Name: 右翼經濟學家的觀點 | 灰色地帶 (A right wing economist makes his case | The Gray Area)
Uploaded: 2025-06-17T17:27:16.000Z
Duration: 59 min 23 s

Hey, I'm Sean host of the gray area for the show this week.

嘿，我是本週節目灰色地帶的主持人肖恩。

情態助動詞 B1

I talked to Orrin Cass He's an economist and the founder of the think-tank American compass We discussed the rise of economic populism on the right and what it means or what it might mean For the future of American conservatism.

我們討論了右翼經濟民粹主義的興起，以及它對美國保守主義的未來意味著什麼或可能意味著什麼。

Oh, thank you for having me I want to start with a quote from something you actually wrote in 2018 because I think it does sum up what's Motivating your whole political project you write our political economy has relied upon the insidious Metaphor of the economic pie which measures success by the amount of GDP available to every American for consumption But the things America thought she wanted have not made her happy So, let's start there, what does that mean what did we think we wanted and why hasn't it made us happy Well, I do you're very perceptive to start there it's funny we were just putting together this this new book called the new conservatives That's sort of an anthology of everything We've been doing at American compass over the last five years And I actually went back and grabbed that essay and made it a prologue to the book Because exactly as you said it it is sort of a starting point certainly for the way I think about a lot of this and You know, I think in my mind What we what we saw go wrong in in our economics and in our politics is That that we did come to think of sort of consumption as the end unto itself And you know to be clear like I I love consumption as much as the next guy I think I'm not saying we should we should go back and live in log cabins But I think we assume that as as long as we were increasing consumption as long as material living standards were rising Everybody would be happy and and we could declare success and and it's important to say in in in economics from a formal perspective That is in fact how our economic models operate economists will tell you their assumption is that the goal of the economic system is to maximize consumption and And so that's where that economic pie metaphor comes from and it's something that was so widely embraced across the political spectrum Across sort of the intellectual spectrum.

謝謝你邀請我，我想從你2018年寫的一段話開始，因為我覺得它確實總結了你整個政治項目的動機，你寫道，我們的政治經濟依賴於經濟餡餅這個陰險的隱喻，它以每個美國人可消費的GDP數量來衡量成功，但美國人認為她想要的東西並沒有讓她快樂，所以，讓我們從這裡開始、那是什麼意思？ 我們以為我們想要什麼？ 為什麼它沒有讓我們幸福？ 你很有洞察力，從這裡開始 很有趣，我們正在整理這本新書 叫做《新保守主義者》 那是我們過去五年在美國羅盤所做的一切的選集在我看來 我們的經濟學和政治學都出了問題 就是我們把消費本身當成了目的 

I would say it was this idea that as long as you're you're growing the economy you're growing GDP You don't really have to worry too much about what's in the pie or where it's coming from you can always sort of then chop it up and make sure everybody has lots of pie and And I think it's important to say that and this is the point that that we sort of got what we thought we wanted it's important to say that that worked that that for all of the problems we have in this country if You're if you're only looking at material living standards if you're asking how much stuff people have How big their houses are whether they're air-conditioned even how much health care they consume Really at every socio-economic level Consumption is up.

我想說的是，只要你的經濟在增長，國內生產總值在增長，你就不必太擔心餡餅裡有什麼，或者餡餅從哪裡來，你總是可以把它切碎，確保每個人都有很多餡餅。如果你只看物質生活水準 如果你只問人們有多少東西 他們的房子有多大，有沒有空調他們的房子有多大，是否有空調，甚至他們的醫療保健消費有多少 在每一個社會經濟層面，消費都在增長。

We we did that and yet I think it's also very obvious that that did not achieve what we were trying to achieve that that did not necessarily correspond to human flourishing that that that did not correspond to a strengthening economy over time that it certainly did not correspond to strengthening families and communities and ultimately, it didn't correspond to a strong and healthy political system or democracy and so There's been obviously a lot of Talk about in terms of okay.

我們做到了這一點，但我認為很明顯，這並沒有實現我們想要實現的目標，這並不一定與人類的繁榮昌盛相對應，隨著時間的推移，這並不與經濟的增強相對應，當然也不與家庭和社區的加強相對應，最終，這並不與一個強大和健康的政治制度或民主相對應。

But as a starting point, I think it's important to recognize How much sort of debate or confusion there is still about that basic point?

但是，作為一個起點，我認為重要的是要認識到，在這個基本問題上還有多少爭論或困惑？

There's still a lot of people right now this month looking around and writing about hey Wait a minute people people have more stuff than ever.

這個月仍然有很多人在四處張望，寫著 "嘿，等等，人們的東西比以前更多了"。

This has been successful It makes no sense that that anybody's upset.

這已經很成功了，任何人都沒有理由不高興。

So just to be as clear as possible When you say we didn't achieve what we wanted to achieve you mean it didn't make us happy It didn't it didn't allow us to live flourishing fulfilling lives That's right.

你說我們沒有實現我們想要實現的目標，是指它沒有讓我們快樂，沒有讓我們過上充實的生活，沒錯。

And and I think you know, I don't love the term happy.

我想你知道，我不喜歡 "快樂 "這個詞。

I think a lot of happiness studies kind of get very Very sloppy very quickly I I do think though that there's a way in which we can define the ends that we're trying to achieve and You know, I think it's an interesting sort of element of Disagreement within our politics.

