During COVID, we ran out of toilet paper.

在 COVID 期間，我們的衛生紙用完了。

Sure did.

當然。

Baby formula, computer chips.

嬰兒配方奶粉、電腦芯片

We had cars that were ready to run, but no computer chips.

我們有可以運行的汽車，但沒有電腦芯片。

What the f*** happened?

到底發生了什麼？

And did we fix it?

我們解決了嗎？

We have not fixed it.

我們還沒有修好。

I'm sorry to say the vulnerabilities are still there.

我很遺憾地說，漏洞依然存在。

What happened was a reveal of something that had been there for decades.

發生的事情揭示了幾十年來一直存在的東西。

We are dependent upon this really improvised, ad hoc, rickety supply chain.

我們依賴於這條臨時拼湊的、搖搖欲墜的供應鏈。

It's really a bunch of supply chains.

這其實是一堆供應鏈。

We've been devoted to this kind of reckless, ruthless form of deregulation.

我們一直致力於這種魯莽、無情的放松管制形式。

And during the pandemic, just as we were in our darkest hour of need, it buckled and yeah, we ran out of a lot of stuff.

在大流行病期間，就在我們最需要幫助的時候，它出現了問題，是的，我們用完了很多東西。

When I was reading your book, I kept asking myself the same question, which was, why don't we just make this s*** here?

在讀你的書時，我一直在問自己同樣的問題，那就是：為什麼我們不在這裡製造這些東西？

Yeah.

是啊

Why aren't we making all of the s*** here?

為什麼我們不在這裡製作所有的****？

Well, but you, you answer that, but explain it, explain it to me again.

好吧，但是你，你來回答，但是解釋一下，再給我解釋一遍。

We could make more things here and there's a movement to make more things here and that's helpful.

我們可以在這裡製造更多的東西，現在有一種在這裡製造更多東西的運動，這很有幫助。

It's in the margins, but we're not going back to self-sufficiency.

它在邊緣，但我們不會回到自給自足的狀態。

Look, if there was no trade, you and me wouldn't be having this conversation.

聽著，如果沒有交易，你我之間就不會有這樣的對話。

We'd be out trying to feed our families with bark or whatever, right?

我們會用樹皮或其他東西養家餬口，對嗎？

And, you know, I'm not that good at growing food.

而且，你知道，我並不擅長種植食物。

I'm sure you're not either.

我相信你也不是。

So here we are, we're dependent upon a global supply chain.

是以，我們現在依賴於全球供應鏈。

I did lose a tomato in the wind last night in my rooftop garden, but...

昨晚，我在屋頂花園裡被大風颳掉了一個西紅柿，但是...

Good luck with that.

祝你好運。

Yeah.

是啊

Yeah.

是啊

I don't want to try to feed my family through my own labor.

我不想靠自己的勞動養家餬口。

So we have trade and we've got a lot of jobs in this country that are dependent upon a global supply chain.

是以，我們有貿易，我們國家有很多工作都依賴於全球供應鏈。

And it's been a consumer bonanza.

這也是消費者的福音。

We've just done a very poor job cushioning the people who've lost jobs.

我們對失業者的緩衝工作做得很差。

We don't need to throw out globalization.

我們不需要拋棄全球化。

We need to reconfigure it.

我們需要重新配置。

We need sensible regulations.

我們需要合理的法規。

We need working people to get more of a piece of the action.

我們需要勞動人民獲得更多的利益。

So we have a more reliable supply chain.

是以，我們的供應鏈更加可靠。

You tell the story in the book about one company that is trying to make these glow-in-the-dark toys, even has a contract with Sesame Street, and he wants to actually use American manufacturing, but can't find American manufacturers to do it.

你在書中講述了這樣一個故事：有一家公司試圖生產這些夜光玩具，甚至與芝麻街簽訂了合同。

Right.

對

I mean, he calls around, these are these, I follow this one container from a factory in China to the West Coast of the United States, and then across the continent to Starkville, Mississippi, where his warehouse is based.

我是說，他到處打電話，就是這些，我跟著這個貨櫃從中國的一家工廠到美國西海岸，然後橫跨整個大陸到密西西比州的斯塔克維爾，他的倉庫就在那裡。

He couldn't find somebody to make the molds for these products, unless he paid 12 times as much as the price in China.

他找不到人為這些產品製作模具，除非他支付比中國高 12 倍的價格。

He tried to get somebody to make a kind of children's pop-up book style package for his product, and he was told, this is just too complicated, go make this in China.

