DOGE vs USAID, Crypto Framework, Google's $75B AI Spend, US Sovereign Wealth Fund, GLP-1s

I have four pieces of advice for people. Number one, get good sleep. Number two, exercise. Number three, diet, number four, meditation. And if you want to do that, it's very simple. You get the calm meditation. You get the eight sleep sleep. You get the Fitbot for fitness. And then you get intro sent to your gift. What a great year. Just talking about his investments. This is a four thing gym focus. The four essentials. You get a good fitness system. This is brought to you by my NGO, which is all in NGO. USA gave us 18 million less. You guys forgot to tell you about it. But don't worry. It's in an offshore account for all of us. When we get back to Ethiopia and Vietnam, we have an all in dance on jokes there. Okay.

我有四条建议给大家。第一，好好睡觉。第二，锻炼身体。第三，注意饮食。第四，冥想。如果你想做到这些，其实很简单。你可以试试冥想应用 Calm；睡眠工具 Eight Sleep；健身应用 Fitbod。你会发现这一年过得很棒。这些正是我的投资项目。我们重点关注这四个基本要素，提供一个良好的健身系统。这是由我的非营利组织 All In NGO 推动的。美国给了我们 1,800 万美元，差点忘了告诉大家。不过别担心，这些资金在离岸账户里。当我们回到埃塞俄比亚和越南时，我们还会集体表演个舞蹈呢。这只是开个玩笑。

All right, everybody. Welcome back to the all in podcast. The number one, MAGA, finance, business and personal optimization health. Yes, we are now larger in the health space than Huberman, Tim Ferriss and Peter Atia combined. Yes, we've really started to grow the pod. And if you want to, you can subscribe to the podcast on X dot com YouTube Spotify and all those other places, especially if you want to have an incredibly positive world enlightening conversation with Ray Dalio. You can tune in to Friedberg and Ray Dalio on the channel. Great conversation. It's gotten three or 400,000 views already on YouTube. How's the feedback been? Do you got so much great feedback on your Ray Dalio? Is it the end of the empire or were we coming back? What's awesome is a lot of the recommendations he shared is becoming policy, it seems, for the Trump administration, Elon and Bessent and others in the administration have echoed trying to get government deficit below 3% of GDP. That seems to be the economic, magical number. And if you can do that rates drop, I think that's resonated. It was great to have him publish that a couple of weeks ago. Talk with us about it. It's great.

好的，大家好。欢迎回来收听“全能”播客，这是排名第一的MAGA（美国再次伟大运动）财经、商业和个人优化健康播客。是的，我们现在在健康领域的影响力已经超过了Huberman、Tim Ferriss和Peter Atia的总和。是的，我们的播客确实开始迅速发展。如果你愿意，你可以在X.com、YouTube、Spotify以及其他平台上订阅我们的播客。特别是如果你想听Ray Dalio的精彩对话，去我们的频道收听Friedberg和Ray Dalio的对谈吧。这段精彩的对话在YouTube上已经获得了三四十万的观看次数。反馈如何？你收到了很多关于Ray Dalio的精彩反馈。他谈到的是帝国的终结还是我们的回归？令人振奋的是，他分享的许多建议似乎已经成为特朗普政府的政策，例如埃隆和政府中的其他人也都在努力将政府赤字控制在GDP的3%以下。这似乎是经济的神奇数字。如果能达到这一目标，利率将会下降，我觉得这引起了很多人的共鸣。几周前能和他一起发布这一消息并讨论，真是太棒了。

Great bonus content from the team at all in today. We're super excited to have our friend Antonio Veracias joining the show. Antonio is the CEO of Valor Equity Partners and he's made some solid investments. He was one of the first investors in Tesla, SpaceX, Athena, tons of great, or he's a second investor in Athena after me. Welcome to the program in Tony. He puts like more in. Thank you, Jason. I was also with you too, by the way. Yes. Yes. You did the series A, I believe, or the B. What did you do? We were in the B. You were in the B. Yeah. Yes. You were in the Sherbin round. Okay. Well, welcome to the program Antonio Veracias. And we've got a full docket today and we might even have a special caller from the White House today. No promises, but you never know.

今天团队带来了一些很棒的额外内容。我们非常高兴邀请到我们的朋友安东尼奥·维拉西亚斯参加节目。安东尼奥是Valor Equity Partners的首席执行官，他做出了一些非常成功的投资。他是特斯拉、SpaceX和Athena的早期投资者之一。事实上，除了我，他是Athena的第二位投资者。欢迎加入我们的节目，安东尼奥。感谢你的加入。谢谢你，杰森。顺便提一下，我也和你一起参与了。是的，你负责了A轮融资还是B轮？我们参与了B轮融资。哦，你在Sherbin轮的融资中。好的，欢迎你加入我们的节目，安东尼奥·维拉西亚斯。今天我们有丰富的内容，甚至可能会有来自白宫的特别来电。没有承诺，但谁知道呢。

We are 17 days into the Trump 2.0 presidency. And seems like the main character gentleman is Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency. And they seem to have found a little known agency, USA. Let's unpack it and talk about USA and Doge maybe in three acts. The first one, let me just educate the audience on what USA is and then get y'all's general reaction to it. Most Americans probably haven't heard of USA. It stands for the United States Agency for International Development. It's established by JFK by an executive order back in 1961. Wall Street Journal summed up its purpose as, quote, make friends and influence countries in the American interest. According to the US Gov website, the purpose of USA is to extend assistance to countries recovering from disaster. You got a budget of about $45 billion a year on Dubai. And that's about $150 per American per year. They have at least 10,000 employees or did. And as of 2023, they had programs in 130 countries, obviously, there's 195 countries in the world. And the budget doubled under Biden from 26 to 45. The budget was between 15 and 20 billion during Trump's first term. But the White House and I guess Elon and the Doge team found out about this USA, when in there and found all kinds of interesting spend, $2.5 million to fund EV charging stations in Vietnam, 2 million for sex changes in LGBTQ activism in Guatemala, 1.5 million to a Serbian LGBTQ group, 70 K for a D E I musical 47 K for our transgender opera in Columbia. The D I musical, by the way, is an iron. So if you get if you're make it to Galway, you can see that D E I musical. This one on and on. And it has become quite a story.

我们已经进入特朗普2.0总统任期的第17天，看来主要的“人物”是Doge，也就是政府效率部。他们似乎发现了一个鲜为人知的机构，USA。让我们分三部分解析一下USA和Doge。首先，我将向观众介绍一下USA是什么，然后听取大家对此的基本看法。大多数美国人可能未曾听说过USA，它是美国国际开发署的缩写，由肯尼迪总统在1961年通过行政命令建立。根据《华尔街日报》的总结，其目的是，在维护美国利益的同时，交朋友并影响其他国家。根据美国政府网站的信息，USA的目的是向遭受灾害的国家提供援助。其年度预算约为450亿美元，相当于每位美国人每年大约150美元。USA曾经或目前至少有10,000名员工，并且截至2023年，他们在全球130个国家开展项目，而世界上总共有195个国家。在拜登任期内，预算从260亿增加到450亿。在特朗普的第一个任期内，预算则介于150亿到200亿之间。不过白宫、以及据称是Elon和Doge团队，发现了这个USA，并发现了一些有趣的花费，比如在越南花费250万美元建设电动车充电站，200万美元用于危地马拉的变性手术及LGBTQ活动，向塞尔维亚的LGBTQ团体投入150万美元，7万美元用于一个多样性、公平和包容的音乐剧，4.7万美元用于哥伦比亚的一个变性歌剧。此外，如果你有机会到达戈尔韦，还可以观看这个DEI音乐剧。这一切形成了一个引人注目的故事。

Antonio, you're our guest here this week. You and I and sacks. And Elon spent a little time at Twitter during the takeover, where I think a lot of these techniques were first put into action, your thoughts on what's happening with Doge. I mean, look, Jason, the first one that you guys were having me. It's great to see everyone. You can see the musical. I like to see musical. I know I booked it. We're all going to the world. What is it called? Do you is there actually a name of the musical? Yeah. Yeah. I come up the musical. Oh, man. It's a heartwarming story. I apologize. I apologize. Sorry, guys. I'm not qualified for. I apologize. Yeah. So I think the Doge story maybe starts with the Twitter takeover. Yeah. Right. So Twitter was spewing the woke mind virus in the world, which is why in London, to begin with. And you know, when we got there, as you know, was basically breaking even, and there was going to be 12 and a half-ish billion dollars of debt in the company. So a billion and a half dollars in interest cost that there was no one to pay, which led to the turnaround, I think, which was the biggest turnaround, like of all time. It's literally the biggest turnaround I think ever in history. Second biggest tech deal ever done. 80% of the people gone. That doesn't include all the contractors that were there. And, you know, the company's not servicing its debt, and they just priced yesterday. They're one of their bank deals at 97 cents. So this is a huge win. It means the company's doing extremely well. Other people bought the bank debt, and then the bank debt traded up to a little over 98. So 98 and 5.8s, you know, a giant business successor, a rousing business success. Jason, you were there for part of it. You saw it. It was a disaster.

安东尼奥，这周你是我们的嘉宾。你和我，还有萨克斯，还有埃隆，在推特收购期间一起工作，我认为很多这些技巧最初就是在那里开始实践的。关于狗狗币最近的动向，你怎么看？看，杰森，这是我第一次参与你们的活动。见到大家很高兴。你可以看到音乐。我喜欢看音乐。我订了票。我们大家要去看这个音乐剧。叫什么名字来着？是的，我想起名字了。哦，天哪，这是一个感人的故事。我为我之前的不专业道歉。我为此道歉。所以我觉得狗狗币的故事可能是从推特收购开始的。在收购之前，推特一直在传播所谓的“觉醒意识病毒”。你知道，那个时候公司基本上是持平的，但却背负着大约125亿美元的债务，其中有15亿美元的利息没有人支付。这导致了我认为是有史以来最大的一次公司逆转。毫不夸张地说，这是历史上最大的一次逆转，是第二大的科技交易。有80%的员工离开了，还不包括所有外包员工。而且公司并没有偿还其债务。他们昨天刚定价其银行债券为97美分。这是一个巨大的胜利，意味着公司运营得非常好。其他人买下了银行债务，然后银行债券交易价格上升到98美分多一点。所以这个价格显示了巨大的商业成功，杰森，你也见证了部分过程，你看到那时候公司是一团糟。

This place was, it was tampons in the bathrooms and every woke thing you possibly imagined and no one in the office, it was so bad that the pans had gone dry in the conference rooms, which is incredible. I think that's how the church had gone dry because they were never being used or because they were being used so much. They were never being used. Yeah. We got there on the Halloween weekend and we started whiteboarding and, you know, the way that we're going to work. Next time, no. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, everything. It's incredible. But flowers were impeccable. Food being made fresh every day for thousands of people and thrown away three times a day, tossed in the garbage, wouldn't give it to the homeless. It was just, it was shockingly bad. Bureaucrashig on mad, bad incentives. People don't care.

这个地方，厕所里有卫生棉条，还有你能想到的所有“觉醒”元素，但办公室里却没人。情况糟糕透顶，会议室的锅都干了，这实在是太夸张了。我想教堂也是如此，因为那些地方从来没人用。我们是在万圣节周末到的那儿，开始在白板上写下我们的工作计划。下次就不这样了。是的，我的意思是，情况真的很惊人。花布置得无可挑剔，每天都为成千上万的人准备新鲜的食物，但一天会丢弃三次，直接扔进垃圾桶，也不给无家可归的人。这一切糟糕到令人震惊，因糟糕的不良激励和官僚作风让人们毫不关心。

So it was both, I think this turned into two things. One was just stop the woke mind virus. You know, the interesting thing is they do extra brand safety checks there now and they have 99% rating and brand safety now, right? So stop the woke mind virus going in the world. Number one, number two, fix the company and both have happened. It's been a couple of years now, right? Three years now and both have happened, not even three years, two and a half years really and both have happened. And I think you take that that was sort of the warm up act for what's gone at Doge, which is either the President of the United States, President Trump wants to make it very great again and that I think begins with making the government great and you got to fix it. It's the turnaround. This is the biggest turnaround of all time and President Trump has the courage to do it and he's got a great ally in Atlanta, make it happen in Doge.

翻译为中文： 所以，我认为这变成了两个事情。第一，就是要阻止“觉醒心灵病毒”。有趣的是，现在他们进行了额外的品牌安全检查，品牌安全评级达到了99%，对吧？所以要阻止这种“觉醒心灵病毒”在世界范围内蔓延。其一，其二，要解决公司的问题，而且这两个目标都实现了。已经过去几年了，不是三年，而是两年半，这两个目标都实现了。我觉得这就像是为“Doge”事件作准备，无论是美国总统还是特朗普总统，都希望让事情变得非常伟大，我认为这要从使政府变得伟大开始，我们必须修复它。这是史上最大的转变，特朗普总统有勇气去做，并且在亚特兰大有一个伟大的盟友，在“Doge”中实现这一目标。

And so the numbers are pretty easy, right? We're spending six and a half trillion. We bring in four and a half trillion. We got to find two trillion dollars somewhere interest costs a trillion dollars a year. The bond markets were going up that the bond bond was going up a lot because people didn't believe that we couldn't stop spending creating inflation. You see those trading down now as Doge is starting to take effect. We'll see it's real. The stuff you're talking about, it's sort of extraordinary what's happening in the, by being honest, that's probably the right fraud, waste and abuse. And these kind of 10% of the budget is probably fraud. I think it might be low actually. So you're talking about 650 billion, a trillion in waste. I think that's probably about right. That alone fixes the problem. But it's really serious about it. Jason, for me and what scared me when I, we first started thinking about this and looking, I'm not there full time. I'm in and out a little bit and trying to help where I can, but I don't have time. When I thought, when this started, I thought we had a democracy that had turned to a bureaucracy. What I'm afraid of now is we have a bureaucracy that is about to turn into a kleptocracy. I mean, a Latin American style kleptocracy. The stuff you're talking about, that is pure fraud.

所以，数字很简单对吧？我们每年花六万五千亿美元，收入是四万五千亿美元，我们需要在其他地方找到两万亿美元。而且，每年的利息成本是1万亿美元。债券市场之前上涨了很多，因为人们不相信我们能停止开支，从而引发通货膨胀。你现在看到市场在下跌，因为Doge正在开始生效。我们看看情况是否真的如此。你提到的那些事情，坦白说，简直不可思议，这可能正是因为欺诈、浪费和滥用。而这其中可能占预算的10%都是欺诈。我其实觉得这或许太低估了。你说的可能涉及6500亿甚至一万亿美元的浪费，这说法可能是对的。光是解决这一点就能解决问题。但我们需要非常认真对待这个问题。对于我来说，Jason，让我感到害怕的是，当我开始思考和研究这个问题的时候，我感觉我们的民主已经变成了一个官僚体制。现在我害怕的是，这个官僚体制正要转变成一个拉美风格的盗贼统治。这些你提到的，完全是欺诈行为。

And you're wearing some jokes out of it, the DA musical. But if you go into the data that's coming out of USAID, what you find is, there's a lot of political contributions going on. They're political itself being funded by USAID. I mean, that is pure corruption. That's like a Latin American style autocracy. And we cannot let it go there. I mean, I think this happened just in the meantime. And I'm super grateful to all the people there. There's 80 plus people there, all patriots gone full time. Okay. So, Shamoth, you've been watching this here from Antonio, which are general take on what we saw in the first, I don't know, 20 days of doge. I know 15 days. Sorry. It's 15 days of doge.

您正在开一些关于「DA音乐剧」的玩笑。但如果你查看来自美国国际开发署（USAID）的数据，你会发现，有很多政治捐款正在进行。这些政治本身是由美国国际开发署资助的。我是说，这纯粹是腐败。这就像拉丁美洲风格的专制，我们不能让事情发展到那种地步。我觉得这只是暂时的。在那里工作的所有人我都非常感激。他们有80多人，都是全职工作的爱国者。好的，Shamoth，你一直在从安东尼奥观察，到目前为止你对我们在头20天里看到的事情有什么总体看法吗？哦，是15天，对不起，是doge的15天。

So let me try to give you a little bit of historical context, because I think that that's important. I think whenever I hear so many people breathlessly saying some version of WTF, as if this is totally new, it's not new. And I'll give you two examples, but one that I really want to double click on. The two examples I'll give you is that in 1941, the Truman Committee was formed because there was a fear that the spending by the Defense Department was completely out of whack. And over the next six or seven years, and this is really what gave Truman the credibility to them become Roosevelt's Vice President, was they found incredible levels of waste, fraud and abuse during the war, before the war effort, and then after Pearl Harbor during the war process.

让我尝试为你提供一点历史背景，因为我认为这很重要。每当我听到很多人屏息问“这到底是怎么回事”时，好像这完全是新的事情，但其实并不是。我会给你两个例子，其中一个我想详细说明。第一个例子是，在1941年，成立了一个名为“杜鲁门委员会”的小组，因为当时有人担心国防部的开支完全失控。在接下来的六到七年中，这个委员会发现了惊人的浪费、欺诈和滥用行为，这为杜鲁门建立了信誉，以至于后来成为罗斯福的副总统。第二个例子是珍珠港事件爆发前后的战争筹备期间和战争过程中的问题。

Over seven years, that committee, and this is in 1941 dollars, they were tasked and budgeted with only 20 or $30,000. Okay. Over the next six years, they spent less than a million inflation adjusted to 2023. This is where I found the data was about six and a half million they spent. You know how much they saved? It's estimated they saved somewhere between 10 to $15 billion in 1941. That's a quarter of a trillion 2023 dollars.

在超过七年的时间里，这个委员会（在1941年的美元计价下）只被分配了2万到3万美元的预算。在接下来的六年中，他们花费不到一百万美元，这个金额经过通货膨胀调整到2023年大约是650万美元。你知道他们节省了多少钱吗？据估计，他们在1941年的时候节省了大约100亿到150亿美元，相当于2023年的四分之一万亿美元。

The second example is we did this under President Clinton, and that was called the National Partnership for Reinventing Government. So the first thing that I think it's important to acknowledge is this is not new. We've done Doge twice before. Both have been successful. The Harry Truman one was incredibly important because it really set guardrails for how this can be done. Everything in that committee was a Senate committee was unanimous.