我認為很多幸福研究很快就會變得非常馬虎，但我確實認為，我們可以通過某種方式來定義我們試圖實現的目標，你知道，我認為這是我們政治中的一種有趣的分歧元素。

That's that's quite natural and healthy is is it is contested What are the ends that that we're trying to achieve?

這很自然，也很健康，但有爭議的是，我們要達到的目的是什麼？

But to the extent that we that we can agree on certain basic things, like I think we probably want to see Situation where you know People are are building lives that allow them to support themselves and their families that provide a stable environment for Raising kids who are then able to go on and do those same things that we see their health improving that we see life expectancy rising That you know ultimately in the macro economy we we see investment and innovation and growth and progress you know all of those things are very different from just how big is your TV and I think there was an assumption that it would just all be correlated and and you still see this point being made that well Rising GDP is correlated with all these other things.

但只要我們能在某些基本問題上達成一致，比如說比如說，我認為我們可能希望看到這樣的局面：人們正在創造生活，使他們能夠養活自己和家人，為撫養孩子提供一個穩定的環境，而孩子們又能夠繼續做同樣的事情，我們看到他們的健康狀況在改善，我們看到預期壽命在延長，最終你知道在宏觀經濟中，我們看到投資、創新、增長和進步，你知道所有這些事情都與你的電視有多大非常不同。

So just focus on rising GDP and it's it's certainly true You'd rather be a rich country than a poor country, but but there's an awful lot of texture and variation therein and I think if you look at the trajectory that the United States is on and has been for the last 20 or 25 years what you see is Sort of a real decline in a lot of these capacities whether you're looking in economic terms at at investment and growth and innovation And productivity or you're looking in more social terms that had families and communities and life expectancy and pretty much However, you measure it the that rising consumption did not ultimately Correspond with the with the actual ends that I think we we for the most part want to focus on That has definitely been the trajectory to use your word and the strange thing For someone like me is that American?

是以，如果只關注 GDP 的增長，那當然是對的，你寧可成為富國也不願成為窮國，但其中有很多質地和差異，我認為，如果你看看美國目前的發展軌跡，以及過去 20 或 25 年的發展軌跡，你看到的是很多能力的真正衰退，無論你是從經濟角度看投資、增長、創新和生產力，還是從社會角度看家庭、社區和預期壽命，幾乎都是如此、用你的話說，這絕對是一個軌跡，而對於像我這樣的人來說，奇怪的是，美國？

Conservatism certainly in my lifetime has largely Existed to reinforce the ideology you're rejecting here, and I'm happy to see that pivot But why do you think that political right has been blind for so long to the things?

當然，在我的一生中，保守主義在很大程度上是為了強化你在這裡所反對的意識形態而存在的，我很高興看到這種轉向，但你為什麼認為政治右派長期以來對這些事情視而不見呢？

You're correctly in my opinion fighting for now.

在我看來，你現在的戰鬥是正確的。

I Think there's a very interesting pivot point that you see essentially around the time of the Reagan Revolution and and if you think about the coalition that that Reagan assembled It had these different elements it had the the social conservatives who I would say are sort of most closely aligned to a Sort of fundamentally conservative outlook on a lot of these questions, but then it brought to that also the the very libertarian Free market folks on the economic side and then also the kind of quite aggressive interventionist foreign policy Hawks and and what all these folks had a common was they they really hated communism and Really wanted to win the Cold War and and saw that as sort of the existential Crisis and test but what happened partly as a result is that I think you know within that coalition a very libertarian free market Mindset was then imposed on on the economic policy of the right of center Even where that was was very much in tension with a lot of other conservative values And and you saw people writing about that at the time from both sides, you know from one side Friedrich Hayek who is sort of one of the ultimate Sort of carriers of this this free market ideology.

我認為有一個非常有趣的支點，你可以看到里根革命前後的情況，如果你想想里根組建的聯盟，它有這些不同的元素，有社會保守派，我想說的是，他們在很多問題上最接近於一種基本的保守主義觀點、但它也帶來了在經濟方面非常自由主義的自由市場人士 以及在外交政策上相當激進的干涉主義鷹派人士 所有這些人的共同點是 他們非常痛恨共產主義 真的想贏得冷戰但部分結果是，我認為在這一聯盟中，一種非常自由主義的自由市場思維被強加在了中右翼的經濟政策上，甚至與很多其他保守主義價值觀產生了衝突、弗里德里希-哈耶克（Friedrich Hay

That's literally titled why I am NOT a conservative Emphasizing that his you know, what he calls faith in in markets to sort of solve problems and self-regulate Was was very much at odds with how conservatives looked at the world and and from the flip side you had a lot of conservatives Folks like you know Roger Scruton and you'll all have been more recently Pointing out the ways that you know, certainly conservatives like markets They prefer markets as a way of ordering the economy to other options But recognizing that markets are very much in tension with other values like family and community and in some cases markets even actively Can undermine or erode the strength of those other institutions markets are also dependent on institutions If you want markets to work, well You actually need constraints you need institutional supports.