他想找人為他的產品製作一種兒童彈出式圖書風格的包裝，但有人告訴他，這太複雜了，去中國做吧。

It was the path of least resistance.

這是一條阻力最小的道路。

You follow this container ship from China all the way to Mississippi, and literally, this is the path it takes.

你跟著這艘集裝箱船從中國一直到密西西比州，這就是它所走過的路。

I mean, it is.

我的意思是，確實如此。

It's a harrowing journey.

這是一段艱苦的旅程。

And as an American that buys a lot of stuff, I'm going, holy shit, I didn't know that all this happened.

作為一個買了很多東西的美國人，我想，我的媽呀，我都不知道發生了這些事。

I just pressed click, and then it shows up.

我只是按了一下，然後就顯示出來了。

Yeah, well, then it worked, yeah.

是啊，那麼它的工作，是的。

Yeah, do we need to buy less dumb shit?

是啊，我們需要少買些蠢貨嗎？

I know that's like, not the most intellectual question.

我知道這不是最有智慧的問題。

Do we need to buy less dumb shit?

我們需要少買一些蠢貨嗎？

It's a legitimate question.

這是一個合理的問題。

Look, I rode for three days with a long haul truck driver from Kansas City to Dallas and back to try to understand- That sounds like my worst nightmare.

聽著，我和一個長途卡車司機一起坐了三天車，從堪薩斯城到達拉斯，再從達拉斯回到堪薩斯城，就是為了瞭解--這聽起來就像我最糟糕的噩夢。

It's everyone's worst nightmare, which is why we don't have enough truck drivers.

這是每個人最可怕的噩夢，這就是為什麼我們沒有足夠的卡車司機。

And the best part of that moment, we're somewhere in Oklahoma, and this truck driver looks out the window and he says, people just buy too much, the word you just used.

那一刻最精彩的部分是，我們在俄克拉荷馬州的某個地方，一位卡車司機望著窗外說，人們買得太多了，就是你剛才說的那個詞。

Right, shit.

好吧，該死

And yeah, we could do well thinking more carefully about what we buy and what we need, but let's face it, we're gonna keep making stuff, we're gonna keep consuming stuff.

是的，我們可以更仔細地考慮我們購買的東西和我們需要的東西，但讓我們面對現實吧，我們會繼續製造東西，我們會繼續消費東西。

The question is, are we gonna have a more resilient supply chain or one that's just optimized for basically big box retailers and investors?

問題是，我們是要建立一個更有彈性的供應鏈，還是一個只為大零售商和投資者優化的供應鏈？

Cause that's what we've had now for decades.

因為這就是我們幾十年來所擁有的。

I had, before reading your book, I had always kind of seen China as this aggressor that has taken American jobs and manufacturing.

在讀您的書之前，我一直把中國視為搶走美國工作和製造業的侵略者。

And do you feel that's the case?

你覺得是這樣嗎？

Is that an accurate portrayal of China?

這是中國的真實寫照嗎？

I think what you painted the picture so well in here was that it's American business executives that are saying we can make more money.

我認為你在這裡描繪得很好，是美國企業高管在說我們可以賺更多的錢。

It's not the American worker that's saying this, it's the executives.

說這話的不是美國工人，而是管理人員。

Why did factory jobs move to China?

為什麼工廠的工作要轉移到中國？

Because publicly traded corporations governed by the imperative to lower their costs and produce lower priced products, but fattened their margins as well.

因為上市公司必須降低成本，生產價格更低的產品，但同時也增加了利潤。

They sent production to China, they were encouraged to go there by the investor class and it worked out really well for them.

他們在投資階層的鼓勵下，將產品運往中國，結果效果非常好。

And look, this is an old story, right?

聽著，這是個老故事了，對吧？

Chinese labor was brought in to build the railroads in the United States.

中國勞工被引進美國修建鐵路。

Yeah, and Walmart going to the People's Republic of China, that's just a continuation of the old story of basically undercutting American labor unions, undercutting American working people.

是的，沃爾瑪進入中華人民共和國，這只是老故事的延續，基本上是在削弱美國工會，削弱美國勞動人民。

These are decisions, the hollowing out of our factory towns that are not made in Beijing.

這些決定、我們工廠城鎮的空心化都不是在北京做出的。

These are decisions made in boardrooms in New York, in Seattle, in Congress.

這些都是在紐約、西雅圖和國會的會議室裡做出的決定。

It's not always portrayed that way.

事實並非總是如此。

Right.