第二个例子是我们在克林顿总统任内做过这个项目，叫做“国家政府革新伙伴关系”。首先，我认为重要的一点是，要承认这并不是新鲜事。我们之前已经做了两次类似的事情，且都取得了成功。哈里·杜鲁门时期的项目非常重要，因为它为这种做事方式设定了明确的指导原则。该委员会的所有决定在参议院委员会中都是一致通过的。

So it was Republicans and Democrats that found waste, fraud, and abuse everywhere. They saved an enormous amount of money. The second, which is interesting, is these last two versions of Doge were driven and led by Democrats, the same people today who are basically saying, Hey, hold on a second. We have congressional committees or we have inspector generals. And they lacked the awareness to know that their own party was the driving force for this two times before. And I think it's important to just acknowledge that those methods are not good anymore.

所以，发现浪费、欺诈和滥用问题的既有共和党人，也有民主党人。他们节省了大量资金。而有趣的是，最近两次针对Doge的行动是由民主党主导和推动的，这些民主党人如今却在对别人说：“等等，我们有国会委员会或监察长。”但他们没有意识到自己政党之前两次都是推动这种行动的力量。我认为，重要的是要承认这些方法现在已经不再有效了。

Right? Because I think what we're finding early days is the rot is super pervasive. There's no accountability. And so I think you need people to look at it with fresh eyes. And what is Doge at the end of the day? What they are are read only auditors of the truth. And the press secretary in the White House made this very clear. It's incredible. The power that read only access gives you all that allows you to do is just take the data and present the data. They can't manipulate it. And what they're able to do is publish all of this stuff in real time. And that's why this is so important, because if it went into a congressional committee, to be honest with you, it would sit there and stew for six, seven, eight, nine months, you would maybe get small little tidbits of it.

对吧？因为我觉得我们现在开始发现，腐败非常普遍，几乎无处不在。没有责任追究。因此，我认为需要有新眼光的人来看待这个问题。那么狗狗币（Doge）在本质上是什么呢？他们实际上是事实的只读审计员。白宫的新闻秘书对此非常明确地表述。这简直令人难以置信。只读访问的力量在于，它只允许你获取和展示数据，而不能操纵数据。他们能够实时发布所有这些内容。这就是为什么这如此重要，因为如果进入国会委员会，坦率地说，可能要搁置六、七、八、九个月，你可能只能得到一些小碎片的信息。

But now instead, you're just getting the full thrust of it. And what is the biggest thing that I find concerning? I think it's what Antonio said, which is that the media who are supposed to be this intermediary layer that's totally objective between the government and the people were not independent at all, but had all kinds of hidden incentives, eight million dollars to Politico, several million dollars to the BBC. I think it's important to ask what's going on. And by the way, that also has historical context.

但现在，你只是完全感受到它的冲击。那么我最担心的是什么呢？我认为是安东尼奥所说的，那些本应该在政府和人民之间保持完全客观中立的媒体，实际上并不独立，还存在各种隐藏的利益，比如给《政治报》800万美元，给BBC几百万美元。我觉得很有必要问问这背后发生了什么。此外，这也有其历史背景。

This is exactly what happened in the sixties and seventies, where it turned out that record companies were paying DJs to play songs. There was a huge set of lawsuits and trial cases, and the result was a change in the law. Right. And we call that Piola now, which is you cannot take this money without disclosing it. And so had this money been absorbed by these entities and actually disclosed, maybe we'd be okay. But Nick, I sent you a link. Maybe you can throw it on the screen for these guys. This is a very simple manifestation of this cycle. We talked about this guys, and we didn't realize how connected it all was.

这段话的大意是：这正是六七十年代发生的事情，当时唱片公司向电台DJ付钱来播放他们的歌曲。随后发生了大量诉讼和审判，结果导致了法律的更改。现在我们称这种行为为"Payola"，即不能在不公开的情况下接受这笔钱。如果这些资金被这些实体吸收并且公开披露，也许我们不会有问题。但尼克，我给你发了一个链接，可能你可以在屏幕上展示给大家看。这是这个循环的一个非常简单的表现形式。我们之前就讨论过这个问题，但没有意识到它们之间的联系有多么紧密。

But we were asking ourselves during the election cycle last year, why are all these articles buried? Why aren't we really getting the truth? And it turns out that the people who were responsible for telling the truth, somewhere along the chain, were cajoled or just told not to tell the truth, influenced by all of this back channel money that was going back and forth from the government to these folks. Okay. Yeah. Let me just give some numbers to what you were referencing there. The USAID organization has been giving money as have other agencies to journals, databases and subscriptions.

我们在去年的选举周期中自问，为什么这些文章都被埋没了？为什么我们得不到真实的信息？结果发现，那些负责传递真实信息的人，在某个环节上被劝说或直接被告知不要讲真话，受到来自政府和他们之间的秘密资金流动的影响。好了，我来为你提供一些你提到的背景数字。美国国际开发署（USAID）和其他机构一直在向期刊、数据库和订阅服务提供资金。

There's probably some amount of that that makes sense. However, when we look at this, during Trump one, spend on political was averaging around 1.3 million a year, but it suddenly ballooned up to 8 million a year under Biden. And you can see the quarterly payments here on this chart. So there's some normal amount to spend on publications or for a library at an organization. And so what we're looking here is all federal agencies. And suddenly during Biden, there is a very suspicious ramp up in spend to Politico.

这在某种程度上可能是有道理的。然而，当我们查看这个问题时，发现特朗普时期每年的政治支出平均约为130万美元，但在拜登时期突然飙升到了每年800万美元。你可以在这张图表中看到每季度的支出数据。所以，对一个组织来说，在出版物或图书馆上的花费应该有一个正常的数额。然而，我们现在看的这个图表涉及所有联邦机构，而在拜登时期，对Politico的花费突然大幅增加，这显得很可疑。

All of this is breaking. A lot of this hasn't been verified yet. So we'll put that caveat on it. And then there is a number of 34 million that's been floating around. That's all years back to 2008, not just 2024. Less people have that number juxtaposed or misattributed. When political was acquired back in 2021, they were doing about 200 million in revenue. So this would be about 4% of their revenue. It's pretty significant. The BBC also received 2.7 million in funding from USAID in 2023. That was 8% of their annual income. That's a little suspicious.

这一切都在迅速变化。很多信息尚未得到验证，所以我们需要谨慎对待。同时，还有一个3400万的数字在流传，这指的是从2008年至今的总和，不仅仅是2024年的数据，以免有人将其误解或错误归因。2021年，当政治网站被收购时，他们的收入大约为2亿美元，所以这相当于他们收入的4%，这相当显著。2023年，BBC从美国国际开发署（USAID）获得了270万美元的资助，这占到他们当年收入的8%，这有点可疑。

Thompson Reuters, which is the consulting arm of Reuters. They've received $120 million from the federal governments in 2011. That's got to be looked at and double clicked on. And half of that came during the Biden administration. New York Times hasn't actually received well that much 370k from the federal government last year under Biden. It went from 100k a year to like 300. So the New York Times data has been cleaned up a little bit. All of this is to say there's spending going on with the press that certainly doesn't look good and should be verified and challenged, obviously, and we are in a breaking news environment. So we'll see how that information shakes out over time, which is one of the great things I think about Doge is they're getting this information out there.

汤普森路透社是路透社的咨询部门。2011年，他们从联邦政府那里获得了1.2亿美元的资金。这笔钱需要仔细审查，其中一半是在拜登政府期间收到的。而纽约时报在去年拜登政府期间只从联邦政府获得了约37万美元的资金，从每年10万美元增加到约30万美元。因此，纽约时报的数据已经被稍微整理过。所有这些都说明，新闻界的资金支出情况不太好，显然需要被验证和质疑，并且我们现在处于一个即时新闻环境中。因此，我们将看看这些信息随着时间的推移会如何发展。我认为，有关狗狗币的一个好处是他们正在将这些信息公开。

And citizen journalists are looking at public databases, Friedberg. And we're having a conversation about this. A conversation two years ago, Friedberg, when you kept harping on every episode about our debt and about the interest payments two or three years ago, you were way ahead of the curve. And now here we are. We didn't think anybody would ever take this cause up. And now it is the cause of the moment. What are your thoughts on the first two weeks of Doge, Friedberg? Magnificent. Okay, magnificent. I mean, what else is there to say? This is, yeah, this is the kind of emoji. It's what we needed. If you zoom out on what Doge is doing, I think the best way to describe it is zero based budgeting. And in organizations that go through zero based budgeting, you do a cycle typically annually, where you take all of your op-ex, all of your expenses and running a company or running an organization down to the studs, you take it down to zero, and you rebuild it up and you say, what do we try to achieve this year from first principles based on that set of objectives?

市民记者正在查看公共数据库，Friedberg。我们正在就此进行对话。两年前，当你在每一集节目中不断强调我们的债务和利息支付时，你确实走在了前面。而现在，我们没有想到会有人接手这个问题，但现在它成了时下的热点。你对前两周Doge的看法是什么？了不起。是的，非常了不起。我是说，还有什么可说的呢？这正是我们所需要的。如果你以一个更广的视角看待Doge，我认为最好的描述方式是“零基预算”。在实施零基预算的组织中，通常每年进行一个周期，把所有的运营费用、运营企业或组织的开支从根基上清零，然后根据一系列目标从基本原则出发，重建预算并决定这一年我们要实现什么目标。

Those goals, what do we need to do? What's the minimal expense we need to run? You don't start with last year's numbers and say, what else do we need to do and start to add on top of that? You really do a hard level, high degree of scrutiny on every dollar moving out. And that's what Doge is effectively doing. They're doing a zero based budgeting on the federal government. They're looking at every line item and they're asking the fundamental question, which I don't think we talk about in the public discourse enough, which is what is the essential role of government? And there is a great debate to be had around that point.

这些目标，我们需要做什么？我们需要最低的支出是多少？不要从去年的数字开始，然后想着在此基础上我们还需要做什么并继续添加。你需要对每一笔支出进行严格的审查。这正是Doge正在做的：他们对联邦政府实施零基预算。他们会查看每个项目，并提出一个基本的问题，我认为在公众讨论中我们没有足够谈论的，那就是政府的基本角色是什么？围绕这一点有很多值得讨论的内容。

Should government be providing humanitarian aid in international markets? That's a good debate to be had. Should the government be providing security to nations that can't provide security for themselves? Does the U.S. government have a role in that? Should the government be providing loans for people to go to universities? Should the government be providing loans for people to buy homes that are overpriced? Etcetera, et cetera, et cetera. And as we start to ask the questions of how we're spending money, I think it ends up leading to the most important questions, which is what is the essential role of government, which I think is the debate that needs to be had in order for the democracy to last.

政府是否应该在国际市场上提供人道主义援助？这是一个值得探讨的问题。政府是否应该为那些无法自我保障安全的国家提供安全保障？美国政府在其中应该承担什么角色？政府是否应该为人们提供上大学的贷款？政府是否应该为人们提供购买高价住房的贷款？等等，等等。当我们开始质疑我们如何花钱时，我认为这会引导我们思考一个最重要的问题，那就是政府的基本职责是什么。我认为这是一个需要进行的辩论，以确保民主的持续发展。

So I'm very happy to see the effort of Doge. And I think that it's the beginning of what I hope will be kind of a long term process of asking the fundamental questions about essential government. And Antonio Zerobes budgeting was the first thing you sort of introduced when the Twitter takeover happened, just what do we need in terms of design? What does the sales team need to hit these sales numbers? How many servers do we need? And my lord, the waste front and abuse at that company was shocking. They had buildings that were $100 or square foot. If I remember correctly, that were used for storage of the furniture from the previous building that had been upgraded and were storing them in class A office space. You reference the commissary 20 people were having lunch a day, but they had never ratcheted down the amount of food they were making. So each meal was about $800 on average when you did the math for those 20 meals just in the San Francisco office. Maybe you could talk a little bit about how the shock and awe campaign of just freezing spending and then seeing, hey, what actually is necessary to accomplish this task worked out at Twitter and then how you see that being executed inside of our government.

我很高兴看到Doge付出的努力。我认为这可能是一个长期过程的开始，这个过程旨在探讨关于政府本质的基本问题。在推特收购后，Antonio Zerobes首先提出的是预算管理：我们需要什么样的设计？销售团队要达到这些销售指标需要什么？我们需要多少服务器？天哪，那家公司在浪费和滥用资源方面让人震惊。他们租赁的办公大楼每平方英尺租金高达100美元，用于存放从升级的旧办公楼搬出的家具，而且这些家具是存放在顶级甲级写字楼里的。你提到了一些事，例如食堂每天大约有20人就餐，但他们从未减少过食品制作的数量，算下来仅旧金山办公室每餐平均成本就高达800美元。或许你可以讲讲这种冻结支出并确定哪些开支真正必需的震撼策略在推特是如何奏效的，以及你希望这种方式如何在我们的政府中执行。

Yeah, thanks Jason. It was pretty extraordinary actually. The Twitter experience, the first thing you do in a tournament like that is try and get the checkbook and just turn payments off and to see what happens because they're lost. Well, that shouldn't be getting paid and sometimes they complain and sometimes you find the people that complain them loudest are the ones who are coming the worst fraud. They're the worst fraudsters in the whole game. The worst quifters, the ones who are saying they're crying the most amount of foul. And the problem, at least in Twitter, there were financial statements. Like we could actually there was an auto financial statement and they were in some ways correct. I would say there was some issues with the use growth, the Dow's etcetera and the Senate plans, but the actual like the cash flow numbers were pretty much correct.

是的，谢谢你，Jason。这次经历确实很不寻常。在Twitter这样的比赛中，你首先要做的是检查财务，暂停付款，并观察会发生什么，因为很多支付是不应该被执行的。有时候那些抱怨的人反而是参与欺诈最严重的人，他们是整个过程中最糟糕的骗子，喊得最凶的那些往往问题最大。至少在Twitter，我们有财务报表可以参考，虽然有一些自动生成的财务报表，在某些方面是准确的。我认为在用户增长、活跃度和其他计划方面确实存在一些问题，但现金流数字基本上是准确的。

Here the problem is much, much deeper and it makes the zero-to-base budgeting question much harder, which is the way the government works. A department just basically asked for money from Treasury and they sent it out. We all run businesses. There's a reconciliation process. You have a contract, a USP against it, something comes in, you check that it came in, services is rendered and then you issue a payable and then some month later you pay it. That doesn't happen to the US government. That process is broken. It used to happen. It's broken now. And so literally money is flowing out. I used to ask myself this question, why are the numbers always revised? Why are they always wrong? How can the government know how much money it's paying to hit the button, the computer and figure it out? The problem is that button doesn't exist. We spent time early on. That was a bit more like what we want to attract through. Like how does the money actually flow? No one could tell us how it actually flows. Where is it going out? People didn't know. And it's totally crazy. And it's the reason. When you all go through Treasury, Antonio, can you just explain that to us? So I will try to explain it to you. I have full command of it. I'm not sure anyone does quite yet. It goes to Treasury ultimately, but it was supposed to flow through the way it was supposed to work in the, it was changed in the 70s, in 1973. The NYX administration at 71, we go back, they came off the Gold Center, which allowed deficits. In 73, at the native of the Nixon presidency, Congress took away from the presidency the executive power, this is called the Portumans, which is the power of the executive to stop spending. So Nixon was abusing it by stopping and seeing it in want. And so Congress took away from what that means today is the executive, as he reaches in, it's very hard to just stop payments. So what's happening is the government put in a process where they would just have an authorized executive kind of stamp a bill that got paid that broke. I don't know when it broke, but it broke sometime. So the money flow now, department gets a budget authorized to it by Congress. It goes to OMB, OMB allocates the budget, that department then just sends a money request to Treasury to pay. It is not reconciled against what happened. This is one of the reasons. And that's it. There's no, there's no controller, there's no controller function like there is in a normal company.

这里的问题要严重得多，这使得零基预算的问题更加复杂，而这正是政府的运作方式。一个部门基本上只是向财政部要钱，然后财政部就把钱发出去。我们经营企业都知道会有一个核对过程：你有一份合同，有一个独特的销售主张（USP），有东西进来时你要检查它是否真进来了，服务完成后你会开一个应付款项，然后几个月后才支付。美国政府没有这样的过程。这个过程坏掉了。以前是有的，但现在不行了。结果就是钱一直往外流。我常常问自己，为什么数据总是被修正？为什么总是错的？政府怎么能知道自己付出了多少钱来按下这个按钮（电脑系统）来计算它呢？问题是这个按钮并不存在。 我们早期花时间研究，就像我们想要追踪的一样，看资金究竟是怎么流动的，但没有人能告诉我们资金的准确流向。它流到了哪里？没人知道。这完全是疯狂的，这就是原因。Antonio，当你们经过财政部时，能给我们解释一下吗？那么我会试着解释给你听。我完全掌握了它，但我不确定有没有人完全了解。最终资金流向财政部，但它原本应该按照一种方式流转，这种方式在20世纪70年代被改变了。71年尼克松政府将美国从金本位制中脱离出来，这允许产生赤字。73年，在尼克松总统任期的尾声，国会从总统手中夺走了一项行政权力，称为“支出限制”，这是一种停止开支的权力。因为尼克松滥用这项权力，有需要但不拨款，于是国会收回了这项权力。 这意味着今天的总统要想干预是非常困难的，因此政府建立了一个流程，由一个授权的行政人员对一项账单盖章进行支付，但这流程坏掉了。我不知道它是什么时候坏掉的，但确实是某个时候坏掉了。现在的资金流向是这样的：部门获得国会授权的预算，预算交给管理和预算办公室（OMB），OMB分配预算，然后该部门向财政部提交资金请求进行支付。这个过程并没有与实际发生的事情进行核对控制。这就是其中的一个原因。没有正常公司那样的控制功能。

100%. There is no control. There's no reconciliation. The reason they can't pass audits, okay, the reason this happens is because you can't audit something you haven't reconciled. The only audit that I've seen is actually from the Social Security Administration. And when you read it, I've got one, I've part of this, you've read the thing. It's just riddled with material weaknesses that are probably all from- You think there are individuals that have made like millions or billions of dollars from mispayments overseas? Like is this kind of what's gone on in the missing money in Ukraine, do you think? Like it's kind of found its way to the wrong places? Yeah. I mean, so what I would, I don't know what happened to Ukraine. I don't. It is shocking about Ukraine. I will say that I have a business experience trying to work in businesses that had Medicaid and Medicare's payments. I wanted to make that better, right? We used this to make the world better. And we just stopped. Could be sounds, we found so much fraud. I mean, I'm certain we literally have a rule here, government payor in those areas. If it's more than like a third of the business, we don't do it. And in the services space, this is why we just found it continuous fraud in the companies we're looking at investing in. Yeah. Just threading these things together.