他強調，他所謂的相信市場能夠解決問題和自我調節，與保守派看待世界的方式大相徑庭，反過來說，也有很多保守派人士，比如羅傑-斯克魯頓（Roger Scruton），你們最近都在指出，你們知道，保守派當然喜歡市場、保守派當然喜歡市場 相對於其他選擇，他們更喜歡市場這種安排經濟秩序的方式 但他們也認識到市場與家庭和社區等其他價值觀之間存在著很大的矛盾 在某些情況下，市場甚至會主動破壞或侵蝕其他制度的力量

And so that tension was was always present I think that the coalition made a lot of sense in the context of winning the Cold War I made a lot of sense in a context where where markets, you know In the middle to late 20th century really did seem to be delivering on a lot of the things that conservatives really cared about But then I think that it sort of reached its expiration date and and just kind of lived on by inertia into the 2000s into this era of kind of radical embrace of free trade even with communist China and Cutting taxes even in the face of big deficits in what sense is this vision of yours?

我認為，在贏得冷戰的背景下，這個聯盟很有意義，在市場經濟的背景下，也很有意義、20世紀中後期，市場似乎確實實現了很多保守派真正關心的事情，但後來我認為它到了失效期，只是慣性地延續到了2000年代，進入了這個激進地擁抱自由貿易的時代，即使是與共產主義中國，即使面對鉅額赤字也要減稅。

conservative because I can imagine a  Leftist listening to this or reading your work and thinking this is just a rebranded Democratic Socialism Why is that wrong?

保守是因為我可以想象一個左派人士聽了這番話或讀了您的作品後，會認為這不過是改頭換面的民主社會主義，為什麼會這樣？

missing Well, I think there's there's a real disconnect both on the on the ends and on the means I think there's a very healthy contestation over what are the appropriate ends that that we're actually building toward and I think what you're seeing Conservatives now coming back to finally actually articulating a lot more effectively Is a set of actual value judgments about what we do think the good life consists of what we do think is necessary for human flourishing In a way that libertarians are entirely unwilling to write for libertarians It's sort of liberty in the market or the end unto itself and and whatever comes out of that that Something else to say about it I think if you look at you know, certainly my own view and and what you see conservatives focusing on I think there is a set of value judgments and and preferences for You know in many respects quite traditional formations at the family level at the community level Saying that it you know, it is not merely a value neutral choice Would you rather you know get married and have kids or spend more money on vacations in Greece that it is actually appropriate and necessary For the good society to say no.

不見了我認為在目的和手段上都存在著真正的脫節 我認為在什麼是我們正在努力實現的適當目的上存在著非常健康的爭論 我認為你現在看到的保守派終於開始更有效地表達我們認為美好生活是由什麼組成的 我們認為什麼是人類繁榮所必需的 以一種自由主義者完全不願意為自由主義者書寫的方式我認為有一系列的價值判斷和偏好 你知道在很多方面，在家庭層面 在社區層面，相當傳統的形式 你知道，這不僅僅是一個價值中立的選擇 你知道你寧願結婚生子 還是花更多的錢在希臘度假上

No one of these things is better than the other And and more important and should be valued more highly You know, I think at the at the national level You're also seeing the it in in what is a much more robust nationalism on on the right-of-center where I think conservatives recognize The the importance of the nation and and sort of solidarity within the nation to functioning markets to a functioning society In a way that at least the modern left tends tends to resist in a lot of cases Well, look, I mean, I'm certainly not here to speak for the political left My own my own views are I think a little more complicated than then, you know neat Distinctions will allow for but and part of the issue here, right?

我認為在國家層面，你也能看到，在中右派中，民族主義更為強烈，我認為保守派認識到了國家的重要性，以及國家內部的團結對於市場運作和社會運轉的重要性，而至少現代左派在很多情況下傾向於抵制這種民族主義、聽著，我的意思是，我當然不是在這裡為政治左派說話 我自己的觀點，我自己的觀點，我認為要複雜一些

That is there is no Monolithic left or monolithic, right?

也就是說，沒有 "左派 "或 "右派"，對嗎？

I mean, it's it's not as though it's that it's that neat but I I would say I do think there's a deep tradition of left-wing thought that prioritizes community and Connection and advocates for justice and fairness precisely because it promotes social stability And this is indeed a major leftist criticism of right-wing libertarianism I think there is more overlap on some of these ends than you might Then you might think or then what your comments might imply just now Well, I look I certainly don't disagree that there's there's overlap And and I think even if you sort of think of the a prior version of the right and left you could say the same Thing well, you know, everybody is sort of focusing on Growth and prosperity and and so forth.

I mean, it's it's not as though it's that it's that neat but I I would say I do think there's a deep tradition of left -wing thought that prioritizes community and Connection and advocates for justice and fairness precisely because it promotes social stab

There's there's always plenty of overlap and it's a good thing that there's agreement you you wouldn't want to have sort of two political traditions that Literally aren't agreeing on or speaking to each other about anything at all But I I do think to sort of answer the question that you you started with there are very distinct trade-offs and points of conflict between these world views and Again, I don't think that's a bad thing.

但我認為，要回答你一開始提出的問題，這些世界觀之間有非常明顯的取捨和衝突點，我不認為這是一件壞事。

I think you want to have different perspectives, but You know when I hear people sort of ask like well, how are the things you're talking about?