對

It's portrayed as there's China taking our economy.

它被描繪成中國正在奪取我們的經濟。

But what, we have a big debate coming up Thursday night.

不過呢，週四晚上有一場大辯論。

Right.

對

Trump, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Trump put some tariffs on China and Biden has kept a lot of those tariffs.

如果我說錯了，請糾正我，特朗普對中國徵收了一些關稅，而拜登保留了其中的很多關稅。

Has advanced them actually.

事實上，他們已經取得了進步。

Has advanced them.

讓他們進步了。

What can we expect when this question comes up Thursday night, where do they stand on this?

當這個問題在週四晚上出現時，我們能期待什麼呢？

You know, I don't know how much nuance there will be in that debate, but let's face it, there are very few things.

你知道，我不知道這場辯論會有多少細微差別，但讓我們面對現實吧，很少有細微差別。

I think we all know how much nuance there'll be in that debate, yeah, yeah.

我想我們都知道這場辯論會有多少細微差別，是的，是的。

There are not many things that garner agreement in American politics, but one of them, unfortunately, is the sort of cartoonish depiction of China as this job killing juggernaut without any of the details that we've already discussed here.

在美國政壇上，能獲得一致認同的事情並不多，但不幸的是，其中之一就是把中國描繪成一個扼殺就業的巨無霸，而沒有我們在這裡已經討論過的任何細節。

I mean, I think in terms of the differences between these two candidates, Donald Trump is a threat to the global supply chain.

我的意思是，我認為就這兩位候選人之間的差異而言，唐納德-特朗普是對全球供應鏈的威脅。

He's proud to be a threat to the global supply chain.

他以成為全球供應鏈的威脅為榮。

He likes the photo op of slapping tariffs on steel and mugging for the cameras with steel workers going back to work.

他喜歡對鋼鐵徵收關稅，喜歡在鋼鐵工人重返工作崗位時對著鏡頭打哈哈。

Nevermind that there are six to eight times as many people who go to work at factories in America that buy steel as there are people who make steel.

別忘了，在美國，去購買鋼鐵的工廠上班的人是生產鋼鐵的人的六到八倍。

So those companies are less competitive.

是以，這些公司的競爭力較弱。

Now, Biden is also bashing China.

現在，拜登也在抨擊中國。

There's, this is a bipartisan initiative, but it's a much more nuanced kind of industrial policy.

這是一項兩黨倡議，但它是一種更加細緻入微的產業政策。

It's less about containing China's rise.

這與遏制中國崛起的關係不大。

I mean, Trump is really about, let's have a cold war with China.

我的意思是，特朗普的真正目的是，讓我們與中國打一場冷戰。

Biden is more about let's embrace industrial policy.

拜登更傾向於讓我們擁抱產業政策。

Let's try to make electric vehicles in the US.

讓我們嘗試在美國製造電動汽車。

These are some significant differences.

這些都是一些重大差異。

I was in Vermont this weekend performing.

這個週末我在佛蒙特州演出。

I eat a lot of ice cream in my life.

我一生中吃了很多冰淇淋。

I wanted to go see the Ben and Jerry's ice cream factory, where it all started.

我想去看看本和傑瑞的冰淇淋工廠，那裡是一切開始的地方。

These were two men in 1978 who started making ice cream out of a gas station.

1978 年，這兩個人開始在加油站製作冰淇淋。

And then as I kind of dug into it, I was also reading your book.

當我深入研究這本書時，我也在讀你的書。

It's kind of a perfect tie-in.

這是一種完美的結合。

I realized, oh, they sold the company to Unilever in year 2000.

我意識到，哦，他們在 2000 年把公司賣給了聯合利華。

And all of a sudden, these two men who really care about keeping things local, who really cared about social issues, it felt like the big evil corporation was constantly pushing back against them and was constantly looking at profit margins.

突然之間，這兩個真正關心在地事務、真正關心社會問題的人，感覺就像邪惡的大公司在不斷地反擊他們，不斷地追求利潤率。

Is there something that I can feel optimistic about?

有什麼是我可以感到樂觀的嗎？

Is capitalism always just defeat us and these two little Ben and Jerry men scooping ice cream?

難道資本主義總是隻打敗我們和這兩個舀冰淇淋的本和傑瑞小人嗎？

I don't think it's capitalism.

我認為這不是資本主義。

I mean, the people who benefit from the status quo would have us believe that regulating and taxing and enforcing antitrust laws, we might as well be advocating Venezuela style.

