Glen Weyl on Fighting COVID-19 and the Role of the Academic Expert (Ep. 94 - BONUS)
Hello.
你好。
Today, I am chatting with Glen Weyl, who is one of the smartest and sharpest of all the economists, and Glen is, among other things, the founder and leader of RadicalxChange Foundation.
今天，我正在与格伦·韦尔（Glen Weyl）聊天，他是所有经济学家中最聪明、最敏锐的人之一，格伦也是 RadicalxChange 基金会的创始人和领导者。
Most recently, he is coauthor of a significant study on how we should fight back against COVID-19.
最近，他与人合着了一项关于我们应该如何对抗 COVID-19 的重要研究。
He and his coauthors have come up with a plan — a rather ambitious plan — for a pandemic testing board and hoping to test as many as two million Americans each day.
他和他的合著者提出了一个大流行病检测委员会的计划——一个相当雄心勃勃的计划，并希望每天对多达 200 万美国人进行检测。
Glen, welcome.
格伦，欢迎。
Thanks so much for having me on, Tyler, especially at such short notice.
非常感谢泰勒邀请我参加，尤其是在这么短的时间内。
It’s really great to be able to talk about these issues with you.
能够与您讨论这些问题真是太好了。
We will have our usual wide-ranging chat, but also a lot of focus on COVID-19.
我们将进行一如既往的广泛讨论，但也会重点关注 COVID-19。
Let me start with a simple question.
让我从一个简单的问题开始。
Why is testing in America, right now, so hard to scale up?
为什么目前在美国的测试规模如此难以扩大？
I think we’ve got two basic problems.
我认为我们有两个基本问题。
One is a coordination failure along the supply chain, and the other is a lot of small innovations that require a lot of regulatory engagement to get rapidly deployed that need to be really accelerated and coordinated.
一是供应链上的协调失败，二是需要大量监管参与才能快速部署的大量小型创新，需要真正加速和协调。
If you look deep into the supply chains where they’re producing the reagents, where they’re producing the test kits, there has not been a clear demand signal to those parts of the supply chain that we’re going to aim for a really high level of testing like we’re describing.
如果你深入研究他们生产试剂、生产检测试剂盒的供应链，就会发现供应链的这些部分并没有明确的需求信号，表明我们的目标是进行我们所描述的真正高水平的检测。
Therefore, there’s a real unwillingness to make the fixed-cost investments to repurpose manufacturing, to supply tests at that level.
因此，人们确实不愿意进行固定成本投资来重新调整制造用途，以提供该水平的测试。
We can go into why that’s the case in a minute.
我们很快就能解释为什么会出现这种情况。
If you think of closer to the consumer, the issues are actually quite different.
如果你从更贴近消费者的角度思考，问题实际上就大不一样了。
They’re not really about money.
他们真的不是为了钱。
They’re much more about the fact that the current testing technology is extremely intrusive and very volatile.
它们更多的是关于当前测试技术极具侵入性且非常不稳定的事实。
So —
所以 ——
That’s the swab up your nose, right?
那是你鼻子里的拭子，对吧？
It hurts.
好痛。
Exactly.
确切地。
Exactly.
确切地。
It sounds scary.
听起来很可怕。
So you want to spit into a cup.
所以你想吐到杯子里。
Exactly, or a tube.
准确地说，或者是一根管子。
Say I’m an individual American, and we’re in a world where tests are easy to get.
假设我是一个美国人，而我们生活在一个很容易获得测试的世界。
Indeed, we’re testing two million Americans a day.
事实上，我们每天正在测试 200 万美国人。
Why, in fact, want to be tested if I’m afraid that information can be used against me, keep me away from my job, or remove me from my family?
事实上，如果我担心这些信息会被用来对付我、让我失去工作或让我脱离家庭，为什么要接受测试呢？
That’s a great point, Tyler.
这是一个很好的观点，泰勒。
That’s the reason why the three pillars of our strategy are testing, tracing, and supported isolation.