我認為你應該有不同的視角，但你知道，當我聽到人們問 "你說的事情怎麼樣？

I think the answer is well, there's there's clearly clearly quite a lot of space between The things we're talking about and and certainly what the modern political left is is spending its time on and then I think the the other pieces that then I think you see a lot of distinction in terms of the means and and the kinds of policy approaches that Conservatives are more inclined to Partly based on sort of their view of what is and is not likely to work and partly based on Sort of principles around the role of government and so forth and you know the way I always put it is that I think if you if you imagine the libertarians as the group that are kind of Just trusting the market and assuming that well, whatever the market delivers is going to work I think what my perception certainly is that you are tend to hear from the left is much more a skepticism that markets Can work that that markets can do these things or should do these things and and therefore a preference for a much larger role for the state in in in addressing these various challenges and solving these problems and It seems to me that the the conservative view is is more one that you know markets are not going to of their own accord Automatically do all of these things But but that markets properly constrained and and channeled can do a lot of them and and that there are a lot of reasons we prefer market based solutions To state-based solutions.

我認為答案是好的、我們談論的事情和現代政治左派花時間討論的事情之間顯然有很大的空間，然後我認為其他的部分，我認為你會看到很多區別，比如保守派更傾向於什麼手段和什麼類型的政策方法。保守派更傾向於部分基於他們的觀點，即什麼是可行的，什麼是不可行的，部分基於圍繞政府角色的原則，等等、我認為我的看法是，你從左派那裡聽到的更多的是一種懷疑，懷疑市場能否發揮作用，懷疑市場能做這些事或應該做這些事，是以傾向於讓國家在應對各種挑戰和解決這些問題方面發揮更大的作用。在我看來，保守派的觀點更傾向於認為，市場不會自動自發地做所

And so as we think about trying to address a lot of these problems, we're much more inclined to ask Okay, well, you know, what would it take what institutions what constraints do we need?

是以，當我們思考如何解決這些問題時，我們更傾向於問 好吧，你知道，我們需要什麼機構，我們需要什麼制約因素？

And so I think as a result you're seeing now in the kinds of things conservatives are focused on Somewhat kind of counterintuitively a lot more interventions in the market intended to hopefully Get markets doing the kinds of things we want to see them doing whereas I think the agenda from the left tends much more to Be about what are the things that that the the state is going to do essentially because the market will not Yeah, I mean I look there's certainly a contingent on the left That just says capitalism is bad as though that's an answer to all our problems.

是以，我認為，保守派現在關注的事情有點反其道而行之，他們對市場進行了更多幹預，希望市場能夠做我們希望看到它們做的事情，而我認為左派的議程更傾向於國家要做的事情，因為市場不會這樣做。

I'm not one of those people But you know, I do think there's a tendency to speak about capitalism as though It's just an economic system when in fact, it's also an ideology It's also a political morality with its own values and you know we can value family and community and these sorts of things but capitalism values profit and expansion and competition and These sets of values are often in conflict and you know The position of a lot of people on the left is not all that different from yours Which is the market itself isn't the problem the unfettered market is the problem there needs to be guardrails And that you know that role is best filled by the state, but that seems to be your position.

我不是那種人，但你知道，我確實認為人們在談論資本主義時 有一種傾向，好像資本主義只是一種經濟制度，而事實上，它也是一種意識形態資本主義也是一種意識形態 也是一種政治道德觀 它有自己的價值觀 我們可以重視家庭、社區之類的東西 但資本主義重視利潤、擴張和競爭 這些價值觀往往相互衝突

No Well, so, you know, I think it's maybe helpful to kind of get concrete and think about different kind of policy areas And what the implications of it would be I think, you know, one really clear example is when we think about you know, okay To the extent that we've seen really significant wage stagnation for for, you know, the median worker for the working-class You know, what are the solutions to that problem?

我認為，一個非常明顯的例子是，當我們思考 "我們已經看到工人階級中的中位數工人的工資停滯不前 "時，"有什麼辦法可以解決這個問題"？

And I do think it's fair to say that a lot of the folks on the left Certainly the what what what I hear them saying is a critique is essentially that well, this is what capitalism does capitalism generates sort of returns for capital and In many ways is is designed and intended to Either outright exploit labor or certainly leave labor in a weakened position And that is what it does No, well, I mean I don't wanna get too far afield here again, no, this is perfect You're making my point for me that that you just take for granted Well, of course, that's the case and it seems to me that that's not the case at all that that capitalism in in the abstract is a system that works only if both labor and capital are Working productively and the extent to which either benefits or doesn't it seems to me as a function of the relative power that they have within that market And if you have a situation where capital is is highly dependent on labor to generate profit and workers have power to demand better conditions and in fact The the strategy that is going to generate the most profit is one that requires actually investing on in workers and improving their productivity It seems to me you can you can be a very productive system that that works out very well for workers as well I mean, there are many different ways to do capitalism, right?