没有控制，也没有对账。这就是他们无法通过审计的原因，因为你不能审计一个尚未对账的东西。我见过的唯一一个审计来自社会保障管理局。当你阅读它时，我手里有一份，你读了那个东西...里面充满了可能都是来自重要漏洞的内容。你认为有没有人从海外的错误支付中赚到了数百万甚至数十亿美元？例如，这是不是类似于乌克兰丢失的钱的情况，你觉得那些钱可能流向了错误的地方？是的，我的意思是，我不知道乌克兰发生了什么，我真的不知道。关于乌克兰的情况令人震惊。我可以说，我在有医疗补助和医疗保险支付的企业中有过商界经验。我想改善这种状况，对吧？我们想用它来让世界变得更好。后来我们停下了，似乎发现了太多的欺诈。我确定，对于那些领域的政府支付者，我们这儿有一条规定，如果业务的三分之一以上是来自那个领域的，我们就不做。在服务领域，这就是我们发现持续欺诈的原因，那些我们正在考虑投资的公司也是如此。是的，就是将这些事情串联起来。

The really interesting thing with the Twitter pausing of payments was, at some point, we were in a meeting at 1 a.m. on a Saturday. And it was like, hey, let's turn the credit cards off to see what bounces and when what happens. And then, of course, we start getting calls. And people started routing, obviously, because they knew SACs was there, you were there, I would say, hey, a company who I shared an investor with or another company said, hey, we're not getting paid for this. And it was like some SAC software that nobody was using, et cetera. So you start figuring out to your point, okay, is this software even being used? There were so much software and services that had been paid that nobody had ever logged in to set up. So it was just being paid as pure graph.

Twitter暂停付款的事情真的很有趣。我们在星期六凌晨1点进行了一次会议，然后有人提议关掉信用卡支付，看哪些费用会被拒付，以及会发生什么情况。后来果然开始接到电话了，因为显然有人知道SACs在那里，你也在那儿。有人说他们分享一个投资人的公司或另一家公司打电话来说，他们没有收到款项。结果发现那些是一些没人用的软件之类的。因此，我们开始思考，问题的关键在于，这些软件是否真的在被使用？有大量的软件和服务一直在付款，但从未有人登录或设置过使用，只是一直在白白付款。

Now, you said, Antonio correctly, the people who come first, like they're probably the one who are in on the biggest grift, because, hey, I figured out how to grift this money, how USA got to the top of the doge list, I think is one of the most interesting aspects of this story. So if you remember, on January 21, Trump decided he would do a bunch of executive orders, right? And one of them was to pause foreign aid for 90 days. Okay, this seems reasonable. We got to take care of our country. That was part of his mandate for becoming the 47th president of the United States. So a couple of days later, the White House said, hey, this USA leadership is trying to circumvent the executive order. In other words, they're just going to keep paying people, even though the executive order came out. That alerted the doge team. So Elon confirmed this on X. He said, quote, all doge did was check to see which federal organizations were violating the president's executive orders the most turned out to be USA. So that became our focus. And according to NBC, security officials at USA tried to prevent doge from even getting into the building or accessing the systems to your point, Antonio, the person probably who's got the most to hide is the one who's going to fight the most over the weekend, doge gained access to USA. And then people started tweeting out all of this, you know, crazy spend and things that any American who looks at it and says, wait a second, if we haven't fixed the goddamn water in Flint, Michigan, why are we sending money to Galway or an Ireland to do a DEI musical? This makes no sense. And that's I think the key piece of this Antonio is can you win the hearts and minds of Americans? Because some of this stuff, I don't know if it's legal or it's not legal or it's against protocol or it is protocol. We're going to find out there's been tons of legal cases and lawsuits that have been filed. But to your point, this is how you on found out about USA.

现在，Antonio，你说得对，那些最早参与的人可能是在参与最大的一场骗局。因为，我找到了一种方法来骗取这笔钱，美国如何登上Doge榜首，我认为这是这个故事中最有趣的方面之一。如果你还记得，在1月21日，特朗普决定发布一系列行政命令，其中之一是暂停外国援助90天。这个决定似乎合情合理，我们需要先照顾好自己的国家。这是他作为美国第47任总统的一部分使命。几天后，白宫发布消息称，美国的某些领导试图绕过行政命令。换句话说，他们打算继续付款，即便有行政命令。这引起了Doge团队的注意。埃隆在X上证实了这一情况。他说：“Doge所做的只是查看哪些联邦组织违反了总统的行政命令，结果发现美国是违反最多的。”于是这成了我们的关注点。根据NBC的报道，USA的安全官员试图阻止Doge进入大楼或访问系统。Antonio，你提到的，可能是那个最有嫌疑的人会最拼命阻止。在周末，Doge成功访问了USA，随后人们在推特上开始发布各种过度开支和其他情况，任何美国人看到这些都会想，等等，我们还没有解决密歇根州弗林特的饮用水问题，为什么要把钱送到爱尔兰的戈尔韦去做什么多元化、平等和包容的音乐剧？这毫无意义。我想Antonio，关键在于你能否赢得美国人民的心，因为有些事情，不知道是否合法，或者是否违反协议，我们会知道，许多法律案件和诉讼已经被提起。但就像你说的，这就是埃隆如何了解到USA的情况。

J Cal, let me ask you a question. Where does that place you in your political philosophy around the importance of human rights abroad? Great, question. You know, I've always felt that the West should act in unison. And if the United States is the greatest economy or the strongest, we should lead. There is something called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United States Eleanor Roosevelt wrote this at the UN and everybody tries to hit those notes. I think it's great that we try to reduce suffering in the world. But I think we should be doing it not unilaterally and not to try to manipulate governments. And that's the piece of this that USA is obviously a grift where people are trying to steal money for their pet projects. And I don't think they're acting in unison and above board to look and say, okay, where's the most suffering in the world? How can we help that? You know, that that to me seems like a noble thing to do. And if the United States has the budget to help fight AIDS in Africa or, you know, poverty, you know, there's a chance that some of these human rights issues were embellished to try to get more money. Well, I do think the, you know, I did this tweet recently.

J Cal，我想问你一个问题。在国际人权的重要性方面，你的政治理念是什么？好问题。你知道，我一直觉得西方国家应该团结一致行动。如果美国是最大或最强的经济体，我们应该带头。有一个叫《世界人权宣言》的东西，是美国的埃莉诺·罗斯福在联合国写的，大家都在努力实现这些原则。我认为我们试图减少世界苦难是非常好的。但是我认为我们不应该单方面行动，也不应用来试图操控别国政府。美国显然有些项目是为了中饱私囊，而不是团结一致，光明正大地去想，哪里的痛苦最深，我们怎么能帮助那里的人？对我来说，这才是高尚的行为。如果美国有预算帮助非洲抗击艾滋病或减轻贫困，就可能某些人权问题被夸大以获取更多资金。我确实认为，我最近发了一条推文……

So yes is the answer. If you look at Amnesty International, Amnesty International where I worked was one of my first jobs. They were worked working on people who were imprisoned, tortured, raped, murdered, systematic murder of dissidents for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, religion, etc. And then somewhere along the line, you know, the Amnesty International is tweeting about trans rights. And that's the big focus. This is a very small amount of, you know, people on the planet. And I don't think that those human rights violations in any way relate to the tragedy we're seeing of people being murdered, tortured, raped, and cained and beheaded in certain places in the world. So there is a way to look at suffering and say, we should handle this first. And yes, somebody who, you know, feels like I'm misgendered. Maybe that's way down the priority list compared to systematic rape of women in these, you know, war zones. Those will be the high order bits. And so this thing has gotten the other fascinating thing I think about USAIDOs, I like to get your thoughts on Tchamath is at what point did this switch from being the left saying we should not intervene, right? The left's position always in the 80s, 90s, when we were growing up was we shouldn't be doing these operatives in other countries. We should let democracy flow, let these countries figure it out for themselves. We shouldn't be doing empire building. We shouldn't be doing imperialism. And then all of a sudden, now it's just such a grift that I think everybody's got their hands in the pie. Lindsey Graham's on some nonprofit that gets money from this. I don't know if that's above board or not. Everybody. A lot of people who are formerly in government seem to be part of this NGO train. So the whole thing's just turned out to be a grift. And it's a bipartisan grift, obviously. I think that's a big, I think the biggest thing that we will have to confront is that many of the things that we thought were issues or problems may have actually been somewhat embellished because of this money cycle. Sure. And I think that that's going to cause a lot of people to feel really, they'll probably feel really foolish about some of the decisions they made. All the attempts at cancellation are going to look really dumb in hindsight. Yeah. All right. Nice and great to our friend David Sachs here who's caught online. Okay. Here he is. David, good. And the one thing I want to point out, this goes way back. I think maybe more than a decade ago, David tried explaining to me that Neocon's had taken over American foreign policy. And they were your question about, well, why did Democrats change? Why did Republicans change, etc? The new kinds of over from policy in both sides to Democrats and Republicans and populated out this very activist muster stance, which is bad for America. And I think Jason, that answer your questions to why the Democrats shifted. All right. With us is David Sachs. How you doing, brother? Are you literally in the White House? I'm in the EOB. Ah, okay. There's like a podcast studio actually in the EOB. Wow. Fantastic. And you're wearing a suit every day. No, you're right. After we're a student tie every day. I was just listening on your conversation about Doge. J-com surprise that you never figured out a way to get involved in this USA. I mean, everybody's on the take except you. What's going on? I had known I would have started an NGO. Where's bio geo? You had everything except the money laundering. You had the grit. You had the virtue signaling. You had it all. If I have no money.

翻译成中文如下： 所以答案是肯定的。 如果你看看国际特赦组织，我工作的国际特赦组织是我第一份工作之一。 他们致力于帮助那些因言论自由、集会自由、宗教自由等被监禁、酷刑、强奸、谋杀，以及系统性地谋杀持不同政见者的人。 然而在这过程中，不知不觉中，国际特赦组织关注的重点变成了跨性别人群的权利。这其实是世界上很小部分的人。我认为这些人权侵犯与我们在世界某些地方看到的被谋杀、酷刑、强奸、鞭打和斩首的悲剧没有任何关系。 我们应该先处理更严重的痛苦和问题。 比如说，某人觉得自己被误称性别，也许这应该排在优先事项列表的最后，相比于那些战区对女性的系统性强奸，这些才是更大的问题。 另外，我认为关于美国援助组织（USAIDOs）的另一个有趣问题是，我很想听听您的看法，Tchamath，究竟在什么时候，从来不主张干预的左派改变了立场？在我们成长的1980年代和1990年代，左派的立场一直是我们不应该在其他国家进行干预。 我们应该让民主自流，让这些国家自己解决问题。我们不应该进行帝国建设或帝国主义。然而突然之间，现在成了一个谁都想分一杯羹的骗局。 Lindsey Graham也参与了一个从中获取资金的非营利组织。我不知道这是否合规。每个人，很多曾在政府工作的人似乎都是这个NGO列车的一部分。整件事情似乎成了一个跨党派的骗局。我认为我们将要面对的最大问题是，许多我们认为是问题的事情，实际上可能因为资金链被夸大了。 这样一来，很多人会对他们曾作出的决定感到非常愚蠢。那些取消文化的尝试在事后看来都会显得很愚蠢。 好的，接下来是我们的朋友David Sachs，他在线上。 这里是David，太好了。还有一点我要指出，这要追溯到可能十多年前，David试着向我解释新保守主义者已经掌控了美国的对外政策。 这是你关于民主党为何改变，共和党为何改变等问题的答案。新保守主义者接管了民主党和共和党的外交政策，形成了这种非常激进的领导姿态，这对美国是不利的。我想，Jason，这也回答了你关于民主党为何转向的问题。 好的，我们有David Sachs。你好吗，兄弟？ 你是在白宫吗？我在EOB（行政办公楼）。这里实际上在EOB有一个播客工作室。哇，太棒了。你每天都穿西装吗？不对，我不需要每天都穿西装和领带。我刚刚在听你关于狗狗币的讨论。我很好奇你从来没有想过要参与这个美国援助组织。每个人都从中获利，除了你，怎么回事？如果我知道，我早就开办一个NGO了。你拥有了一切除了洗钱，你有倾向你有美德信号标榜，但就是没有钱。

Let me up level this for a second. Okay. So we knew the US government runs a $2 trillion deficit every year. We're in debt, almost $40 trillion. And we also knew that anytime anyone tries to cut anything in Washington, the whole city screens bloody murder. Okay. So the question is just why? Well, now we know the money is all going to them. It's like round tripping to them. New York Times. Getting paid. Politico getting paid. Bill Crystal perennial warmonger getting paid. Ukraine getting paid like 11 out of 12 publications. Ukraine getting paid. Incredible. Victor Orban, who's the Prime Minister of Hungary, was saying that he very popular and hungry. His political opposition funded by USAID in Poland. The left wing political opposition funded by USAID and on and on and on it goes. BBC BBC. You wonder why everyone in the UK. So yeah, yeah. Like and believe that BBC is getting paid. Every left wing organization in the world seems to be getting paid by this slush fund at USAID, which disperses about $50 billion a year.

让我先提升一下这个话题。好，我们知道美国政府每年都运行着2万亿美元的赤字。我们的负债几乎达到40万亿美元。我们也知道，每当有人试图在华盛顿削减开支时，整个城市都会大喊大叫。那么问题就是，为什么会这样？现在我们知道，所有的钱都流向了他们，就像是一种资金回流。纽约时报在拿钱，Politico在拿钱，长期鼓吹战争的比尔·克里斯托尔也在拿钱。乌克兰也在拿钱，就像12家媒体中有11家在拿钱。不可思议。匈牙利总理维克多·欧尔班说他在匈牙利很受欢迎，他的政治对手由美国国际开发署（USAID）在波兰资助。左翼政治对手也由USAID资助，这种情况不断发生。BBC也一样，你会好奇为什么英国的每个人都相信BBC，因为BBC也在拿钱。似乎世界上每一个左翼组织都在从这个每年分发约500亿美元的USAID资金池中获益。

That's a billion dollars a week. That's actually a lot of money. And so it just it makes you wonder, you know, the left in general tries to portray itself as a movement of the people that its grassroots. This is the exact opposite. This is AstroTurf. This is basically money coming from the top down out of Washington to fund all these groups, maybe not even in the United States, like all over the world. So it makes you wonder what is the real level of local support for these left wing policies all over the world. Yeah, crazy. So you did a big announcement this week on crypto and creating a framework finally. I caught some of it. Maybe you could just tell us, you know, from the bottom up, what is the mandate from the president and what is your advice to him on how to make crypto move out of the shadows offshore, ICOs craziness to legitimacy.

这是一周十亿美元。这确实是很多钱。所以这让人不禁怀疑，一般来说，左翼试图把自己描绘成一个草根的民众运动。但这恰恰相反。这是“人造草根运动”。这些资金基本上是从华盛顿的高层向下输送，用于资助这些团体，可能甚至不在美国，而是遍布全球。这让人怀疑在全球范围内对这些左翼政策的当地支持水平到底如何。真是疯狂。你在本周对加密货币和创建框架做了一个重大声明。我看到了一些内容。也许你可以从头开始告诉我们，来自总统的任务是什么，以及你对他有什么建议，以便使加密货币从离岸和首次代币发行的疯狂中走向合法化。

What's the plan here to legitimize and regulate crypto? Well, the plan was really spelled out by President Trump in his week one EO on crypto. And it's all spelled out in there. The principal's administration on crypto. The president said he wants to support the responsible use and growth of digital assets and blockchains across every sector of the economy. So the principals are all there. And yesterday I was invited up to Capitol Hill to meet with the chairman of the important committees that will be that basically govern crypto. And so we had a press conference there to announce the legislative plan. You can see there there's Chairman Tim Scott, who's the chair of the Senate Banking Committee to my left and then to my right is French Hill, who's the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. And then to his right is John Bozeman, who's the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

计划如何合法化和监管加密货币呢？实际上，特朗普总统在他上任第一周的行政命令中已经详细说明了这个计划。总统表示，他希望支持数字资产和区块链在经济各个领域的负责任使用和发展。因此，原则已经都在那里了。昨天我应邀来到国会山，与负责管理加密货币的重要委员会的主席会面，因此我们在那里举行了新闻发布会，宣布立法计划。你可以看到，站在我左边的是参议院银行委员会主席蒂姆·斯科特，而我右边是众议院金融服务委员会主席弗伦奇·希尔，他右边则是参议院农业委员会主席约翰·博泽曼。

And then to the left of Tim Scott is G. T. Thompson, who's the chair of the House Agriculture Committee. He's out of frame right now. But those are the four committees that govern crypto. And you may ask why is the Agriculture Committee involved in crypto? And the reason is because the ad committee supervises the CFTC, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, because commodities all came out of agriculture. So it's interesting, you need four committees across the House and Senate to get legislation done on crypto. It's not just House and Senate, it's actually two committees in each of the House and Senate. And so this is the first time where we've had four chairman of the four key committees all come together and say that they're ready to support crypto legislation.

在Tim Scott的左边是G.T. Thompson，他是众议院农业委员会的主席。他现在不在镜头中。但这些就是管理加密货币的四个委员会。你可能会问为什么农业委员会会牵涉到加密货币？原因是农业委员会监督商品期货交易委员会（CFTC），因为所有的商品都源自农业。所以很有趣，要在加密货币立法上取得进展，需要众议院和参议院的四个委员会共同努力。这不仅仅是众议院和参议院的事，实际上在众议院和参议院各有两个委员会参与。因此，这是第一次四个关键委员会的主席们齐聚一堂，表示他们准备支持加密货币的立法。

There were a lot of people on acts who felt like this wasn't, you know, a mind blowing announcement, they wanted something that they could trade on right away. That's not what this was. This was basically a statement of commitment from the chairs, the four committees that we're gonna get legislation done this year, maybe in the next six months. I mean, that's really the goal. And we've never had that before. So that is pretty monumental. I used to work in this because when I first launched climate core back in the day, we actually were selling commodity contracts online. So we set ourselves up as an exempt commodity trading platform. And so I remember all this old legislation, there was the commodity futures modernization act, if I remember when they deregulated the energy markets. But one of the features of the commodity futures modernization act was that they created this concept of an exempt commodity contract, which was where you're not delivering a physical good. And that's basically what weather derivatives were and energy derivatives and other kind of indices were created that didn't have a tangible physical supply. And it was still kind of shoveled in the in the commodities world. That's why the legacy of all this stuff kind of sitting with agriculture. Is that the way this is likely going to move forward? Is it's going to look like a new extension of exempt commodities and kind of treated like that versus being securities?

