，是掌控自己的生活，让他们本周就能做些事情来改善自己的生活。所以当——

英文原文

>> Yeah. And and like I I love it. I'm not against it. I'm just saying what will give most people hope is taking agency over their life where they can do something this week to improve their life. So while

下次见面会有一场测试——

英文原文

>> next time I see there will be a test

下载下来，把它交给你那里的议员。

英文原文

>> and and download download it give it to your law makers.

阅读资源与两种视角

那么我要做的就是，听众们可以在这里阅读不同的材料。我们这里有丹的书，我会把链接放在下面。丹，在你看来，有没有哪一本最适合先读？

英文原文

>> Well so what I'll do then I mean we've got different reading materials people that are listening can uh can pursue here. Um we've got Dan's books here which I'll link below. Dan is there a particular best book to start with in your opinion.

最新的一本叫《生活方式型企业攻略》（Lifestyle Business Playbook），它基本上是关于如何从小本生意起步，以及做一门能给你带来更多乐趣、自由和灵活性的生意。我喜欢支持任何试图创造更好经济的人。我认识的一些最痛苦的人一直在等待体制改变，我不希望你成为那样的人，我希望你在自己的生活中有所行动。

英文原文

>> The most recent one is called the lifestyle business playbook and it's basically how to get started with a small business and a business that will give you more fun freedom and flexibility and I like the idea of supporting anyone who's trying to create a better economy. Some of the most miserable people I know are waiting for the system to change. And I don't want you to be that person. I want you to be doing something in your own life.

然后这边，我也会把你的所有书的链接都放在下面。不过——

英文原文

>> And then over here, I mean, I'm going to link all of your books below as well. But

是的，我只是认为，全球转型的起点在于理解——看，经济学是世界的操作系统。如果是错误的操作系统，你最终会面临非常糟糕的处境。

英文原文

>> yeah, I mean, I I just think that um a starting point for global transformation is under look, economics is the operating system of the world. If it's the wrong operating system, you end up with a very bad circumstance. I

而且经济学对大多数人来说是隐形的，他们甚至不明白这是他们赖以生存的水水域。他们不明白政策制定者是基于对经济运作方式的某种特定理解，来做出影响他们生活的决策。如果那是错的，你就会做出一些糟糕的决定。如果你相信繁荣是从顶层涓滴而下的，你就会推行某一套政策。如果你相信增长是由中间向外构建的，你就会制定一套完全不同的政策。如果你相信中产阶级是经济增长的结果，你就会走上一条路；如果你相信欣欣向荣的中产阶级是增长的原因，你就会在政策上采取完全不同的一套做法，所有这些都与丹所期望的一致。但你必须从那里开始。那些是你必须回答的元问题，然后你顺理成章推导到丹所偏好的所有事情。但你必须从顶层开始，必须从支配人们如何看待经济因果关系的那套思想观念开始。而这正是本册子的意义所在。

英文原文

>> and in economics is invisible to most people. They don't even understand it's the it's the water they're swimming in. They don't understand that policymakers are making decisions that affect their lives based on a particular understanding of how the economy works. And if that's wrong, then you're going to make some terrible decisions. If you believe that prosperity trickles down from the top, you're going to enact a certain set of policies. If you believe that growth is built from the middle out, you will make an entirely different set of uh uh uh policies. If you believe that the middle class is a consequence of economic growth, you will go one way. If you believe that the thriving middle class is the cause of growth, you will do a completely different set of things in terms of policy. All of them aligned with what Dan wants. But but that's where you have to start. That's that's the meta those are the meta questions that you have to answer and then you and then you deduce logically to all of the things that Dan prefers. But you have to start up here. You have to start with the set of ideas that govern how people see economic cause and effect. And that is what this is.

我会把链接附在下方。非常感谢，我们结束了。

英文原文

>> I shall link it below. Thank you so much. We're done.

谢谢。

英文原文

>> Thank you.

你们太棒了。YouTube 有一套全新的疯狂算法，他们基于人工智能和你的所有观看行为，能够准确知道你接下来想看什么视频。算法说这个视频对你来说是最完美的视频。现在每个观看的人看到的都会有所不同。去看看这个视频吧，我敢打赌你可能会喜欢

英文原文

>> You are fantastic. YouTube have this new crazy algorithm where they know exactly what video you would like to watch next based on AI and all of your viewing behavior. And the algorithm says that this video is the perfect video for you. It's different for everybody looking right now. Check this video out and I bet you you might love