資本主義為資本帶來回報 在許多方面，資本主義的設計和目的 要麼是徹底剝削勞動力 要麼是讓勞動力處於弱勢地位 這就是資本主義的作用 不，我是說，我不想再扯得太遠了 不，這很完美 你在替我表達我的觀點 你認為這理所當然抽象地說，資本主義是一種制度 只有在勞動力和資本都能有效運作的情況下 才能發揮作用 而其中任何一方受益與否如果資本高度依賴勞動力來創造利潤，而工人又有能力要求更好的條件，事實上，能夠創造最大利潤的戰略就是需要對工人進行實際投資，提高他們的生產力、資本主義有很多不同的運作方式，對吧？

in the right system with with the right guardrails, it's Clearly the most successful economic system invented in the history of the species I wouldn't deny that at all, which is why I'm not a let's abolish capitalism person I'm not that at all just to be clear No, and and I don't think most people certainly on the American left are let's abolish capitalism people I do think they tend to Assume that capitalism as operating in the market is not going to generate especially good outcomes for workers and That the way to address that therefore is for instance through more taxation redistribution and I think one problem certainly with with The left in America today is that there are just a number of other values that are placed above outcomes for workers Obviously the importance of addressing climate change gets much higher priority The approach to immigration and frankly a refusal to enforce immigration law has taken much higher priority I think you know at this point certainly in the way that we operate our education System and put it basically all of our eggs on the on the traditional higher education basket has the same effect and so You know, I I think at the end of the day politics on all sides it comes down to trade-offs I think it's very easy to sort of declare that we like all the good things and don't like all the bad things but what What our politics comes down to is how we weigh those different values and what trade-offs were willing to accept And I think what you're seeing today is that Conservatives where certainly they have not done a good job of this in the past are starting to Lean much further into asking.

在正確的制度下，加上正確的保護措施，這顯然是人類歷史上發明的最成功的經濟制度，我完全不否認這一點，這就是為什麼我不是一個讓我們廢除資本主義的人、我不認為美國左翼的大多數人都是要廢除資本主義的人，我認為他們傾向於假設資本主義在市場中的運作不會給工人帶來特別好的結果，是以解決這個問題的方法是通過更多的稅收再分配，我認為當今美國左翼的一個問題是，有許多其他的價值觀我認為，在這一點上，我們運作教育體系的方式，以及把雞蛋基本上都放在傳統高等教育籃子裡的做法，也產生了同樣的效果，所以你知道的、我認為，歸根結底，各方政

What can we do that are going to boost the prospects for workers that are going to boost?

我們能做些什麼來改善工人的就業前景？

The the prospects for for family formation at the expense of other things.

以犧牲其他事情為代價來換取組建家庭的前景。

We might like to whereas on the left, I just I Frankly, and I think this is very obvious certainly in the rhetoric of the Democratic Party There is there is another set of things that that tends to command top priority Support for the show comes from Shopify Starting a business is all about turning your ideas into reality and to see it through you need the right tools tools like Shopify Shopify is a commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and they say 10% of all e-commerce in the US from household names like Mattel and Gymshark to brands just getting started Like dr. Sean Ellings drillings and fillings and the gray area sole patch die for hip cats Who want to look as young as they feel?

我們可能會喜歡左派，但坦白說，我認為這一點在民主黨的言論中非常明顯，還有另一套東西往往是最優先考慮的，對節目的支持來自Shopify 創業就是要把你的想法變成現實，而要實現這一點，你需要正確的工具，比如Shopify Shopify是一個商務平臺，在全球數百萬企業的背後，他們佔美國所有電子商務的10%，從Mattel和Gymshark這樣的家喻戶曉的品牌到剛剛起步的品牌，比如Dr.肖恩-埃林斯博士（Dr. Sean Ellings）的 "鑽孔和填充 "以及 "灰色區域鞋底補丁"（sole patch di

Shopify's design studio lets you build a big beautiful online store that matches your brand style You can also use their AI tools to step up your content creation Plus you can easily create email and social media campaigns to meet your customers wherever they are If you're ready to sell you can be ready for Shopify You can turn your big business idea into reality with Shopify on your side You can sign up for your $1 per month trial period and start selling today at Shopify comm slash box Go to Shopify comm slash box Shopify comm slash box You Let's move away from this a little bit because I'm not a member of the Democratic Party I'm also not a representative or spokesman for for the left and I don't want to get too bogged down on some of these these things because I actually think the The contestation between some of these value judgments is I think a big sticking point and and I want to get there and I think the best way to get there is to Talk about what your?

Shopify的設計工作室可以讓您創建一個與您的品牌風格相匹配的漂亮的網上商店，您還可以使用他們的人工智能工具來加強您的內容創建，此外，您可以輕鬆地創建電子郵件和社交媒體活動，以滿足您的客戶，無論他們身在何處。因為我不是民主黨的成員，我也不是左翼的代表或發言人，我不想在這些事情上糾纏不清，因為我實際上認為這些價值判斷之間的爭論是一個很大的癥結所在。

Conservative alternative actually looks like what you want to do Differently now that we have the diagnosis, right?

既然我們已經確診，那麼保守的替代方案實際上就像你想要做的那樣，對嗎？

These are the problems you're reacting against What is it that you want to do to fix this?

這些都是你要解決的問題，你想怎麼做才能解決這些問題？

What is your conservative project look like?

Well, there are lots of things and I think you know, generally speaking When we think about we break it into kind of two big buckets one that is focused on on a lot of these broader Macroeconomic issues You know, how is the economy functioning?