有很多人觉得，这个声明并不是一个让人震撼的公告，他们希望有一些可以马上进行交易的东西。但这次的声明并不是那样的东西。这基本上是来自四个委员会主席的一种承诺，表示他们将在今年内，可能是在未来六个月内，完成立法工作。这其实是主要目标，我们以前从来没有过这样的情况，所以这是非常重要的。我曾经在这个领域工作，因为在我刚推出气候核心业务的时候，其实我们是在网上销售商品合约。因此，我们把自己设立为一个豁免商品交易平台。我记得当时的所有旧立法，比如商品期货现代化法案，我记得那是他们对能源市场进行放松管制的时候。但商品期货现代化法案的一个特点是，他们创造了豁免商品合约的概念，这种合约不需要实际交付实物。这基本上就是天气衍生品以及能源衍生品和其他没有实体供应的指标产品的创建过程，它们仍然算作商品领域的事情。这就是为什么所有这些东西的遗产与农业息息相关。因此，这次可能的发展方向是，把它看作是豁免商品的一种新扩展，并按这种方式处理，而不是将其视为证券。

The question you're describing is called market structure. You know, what are the definitions going to be? Because digital assets can be many things. Some digital assets are crypto currencies. They're actually currencies. And there's things that are crypto securities, then there's things that are commodities. Bitcoin actually is regulated as a commodity right now. And then you've got things that aren't securities or commodities or like collectibles, you know, like NFTs, things like that. So there's all these different categories. And one of the things that the market needs is just clarity around the definition so that founders know what the rules of the road are and they can actually just comply with them. So giving them those definitions and describing how a crypto project could start, for example, as a security and eventually the protocol could become decentralized enough, or maybe it becomes a commodity that whole idea that's called market structure.

你所描述的问题被称为市场结构。你知道，这涉及定义将是什么，因为数字资产可以包含很多不同种类。一些数字资产是加密货币，它们实际上是货币。有些是加密证券，还有一些是商品。例如，比特币目前被视为一种商品进行监管。此外，还有一些既不是证券也不是商品的东西，比如收藏品，比如NFT等等。因此，这些资产被分为了多个不同的类别。市场需要的是明确的定义，这样创业者才能知道遵循哪些规则并能够合规运作。提供这些定义并描述一个加密项目如何可能从一开始作为证券，然后随着协议的去中心化，可能会变成一种商品，这整个概念就被称为市场结构。

And there was a bill in the last Congress by French Hill, who is the chair of the House of International Services Committee now, that passed the House with 71 Democratic votes. So it was fairly bipartisan. But then it went nowhere in the Senate, because frankly, the bank committee at that time was run by Sherrod Brown, who was anti crypto. So it got stopped in the Senate right away. Now, we have Republican control of the Senate and Tim Schost, the new chair of the Senate banking committee, and he's expressed support. So I think now we could get a bill on market structure like 521, again, which was French Hill's bill last Congress. I think we could do a revised and updated version this Congress. And that was one of the things they all that the chairman expressed support for. So I think there's a pretty good chance we can get this done in the next six months.

在上届国会，有一项由法国·希尔提出的法案，他现在是众议院国际服务委员会的主席。该法案在众议院获得了71名民主党议员的投票支持，所以算是相当两党合作的。然而，在参议院却没有进展，因为当时的银行委员会由谢罗德·布朗掌管，他对加密货币持反对态度，所以法案在参议院被立刻搁置。现在参议院由共和党控制，新任参议院银行委员会主席是蒂姆·肖斯特，他表达了支持的态度。所以我认为现在我们可能会再次推出类似上届国会法国·希尔提出的521市场结构法案。我认为我们可以在本届国会中做一个修订和更新版本。这也是主席们表示支持的事情之一。所以我觉得我们有相当大的机会能在接下来的六个月内完成这项工作。

What's the opposition, Saks? I guess it feels to me like what the market structure question being addressed and answered, you would have also more protection for consumers, because now businesses know the rules of the road. They follow them through structure that protects consumers, etc, etc. Why would people be opposed to moving this forward, moving the legislation forward, getting this all behind us? Well, I think this is an area where there's a really good chance of having bipartisan support. We did in the last Congress, like I mentioned, that the House bill got over 70 Democratic votes. I think in the Senate, we're going to need seven votes, some seven Democrat votes to get to 60, right, which is the number you need if you don't go through the reconciliation process. And I think there's a good chance this passes with significant Democratic support as well as Republican. It's not going to be unanimous or anything like that, because there are still forces that are hostile to crypto in Washington. You think it's going to be a discrete bill or do you?

反对的理由是什么，Saks？我觉得，这就像是在解决和回答市场结构问题，如果明确规则，消费者会有更多的保护，因为企业了解“游戏规则”，按照保护消费者的结构行事，等等。那么，为什么有人会反对推进这个立法，把这些问题解决呢？我认为这是一个非常有可能获得两党支持的领域。就像我提到的，在上届国会中，众议院的法案获得了超过70张民主党的票。在参议院，我们需要大约7张民主党的票才能达到60票的门槛，如果不通过和解程序的话。我认为这个法案有很大的可能会获得大量民主党和共和党的支持。当然，不会是一致通过，因为在华盛顿仍然有一些对加密货币持敌视态度的力量。你觉得这会是一个单一的法案吗，还是......?

I mean, it seems like you're going to have to get a border security and energy and budget bill passed. So it seems like everything's looking towards reconciliation, in which case, would this be an adjunct like an add-on? The question is what you can get through reconciliation. So in order for a bill to go through the reconciliation process, where you only need basically 50 votes, it has to have a budgetary impact or predominantly a budgetary impact. I think it's called the bird rule. And that rule was definitely pushed pretty hard in the last administration. Remember that the Biden administration got the inflation reduction act passed through reconciliation and all those subsidies for clean energy or whatever. So they've opened the window pretty wide on what can go through reconciliation. But that's the question. There's one other bill that I think is going to move pretty quickly here, too.

我的意思是，你可能需要通过一项有关边境安全、能源和预算的法案。所以看起来一切都是为了通过和解立法（reconciliation），这个过程就像是一个附加项。问题在于你能通过和解立法实现什么。为了让一项法案通过和解程序，你基本上只需要50票，但它必须对预算有影响，或者主要是对预算有影响。我想这被称为“伯德规则”（bird rule）。在上届政府中，这项规则确实被推得相当严格。记得拜登政府通过和解程序通过了《降低通胀法案》（Inflation Reduction Act），以及那些关于清洁能源的补贴等。因此，他们对通过和解的内容范围已经大大扩大了。但这就是问题所在。我认为还有另一项法案也将很快推进。

So I just mentioned the market structure bill. The other area is stablecoins and Senator Hagerty, he's on the banking committee, he just released a stablecoin bill. There's counterparts in the House. And what the forechairman indicated is actually they're going to take up stablecoins first. And then market structure will follow very quickly. So I think we could see a stablecoin bill pass Congress in the next several months. Saks, I guess the question is the SEC was, and Gary Gensler were the blocker previously with crypto. And they just said, Hey, listen, there's an existing set of rules here. Just follow those rules. Obviously, those rules don't exactly apply to the innovation happening in crypto. So the question, I think after stablecoins, which feels like a layup and a great place to start, that'll be a great early win. And it just makes people, I guess that would just reinforce the dollar supremacy, right? It's tied to the dollar. So that's good for America. But maybe you could talk to protecting consumers, because we all saw in the first couple of generations of crypto, all kinds of griffs and ICOs and things that were never delivered.

我刚才提到了市场结构法案。另一个领域是稳定币。参议员哈格蒂在银行委员会，他刚刚发布了一项稳定币法案。众议院也有对应的提案。前主席指出，他们实际上会优先处理稳定币问题，然后很快会跟进市场结构问题。因此，我认为我们可能在接下来的几个月内会看到关于稳定币的法案通过国会。萨克斯，我想问题在于，之前证券交易委员会（SEC）和主席加里·根斯勒是加密货币的阻碍方。他们对外表示，已有一套现有规则，只需遵循这些规则。但显然，这些规则并不完全适用于加密货币领域的创新。所以我认为，在稳定币之后，这是个很好的起点和开局，因为它与美元挂钩，可以加强美元的主导地位，对美国有利。不过也许你可以谈谈保护消费者的问题，因为我们在加密货币发展初期看到了各种诈骗、ICO和未兑现的承诺。

So how do you balance those two things protecting consumers who may get really enthusiastic about this versus, you know, people who might try to prey upon them. Well, the first thing you want to do if you're going to protect consumers is you want to bring the activity on shore. Okay, because obviously, when all the activity gets driven offshore, then it's hard for regulators to supervise it. And moreover, it's hard for the market to know who's a good actor who's a bad actor, what's a good project, what's a bad project. So the first thing you want to do is have the innovation happen on shore in the United States. By the way, it's probably not a coincidence that the biggest fraud in the history of crypto, which was FTX was based on the Bahamas. Probably a little bit of a towel, a little bit of a towel. And it'll be an even stronger towel when the good projects feel like they can come back into the United States.

那么，如何平衡保护消费者和防范那些可能利用消费者的人呢？如果你想保护消费者，首先要做的是将这些活动引入国内。因为显然，当所有活动都转移到海外时，监管机构就难以监督。此外，市场也难以分辨谁是好人谁是坏人，哪个项目好哪个项目坏。因此，首先要确保创新活动在美国本土进行。顺便说一句，加密货币历史上最大的骗局FTX就设在巴哈马，这大概不是巧合。或许，这已经给我们敲响了一记警钟，而当好的项目能够再次回到美国时，这个警钟声将会更为响亮。

And then you've got the shady ones in the Bahamas or in other countries, they're going to stick out like a sore thumb. Everyone's going to be able to understand that, Oh, those guys are too shady to operate in the United States. So the number one thing we need to do is just bring the innovation on shore. In terms of the framework, I think the market structure bill is going to define here's a security, here's a commodity, here's what you have to do, here's the disclosure requirements around creating a crypto project. So all of that will be in the bill, and then in the meantime, the SEC has created a new task force under Hester Pers, who's a SEC commissioner. And she is already starting to do work in that regard to define a better regime at the SEC for crypto projects.

然后，有一些不太正当的公司在巴哈马或其他国家，它们会显得非常显眼。大家就能看到，哦，那些家伙太不正当，无法在美国经营。因此，我们需要做的第一件事就是把创新带回国内。至于框架，我认为市场结构法案将会定义什么是证券，什么是商品，你需要做些什么，以及创建加密项目的披露要求等，这些都会在法案中说明。同时，美国证券交易委员会（SEC）委任的专员海丝特·佩尔斯已经成立了一个新的工作组，她已经开始着手为加密项目在SEC定义一个更好的制度。

You mentioned that Gensler said that the SEC's doors were open to crypto companies and they should come in and talk to us and work with us. That was very disingenuous. Crypto companies would tell me they would go see the SEC. The SEC would tell them nothing about what the rules were, but they would have enforcement people in those meetings just writing down everything they would say. And the next day they would get sent a Wells notice. So the truth is the SEC was not cooperating. They were not providing any clarity. They were just honey potting founders basically to come in. And then they would immediately investigate them. I mean, it was really terrible. Look, we expect founders to play by the rules and abide by the law and be compliant. But when you won't tell them what the rules are, and then you prosecute them, there's no fair way for them to comply.

你提到，Gensler说美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的门对加密公司开放，它们应该来找我们交流并合作。然而，这其实非常不诚实。加密公司的人员告诉我，他们会去见SEC。SEC在会议上不告诉他们任何规则，但会有执法人员记录他们说的每句话。第二天，他们就会收到Wells通知信。所以事实上，SEC并没有合作，他们没有提供任何明确指导，只是在诱导创始人进来，然后立刻对他们进行调查。这真的很糟糕。我们期望创始人遵守规则和法律，但如果不告诉他们规则是什么，就起诉他们，这样做对他们来说是不公平的。

So the most important thing is to give them a framework. I think the SEC now is doing that, they're starting to do that already. And then legislatively, we're going to have a bill that does that moving through Congress over the next few months. This is absolutely awesome. We're super encouraged that you're doing this. And we really appreciate you coming on the pod. I wish you could participate in the other three or four crazy discussions we're about to have. But we understand you've got to stay focused on the mission. Anything on the AI front that we can look forward to in the coming weeks that you're working on. I know that's the other part of your mission.

所以最重要的是给他们一个框架。我认为证券交易委员会（SEC）现在正在这样做，他们已经开始着手了。接下来，在立法方面，我们将在未来几个月内推动相关法案通过国会。这真是太棒了。我们非常鼓励你们这么做，并且非常感谢你能参与我们的播客。我希望你能参与我们接下来即将进行的三到四个令人兴奋的讨论。但我们理解你必须专注于你的使命。关于人工智能方面，有没有什么可以期待的进展是你正在进行的项目呢？我知道这是你使命的另一个部分。

Well, the big thing is, like I talked about last time, the president rescinded the Biden EO, which was this 100 page monstrosity of burdensome regulation on our AI companies. I think that decision has been proven even more right in the wake of deep-seak because we know that China has basically caught up or they're very, very close to catching up. It felt like that Biden EO is written in a vacuum in which the US was the only player in AI. And that if we imposed a bunch of burdensome rules on our companies, that somehow that wouldn't allow China to catch up, right? And I think it's pretty clear that China is very, very competitive. If we hobble our AI companies, it's going to run down to China's benefit. So I think that was a very good decision. And what the president said in his EO is that we should devise a new AI action plan to replace that by an EO. And we're working on that right now.

好吧，关键的问题是，就像我上次说的，总统撤销了拜登的行政命令。这份命令长达100页，给我们的人工智能公司带来了繁重的监管负担。我认为，在深层次发展的情况下，这一决定更加明智。因为我们知道中国基本上已经赶上来了，或者说非常接近赶上。这份拜登的行政命令感觉就像是在一个真空中写的，仿佛美国是人工智能领域的唯一参与者。就好像我们给自己的公司施加了一堆繁重的规则，却认为这样不会让中国赶上来，对吧？而且我认为，现在很明显，中国非常有竞争力。如果我们束缚自己的人工智能公司，最终只会对中国有利。所以我认为这是一个非常明智的决定。总统在他的行政命令中表示，我们应该制定一个新的人工智能行动计划来取代之前的命令。我们现在正在努力开展这项工作。

All right, David, we're really planning notes from doge. You want to share? I'll give you one anecdote, which is I've been working late here a number of nights at the EOB. And I won't tell you where the doge guys are based, but I know where their office is. So I just went by there to say hi. The whole room was full of young coders. I think they were engineers, but they're wearing suits and ties. So that's a little different, but they were all working really late. I mean, they're working there late at Friday night. And the facilities people don't know what to do because they've never had people like asked to stay there. So they've had to create new facilities access for these guys. They're like, you're coming to the office and doing work. We don't have a protocol for that. How does that work? We're going to need to get you a key or a badge to come to the building.

好的，大卫，我们正在认真制定有关狗狗币的计划。你想分享一下吗？我给你讲个故事，我最近在EOB加班，很多个晚上都待到很晚。我不会告诉你狗狗币团队的具体地址，但我知道他们的办公室在哪里。所以我就顺道去拜访了一下。整个房间里都是年轻的程序员。我想他们应该是工程师，但他们都穿着西装打着领带，这有点与众不同。不过他们加班到很晚。比如说，他们周五晚上还在工作。设施管理人员不知道该怎么办，因为他们从来没遇到有人要求留在办公室工作。他们不得不为这些人提供新的进入权限。管理人员就想，你们要来办公室工作，我们还没有相应的流程。那该怎么办？我们可能需要给你配个钥匙或者通行证，才方便出入大楼。

Well, it's absolutely awesome to see the progress you were making in the first two weeks and continued success. We're so proud of the effort. All right. Thanks guys. All right. Do you guys think the Democrats are going to lose people over their opposition to doge? Like is doge really viewed as oppositional to Democrat party interests for the average person? It's a war shock task. I think the thing is that there was a coalition that the Democrats had, and there was a coalition that the Republicans had. The Republicans did a better job of reforming that coalition. And now I think what you're going to see is a shrinking. I actually got this totally wrong. I don't know if you remember a couple years ago, but my thought at the time was if the Republicans don't figure out how to fix themselves, they were going to go and lose for the next 10 or 15 years. And the reason I said that was they would walk into every midterm and they would just get their ass handed to them. But I think they figured it out that this is sort of this thing that I've been thinking about a lot is there's a fight in Western societies and it's a pendulum between labor and capital. And it used to be the thought the conventional wisdom was that the Republicans were pro capital and Democrats were pro labor. And the brilliance of Trump is he took over the Republican Party and made it totally populist, which is to say pro labor. And the crazy thing about the Democrats is that they are the most sophisticated liars. Because if you look at what happened under Biden, you had record high stock markets. So it was purely in favor of asset owners, record high deficits, record high illegal immigration, record high wage suppression. All of these things are massively pro capital, but they tried to present themselves as pro labor. That entire ruse is now being undone. And all of this data, what that does is it'll, it'll consolidate the Democrats to a shell of their former self. It'll take a year or 18 months. But I think unless they figure out how to totally hard reset, they're going to be in a really difficult struggle to find a cohort of people beyond 15 or 20% of the population for a long time.

好的，看到你在前两周取得的进展以及持续的成功真是太棒了。我们为你的努力感到骄傲。谢谢大家。那么，你们觉得民主党因为反对狗狗币而失去支持者吗？狗狗币真的被普遍认为与民主党的利益相对立吗？这个话题有些模糊。我认为关键在于民主党和共和党曾经都有各自的联盟，而共和党在重塑其联盟方面做得更好。现在我觉得你会看到这种联盟的缩小。我完全搞错了。我不知道你是否还记得几年前，我当时的想法是，如果共和党不自行改革，他们将在接下来的10到15年里失败，因为他们在每次中期选举中都会惨败。但我认为他们想通了，这让我最近一直在思考的是，西方社会中存在着劳工和资本之间的斗争。传统观点认为，共和党倾向资本，民主党倾向劳工。而特朗普的高明之处在于，他接管了共和党并使其完全民粹化，这就意味着倾向于劳工。而民主党疯狂之处在于，他们是最复杂的骗子。如果你看看拜登执政期间，股市创新高，完全天偏向于资产拥有者，同时财政赤字创新高，非法移民创新高，工资压制创新高。这些全都是偏向于资本的，但他们试图表现得像是劳工的支持者。这整个骗局现在正在被揭穿。所有这些数据表明，它会将民主党缩减成他们曾经的空壳。这可能需要一年或一年半的时间。但我认为，除非他们想出彻底重启的方法，否则很长一段时间内，他们在争取超过15%或20%的人口支持上将面临艰难的斗争。

Well, and it's so dumb to come out against waste fraud and abuse. So the best argument the Democrats had, it seems, was that, Oh my God, people's social security numbers, or people's privacy was being violated because they went in and looked at the data and how the money was wasted. This is the like height of not getting the point and not reading room. 100% of Americans don't want their tax payments stolen. They don't care if you looked at their social security number. This isn't a privacy issue that Doge is looking at some database. And that's what AOC and Schumer were doing. Oh my God, these people are looking at your social security number. They have access to your records. Who cares? What matters is how much money is being stolen from the American public and anyone at any point in time could have picked up this issue. This has been going on. I think you pointed out the last time somebody really addressed this in earnest was Clinton. So this has been going on. Obama, Trump 1.0 Biden, everybody has been raising the debt. All of this grip has been going on. It's only this time around that somebody picked up the free money and said, here's an issue. Now we, we see what happens when somebody picks up the issue of stop wasting money. It is a popular issue. This is only going to make Trump more popular.

