Name: "大多數人不知道即將發生什麼 ("Most People Have No Idea What Is Coming”)
Uploaded: 2025-08-30T18:03:25.000Z
Duration: 16 min 33 s

唐納德-特朗普剛剛做了一件不可思議的事。

His deal with Intel is going to profoundly change the entire course of the US economy.

他與英特爾的交易將深刻改變整個美國經濟的走向。

At first glance, it seems like a great deal for the American people.

乍一看，這對美國人民來說似乎是筆大買賣。

Finally, the American people are getting something for their money.

終於，美國人民的錢有了著落。

Because the government has received a 10 percent stake in Intel since Biden has awarded Intel about 8 billion dollars through Chips and Science Act.

因為自從拜登通過《芯片與科學法案》授予英特爾約 80 億美元后，政府就獲得了英特爾 10% 的股份。

It might seem like Donald Trump has assigned a good deal with Intel because for decades, the American government has helped many corporations with tax breaks, loans, and grants, and now the American government is getting something in return.

唐納德-特朗普似乎與英特爾達成了一筆很好的交易，因為幾十年來，美國政府通過減稅、貸款和贈款幫助了許多企業，現在美國政府也得到了一些回報。

However, if you dig into this deal, it is actually a disaster for the US economy.

然而，如果深入研究這筆交易，它實際上是美國經濟的一場災難。

And if you think that I am exaggerating, let me explain.

如果你認為我在誇大其詞，請聽我解釋。

That deal also gives an option to the US government.

該協議也為美國政府提供了一個選擇。

The US government will be able to buy another 5 percent stake in the company at 20 dollars per share.

美國政府將能以每股 20 美元的價格購買該公司另外 5% 的股份。

And the rationale behind this deal is that Intel is the only company in America that both designs and manufactures chips, so it's a strategic interest of the United States to make sure that the US government has a grip over this company.

這項交易背後的理由是，英特爾是美國唯一一家既設計又製造芯片的公司，是以確保美國政府對這家公司的控制權符合美國的戰略利益。

However, it is going to lead to a disaster.

Whenever the government buys a company or has a stake in a business, that business is going to become inefficient because there is a conflict of interest.

每當政府收購一家公司或擁有一家企業的股份時，這家企業就會因為存在利益衝突而變得效率低下。

If Intel, for example, wants to become more efficient, it might need to fire people.

例如，如果英特爾希望提高效率，就可能需要解僱員工。

But firing people, politically unpopular.

但解僱人在政治上是不受歡迎的。

So that will lead the company to be inefficient every single time whenever any government across the globe buys any corporation.

是以，每當全球任何政府收購任何公司時，都會導致公司效率低下。

Secondly, it makes or creates unfair competition.

第二，製造或造成不公平競爭。

In a free market, whoever builds the product at the best possible price, with the best possible technology, should actually win the market.

在自由市場上，誰能以儘可能好的價格、採用儘可能好的技術製造出產品，誰就能真正贏得市場。

But in this case, when government owns or has a stake in a particular company, then that company will be treated differently.

但在這種情況下，如果政府擁有某家公司的所有權或股份，那麼這家公司就會受到不同的對待。

The government might provide it with grants.

The government might provide it with government-backed loans.

政府可能會向其提供政府擔保貸款。

The government might provide it with some kind of help because the government has a stake in that business, which is going to create unfair competition.

政府可能會向其提供某種幫助，因為政府在該企業中擁有股份，這將造成不公平競爭。

It will also prevent innovation in the long run. 20 years ago, Intel was the largest and the most successful chip manufacturing company in the world.

從長遠來看，這還會阻礙創新。20 年前，英特爾是世界上最大、最成功的芯片製造公司。

Today, it is overtaken by Nvidia and AMD.

如今，它已被 Nvidia 和 AMD 超越。

Because the free market decided that AMD or Nvidia's chips and AMD's chips are far better than Intel.

因為自由市場決定 AMD 或 Nvidia 的芯片和 AMD 的芯片比英特爾好得多。

And that's why Intel is going down and Nvidia is the most valuable company in the world.

這就是為什麼英特爾正在衰落，而 Nvidia 卻成為世界上最有價值的公司。

Over the last 40 years, China has made a huge progress.

40 年來，中國取得了巨大進步。

China has created some of the most valuable and most successful companies in the world.

中國創造了一些世界上最有價值、最成功的公司。

But have you heard of that company 20 years ago?

但你聽說過 20 年前的那家公司嗎？

25 年前，那家公司什麼都不是。

Most of the successful Chinese corporations are heavily being backed by the Chinese government, which is why they are so successful.