嗯，有很多事情，我想你知道，一般來說，當我們思考的時候，我們會把它抽成兩大類，一類集中在很多這些更廣泛的宏觀經濟問題上，你知道，經濟運行如何？

And and then the other one is is the much more kind of micro op economic issues that are focused much more on You know, what are the supporting institutions that that are helping people to succeed in these markets?

另一個問題是微觀經濟問題，重點是哪些支持機構能夠幫助人們在這些市場中取得成功？

and and so I guess you know, we can talk through both of them if I were to start on kind of the Market side and the question of sort of how do we actually get back to productive markets?

是以，我想，如果我從市場方面入手，從我們如何真正回到生產性市場的問題入手，我們可以對這兩個問題進行討論。

Where we start from certainly is and you know I'll go all the way back to Adam Smith and he has this concept of the invisible hand and it's I think actually very Unfortunate metaphor because it sounds magical Right, like what invisible hand that that sounds like like just that takes care of everything And if you actually look you only use the term once in the wealth of nations uses the term once and he uses in a paragraph That actually is about all of the requirements if What you need if you want the invisible hand to work and and what he says is first of all You need people he's assuming that that people are going to prefer domestic to foreign investment and he's assuming that the thing that is going to generate the most profit is expanding output and employing as many people as possible and His point is if those two things are true If people who are trying to make a lot of money a want to do that Domestically and be want to do that by investing in growth and employment then People pursuing their own interest will also advance the public interest.

我們的出發點當然是，你知道我會一直追溯到亞當-斯密，他有一個看不見的手的概念，我認為這實際上是一個非常不幸的比喻，因為它聽起來很神奇、如果你看一下，你只在《國富論》裡用過一次這個詞 他在一個段落裡用到了這個詞 實際上是關於所有的要求 如果你想讓看不見的手發揮作用 你需要什麼，他說首先你需要人他的觀點是，如果這兩點屬實 如果人們想在國內賺大錢，並且想通過投資於增長和就業來賺大錢 那麼人們追求自身利益的同時也會促進公共利益。

It's I think that's true it but it's it's not magic, it's almost a truism and What it gives you I think is still even today a very helpful road map to Thinking about markets, which is to recognize that the whole project here is to align private and public incentives and if the things that are going to earn people a lot of money are Also things that are going to be good for workers good for the country Then the system will work really well.

我認為這是事實，但它並不神奇，它幾乎是一個不言自明的道理，它給你提供的，我認為即使在今天仍然是一個非常有用的思考市場的路線圖，那就是認識到這裡的整個項目是將私人和公共激勵措施結合起來，如果能讓人們賺大錢的事情同時也是對工人有利、對國家有利的事情，那麼這個系統就會運作得非常好。

And so the question is what are the policies you need?

那麼問題來了，你需要哪些政策？

I totally agree with that if I'm a leftist, I'm an Adam Smith Leftist, I think the theory of moral sentiments is just as important a book as the wealth of nations Right, but well to be clear and like also love the theory of moral sentiments This is even just within the wealth of nations.

我完全同意這一點，如果我是左派，我就是亞當-斯密的左派，我認為《道德情操論》和《國富論》一樣重要。

This is what he's actually talking about And so I think it's then very straightforward to actually look out across the last, you know, 30 years and say, okay Well, what are the ways that sort of broke?

是以，我認為，回顧過去 30 年的歷史，可以很直截了當地說："好吧，有哪些方式導致了崩潰？

What are the ways that the ways to make a lot of money are no longer?

The ways, you know things that actually we think are going to be good for the economy good for workers good for the nation One obvious one in my mind is globalization that the moment we released the constraint on There is an advantage in investing domestically and said actually if there's more money to be made shutting down your factory and opening one in China Have at it.

在我看來，其中一個明顯的例子就是全球化，當我們放開對國內投資的限制，並表示如果有更多的錢可以賺，就關閉你的工廠，在中國開一家工廠。

We we entirely lose the right to expect that markets are actually going to deliver on the things we care about I think a second one is is what we call financialization which refers to just the sort of Metastasizing role that that financial markets play in our economy To be clear financial markets are very important.

我們完全失去了期望市場能夠真正實現我們所關心的目標的權利。我認為第二個問題是我們所說的金融化，它指的是金融市場在我們的經濟中所扮演的 "轉移 "角色。

The idea of allocating capital efficiently is vital to capitalism, obviously But what our financial markets have become is sort of an end unto themselves where the most money to be made in our economy is made Essentially trading piles of assets around in circles doing financial engineering figuring out ways to get more cash out of existing operations Ideally while cutting them down in a lot of cases and so again If you say well the the place where the top Students from the top business schools are going to go and for that matter the top engineering students from the top engineering schools is Not to starting new businesses and creating new products and making people more productive It's to starting hedge funds and seeing who can set up their office Closest to the trading floor to front-run each other by a millisecond in their trades You lose the right to expect that people pursuing profit is going to generate good outcomes to the economy The the third area I would mention here is and this is one where I think there's certainly a lot of interesting Overlap at the left is is the idea of industrial policy and just the recognition that you know The way that the economy has evolved is is one in which generally speaking sort of making big capital Investments in physical assets that take a long time to pay off has become a lot less attractive than like raising venture capital money to make an app and The fact that there's a higher return on capital making the app Has no correlation to which activity is actually more useful to the society And so if we actually think that that making things matters if we want to do more manufacturing If we want to have those kinds of jobs You are going to have to have some sort of policy that actually Either rewards that kind of investment or discourages the other kind of investment.