这段英语大意是关于美国政治中的浪费、欺诈和滥用问题。翻译成中文如下： 嗯，反对浪费、欺诈和滥用的行为是非常愚蠢的。看来，民主党人最好的论点是“天哪，人们的社会安全号码或隐私被侵犯了，因为他们查阅了数据，查看资金是如何被浪费的。” 这种说法完全偏离了问题的核心，也没有看清当前的形势。100%的美国人都不希望自己的税款被偷走。他们并不在乎你是否查看了他们的社会安全号码。这不是隐私问题，就像Doge在某个数据库里查了一样。而这正是AOC和舒默所做的，“天哪，这些人在查看你的社会安全号码，他们有权访问你的记录。” 谁会在乎呢？重要的是，究竟有多少钱被从美国公众手中偷走了，任何人都可以在任何时间关注这个问题。这种情况已经持续很久了。上次有人认真解决这个问题时，你指出是克林顿。所以这已经在奥巴马、特朗普1.0、拜登时期持续着，债务也在上升，这种滥用也一直存在。只是这次有人捡起了这个免费的钱袋，说，这是个问题。现在当有人提出停止浪费资金的问题时，我们看到它变成了一个受欢迎的问题。这只会让特朗普更受欢迎。

So Jason, I'm going to add what you and Chamath said. I think you're both right. I'm going to give you a very concrete example. Rahm Emanuel is now back from Japan. He was chief of staff in both the Democratic White Houses, post Roosevelt, Clinton and Obama. And he wrote an op-ed this weekend, this past weekend, that basically said the Democrats have lost their way because they have forgotten what he calls kitchen table issues. The things people, regular people care about. And Chamath, you're right. I mean, the reality is they forgot about inflation. They forgot that inflation is terrible for the average person. It's terrible for middle class America. It's okay for people that own productive assets because they just go up in value, but it's terrible for people that are wage earners and that have any savings, terrible for older people that are living off savings, terrible. You know, Rahm makes this point that if the Democrats are going to re-conform in some way, reform in some way, they're going to have to recapture these kitchen table issues. And if they don't, they'll just be about these fringe social issues, DI, transgender, whatever, and that will never work. They'll never come back in power. Well, I mean, the crazy thing is like the Democratic policies are meant to favor Capitol holders, but Capitol holders by and large deeply dislike the Democrats because of all of these other issues. So they have no home. There is no base from which to build from right now, unless they go through a great recent. And part of it is that they have to understand that they are actually not pro-labor. They have been pro-capital, but that requires such a schism from the deepest believers of the Democratic Party who thought, you know, eat the rich, you wear it on your dress. It's so important to you. In fact, actually, you were feeding the rich. And the fact that you didn't even know that is just pathetic. Yeah. And what's funny is that, you know, Margaret Thatcher famously said that the problem with socialism, you eventually run out of other people's money and you run deficits, right? And you destroy the country. This happened in Venezuela is always the end of socialism. It's how it's how it finishes, how the movie ends, we've seen it around the world. Just look, look South in South America. We were heading that direction. That's when I said earlier, we might was, I'm afraid we might become a kleptocracy if this doesn't stop. And I'm so grateful to all the way to Patriots at Doge and the government, the president, for making it happen because we were heading that direction.

所以，杰森，我要补充一下你和查玛斯所说的内容。我认为你们都是对的。我会给出一个非常具体的例子。拉姆·伊曼纽尔刚从日本回来。他曾在民主党的两届白宫担任幕僚长，分别是克林顿和奥巴马时期。他在刚过去的这个周末发表了一篇评论文章，基本上说民主党迷失了方向，因为他们忘记了他所称的“厨房桌子问题”，也就是普通人关心的事情。查玛斯，你说的没错。事实上，他们忘记了通货膨胀。他们忘记了通货膨胀对普通人有多么糟糕，对美国的中产阶级有多么不利。通胀对拥有生产性资产的人来说无所谓，因为这些资产的价值会上升，但对靠工资生活和有少量储蓄的人来说却非常糟糕，尤其是对依靠储蓄生活的老年人来说更是如此。拉姆指出，如果民主党想要在某种程度上重新塑造或改革，就必须重新抓住这些“厨房桌子问题”。如果他们不这样做，他们就只会关注一些边缘的社会问题，比如多元化和性别认同问题，而这永远不会奏效，他们将无法重新掌权。疯狂的是，民主党的政策原本是倾向于资产持有者的，但大多数资产持有者因为这些其他问题而深深地不喜欢民主党，所以他们无处安身。现在，除非他们经历一次大的重整，否则没有可以立足的基础。他们需要明白自己实际上并不支持劳工，而是支持资本，这需要与民主党深信不疑的一些人产生巨大的分裂，这些人曾认为“富人该死”，把这种想法写在衣服上，认为这非常重要。实际上，他们一直在喂养富人，而他们甚至没有意识到这一点，真是可悲。而有趣的是，玛格丽特·撒切尔曾经说过，社会主义的问题在于，你最终会耗尽别人的钱，并且造成赤字，从而毁掉一个国家。这在委内瑞拉已经发生过，这总是社会主义的结局。我们在全世界已经见过这样的情况。看看南美洲的国家，我们正朝着那个方向发展。这就是为何我之前说，我担心如果不加以制止，我们可能会成为一个偷窃政权。感谢那些爱国者、政府和总统的努力，让这一切得以实现，因为我们正朝那个方向前进。

So the Democratic Party is lost. They'll continue to be lost. Interesting thing came up this week on Monday, President Trump signed an executive order laying out a plan to establish the first sovereign wealth fund for the United States. For those of you who don't know, a sovereign wealth fund is essentially an investment fund for a country. It's almost universally based on natural resources. So Norway, Saudi, UAE, they all have Australia sovereign wealth funds based upon minerals or typically oil. The United States is not known for having the oil reserves of the Saudis or UAE or Norway. This public investment fund would be apparently anchored by potentially the TikTok shares that Trump said he wanted to get half of by giving a license. A lot of that is unclear what this license would be. It's never existed. But this is the concept. The Treasury Secretary and Commerce Secretary have been tasked with developing a plan over the next 90 days. And the plan should include, quote, recommendations for funding mechanisms, investment strategies, fund structure and governance model.

民主党迷失了方向，而且会继续迷失下去。本周一发生了一件有趣的事情，特朗普总统签署了一项行政命令，计划为美国建立首个主权财富基金。对于那些不知道的人来说，主权财富基金本质上是一个国家的投资基金。它几乎普遍基于自然资源，比如挪威、沙特、阿联酋和澳大利亚，它们的主权财富基金通常是基于矿产或石油。美国并不以拥有沙特、阿联酋或挪威那样的石油储备而闻名。据称，这个公共投资基金可能由特朗普希望通过发放许可获取一半的TikTok股份作为支撑。目前关于这项许可的细节还不清楚，因为这类事情从未有过先例。但这就是这个概念。财政部长和商务部长被指派在未来90天内制定一个计划，计划应包括关于资金筹集方式、投资策略、基金结构和治理模型的建议。

Chamath, you were tweeting about this. What is the point of having a sovereign wealth fund in the United States if we're $36 trillion in debt? Should we just pay down? I think it's not a. Where's this money going to come from? Well, it's not an either or thing. And I think the point is that if there are assets that are minted effectively overnight, which I think the 50% share of TikTok would be, so call it 100, 150 billion dollars, the question is, what should you do with it? And who should govern it? And I think this idea that if you had a group of five elder statesmen, so I'm just going to throw some names out there. David Tepper, Stan Druckenmiller, Ken Griffin, John Doar, or Mike Moritz, Bill Gross, or some other bond guy. My point is what you get are five people that are very sophisticated across all market categories. One of them could be the rotating CEO for some number of years.

Chamath，你在推特上谈到这个问题。美国已经有36万亿美元的债务，我们为什么还要建立一个主权财富基金呢？我们是否应该先偿还债务？我认为这不是非此即彼的问题。我认为重点在于，如果有资产可以在一夜之间被有效创造出来，比如像50%的TikTok股份，可能价值1000亿到1500亿美元的问题是，我们应该如何处理这些资产？谁应该来管理这些资产？我想这个想法是，如果有五位资深人士组成一个小组，比如David Tepper、Stan Druckenmiller、Ken Griffin、John Doar或Mike Moritz、Bill Gross或其他一些债券专家。我的观点是，从这些人中挑选五位在各个市场类别中都非常有经验的人。其中一位可以在某个年限内轮流担任CEO。

People should rotate in and rotate out. These are unpaid jobs because everybody that has these slots should be mega billionaires. So they shouldn't be doing it for their own personal advancement. And they should deploy that capital. So as you sell down the TikTok shares, maybe as you sell federal lands and you generate more oil revenue, take it all and invest it on behalf of America into American companies. I think that's a great credible idea. And Tony, you think the government should be in this business? So I think it should, and I agree that Shamoth, that the governance is very, very important. I think he's got a good idea there. I think he for a different reason is that we don't have an industrial policy in America. Many of our strategic competitors around the world, in particular, China, have a long-term industrial policy. And they put enormous amounts of capital behind the industrial policy. But sovereign wealth fund, I think, would be a stealthy way to create industrial policy in America. So rather than-

人们应该轮流进出这些职位。这些工作是无偿的，因为拥有这些职位的人应该是超级亿万富翁。因此，他们不应为个人利益而从事这种工作，而应该运用这些资本。所以，当你卖掉TikTok的股份，或者卖掉联邦土地并产生更多的石油收入时，把这些钱投资到美国公司，代表整个美国进行投资。我认为这是一个非常好的想法。托尼，你认为政府应该参与这个行业吗？我认为应该如此，并且我同意Shamoth关于治理非常重要的观点。我认为他的想法很好。我们美国没有工业政策，而我们世界上的许多战略竞争对手，尤其是中国，已经制定了长期的工业政策，并在其背后投入了大量资本。而国家主权财富基金可能成为在美国建立工业政策的一种隐秘方式。所以，与其……

The industrial policy in this kind of example. In China, they want to build chip fabs and they want to catch up to TSMC. So what do they do? They take the dollars of trade surplus, they get from us every year, and they pour it back into making that stuff inside their country. And for decades, part of the problem we've had with China is that capital is free because the banking system just pushes money out to manufacturers and they move the manufacturing because the WTO from the US to China. That's industrial policy. People say the Chinese have a long-term, hundred-year vision. The way it's manifest is this industrial policy. We don't have that here at all. And when we try to do it, we do like the chips act and it goes through commerce. We have government bureaucrats deciding how to spend $200 billion to modernize intel, which needs to happen. I'd much rather have Ken Griffin, Bill Gross, any of the guys Timoth mentioned deciding, okay, we have five industries in America that want to invest in. Let's make great investments. Let's make great investments from America. They've got to be economic. They've got to make money for us, but they've got to be good for the country. I think that's what most USardonnal funds do. Some of them make portfolio investments, but many of them, like the sovereign wealth and Saudi Arabia, the PIF, they're making enormous investments domestically to remake the economy toward tourism example. And I think this is a great idea. They're literally building cities in the young, they've got dozen cities being constructed and trying to take an oil economy and shift it to a tourism economy, a technology economy, a private equity economy.

在这种情况下的产业政策。在中国，他们希望建立芯片制造厂，并希望赶上台积电。那么，他们怎么做呢？他们把每年从我们这里获得的贸易顺差资金返还到国内，用于制造这些东西。几十年来，我们与中国的问题之一是资金成本几乎为零，因为银行系统推动资金流向制造商，并因世界贸易组织的影响，使制造业从美国转移到中国。这就是产业政策。人们说中国有一个长期的百年愿景，而这种产业政策就是这种愿景的体现。我们在这方面毫无建树。当我们尝试推行类似政策时，就像《芯片法案》，通过商务部门，由政府的官僚来决定如何花费2000亿美元来现代化英特尔，这确实需要做。但我更希望像肯·格里芬、比尔·格罗斯以及提姆提到的任何人来决定，我们在美国有五个想投资的行业，让我们做出明智的投资决策。这些投资不仅要有经济效益，还必须对国家有益。我认为这就是大多数美国主权基金所做的。一些基金会进行组合投资，但许多基金，如沙特阿拉伯的主权财富基金（PIF），正在进行大量的国内投资，以重塑经济，转向旅游业等领域。我认为这是一个很好的主意。他们实际上正在建设新的城市，有十几个城市正在兴建，试图将石油经济转移到旅游经济、科技经济和私募股权经济。

Antonio is totally right. Like Scott Besan, part of his congressional testimony, you guys probably saw this was he laid out this thing that he has that's called the 333 plan. Right in the 333 plan says, we want to see GDP growth of 3%. We want to see deficits that are no greater than 3%. And we want to have 3 million bears of oil produced domestically in the United States. But if you double click on that, if you look at the total energy reserves in the United States, there are three times greater than the total energy reserves of Saudi Arabia, three times across all forms. So not just oil, if you oil that gas plus coal. If we actually go, as Antonio said, towards an industrial policy that's pro energy, where the incremental cost of energy is effectively zero, where we want just a gross abundance of electrons flowing in America for all the great ideas that could pop up, it is by definition going to generate an enormous amount of revenue for the federal government. And so I think having the sovereign wealth fund be the rainy day fund, if you will, right, that can bank a percentage of all of that, I think starts to do a lot of really good for the long term strategic guidance of the US.

安东尼奥的看法完全正确。就像斯科特·贝桑在国会作证时提到的，大家可能也看到了，他提出了一个叫做“333计划”的方案。在这个计划中，他表示希望实现3%的GDP增长，财政赤字不超过3%，并在美国国内生产300万桶石油。但如果深入研究一下，你会发现美国的总能源储备是沙特阿拉伯的三倍，包括所有形式的能源，不仅仅是石油，还有天然气和煤炭。如果我们如安东尼奥所说，朝着一个支持能源的工业政策迈进，使得能源的边际成本几乎为零，并在美国国内创造大量的电能资源以支持各种创新想法，那么这将为联邦政府带来巨额收入。因此，我认为应该建立一个主权财富基金，作为应急储备，储存其中的一部分收益，这将为美国的长期战略发展提供相当有益的指导。

Freiburg, what do you think here? Is this something where we're making the government too big? And now we've got the government competing with BlackRock and Sequoia and Andreessen Horowitz, and they're going to be on the board of technology companies and energy companies and investing in it. And then what happens when, you know, Obama, Biden, Trump, Bush, you get different people running these things, and then they want to do their pet projects, it seems to me like this could be get awfully conflicted, awfully quick. What do you think? Should this be a business our government's in? I think one of the things the government sucks at is capitalism. So I wouldn't make capitalism the mandate of a sovereign wealth fund. Certainly not when we have $40 trillion of federal debt, it doesn't make economic sense. Our cost of capital is 5%. That's how much the interest is on this 10 to 30 year debt right now. So it's very hard to actually make real risk adjusted returns when our cost of capital is so high.

弗莱堡，你怎么看这个问题？我们是否在让政府变得过于庞大？政府现在竟然要和像贝莱德（BlackRock）、红杉资本（Sequoia）和安德森·霍洛维茨（Andreessen Horowitz）这样的公司竞争。他们要进入科技公司和能源公司的董事会，还要进行投资。那么，当不同的领导人如奥巴马、拜登、特朗普、布什来管理这些事情时，他们会不会想推动自己偏好的项目？这样很快就会产生冲突。你觉得政府应该参与这样的业务吗？我认为政府在资本运作方面做得不是很好。所以，我不认为主权财富基金的任务应该是资本主义，特别是当我们有40万亿美元的联邦债务时，这在经济上没有意义。我们的资本成本是5%，这就是目前10到30年期债务的利息。这使得在如此高的资本成本下，很难获得真实的风险调整后收益。

So I don't think the mandate should be, hey, let's put a bunch of capital in a pool, go and invest it and probably make money for the United States. That seems silly. But my point about the government being really bad at capitalism is that the United States government owns and has access to and will acquire through other means significant assets and resources that should be monetized in a smarter way. And so I would kind of think about the sovereign wealth fund as being more of a strategic vehicle for monetization of high value government assets.

所以我认为，任务不应该是简单地把大量资金放在一个池子里，然后去投资，可能为美国赚钱。这样看起来很荒谬。我的观点是，美国政府在资本运作方面非常糟糕，但它却拥有、能够获得并将通过其他方式获取大量重要资产和资源，这些资源应该以更聪明的方式被货币化。因此，我觉得主权财富基金更应该被视为一个战略工具，用来货币化高价值的政府资产。

So for example, if Trump does actually negotiate a 50% equity position in TikTok US, that needs to sit somewhere. It should not sit in the department of whatever. It should sit with a capitalist manager that then ultimately makes the decision on when and how to monetize that asset, return that cash to the treasury and pay down the debt. Similarly, the US has large amounts of land, has access to other large assets that get transferred in seizures, etc, etc. So, you know, I don't know if you guys remember all this, but there was like Bitcoin seizures that have happened over the years is the government has cracked down on criminal enterprises.

例如，如果特朗普真的协商了在TikTok美国公司中占有50%的股权，那么这部分股权需要被妥善管理。它不应该归属于某个部门，而是应该由一个资本管理者来负责，这样才能在合适的时机和方法下将资产变现，将收益返还给国库并偿还债务。同样的，美国拥有大量土地，还有其他通过没收获得的大型资产等等。不知道大家是否记得这些，但过去几年中政府曾经打击犯罪组织，没收了大量比特币。

Then the government owns this Bitcoin, giving the smartest people are making the decisions on where and how to sell down that Bitcoin. I guarantee you not, I would much rather have a capitalist making that decision. So I would view the, you know, the sovereign wealth fund being less about raised capital from other means in the government, which effectively means borrowing money through treasuries, because of the debt level we have and trying to invest it. And much more being about, okay, what strategic assets can the US government monetize and use this as the mechanism for doing that? And then ultimately, I think the objective should be to return that capital.