我的意思是，從現狀中獲益的人們會讓我們相信，監管、徵稅和執行反托拉斯法，我們還不如倡導委內瑞拉式的做法。

I mean, it's just nonsensical, right?

我的意思是，這簡直是無稽之談，對嗎？

Capitalism needs markets.

資本主義需要市場。

Markets need regulation.

市場需要監管。

They can't function without.

沒有它們就無法運作。

But in terms of what we can do, consumers are not gonna save us from the vulnerabilities in the global economy.

但就我們所能做的而言，消費者並不能將我們從全球經濟的脆弱性中拯救出來。

We're busy dealing with our kids.

我們忙著照顧孩子。

I can keep buying plastic shit for my four-year-old daughter on Amazon.

我可以繼續在亞馬遜上給我四歲的女兒買塑膠垃圾。

I'm not turning you in.

我不會告發你的

I mean, it's gonna take antitrust enforcement, labor mobilization, so that working people get a piece of the action.

我的意思是，這需要反壟斷執法和勞工動員，這樣勞動人民才能從中分一杯羹。

So they're less likely to quit their jobs in the middle of a pandemic.

是以，他們不太可能在大流行病期間辭職。

I mean, Henry Ford, problematic character, knew a thing or two about making things in the supply chain.

我的意思是，亨利-福特是個很有問題的人物，他對供應鏈中的製造工藝瞭如指掌。

He said explicitly as he raised wages for workers in 2014 and was called a communist by some, he said, I just wanna make things reliably.

他明確表示，當他在 2014 年提高工人工資並被一些人稱為共產主義者時，他說：我只想可靠地製造東西。

Any business that's premised on low wage labor is inherently unstable.

任何以低工資勞動力為前提的企業本質上都是不穩定的。

Right, and that's where we're at right now.

沒錯，這就是我們現在的處境。

It feels like.

感覺就像

I mean, normalcy is built on this idea that huge numbers of people have to do dangerous jobs away from their families with little control or understanding about their schedules, and they just have to suck that up for the benefit of our sort of just-in-time, ruthlessly efficient, that turns out not to be so efficient global economy.

我的意思是，正常狀態是建立在這樣一種觀念上的，即大量的人不得不遠離家人從事危險的工作，對他們的時間安排幾乎沒有控制或理解，為了我們這種及時、無情、高效的全球經濟的利益，他們不得不忍受這種生活。

You personally, that I can steal from you, what can I do?

你個人，我可以從你那裡偷東西，我能做什麼呢？

What do you do?

你是做什麼的？

Any habits of yours that have changed since researching and writing this?

自從研究和撰寫這篇文章以來，您有什麼習慣改變了嗎？

Yeah, I mean, I try to give my business to people who are actually in control of their businesses.

是的，我是說，我儘量把生意交給那些真正能掌控自己生意的人。

I mean, if you're mostly transacting with big companies that are answerable to Wall Street, then you're ultimately transacting with entities that are thinking about shareholder interests.

我的意思是，如果你主要是與那些對華爾街負責的大公司進行交易，那麼你最終是在與那些考慮股東利益的實體進行交易。

Above all, they can't afford to be kind to their workers necessarily because their competitors aren't.

最重要的是，他們不能因為競爭對手不善待自己的員工，就一定要善待他們。

They can't afford to think about keeping production local.

他們無力考慮將生產留在在地。

They can't think about the highest quality ingredients, and they can't think beyond the next quarter.

他們無法考慮最高品質的原料，也無法超越下一季度。

So certainly local, small production.

所以肯定是在地小生產。

But again, consumers are not gonna save us from the vulnerabilities in the global supply chain.

但同樣，消費者也無法將我們從全球供應鏈的漏洞中拯救出來。

It's gonna take regulation.

這需要監管。

It's gonna take labor mobilization.

這需要勞動動員。

But it helps to know that my $14 strawberries at the farmer's market is probably going to better use than the $9 strawberries at the Amazon.

不過，知道我在農貿市場買的 14 美元的草莓可能比在亞馬遜買的 9 美元的草莓用處更大，還是很有幫助的。

You need to shop somewhere else.

你需要去別的地方購物。

Exactly, I need to shop somewhere else.

沒錯，我得去別的地方買東西了。

These are the celebrity prices that I get.

這些就是我得到的名人價格。

Look, how the world ran out of everything is available now.

看，世界上的一切是如何耗盡的，現在都有了。

Peter Goodman, everybody.

彼得-古德曼，各位