大多數成功的中國企業都得到了中國政府的大力支持，這也是它們如此成功的原因。

In the long run, all of these corporations turn into a disaster.

從長遠來看，所有這些公司都會變成一場災難。

Because the government starts backing a certain company because it has a stake in that company or because there are different reasons why you want that company to be successful.

因為政府開始支持某家公司，是因為它在這家公司有股份，或者是因為你希望這家公司成功的不同原因。

In the short run, it is going to quickly expand and take market share because there is money being thrown into that business.

在短期內，它將迅速擴大並佔據市場份額，因為有資金投入該業務。

However, in the long run, it will simply turn into one giant inefficient business that if you pull out the plaque, which is the government money, this company is going to disappear.

然而，從長遠來看，它只會變成一個巨大的低效企業，如果拔掉牌匾，也就是拔掉政府的錢，這家公司就會消失。

This company will find out that they have been misusing that money, they have not been as efficient as possible because they don't have to be accountable.

這家公司會發現他們一直在濫用這筆錢，他們沒有儘可能地提高效率，因為他們不需要承擔責任。

If it's a privately owned business, the CEO of that business and the management of that shareholders, which is why they are trying to maximize their efficiency and be as profitable as possible.

如果是私營企業，該企業的首席執行官和股東的管理層，這就是為什麼他們要努力實現效率最大化，儘可能盈利。

But if it's a state-owned or state-backed corporation, they don't have that problem, which is why if you stop sponsoring them, if you stop funding them, they will find out that they cannot compete in the free market.

但如果是國有企業或國家支持的企業，他們就沒有這個問題，這就是為什麼如果你停止贊助他們，如果你停止資助他們，他們就會發現他們無法在自由市場上競爭。

China spent 300 billion dollars on Evergrande.

中國斥資 3000 億美元收購恆大。

Evergrande was the largest real estate company in the world because it received 300 billion dollars from the Chinese company or the Chinese government.

恆大是世界上最大的房地產公司，因為它從中國公司或中國政府那裡獲得了 3000 億美元。

In the short run, it quickly expanded and became the second world's largest developer in China and the most successful real estate company in the world.

在短期內，它迅速擴張，成為中國第二大開發商和全球最成功的房地產公司。

However, in 2021, when we realize that most of that money was inefficient and if the government funding will stop to Evergrande, the Evergrande will have to default on their loans.

然而，到了 2021 年，當我們發現這些錢大部分都是低效的，如果政府停止向恆大提供資金，恆大就不得不拖欠貸款。

So in 2021, the company files for bankruptcy.

於是在 2021 年，公司申請破產。

When you have unlimited money that is coming from the government, you can expand very quickly, but the moment that money stops flowing into you, what is going to happen to the company?

當你擁有來自政府的無限資金時，你可以迅速擴張，但當這些資金停止流入你的公司時，公司會發生什麼呢？

And you might think that this is just one case, but if you look at every single case when the government or any government, not just the United States or China, has backed and owned a certain corporation, that corporation have become very inefficient.

你可能會認為這只是一個案例，但如果你看看政府或任何政府（不僅僅是美國或中國）支持和擁有某家公司的每一個案例，這家公司都變得非常低效。

Tesla is the most successful EV company in the world, but if you look at their numbers, BYD has already exceeded Tesla.

特斯拉是世界上最成功的電動汽車公司，但如果你看一下他們的數據，比亞迪已經超過了特斯拉。

For example, in 2024, BYD has sold 4.3 million cars, which is far more than Tesla that has sold 1.8 million cars.

例如，到 2024 年，比亞迪已售出 430 萬輛汽車，遠遠超過售出 180 萬輛汽車的特斯拉。

And that's because BYD is heavily being backed by the Chinese government.

這是因為比亞迪得到了中國政府的大力支持。

Yes, Tesla is also backed by the US government to a certain extent, but the comparison is nowhere close.

是的，特斯拉也在一定程度上得到了美國政府的支持，但兩者之間的差距遠沒有那麼大。

Without government money, BYD would not be what it is today.

沒有政府的資助，就沒有比亞迪的今天。

Tesla has benefited from the US government, but that's absolutely nothing compared to BYD.

特斯拉從美國政府那裡得到了好處，但與比亞迪相比，這絕對不算什麼。

So BYD is supposed to be much more successful than Tesla.

是以，比亞迪應該比特斯拉更成功。

But if you look at their revenue, BYD made slightly more money than Tesla.