然后政府拥有这些比特币，让最聪明的人来决定如何以及在哪里抛售这些比特币。我并不保证，我更愿意由资本家来做这个决定。因此，我认为，主权财富基金与其说是通过国家的其他方式筹集资金，更确切地说是通过国债借钱并尝试进行投资，不如说是在考虑美国政府可以将哪些战略资产货币化，并以此作为实现这一目标的手段。最终，我认为目标应该是将这些资金归还。

I do think there's also an opportunity for managing Social Security in a smarter way. So Social Security is functionally going to be bankrupt in eight years. The way the trust is set up, the cash that's there, the assets that are there, and the demand on Social Security, given the aging population and the rising payouts every year. So one of the other ways to think about this is what are the long term debt obligations, which is ultimately the point of these sovereign wealth funds? And can they be invested in smarter way?

我确实认为有机会以更聪明的方式管理社保。目前的情况是，社保将在八年内陷入功能性破产。考虑到信托基金的设置、现有的现金和资产、老龄化人口以及每年不断增加的支出，社保面临很大压力。我们可以从另一个角度考虑这个问题，即长期债务责任是什么，这也是国家主权财富基金的核心问题。那么，我们是否可以以更聪明的方式进行投资呢？

Why is the Social Security entities ultimately owning, you know, 3% yielding bonds when they could be owning interest in, in equities? So I would kind of think about that strategic pool of capital being managed by this as well, and less about the mandate of go be a capitalist investor for the United States, raise money and make money. I think leave that to the markets. But when it comes to strategic assets, I think this could be a good vehicle for the sell growth. We've got shut down. Yeah, we seized 144,000 Bitcoin, and that's sitting somewhere in some Department of Justice.

为什么社保机构最终持有收益率仅为3%的债券，而不是投资于股票呢？我认为，从战略的角度来看，这个资金池也应该由这一方面来管理，而不仅仅是遵循“成为美国的资本主义投资者、筹集资金并赚钱”的任务。我认为这一部分应该交给市场去做。但在涉及到战略资产时，我认为这可以成为一个良好的工具来促进已经被停止的增长。我们曾扣押了14.4万枚比特币，而这些比特币现在可能放在某个司法部门里。

Yeah, they sold it. No, I think we still have it. I think that was like the idea was that was going to become the Bitcoin strategic reserve. I mean, you could also come up with the DOJ, the DOJ, the DOJ sells these. So like, who do you think of the DOJ is making the Bitcoin market decisions? And is that the right person to be monetizing these assets? David mentioned, you can point out security. It's going to fall upon, which is when you think about Social Security, it's $61 of our 30 strong debt, and it's actually a fake treasury bill.

是的，他们卖掉了。 不，我觉得我们还拥有它。我想最初的想法是那会成为比特币战略储备。我是说，你也可以提到美国司法部（DOJ），他们会卖掉这些东西。那么，你认为是谁在司法部做比特币市场的决策？这个人在变现这些资产方面合适吗？大卫提到，你可以指出安全性问题，这会影响到，当你想到社会保障时，它在我们30万亿债务中占了61美元，而且实际上是个伪国债。

So just one of the things we figured out in early days before the inauguration, I noticed that $600 sits on the ledger. It's just a paper ledger over. So actually, if it gets paid out, it's also going to be very inflationary. It's just a fake treasury I let it over that pays a very low rate. And here at Valor, my partner, John Shulkin has been reading to try to help the only thing we find in this audit in the government, this Social Security administration actually has an audit. It has an audit. And when you go through the audit, it's crazy. The material weaknesses going back to Doge that you find, yeah, it'd be way better to have that invest in a way that was economic for people with real money.

所以在就职前的早期阶段，我们发现了一些事情。我注意到账本上有600美元。这只是一个纸面上的记录。如果这笔钱被支出，也会导致通货膨胀。这实际上是一个虚假的国库券，利率非常低。在我们公司Valor，我的合伙人John Shulkin一直在研究，希望能帮到政府审计中发现的问题，其中社保局实际上是有审计的。当你查看审计报告时，发现的问题令人难以置信。与其这样，不如用这笔钱以经济有效的方式进行真正的投资。

And as we're speaking for this, guys, as we're speaking, the federal judge just put a temporary restraining order on Doge and has barred Elon and his team from accessing US Treasury payments data. All right. So now we're going to have a real grudge match between the public. It's a federal judge, was it? Federal judge? Federal judge, yeah. Would you know why, Jamaz, let's say why.

就在我们谈论此事的时候，联邦法官刚刚对Doge（狗狗币）发布了临时限制令，并禁止埃隆·马斯克及其团队访问美国财政部的支付数据。好的，所以现在我们将看到公众之间真正的对抗。这是联邦法官，对吧？联邦法官，对。Jamaz，你知道为什么吗？我们来说说原因。

No, but Elizabeth Warren is doing a victory lap. So I'm sure that, you know, she's part of it. So the government agency set up by the president can't look at the database of the Treasury. So just to be double click here, Doge is not a new agency. It's the renaming of existing needs and taking for the name of it, what to find it. Elon tweeted about this some weeks ago that was set up under Obama, actually, to do this, to create an audit function to the government. What's crazy about this ruling to me is, uh, Congress basically is the constitution delegates to the executive, the, um, the ability to spend the money and they go through Congress because it gets actually appropriate in Congress and the executive spends it. How can you spend money if you don't know where it went?

不，但伊丽莎白·沃伦（Elizabeth Warren）正在庆祝胜利。所以我确信，她是其中的一环。意思是，政府的一个机构是由总统设立的，但这个机构无法查看财政部的数据库。简单来说，Doge并不是一个新的机构，而是对现有需求进行重命名，以其名称来定义它。实际上，这是在奥巴马时期设立的，为政府创建审计功能。让我感到不可思议的是，这项裁决中，国会基本上是宪法授权给行政部门支配资金，他们通过国会是因为拨款实际上是由国会批准，而行政部门则负责使用这些资金。如果你不知道钱去了哪里，你怎么能花钱呢？

How can you be responsible, right? You have the authority to spend it, but not the first, and how can we responsibly spend it if you actually can't go look and see where it goes. Guys, this is flying fast and furious. President Trump just unveiled his framework for his tax plan. No tax on tips, no tax on senior social security, no tax on overtime pay, renew the middle class tax cuts, adjust the salt cap. So again, very pro, as I said, pro labor, pro populist, eliminate all special tax breaks for billionaire sports team owners.

你怎么能负责任呢，对吧？你有权花这笔钱，但不是第一个，实际上如果你不能查看钱的去向，我们怎么能负责任地花呢？大家，这事发展得非常迅速。特朗普总统刚刚公布了他的税收计划框架。不给小费征税，不对老年人的社保征税，不对加班工资征税，延续中产阶级减税措施，调整"SALT"限额。再说一次，如我所说，非常支持劳动者，支持平民主义，取消所有对亿万富翁体育队老板的特殊税收优惠。

Oh, all right. I'm already sold to my piece. So close the carried interest tax deduction loophole, which allowed you to claim carried interest. All right. Antonio, I'm going to run. I'll be back in a few hours and sell some things. Isn't that incredible? I mean, he is really going for the jug. Wow. Hmm. Amazing. I support this 100%. The salt deductions coming back. Is that right? Yeah, marginally though. I don't think he's going to give it the way that it was before, but isn't this incredible?

哦，好吧。我已经决定了我的立场。那么，就关闭这个允许你申报资产管理收益税扣除的漏洞吧。好的，安东尼奥，我得走了。我几个小时后会回来并出售一些东西。难以置信吧？他真的是直接冲着要害而去。哇哦，真了不起。我百分之百支持这个。州和地方税扣除要回来了，是这样吗？是的，虽然只是一点点。我不认为他会以之前的方式恢复，但是这不是很让人惊讶吗？

I mean, who's going to stand up and lay on the railroad tracks for being able to amortize a multi-billion dollar sports team purchase or that when you make a fund investment, you should get long-term cap gains treatment. Who is going to be that person in this nobody's going to stand up for these things. I think we should just stop doing venture and just start NGOs. We just start a whole rat's nest of NGOs ship money around. You could have an incubator.

我的意思是，有谁会为了能够抵扣一笔数十亿美元的体育队购买而付出代价，或者为了让基金投资获得长期资本收益待遇而挺身而出呢？没有人会为这些事情挺身而出。我认为我们应该停止风险投资，转而开始做非政府组织(NGO)。我们可以建立一大堆NGO来周转资金，你还可以有一个孵化器。

Yeah, absolutely. If you've got a great idea for an NGO, why did you launch launch in every single random developing country in the world? I mean, if I had an NGO, you would have that 8 billion of AUM because of a USAID just launch one in Vietnam and we could have, yeah, go launch. I love it. We could have had a launch accelerator in Vietnam for transgender, yeah, the Jason Calcanis launch fund of Equatorial Guinea.

是的，完全同意。如果你有一个很棒的非营利组织（NGO）创意，那为什么要在世界上每个随机的发展中国家都启动呢？我的意思是，如果我有一个非营利组织，只需要在越南启动一个，我们可能会有来自美国国际开发署（USAID）的大笔款项，就能拥有80亿的资产管理规模。我非常喜欢这个想法。我们本可以在越南为跨性别群体启动一个加速器，那就像是贾森·卡尔卡尼斯在赤道几内亚的基金一样。

It is so crazy though to come out and watching the Democrats just the self-own of coming out and being like, we have to stop people from stopping wasteful spend. They just don't seem to understand how unpopular these are kitchen table issues like Ram said. I mean, everyone cares about that. And if you don't care about that, if you care about these fringe issues and not the things people care about on the kitchen table. Well, and if you think about the transgender sports issue, biological males playing in female sports leagues, that issue that Trump just did an EO yesterday.

这真是太疯狂了，民主党出来后自曝其短，说他们必须阻止人们制止浪费开支。他们似乎不明白这些问题有多不受欢迎，正如Ram所说，这些都是餐桌上的热点问题。我的意思是，每个人都关心这些。如果你不关心这些问题，只关心那些边缘问题而不是人们关心的餐桌话题……那么，如果你考虑到跨性别者参加运动的问题——比如生物学上的男性参加女性体育联赛，这就是特朗普昨天刚刚颁布行政命令的问题。

Four was such an obvious issue of fairness and has nothing to do with transgender. It just has to do with like biology. If a if a biological male plays basketball on a biological female team, somebody's going to get hurt and that person's going to score 100 points. It's just obvious. And the fact that the Democrats couldn't see that issue being 100% for more 95% makes no sense. Like it's just such an obvious litmus test of logic.

这段话的大意是：“四是一个明显的公平性问题，与变性人无关，这就是个生物学的问题。如果一个生理上的男性在一个生理上的女性队伍中打篮球，会有人受伤，而且那个男生会得100分。这显而易见。而民主党人居然看不到这个问题，竟然不完全支持（连95%的支持都没有），这就让人无法理解。这是一个显而易见的逻辑试金石。”

I mean, look, man, the constitution is a document about fairness. The people that found this country, the Patriots found this country, they did it because you're treated unfairly at home. All of us here are one generation away, right? Or two generations away from immigration and the reality is that's why people come here, man. It's it's un-American. It's un-American. Sure, very, very. So we got two people who are immigrants.

我的意思是，你看，兄弟，宪法是一份关于公平的文件。建立这个国家的那些人，爱国者们，他们这样做是因为他们在自己的国家受到了不公正的对待。我们在座的每个人都是一代或两代人的时间差，从移民开始的。实际上，这就是人们来到这里的原因。这样做是不符合美国精神的。没错，确实是。所以我们有两位移民。

I'm reading the TRO and it looks like this TRO means temporary restraining order. And it's actually Narrows Who from Doge can get redoxes down to two people, Tom Prouse and Marco Eliz. Oh, okay. So they don't want to have the whole team be able to see what's at Treasury. They just have to have a process and some sign off. Okay, that sounds not unreasonable. I just want to point out two people to look at number how good they are.

我正在阅读这个TRO，它看起来意味着临时限制令。而且事实上，它限定了来自Doge的某些人，只允许两个人访问redoxes，他们是Tom Prouse和Marco Eliz。哦，明白了。所以他们不希望整个团队都能查看Treasury的内容。他们只需要一个流程和一些签署确认。好的，这听起来合理。我只是想指出两个人，希望看看他们的表现。

I'm saying we're 24 seven. Look at all the payments in the US government is not a lot. Yeah, it does seem like it needs to be more than two, but it doesn't seem like they're saying you can't look at it. They just want to have some controls in place. I mean, it feels like that's an administrative block. That's like the Narrows and you can do to. Okay, yeah, you can come in, but you can just send two people and just these two people. So if they get sick or something happens, no one else comes in. That seems to me to be truly submit your block to slow it down. Yeah. While we're interpreting this in real time, the facts will come out over time.

我是在说我们全年无休。看看美国政府的所有付款，确实不多。是的，确实看起来似乎需要多于两个人，但他们似乎并没有说你不能查看这些内容。他们只是想要设定一些控制措施。我觉得这像是一个行政障碍，就像一条狭窄的通道，你可以通过。好吧，是的，你可以进入，但你只能派两个人，而且只能是这两个人。所以如果他们生病了或者出了什么问题，就没有其他人能进来。在我看来，这是真正的一个障碍，意在减慢进程。在我们实时解释这件事的同时，事实会逐渐浮出水面。

Let's wrap up on Google. Google dropped 7% after reporting earnings on Tuesday, Chamatha revenue up 12% year over year, 96.5 billion. Wow. Cloud revenue is up 30% year over year, 12 billion YouTube ads, searching 14% to 10.5 billion net profit was around 26.5 billion, up 28% year every year. So they are really focusing on profitability. Obviously, four year numbers, this is just a short and right total revenue, 350 billion with 100 billion in net profit. Cloud and YouTube finished 2024 with a combined run rate of $110 billion. YouTube is basically Netflix inside of, inside of Google and their Google cloud is essentially AWS inside of Google.

让我们总结一下谷歌的情况。谷歌在周二公布财报后股价下跌了7%。Chamatha的收入同比增长了12%，达到965亿美元。哇。云服务收入同比增长30%，达到120亿美元。YouTube广告收入增长了14%，达到105亿美元。净利润大约为265亿美元，同比增长28%。显然，他们真的在关注盈利能力。这只是全年数据的简短概述，总收入为3500亿美元，净利润为1000亿美元。云服务和YouTube在2024年结束时的合并运行率达到了1100亿美元。可以说，YouTube就像谷歌内部的Netflix，而谷歌云则像谷歌内部的AWS。

The thing that made investors get concerned, Chamatha, is that Google said it would invest 75 billion in CAPEX in 2025, 42% jump over 2024, 29% more than analysts expect. Obviously, this has to do with data center servers and the AI build out.

让投资者感到担忧的是，谷歌表示将于2025年在资本支出（CAPEX）方面投资750亿美元，比2024年增加了42%，比分析师的预期高出29%。显然，这与数据中心服务器和人工智能的建设有关。

What do you think about that number 75 billion, obviously, in relation to what we saw with deep-seek doing it with maybe a little bit less, maybe they're lying, is this just an absolute waste of money or gargantuan number or is it something they can easily with that amount of profitability and cash they have absorbed and use in the future? I think I should stipulate that Google's models are probably the best of all the models across a broad base of capabilities if you test for them. And so let's start there, which is whatever they're doing is working. The thing that they need to do is be able to translate those models now into better products. And I think that'll happen slowly.

您怎么看待这个750亿的数字，显然这和我们看到的Deep-seek可能用更少的钱做到的情况有关，也许他们在撒谎。这到底是绝对的浪费还是庞大的数额，或者是他们可以轻松吸收利用的，因为他们有这么多盈利和现金储备？我应该说明的是，谷歌的模型可能是所有模型中在广泛能力上测试表现最好的。所以我们从这一点开始，无论他们在做什么都很有效。他们需要做的是将这些模型转化为更好的产品。我认为这将会慢慢实现。

Like, for example, if you look at deep research, most of the people online that are evaluating deep research would now say that OpenAI is both faster and just better on the margins. All of these things can be improved. I don't think that's a comment on the base model. I think it's a comment on post training and how they're attempting to productize these things. So the other thing that Google has is a money machine that directly benefits from these AI-driven optimizations on ad targeting. The only other company that has anywhere close to the same credibility is meta.

就像比如说，如果你关注深入研究的话，现在大多数在网上评估深入研究的人会说，OpenAI在速度和边缘性能上都更有优势。所有这些方面都有改进的空间。我认为这不是对基础模型的评价，而是对后期训练以及他们如何尝试将这些东西产品化的评价。谷歌还有一个直接从这些AI驱动的广告投放优化中获益的“赚钱机器”。唯一能在这个方面与之媲美的公司是Meta。

So I think what both of these two companies need to do is do a better job of explaining how that 75 billion gets segregated. How much of that goes to these AI enabled models that actually do better ads optimization. There's a really interesting discussion by a former meta machine learning engineer on X about how they did it. It's pretty amazing. It's staggering. But if they could say half the money goes to that and the other half goes to more speculative pre-training and post-training, I think the market would have eaten it up. So it's probably more of a disclosure issue for Google because I would say right now their model quality is the best. You have thoughts on this build out, Antonio, obviously. I think you've been involved with XAI and obviously you're involved with Twitter and X previously and Colossus' colossal build out.

我认为这两家公司需要更好地解释750亿美元是如何分配的。有多少资金用于那些真正能改善广告优化的AI模型。这方面有一个非常有趣的讨论，是由一位前Meta的机器学习工程师在X平台上分享的，他们是如何做到这一点的，实在令人惊叹。如果能明确地说明，例如一半资金用于这方面，而另一半用于更具前瞻性的预训练和后训练，我想市场会很买账。所以对于谷歌来说，可能更多是一个披露问题，因为我认为目前他们的模型质量是最好的。Antonio，你对这种建设有何看法？显然你曾参与过XAI，并且以前也参与过Twitter和X的项目以及Colossus的庞大建设。

That was extraordinary to watch in such a short period of time. Do you have concerns that like some people do that this build out is too expensive and there would be too hard to monetize all that expense or is it maybe a little bit of hand-ringing and the opportunity in AI is so obviously huge that you just got to take the leap of faith and if you build it, the revenue will come. Yeah, I think you're math has the right framework here, which is return of us a capital. And what he's saying by, you know, if Google had said, hey, half the money is for ads and half the money is for budget, but it's post-training. The market would have seen that half the money has a higher trend capital and Google's trend capital is actually going up after the implementation of AI models into their company. And I think that sort of abstracts the entire market, which is people are waking up that return invested capital and data essential matter that the models are basic commodities and super competitive.