有效配置資本的理念對資本主義至關重要、但我們的金融市場已經變成了一個自成一體的地方 我們經濟中最賺錢的地方 基本上就是把成堆的資產轉來轉去 做金融工程 想辦法從現有業務中獲得更多現金頂尖商學院的高材生和頂尖工程學院的高材生要去的地方 不是創辦新企業，創造新產品，提高人們的生產力，而是創辦對沖基金，看誰能把辦公室設在離交易大廳最近的地方，以毫秒為組織、部門互相碾壓我想提及的第三個方面是，我認為左側有許多有趣的重疊之處，那就是產業政策的理念，以及認識到經濟發展的方式是這樣的：一般而言，對需要很長時間才能得到回

Well, this gets at a question I have and I know it's a question a lot of people have because one thing you notice when you listen to a lot of economic populist on the right is When they talk about the kind of world they want to live in they usually point to that Mid-century economy where there were all these manufacturing jobs and that was the foundation of the economy But that world is gone and I'm not saying there aren't industrial policies that can improve the situation, but we're not going back To that world.

這涉及到我的一個問題，我知道很多人都有這個問題，因為當你聆聽右翼經濟民粹主義者的言論時，你會注意到一件事，那就是當他們談到他們希望生活在什麼樣的世界時，他們通常會提到上世紀中葉的經濟，那裡有大量的製造業工作，那是經濟的基礎。

We're not undoing Globalization, so it's not clear to me what the 21st century version of this economy looks like.

我們不會取消全球化，所以我不清楚 21 世紀的經濟會是什麼樣子。

We're talking about the world of AI and the Internet.

我們談論的是人工智能和互聯網世界。

It's a service economy We're not all going to be working on assembly lines in Detroit or Cleveland, right?

這是一種服務型經濟 我們不會都在底特律或克利夫蘭的裝配線上工作，對嗎？

Well, I feel like you sort of just strung together a lot of assertions there are some of which I agree with entirely and some of which I don't think follow at all and so just to try to sort of Untangle those a little bit.

好吧，我覺得你剛才把很多論斷串在一起，其中有些我完全同意，有些我覺得完全不符合，所以只是想把這些論斷理順一下。

Yeah You're certainly right that the modern economy in the economy of the future is going to look very different from The economy of what is you know, increasingly a century ago The kinds of jobs are going to be very different.

你說得沒錯，未來經濟中的現代經濟將與一個世紀前的經濟大相徑庭。

It's going to be a relatively more services focused economy That doesn't at all mean that there's no undoing of globalization or certainly scaling back the excesses of globalization It doesn't mean that we can't have a much healthier industrial economy with more of those kinds of good jobs It doesn't mean that those kinds of jobs aren't still very important to the Foundation of local economies and the health of those service economies So the reason that our manufacturing sector has atrophied the way it is is not because we've become a services based economy and people don't Want a lot more manufactured stuff it's because we embraced a policy approach that said well, we're just not going to make the stuff and The second reason that's really important to focus on is because it's really important Remember that the theory of globalization was not and the theory of trade generally going all the way back to Adam Smith is not We stop making stuff someone else makes the stuff instead The theory is supposed to be and this is implicit right in the word trade We will make some things that we are best at making and others will make things that they are best making and we will trade the things we make best for the things they make best and If that had happened and to the extent that that does happen, I think trade can be fantastic But what we've gotten instead and where globalization has gone wrong Is this model that simply says we will not make any of the stuff and by the way We don't get the stuff imported for free.

這並不意味著全球化不會消退，或者說全球化的過度發展肯定會縮減。 這並不意味著我們不能擁有一個更加健康的工業經濟，不能有更多這樣的好工作。是以，我們的製造業之所以如此萎縮，並不是因為我們已經成為一個以服務業為基礎的經濟體，人們不需要更多的製成品，而是因為我們接受了這樣一種政策方針："好吧、第二個需要關注的原因是，這一點非常重要 請記住，全球化理論並不是這樣的，貿易理論可以追溯到亞當-斯密，但並不是說 我們不生產了，就由別人來生產，而是這樣的、我認為貿易是非常好的，但我們所得到的結果，也是全球化出錯的地方，就

What we send back is assets We send back the future claims on our economy in the form of debt in the form of equity in the form of real estate And so, you know Warren Buffett made this point back when we were first starting to do this in the early 2000s that this was Doubly foolish we were both hollowing out our capacity today and mortgaging the farm for the future and so You know, I've now sort of gone on a bit in an attempt to kind of untangle the things you were saying but I would kind of play that back to you and say like Is any part of that wrong does any part of that not seem, you know?

我們送回去的是資產，我們送回去的是未來對我們經濟的要求，以債務的形式，以股權的形式，以房地產的形式，所以，你知道，沃倫-巴菲特在21世紀初我們剛開始這樣做的時候就提出了這個觀點，說這是雙重愚蠢的，我們既在掏空我們今天的能力，又在抵押未來的農場，所以你知道、我現在已經說了一些，試圖理清你剛才說的那些話，但我還是想回過頭來對你說，這些話中有什麼是錯的嗎？

Consistent with how you would think about it because if that is right then the whole like well, we're not gonna reverse globalization It's a services economy is it's just sort of a non sequitur.