但如果從收入來看，比亞迪的收入略高於特斯拉。

Tesla made 97 billion dollars, BYD 107 billion dollars.

特斯拉賺了 970 億美元，比亞迪賺了 107 億美元。

So how is it possible that BYD sells 2.5 times more cars than Tesla and yet their revenue is very similar, almost very similar.

那麼，比亞迪的汽車銷量是特斯拉的 2.5 倍，而它們的收入卻非常接近，幾乎相差無幾，這怎麼可能呢？

But if you look at net profit, things get way worse.

但如果看淨利潤，情況就更糟了。

Tesla made 97 billion dollars, 7 billion dollars of net profit, while BYD made 5.6 billion dollars, even though that BYD sold 2.5 times more cars.

特斯拉賺了 970 億美元，淨利潤 70 億美元，而比亞迪賺了 56 億美元，儘管比亞迪的汽車銷量是特斯拉的 2.5 倍。

So Tesla is much more profitable because Tesla is accountable to its shareholders.

是以，特斯拉的利潤要高得多，因為特斯拉要對股東負責。

Tesla must make sure that they are as efficient as possible and they are building or using the money and allocating the capital as efficiently as possible.

特斯拉必須確保儘可能提高效率，儘可能高效地建設或使用資金和分配資本。

BYD does not have that problem, BYD can simply continue selling their cars at a loss.

比亞迪不存在這個問題，比亞迪可以繼續虧本銷售汽車。

But what happens when you pull out the plaque?

但是，當你拔出牌匾時會發生什麼呢？

What happens when the government money dries up?

What happens when the government stops supporting you?

如果政府不再支持你，會發生什麼？

Suddenly you realize that your business is very inefficient and if you want to continue being in business and do not file for bankruptcy, you have to raise your prices.

突然間，你意識到你的企業效率很低，如果你想繼續經營，不申請破產，就必須提高價格。

Then you raise your prices, you suddenly realize that you cannot compete with Tesla and you start going out of business.

然後你提高了價格，你突然意識到你無法與特斯拉競爭，於是你開始倒閉。

And that's why, in the short run, government backing companies might actually have an edge.

這就是為什麼在短期內，政府支持的公司可能會有優勢。

But in the long run, only private companies dominate any industry.

但從長遠來看，只有私營公司才能主導任何行業。

Let me give you an example from the United States.

So in 1970, the US government decides that it's going to nationalize the postal service.

1970 年，美國政府決定將郵政服務國有化。

What happened at the end of the day is that USPS simply became a giant corporation that is extremely inefficient.

最後的結果是，USPS 成了一家效率極低的巨型公司。

And last year, USPS has reported a loss of 9.4 billion dollars.

而去年，美國郵政已報告虧損 94 億美元。

So this company is costing the government almost 10 billion dollars.

是以，這家公司讓政府損失了近 100 億美元。

Now the real question is that, why is that happening?

現在真正的問題是，為什麼會發生這種情況？

Why can't they turn USPS into at least self-funded corporation?

為什麼他們不能將 USPS 轉變為至少是自籌資金的公司？

I am not saying that USPS should be a profitable business.

我並不是說美國郵政應該是一個盈利的企業。

All I am saying is that maybe USPS should not be making a profit, but at least it must break even.

我想說的是，也許 USPS 不應該盈利，但至少必須收支平衡。

That is not happening for 3 reasons that we have discussed earlier.

由於我們前面討論過的 3 個原因，這種情況不會發生。

The business is inefficient due to conflict of interest.

由於利益衝突，企業效率低下。

Firing people in USPS is extremely unpopular because it's politically unpopular.

美國郵政總局解僱員工極不受歡迎，因為這在政治上不受歡迎。

But maybe as a business, you must do that because it is costing you so much money and that is not the best use of capital.

但也許作為一家企業，你必須這樣做，因為這讓你損失慘重，而且這也不是資金的最佳用途。

And it happens in every single part of the business.

這種情況發生在企業的每一個部門。

FedEx is competing with USPS to a certain extent, but there are services that FedEx cannot provide because FedEx is accountable to the shareholders, while USPS does not have to be profitable.

聯邦快遞在一定程度上與美國郵政競爭，但聯邦快遞不能提供某些服務，因為聯邦快遞要對股東負責，而美國郵政則不必盈利。

There is unlimited money that is coming from the government.

字幕列表影片播放

"大多數人不知道即將發生什麼 ("Most People Have No Idea What Is Coming”)

entire

extremely

properly

crisis