观看如此短时间内的精彩表现真是令人惊叹。你是否担心像一些人一样，这种建设太昂贵，并且难以从中获利？还是说这其实只是一些过度担忧，因为人工智能的机会显而易见巨大，所以你只需要有信心，相信如果你构建起来，收益就会到来。是的，我认为你的数学思路是正确的，这在于资本回报。如果谷歌表示，资金的一半用于广告，另一半用于预算，但这是在训练后的，市场会看到这笔资金有更高的转化资本。实际上，谷歌在将AI模型应用到他们公司后，转化资本正在上升。我认为，这反映了整个市场的变化，人们意识到，投入资本回报和数据的本质是重要的，而模型只是基本的商品并且竞争非常激烈。

In the best case, it's kind of a land-worn Asia to melee in a worst case, just total commodities. What does matter is the return capital data center, which influenced by how good the data centers are. So you mentioned the XA data center, it's a hundred thousand GPU cluster. It's the most dense school here in cluster in the world, and it will just train faster and better than other clusters. And it's also built for the most cheaply and the fastest. So XAO have the highest trend capital and bioselling the best trend data and therefore will win. And Google will also win because they have their tensor flow chips, they've made some of their own chips. They do focus on ROIC and they have a great monopoly to kind of fund it all. So I don't think it's over. Don't blow it. I think this is going to be, as you guys have said before, the podcast, bigger than dust revolution. But it's also true that you need to have a good ROIC. And if you don't, you're not transparent about it, you can see what it has. I would argue, Google's probably been the most frugal, thoughtful, and well managed computing infrastructure investor of all time. You know, the 98 to 2005 era Google, it was all about just cheap throwaway racks. That was the big advantage they had is they weren't using the expensive Oracle servers. And they had a two to three year kind of depreciation timeline on those, but they were super cheap. And so the ROIC was quite good. Then they got into energy efficiency, which they realized was a big driving cost. They started to build systems that were more energy efficient as a result, they lasted longer. And then their depreciation schedule moved up to three to four years, meaning they could kind of write down the value of the servers over three to four years.

在最佳情况下，这种情况就像一个土地广阔的亚洲，最糟糕的情况下则只是完全依赖商品。重要的是数据中心的回报资本，这受到数据中心质量的影响。你提到了XA数据中心，它有十万个GPU集群，是世界上密度最高的集群，并且训练速度和效果都会胜过其他集群。它的建造成本最低且速度最快。因此，XAO拥有最高的趋势资本和最好的趋势数据，因而可以获胜。Google也会赢，因为他们有自己的TensorFlow芯片，并且制作了一些自有芯片。他们专注于投资资本回报率（ROIC），并且通过垄断优势来支持这一切。所以我认为这一切还没有结束。不要搞砸，我认为这将是如你们在播客中所说的大于工业革命的变革。但是你也需要有良好的ROIC，如果没有，你就无法透明地展示你的成果。我认为，Google可能是有史以来最节俭、最周全和管理最好的计算基础设施投资者。你知道，在1998年至2005年间，Google的一大优势是采用廉价的抛弃型机架，而不是昂贵的Oracle服务器。他们的折旧周期是二到三年，但成本非常低，所以投资回报率相当不错。后来，他们开始重视能源效率，并意识到这是一个主要驱动成本的因素。于是，他们开始建立更节能的系统，延长了设备寿命。其折旧周期也延长到三至四年，这意味着他们可以在三至四年内逐步减少服务器的账面价值。

And then from 2010 to 2015 era, their hardware system for cloud allowed them to kind of extend through repurposing the utilization and they increased their depreciation from to four to five years. And then in 2021, and if you guys remember this, they made this kind of big change to their depreciation schedule on data center infrastructure to six years. So when they invest CAPEX in a data center, they would write down the servers over a six year cycle because of AI optimization on maintenance. So they started using AI just for internal management of the infrastructure. So I would view the $75 billion CAPEX actually as a very positive signal for the company. I think that it means that they have a really strong line of sight on how they're going to have full utilization and great return on this. If you do the math ROIC math on this, $75 billion assume a 20% ROIC, you've got to be generating call it roughly an incremental $15 billion of profit a year plus the amortization of the $75 billion. So take the $75 billion divided by six, that's $12 billion plus $15 billion.

从2010年到2015年，他们通过重新利用硬件系统来扩展云服务的利用率，并将折旧年限从四年增加到五年。然后在2021年，他们对数据中心的基础设施折旧计划进行了重大调整，延长至六年。由于使用人工智能优化来维护，他们在投资数据中心资本支出时，将服务器的折旧周期设定为六年。他们开始使用人工智能来对基础设施进行内部管理。我认为，75亿美元的资本支出对公司来说是一个非常积极的信号，这表示他们对如何充分利用这些投资以及获得良好回报有着非常明确的计划。如果你计算一下投资资本回报率，假设75亿美元的投资资本回报率为20%，那么每年大约会产生15亿美元的额外利润，加上75亿美元的折旧。75亿美元除以六年，是12亿美元，再加上15亿美元。

So basically they would need to make an incremental $27 billion of operating profit a year on the $75 billion for this to meet their ROIC performance. That doesn't seem crazy because that's just under 20% of their annual operating profit. This is a very kind of, I think, important point, which is Google doesn't just do this to build out AI in the future. They have a really strong line of sight on how this can kind of increment and you don't have a huge hurdle for them for this to pay back. So I don't know, I would kind of, Tae António's point, I'd view this as a positive. I think if you use their historical ability to manage infrastructure and make predictions on investments as an indicator of the future, this is a strong and positive indicator. And I do think that for all the naysayers out there that think that search is going to evolve to chat, you could look at this as being a really important proof point that Google has the confidence that they're going to be able to move from search to chat.

基本上，他们需要在750亿美元的基础上每年增加270亿美元的营业利润，以达到他们的投资回报率目标。这看起来并不疯狂，因为这只是他们年度营业利润的不到20%。这是一个非常重要的点，即谷歌不仅仅为了未来的人工智能建设做这件事。他们明确知道如何逐步推进，并且没有很高的障碍来实现回报。因此，我认为，从Tae António的角度来看，这是一个积极的信号。我认为，如果你根据他们过去管理基础设施和投资预测的能力来预测未来，这是一个强而有力的积极指标。我确实认为，对于那些认为搜索将会演变为聊天的怀疑者来说，这可以被看作是一个非常重要的证明，表明谷歌有信心能够从搜索转向聊天。

And as Jumat points out, they've got great performative models. And I would view this more of as a positive than a negative. If they were under investing, I would be worried that they didn't know where to invest. But to see they make this degree of investment highlights the confidence and the strategy. And turn it out, I don't know if you've been watching the Asian space or deep research that came out from Google and then closed AI and an open AI, launched their copycat version of this product. Sorry, I don't know if I'm feeling on it. I'm curious your thoughts on job displacement.

正如Jumat所指出的，他们有很好的表现模型。我认为这更多是一个好的方面而不是坏的。如果他们投资不足，我会担心他们不知道该投资在哪里。但看到他们做出这样的投资，显示了他们的信心和战略。不知道你是否注意到亚洲领域的动态，或者谷歌的深入研究，以及之后的封闭AI和开放AI推出了这个产品的模仿版本。抱歉，我不太确定自己的感受。我很想知道你对工作替代的看法。

We're looking at self driving. Obviously, Waymo's got cars on the road, obviously, Tesla, which you were previously on the board of. And I know you were the first institutional investor in Tesla, self driving is pretty good. I only get like one or two disengagements per hour. And they tend to be the ones where I just want to take the turn a little sharper kind of thing. So that's getting pretty close. BYD is very close. You got a lot of job displacement that occur. Millions and millions of drivers in 10 years can lose their jobs. Researchers working at Gartner group, whatever Boston consulting group, like it feels like there could be massive job displacement. Do you have concerns about that in the American economy and globally?

我们正在关注自动驾驶。显然，Waymo的汽车已经上路，Tesla也是，这家公司你曾在董事会任职。而且我知道你是Tesla的第一个机构投资者，自动驾驶技术已经相当不错了。我每小时大约只有一两次人工介入的情况，而且通常是因为我想更灵活地转弯之类的原因。所以这项技术已经越来越成熟。比亚迪也很接近这个水平。这样一来，许多工作岗位可能会被取代。在未来十年里，可能有数以百万计的司机失去工作。Gartner集团，还有像波士顿咨询集团这样的研究机构，都认为可能会出现大规模的岗位替代现象。你对美国经济乃至全球的这种情况有担忧吗？

There's a lot of hearing about this. And it's real in prior moments of large disruption that there have been job displacements because there's generous people to get retrained for something else to keep retrained. So I think there were studies in the industry in Pittsburgh in the 70s that the cost of each steel worker job loss was about a million dollars in the economy because these people can be retrained. And that might happen here. But I have a more benign outlook personally. What I think is going to happen is that you will have job loss. But the amount of productivity that will be released in the US economy is going to be extraordinary. So GDP growth is a function of the number of people working times productivity. It's very simple. Economists want to make it more complex than that. But it's number of people working times productivity. If you go, if productivity goes up to five, six, seven, eight percent, you get a massive boost in GDP growth.

对于这件事有很多讨论。在以往巨大的变革时期，确实出现过工作流失的情况，但也有很多人愿意去重新培训自己，以适应新的工作。我记得在70年代，匹兹堡的研究表明，每失去一个钢铁工人的工作，经济损失大约是一百万美元，因为这些人可以被重新培训。这种情况可能在这里也会发生。不过，我个人持较乐观的看法。我认为虽然会有一些工作丢失，但美国经济中释放出来的生产力将是非常惊人的。国内生产总值（GDP）的增长取决于就业人数与生产力的乘积，这一原理其实很简单。虽然经济学家们可能想让它显得更复杂，但实际上就是就业人数乘以生产力。如果生产力增长达到五、六、七、甚至八个百分点，你就会看到GDP增长得到极大的提升。

And then what happens? Well, people can get retrained, they can get different jobs, different services happen. People start companies, the application layer of LLMs is just starting. The barrier to start a company is quite low. Things like launch probably explode because there's all these people who don't have jobs anywhere that work, countenance and want to start something. It's hard to know what happens. I believe in American agility. I believe in this country. I believe that we will figure out how to make this all work. And if there's enough productivity and money in the economy that's flowing, people will find new jobs. They will find new businesses to start. They will find new things to do. We have to get out of the way, take regulation down, and let Americans be creative and unleash the American productivity machine. Let's make that happen.

然后会发生什么呢？人们可以接受再培训，他们可以找到不同的工作，不同的服务也会出现。人们开始创建公司，而大型语言模型（LLMs）的应用层才刚刚起步。创业的门槛相当低。像“启动”这样的事情可能会爆炸性增长，因为有很多人在其他地方找不到工作，他们有能力有意愿的想要开始一些事情。目前很难预料会发生什么。我相信美国的灵活性。 我相信这个国家。我相信我们会弄清楚如何让这一切运转。如果经济中有足够的生产力和金钱流动，人们就会找到新的工作机会。他们会找到新的业务来启动。他们会找到可以做的新事情。我们需要放开限制，降低监管，让美国人的创造力和生产力得到释放。让我们去实现这一目标。

That's really strong thoughts. That's the game we're seeing on the field. How many companies are we seeing hit a million dollars in revenue with five employees where that used to take 25? The efficiency is there. Chamop, you're outlook on this issue since it seems to be coming up again, specifically with truck drivers and Uber drivers and all kinds of other research jobs that seem to be doing pretty well or can be done pretty well by AI. Where do you stand on this issue today? I think it's a process. Buffett wrote about this in an annual letter. What he described was the changing nature of jobs during the agrarian revolution. What you saw was a large cohort of people who supported themselves through farming. Then the total quantum of those jobs shrank by 90% when you had industrialized farming and tractors and whatnot. The economy to Antonio's point grew around that business and added other kinds of businesses that didn't make sense in that moment. I think what you see is that when economies get more and more evolved, you see the growth of services, businesses, these things that can only happen when you have excess. The person that you pay for closet organizing would not have had a job in the turn of the agrarian revolution or the industrial revolution. But they can exist in 2020. Something, and frankly, they can make a good job, the life coach. There are all these jobs that just come out of nowhere. Podcast or influencer. All of that.

这是一番非常深刻的思考。我们在市场上看到的就是这样的趋势。有多少公司用五名员工就能实现百万美元的收入，这在过去可能需要25人。这种效率实实在在存在。Chamop，就您而言，这个问题似乎再次浮现，特别是在卡车司机、Uber司机和各种其他研究类工作方面，这些工作似乎可以由AI很好地完成或者说已经在做得很好。您对此问题现在持什么立场？我认为这是一个过程。巴菲特在年度信中写到过这一点。他描述了农业革命中工作的性质变化。过去，有一大批人以务农为生。但随着农业的工业化，例如拖拉机等技术的出现，这种工作的总量缩减了90%。正如Antonio所指出的，经济在那个商业基础上扩展出了其他当时看来没有意义的业务。我认为，当经济变得越来越发达时，你会看到服务行业、企业的增长，这些事情只有在有多余的人力和资源时才会发生。在农业革命或工业革命时期，不会有人专门为整理衣柜而付费，但到了2020年代，这种工作已经存在并且可能还会是一份好工作，如生活教练。此外，还有许多新兴职业如播客或网红等都从无到有地出现了。

Venture capital is. Mutant strawberry creator. I think that you're. Cut that. Waiting for this next turn of creativity. The big problem that we all have, maybe I'll take the more glass-out empty version of what Antonio said is we really haven't been unlocking people's creativity over the last 15 years. We've been trundling around except safe of a few companies which we all know and we can just repeat them endlessly, but we know which ones they are that are truly innovating and at the edge. Everybody else is kind of diddling around naval casing. So the real problem is that we have not had a lot of reps in being creative. I'll give you just a very simple example, Nick.

风险投资是突变草莓的创造者。我认为你在等待下一次创造力的迸发。我们所有面临的一个大问题，也许我采用一下安东尼奥所说的相对悲观的看法，就是在过去的15年中，我们并没有真正激发人们的创造力。除了少数几家公司之外，我们一直在原地踏步，这些公司真正处于创新的前沿，大家都知道是哪几家。其余的人基本上只是在自我打转。所以真正的问题在于，我们在培养创造力方面并没有太多的练习。我给你一个非常简单的例子，尼克。

Can you find this? Even extremely state industries. Did you see the BYD clip of the car? Yes. And I thought to myself. Parallel park, yes, with a little swipe. It's a crunch. Tragic is it that you look at this and you're blown away. You're blown away for two reasons. One is A, I didn't think that that was possible. And B, why doesn't exist in America? But the reality underneath the hood is extremely benign how this is implemented. And so I think that the problem is we spent so much time losing the script. I think Antonio is right. When you unshackle people to not focus on the mental load of getting the pronouns right or the this or the that, you won't be so overwhelmed by things like this because you will have already been pushing the boundaries of human creativity. We need to get back to that. We need to let these creative people cook. And I hope that that happens. And I think that that will happen.

你能找到这个东西吗？即使是极其严格的国有企业。你看到比亚迪汽车的视频了吗？看到了。我心想：平行停车，只要轻轻滑动一下。真是一项突破。令人震惊的是，当你看到这个时，会被深深吸引。这有两个原因：一是我没想到这会成为可能，二是美国为什么没有。但是实际上，这个技术的实现方式非常简单。因此，我认为问题在于我们花了太多时间迷失了方向。安东尼奥是对的，当你放开对一些琐碎问题的关注，比如用词准确与否时，你就不会被这种创新所吓到，因为你已经在拓展人类创造力的极限了。我们需要重回正轨，让这些有创意的人自由发挥。我希望这能够实现，而且我相信这将会实现。

Freeberg, can you do a science corner on the FDA approval for the non-opioid painkiller? Not today. No, no, I know. But could you do it like in a couple of weeks? Yeah. Non-opioid. But what I wanted to do is that new macro study on GLP1s, which I think is super interesting. Oh, tell us. You guys remember I talked a while ago about how they were able to mine VA data. So the VA, they take care of veterans and they have all the medical records. And on an anonymized basis, they can make that data available to researchers. And so if you guys remember this, this is how they identified that the Epstein-Barr virus or the virus that causes mono as being statistically certain to be the trigger for multiple sclerosis. In the cohort of hundreds of thousands of patients that were in this data set, no one got MS that didn't get Epstein-Barr virus. If you did not get Epstein-Barr virus, you did not get MS. I don't know if you guys remember I did the science corner a while ago. Anyway, so the data set that you can mine at the VA is incredible. So they pulled all the data from everyone that's been on the GLP1 agonists. And they identified all of the health effects across multiple indications, the statistical difference between the cohorts. Okay.

弗里伯格，你能不能做一个关于FDA批准非阿片类止痛药的科学角的专题？今天不行。不是，我知道。但你能不能在几周后做一下？可以。关于非阿片类的。我想做的是关于GLP1的新宏观研究，我觉得这非常有趣。哦，告诉我们。你们还记得我之前谈到他们是如何挖掘退伍军人事务部（VA）的数据吗？VA负责照顾退伍军人，他们拥有所有的医疗记录。他们可以在匿名的基础上让研究人员使用这些数据。如果你们还记得，他们就是这样确定了引发多发性硬化症（MS）的病毒是Epstein-Barr病毒，也就是导致单核细胞增多症的病毒。在数十万患者的数据集中，没有感染Epstein-Barr病毒的人得多发性硬化症的概率是零。如果没有感染Epstein-Barr病毒，就不会得多发性硬化症。我不知道你们还记不记得我之前的科学角。总之，在VA的数据集中可以发现很多东西。他们提取了所有使用GLP1激动剂的人的数据，并识别出了多个适应症之间的健康影响的统计差异。好的。

So this research team out of St. Louis pulled all the data from the VA database. And basically they looked at 1.2 million people with diabetes that didn't take anything compared to 215,000 that took the GLP1 receptor agonists and another 600,000 people that took other drugs for diabetes.