這與你的想法是一致的，因為如果你的想法是對的，那麼我們就不會逆轉全球化，因為它是服務經濟，這就有點不符合邏輯了。

It doesn't speak to the problems we have or the solutions We have available.

它沒有談到我們所面臨的問題，也沒有談到我們現有的解決方案。

No, I was just saying I Just don't know what?

不，我只是說我只是不知道什麼？

That world is gonna look like I'm not saying that we can't have a better economy without you know recapitulating that you know, the Economy of the 1950s and 60s or whatever.

我並不是說，如果不重現上世紀五六十年代的經濟，我們就不能擁有更好的經濟。

It's just it's just gonna look very different Absolutely, but why but it doesn't seem to me to be hard to envision.

這只是看起來會非常不同而已，但為什麼呢？

I mean We we know all sorts of stuff that we make we know stuff lots of other really developed economies make I mean put China To the side as as a sort of relative to the size of their economy.

我的意思是，我們知道我們製造的各種東西，我們也知道很多其他真正發達的經濟體制造的東西。

We have almost as big a trade deficit with Germany Right.

我們與德國的貿易赤字幾乎一樣大。

I mean we see, you know in a Germany a Korea Taiwan we see, you know Highly developed economies with very high levels of productivity with very good jobs in their manufacturing sectors That don't run massive trade deficits that in fact run trade surpluses and and I don't think anybody's saying well The u.s.

我的意思是，我們看到，你知道，在德國、韓國和中國臺灣，我們看到，你知道，高度發達的經濟體擁有非常高的生產力水準，其製造業部門擁有非常好的工作機會，沒有出現大規模的貿易赤字，事實上還出現了貿易順差。

Has to kind of become an export let economy and you know run giant surpluses.

必須成為出口型經濟，實現鉅額盈餘。

問題是，為什麼我們至少不能這樣做呢？

Why can't we either make more of the stuff that we consume here or be making stuff for export?

為什麼我們不能生產更多我們在這裡消費的東西，或者生產用於出口的東西？

To trade for more of the stuff that we import the burden of proof is almost in the wrong place The better question would be why on earth isn't that what's happening?

要想換取更多的進口產品，舉證責任幾乎是錯的。

How much pain do we have to suffer to to bridge from this world to that world?

從這個世界到那個世界，我們需要承受多少痛苦？

I mean Do you think that Americans simply?

我的意思是，你認為美國人就這麼簡單嗎？

Need to consume fewer goods at higher prices.

需要以更高的價格消費更少的商品。

So long as those goods are made in America I mean, do we just have to take a little bit of economic pain as we undergo this transition?

我的意思是，只要這些商品是美國製造的，我們是否就必須在轉型過程中承受一點經濟上的痛苦？

I In the transition and so I don't want to minimize that and we can come back to what what that looks like I do think it's important to say that as a long-term matter This is better You know One of the most shocking statistics that that I always highlight for folks is that it's not just that productivity growth is slowing in manufacturing Productivity growth in our manufacturing sector has actually been negative for a decade We've we've literally been getting worse at making things you need more American labor in a factory today Then you did a decade ago for comparable output that that shouldn't be possible in a capitalist economy That's crazy.

在轉型過程中，我不想貶低這一點，我們可以回頭再談這一點。你知道，我經常向人們強調的一個最令人震驚的統計數據是，不僅僅是製造業的生產率增長正在放緩，我們製造業的生產率增長實際上在過去十年裡一直是負增長。

And so the alternative, you know people look at that and they say like, oh, well, we're really bad at manufacturing If you like insisted on doing a lot of that, that would be really painful But but that's a bizarre static analysis If we actually made this a priority and we're investing in it and and committing to Building that sector.

但如果我們真的將其作為優先事項，並對其進行投資，致力於建設該部門，那麼這種靜態分析就太奇怪了。

That's not what investment and productivity in the sector would look like at all And so I think we should have a lot of you know On one hand confidence that that a more balanced economy would be a stronger one in the long run And we should also be really Focused on the costs that we're bearing now Right because it's not like well by doing things this way everything's awesome by doing things this way We do have a lot of cheap stuff but I would suggest that that actually it's right now that the American people are bearing a lot of economic costs of bad choices and We do that there.

是以，我認為，一方面，我們應該充滿信心，相信從長遠來看，一個更加平衡的經濟會更加強大；另一方面，我們也應該真正關注我們現在所承擔的成本，因為並不是這樣做就萬事大吉了，我們確實有很多便宜的東西，但我想說的是，實際上，現在美國人民正在承擔著錯誤選擇所帶來的大量經濟成本，我們就是這樣做的。

I don't think people like that trade-off.

I Just want to be as concrete as possible.

I don't want to talk about the economic pain in abstract terms What kind of pain are we talking about for how long on whose shoulders will it fall and This this element of sacrifice here, right if we're going to ask people To give up certain conveniences certain comforts certain privileges in some case For the sake of some greater good, what is that greater good?

我不想抽象地談論經濟上的痛苦 我們所說的痛苦會持續多久，會落在誰的肩上？