来自圣路易斯的这个研究团队从退伍军人事务数据库中收集了所有数据。他们主要对比研究了三组人：120万人，他们患有糖尿病但没有服用任何药物；21.5万人，他们使用了GLP1受体激动剂；另有60万人，他们使用了其他治疗糖尿病的药物。

So basically this cohort segmentation allows them to isolate the effect of the GLP1 drugs. And as you can see here, this shows across hundreds of thousands of patients, the effect of the GLP1 on a hazard ratio, which means like how likely are you to have the following health condition versus the population that's not taking the GLP1s. And then on the right, if you scroll to the right, Nick, are the increase in risk and on the left are the things that go down.

基本上，这种队列细分使他们能够隔离GLP1药物的效果。正如你在这里看到的，这展示了在数十万名患者中，GLP1对风险比率的影响。这意味着服用GLP1药物的人群相比未服用的人群，有多大可能性会出现以下健康状况。在右侧，如果你向右滚动，可以看到风险增加的情况，而左侧显示的是风险降低的情况。

So the increase, the only thing that increased is like, you know, 8% or 10% increase in nausea and vomiting. Yeah, can confirm. Musculoskeletal complications, GRD, which is, you know, gastric reflux from sleep in the suggestion. Yeah. And sleep disturbance dominated in the just so it's all abdominal stuff.

所以，增加的东西主要就是，比如说，恶心和呕吐增加了8%或10%。是的，可以确认。还有肌肉骨骼并发症，胃食管反流（就是睡觉时胃酸反流的问题），以及睡眠障碍，这些都是和腹部有关的问题。

Now, if you go over here to the benefit side, so the benefit side is what conditions did you see a decrease in? So you have a decrease in shock, a decrease in hep hepatic failure. So liver failure, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest. In fact, on cardiac arrest, you see a 30% decrease in the probability of having cardiac arrest from the cohort that's on the GLP1s versus many of those. Belignor? Wow.

现在，如果你看这里的益处方面，益处方面是指哪些病症出现了减少。你会看到休克减少了，肝衰竭减少了，换句话说，就是肝功能衰竭减少了，还有呼吸衰竭和心脏骤停都减少了。事实上，在心脏骤停方面，相比于很多其他组别，使用GLP1药物的组别出现心脏骤停的概率减少了30%。Belignor？哇。

This goes to the point, if you guys remember the interview I did a couple months ago with the CEO of Eli Lilly, that they have all these clinical trials going on right now for different indications for the GLP1 receptor agonists that they're seeing that there's health benefits beyond just the weight loss in reducing things like kidney disease, obviously liver problems, mental problems and so on.

这正好说明了重点，如果你们还记得几个月前我对礼来公司（Eli Lilly）首席执行官的采访，他们目前正在进行多项关于GLP1受体激动剂的临床试验。这些试验不仅仅关注于减重，还发现其在降低肾病、肝脏问题、心理问题等方面都有健康益处。

Do we know why? And if we don't know why, do you think it's because this is suppressing the food and it's the lack of food or the change in the food consumption that's creating this? Do you know what I'm asking? Like, do you think the drug is actually? Yeah. Yeah.

我们知道原因吗？如果不知道，你认为这是因为抑制了食物摄入，还是因为食物消耗的变化导致了这个结果吗？你明白我的问题吗？你觉得药物实际上是发挥作用了吗？对吧？

So you should watch the interview I did with Rakes. In fact, this is a good moment to call it out if you haven't seen it. It's actually, yeah. I think he highlights that this class of drugs, there are, you know, genes get turned on and off. So there's a, you know, what's called a gene expression cascade that occurs with certain compounds.

所以你应该看看我和Rakes的访谈。事实上，如果你还没看过，现在是个好时机提一下。这次访谈确实很有意思。我觉得他特别指出这一类药物是如何作用的，也就是说，基因会被激活或关闭。那么，某些化合物会引发所谓的基因表达级联反应。

So we know that the GLP1 receptor agonist means that it binds to these GLP1 sites and there's a cascading effect of genes that then get expressed. And what that seems to do is turn off things like inflammatory markers, it turns on things like cert2 genes, which can actually increase cellular repair. So there seem to be other benefits from these drugs beyond just the appetite control.

我们知道，GLP1受体激动剂能够与GLP1位点结合，并产生一系列基因表达的级联效应。这样做的结果似乎是关闭了炎症标志物，激活了像cert2这样的基因，这些基因实际上可以增强细胞修复。因此，这些药物的好处似乎不仅仅是控制食欲。

And it's not the appetite control itself, but there seems to be other effects. Let me ask you a question from these, these receptors being activated. Would you put your kids on this? No. Okay. Would you put your wife on this? I would consider it, and I would consider it for myself too, just for the anti-inflammatory effects.

这不仅仅是食欲控制本身的问题，似乎还有其他影响。让我问你一个问题，这些受体被激活后，你会让你的孩子用这个吗？不会。那么你会让你的妻子用吗？我会考虑的，而且我也会考虑自己用，主要是为了其抗炎效果。

How will you make that decision? Well, for me personally, and the thing that I weigh against is the muscle loss and the bone density loss. So I think that if you look at the biggest kind of effect on these on a downside basis is you should increase your protein in your diet, you have to do weightlifting. There's things that you would do.

你将如何做出这个决定呢？对我个人来说，我关注的就是肌肉流失和骨密度下降。所以我认为，如果你从消极方面来看这些影响，最大的改变就是你应该增加饮食中的蛋白质摄入，并且要进行力量训练。这是一些可以采取的措施。

And frankly, if you do those things anyway, if you increase protein in your diet and do more weightlifting, you're actually going to see very good health benefits from just doing those things that may actually outweigh the benefits. I have a question you date, which is, and this is the question is when you look at that data and you talk to the CEOs, how much do you think really long term and the long term size are out is going to be that it was the drug or just that being obese is very bad for you.

坦率地说，如果你增加饮食中的蛋白质摄入量，并进行更多的重量训练，实际上你会看到这些行为带来的健康益处，这些益处甚至可能超过其他方法的好处。我有一个问题想问你，根据你查看的数据以及与CEO交谈的情况，你认为从长远来看，到底是药物的作用更大，还是仅仅因为肥胖本身对健康非常有害导致的影响更大？

And so when you take your body fat down dramatically, all these other gene expressions happen anyway, right? So what do you think? Which one will it be? Well, this is what they're starting to isolate. It's a great question. And I will say, Antonio, they are starting to see that there are other expressions that are not related to the obesity and people that don't have obesity that they're using that are using these drugs.

当你大幅降低身体脂肪的时候，其他基因表达也会随之发生，对吧？那么你觉得会是怎样呢？这个问题正是他们开始研究的重点。回答你的问题，Antonio，他们开始发现，还有一些基因表达与肥胖无关，出现在那些不肥胖但仍使用这些药物的人身上。

So they're seeing that cohort data now, clinical studies, phase two were published. And I think we're going to see phase three and some of these indications soon. But it is looking very positive that it's not just the loss of obesity. Now to your point, being obese, not exercising, eating poorly destroys your health, you stop that everything gets better. If you lift weights, free bird, can you tell us when you decide to do this? I will.

他们现在正在看到这组数据了，临床研究和第二阶段的结果已经发表。我认为我们很快就会看到第三阶段和一些相关的结果。这种情况看起来非常乐观，不仅仅是减肥这么简单。正如你所说，肥胖、不运动和不良饮食会严重损害健康，一旦停止这些行为，健康状况就会改善。如果你开始举重，Free Bird，你能告诉我们你什么时候决定这样做吗？我会的。

Yeah, if I if I do do a GOP one, receptor agonist, I will let you guys know right now I'm I actually feel like I want to go through a process of increasing my weightlifting routine more I you know, I've been trying to create a more kind of rigorous schedule. My schedule just sucks. So that's been the hardest thing for me. But I actually want to go through that first before making that decision.

好的，如果我决定使用GOP受体激动剂，我会通知你们。现在，其实我感觉自己更想先增加我的举重训练。我一直在尝试制定一个更严格的计划，但我的时间安排实在太糟糕了，这是我面临的最大困难。不过，我想先完成这个目标，然后再考虑是否使用GOP受体激动剂。

Yeah, I have a kind of cool David. I'm sorry. But no, I was just curious why why that order I don't understand. I want to measure the effects because I do think that if you actually get into a regular weightlifting routine and you increase protein in your diet, which is another thing I've been making a concerted measured effort to do, which is hard as a vegetarian, by the way, you see pretty significant health effects. And so I'm trying to get through the process of increasing muscle composition before I make the decision on whether or not to add GOP one I don't want to kind of confound the two factors.

是的，我有一个有点酷的朋友叫大卫。抱歉。但不，我只是好奇为什么要按那个顺序来，我不理解。我想测量这些做法的效果，因为我确实认为，如果你真正开始一个有规律的举重训练并增加饮食中的蛋白质——而这也是我一直在有计划地努力去做的事情，顺便说一句，作为素食者这很难——你会看到相当显著的健康效果。所以，我正在努力增加肌肉的过程中，然后才决定是否添加GOP-1（注：可能是某种营养补充品或药物），我不想把这两个因素混淆。

You know, and I did that made it super easy for me is I got egg whites in a carton. Yeah, I don't have that. And I have this incredible crunchy, spicy garlic thing that everybody in Mofuku and everybody makes and everybody's crazy about just in the mornings. I'll eat whatever it is 10 ounces 12 ounces of egg whites with that spicy stuff. It's delicious. It's awesome. And I just try to, you know, get that whatever 30, 40 grams of protein first thing in the morning. And then doing the rocking, well, this is easy. Like you just wear a 35 pound weight vest, freeberg, and you walk a mile or two and you will get like, my problem Jason with all of this is that every time I see something, so I saw Gary Brecka on the Sean Ryan podcast recently. And Sean Ryan asked him like, what are a handful of things that you recommend for everybody, right? And he recommends mineral salt and then he recommends a methylated vitamin, he recommends amino acids, whatever, there's a protocol.

翻译：你知道，我这样做使它变得超级简单。我买了装在盒子里的蛋清。是的，我没有那种。而且我有一种非常好吃的香脆辣味蒜末，这是Mofuku里所有人都做，所有人都狂热的东西。每天早上，我会吃10盎司或12盎司的蛋清，配上那种辣味调料，味道非常棒。我只是尽量在早上第一时间摄入30到40克蛋白质。然后做摇滚运动，其实也很简单。你只需要穿一件35磅的负重背心，走一两英里就可以了。我唯一的问题是，每次我看到什么的时候，比如我最近在Sean Ryan的播客中看到Gary Brecka。Sean Ryan问他：你推荐给大家的几件事是什么？他推荐矿物盐和甲基化维生素，还推荐氨基酸等等，还有一个方案。

Then if you happen to catch a clip on exit and grew Huberman, he'll have a protocol. And then Brian Johnson has a protocol. And the problem is all these protocols are slightly the same, but they're just different enough where it creates a huge cognitive load in a normal person like myself to your point free who's busy, who's got a job, who's got kids. How do you decide? And so I would really love something to be sort of like, I don't want to say gold standard because you can't say that, but that is like, what's the real bang for your buck? What Antonio said, you know, are you just better off just losing the 50 pounds and then this is why these products are successful.

如果你碰巧看到一个视频片段提到Huberman，他可能会有一套方案。而Brian Johnson也有他自己的一套方案。问题在于，这些方案都有点类似，但又存在足够的差异，使得像我这样普通人产生巨大的认知负担。我们有工作、有孩子，平日已经很忙，怎么选择呢？所以，我真的希望能有一种标准方案，不是说要绝对的黄金标准，因为这是不可能的，而是说，怎样才能达到理想的效果呢？比如Antonio提到的，你是不是只需减掉50磅，然后这就是这些产品成功的原因所在。

And I think we'll continue to grow pretty dramatically Antonio is because it is pop a pill and it solves all those problems. It doesn't require cognitive load and it will be in a till format soon, right? I mean, the pills are almost here. I love you very cool. Actually, David, if you do this, such a vast point about, you know, people being confused. If you did the every, the every person's kind of story around this journey and you documented it, like you did, you did like, this is my way. I did weightlifting first and I did the GOP one and you actually did like a weekly thing when you checked it.

我认为我们会继续显著增长，Antonio，这是因为这种药丸可以解决所有问题。它不需要认知负担，而且很快就会以胶囊形式出现，对吧？我的意思是，这些药丸几乎已经到了。我很喜欢你，真的很酷。说到这个，David，如果你能这么做，那真的是个很大的突破，你知道的，人们常常感到困惑。如果你能记录下每个人在这个旅程中的故事，就像你之前那样记录的那样，比如说：我先开始举重训练，然后使用了GOP-1。你可以每周跟踪记录一下你的体验。

And even it was 10 minutes up on X or something where you just gave people the journey in a way that wasn't so complicated because I think people are confused. Jamaz, I mean, I have, you know, I have good doctors, you guys have good doctors, but if you don't, you don't know what to do. By the way, the problem for me just to give you a sense of it, I had a doctor in LA, I had a doctor in San Francisco, I would have them do their own versions of things, then I would have somebody else help me compare. It cost me way too much money and all that complexity did was make the quality of my healthcare actually go down.

即使是在X平台上花10分钟时间，向大家简单地介绍了一下，让人们不觉得太复杂，因为我觉得大家都很困惑。Jamaz，你知道的，我有好医生，你们也有好医生，但如果没有的话，你会不知道怎么办。顺便说一下，我遇到的问题是，我在洛杉矶有一个医生，在旧金山也有一个医生，他们各自做自己的检查版本，然后我会让别人帮我比较。这样花了我太多钱，复杂的过程反而降低了我的医疗质量。

And instead, what I really wanted was just a very simple protocol that said, take them at Foreman because it's good for you, take the vitamin D, take the omega three fatty acids, otherwise just eat this meal plan. And it would help me a lot more than, than I've had to cobble it together myself. Because by the way, when you see something like, you know, Gary Brecka is very, very articulate, very smart. But when I see him on the Sean Ryan podcast, the first thing I do is I go and populate an Amazon cart with all the things that he said, because my instinct is, well, I should do the right thing for myself.

翻译：相反，我真正想要的只是一个非常简单的方案，比如告诉我去福尔曼那里，因为这对你有好处；服用维生素D，服用欧米伽三脂肪酸，除此之外就按这个饮食计划来。这会对我有更大的帮助，而不是我自己东拼西凑的方法。顺便说一句，当我看到像加里·布雷卡这样非常有表达能力、非常聪明的人时，比如在肖恩·瑞安的播客上，我做的第一件事就是把他说的所有东西都放进我的亚马逊购物车，因为我的本能是，我应该为自己做正确的事情。

This is a couple hundred bucks, it's worth the investment. But then the day after somebody else has something else, you know, so I'll be a little OCD though, Chamob, I've known you for a long time, you get very obsessive with my father died because of poor health, my best friend died of poor health, I feel like you should at least do the things that are preventable. If you see that that post Chamob did with you, he was like half naked in the mirror. He looks great. What are you talking about? He looks creative. If you you could look like that, you'd do it too. No, no, no, I'm talking about like when you had the glucose monitor, I'm sitting with him at the poker table, he's got the glucose monitor and he's taking a sip of wine, he's checking the glucose, he's having a like a piece of brazutes, then he's checking the glucose monitor. It just like literally becomes obsessed. Come on. If that's what this is, we're going to stop this chair with the day on.

这要花几百块钱，但值得投资。不过，第二天别人又有其他东西了。你知道，我可能有点强迫症，不过Chamob，我认识你很久了，你对什么事情都很痴迷。我父亲因为健康问题去世，我最好的朋友也是。我觉得至少应该做一些可以预防的事情。如果你看到Chamob跟你拍的那张照片，他在镜子里半裸的样子，看起来很棒。你在说什么呢？他看起来多有创意。如果你能看起来那样，你也会那样做的。不，我是说你戴着血糖监测器的时候，我和他一起坐在扑克桌旁，他一边喝酒一边检查血糖，然后吃了一小块火腿，又检查血糖。这真是让人痴迷了。算了吧，如果情况是这样，我们就暂时停下来吧。

So funny about this picture. All these clowns on the internet are like, they don't understand that when you're six foot two, these are big legs. When you're so big, when you're shorting, when you're like five, seven, five, eight, I get it. Why you guys? Did you guys are all stubby and short? I don't get it. This is the problem with gender to the eye. You can tell it's a fake photo. You can tell that that was gender to the eye because nobody has legs that day. How could you have biceps and then legs that's what makes it look like a lot of blood. What a first try. Now you guys are going to find photos of Antonio and I. We're going to throw them on the leads. I, you know, listen, I have four pieces of advice for people.

这张图片真是太搞笑了。网上的这些小丑们根本不明白，当你身高六英尺二的时候，腿就会显得很长。当你是五英尺七或五英尺八的时候，我能理解腿为什么显得短。但你们这些人呢？你们都又矮又胖吗？这真是视觉上的一个问题。你一眼就能看出来这是假的照片，因为没人会有那样的腿。怎么可能有人有健壮的手臂却又有那样的腿，看起来就像血液集中在其他地方。太逗了。现在你们要找我和安东尼奥的照片，并试图对比。但听着，我有四条建议给大家。

Number one, get good sleep. Number two, exercise number three, diet number four, meditation. And if you want to do that, it's very simple. You get, you get the calm meditation. I get the eight sleep sleep. You get the fit bodful fitness. And then you're going to get a sense of you. Make sure you have a good fitness system. This is brought to you by my NGO, which is all in NGO USA gave us 18 million less. You guys forgot to tell you about it. But don't worry. It's in an offshore account for all of us. We get back to Ethiopia and Vietnam. We have an all in there. Okay. We built with our NGO.

第一，保证良好的睡眠。第二，进行锻炼。第三，注意饮食。第四，进行冥想。如果你想做到这些，其实很简单。你可以进行冥想，像我一样使用 Calm 应用获得宁静的冥想；通过 Eight Sleep 产品享受高质量的睡眠；使用 Fit Bodful 健康应用保持健身状态。这样你就能感觉良好了，确保你有一个良好的健身系统。这是由我的非政府组织（NGO）支持的，美国的 NGO 让我们少了 1800 万。抱歉我忘记告诉你们了。但别担心，这些钱在我们的离岸账户中。等我们回到埃塞俄比亚和越南时，我们也有计划，我们通过 NGO 建立了一切。

We'll see everybody next week. Love you, boys. Love you. See you guys, man. Great job. And Tony. Thanks. You should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just like this, like sexual tension, but they just need to release them out. I'm No.

下周见。爱你们，伙计们。真的爱你们。下次见，伙计们，做得很棒。谢谢你，Tony。你们真的应该找个房间，一起尽情释放一下，因为你们之间好像有一种无法言喻的紧张气氛，需要释放出来。