这就是我们战略的三大支柱是测试、跟踪和支持隔离的原因。
We need to ensure that isolation is accompanied by supports from the public that are sufficient to give people a strong reason to want to engage in isolation.
我们需要确保隔离伴随着公众的支持，足以让人们有充分的理由想要进行隔离。
People have a lot of concern for their neighbors.
人们非常关心他们的邻居。
They don’t want to get people sick.
他们不想让人们生病。
They don’t want to get their families sick.
他们不想让家人生病。
So there’s already an inducement isolation there.
所以那里已经存在诱导隔离。
But especially for Americans who have more limited economic means, it can be a huge hardship to be away from your job for that long, which is why we need public support for people who need to be isolated so that they can receive the treatment that they need, so that they can receive the food and income support that they need, and so that they don’t get detached from their jobs.
但特别是对于经济能力较为有限的美国人来说，长时间离开工作可能会带来巨大的困难，这就是为什么我们需要公众支持那些需要隔离的人，以便他们能够得到他们需要的治疗，这样他们就可以得到他们需要的食物和收入支持，这样他们就不会脱离工作。
Where physically will we put these people?
我们将把这些人安置在哪里？
Say I test as having COVID-19.
假设我测试为患有 COVID-19。
Where does the truck bring me, so to speak?
可以这么说，卡车要把我带到哪里？
I don’t think a truck brings you anywhere.
我不认为卡车能带你去任何地方。
The vast majority of people in the Asian countries that have been most successful in containing the disease have isolated at home, sometimes being isolated even from their families, but overwhelmingly at home.
在控制这种疾病最成功的亚洲国家，绝大多数人都在家中隔离，有时甚至与家人隔离，但绝大多数人都在家中隔离。
Note, for visitors from abroad who have no clear residence in the country, there may be some dedicated facilities, particular types of hotels associated with isolation.
请注意，对于在该国没有明确居住地的国外游客，可能会有一些专门的设施，例如与隔离相关的特定类型的酒店。
But that’s going to be a very small minority of all cases.
但这只是所有案例中的极少数。
Is there enough trust in America to pull this off?
对美国有足够的信任来实现这一目标吗？
Even if you write down the rules of the game and they sound fair, the people don’t trust the federal government.
即使你写下了游戏规则并且听起来很公平，人们也不信任联邦政府。
They don’t trust Donald Trump.
他们不信任唐纳德·特朗普。
They may not trust the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi.
他们可能不信任民主党和南希·佩洛西。
Won’t people really still run away from the test like a plague?
难道人们真的还会像瘟疫一样逃避考验吗？
We don’t know how long immunity lasts, if there’s immunity, how long contagion lasts.
我们不知道免疫力能持续多久，如果有免疫力，传染会持续多久。
I just don’t want to know or behave carefully enough that I don’t feel guilty.
我只是不想知道或表现得足够小心，以至于我不感到内疚。
Otherwise I’m like, “Keep that test away from me.” Or not?
否则我会说，“让那个测试远离我。”或不？
Yeah, I couldn’t agree more that there is a systemic lack of trust — especially in federal government — in this country, which is why we believe that the most effective way to make this work is by drawing on institutions that have a lot more trust.
是的，我完全同意这个国家存在系统性的信任缺失——尤其是联邦政府——这就是为什么我们认为，实现这项工作的最有效方法是利用信任度更高的机构。
A lot of the leading businesses in this country have a very high degree of trust.
这个国家的许多领先企业都拥有非常高的信任度。
The state governments, local governments have a very high degree of trust.
对州政府、地方政府有非常高的信任度。
So we need a strategy that has a role for the federal government in funding and coordinating the parts of this that absolutely need the federal government in terms of the supply chain.
因此，我们需要一项战略，让联邦政府在资助和协调供应链方面绝对需要联邦政府的部分方面发挥作用。
But beyond that, we want to empower those localities and trusted businesses to be the ones who both execute on and lead the public communication around the strategy.
但除此之外，我们希望让这些地方和值得信赖的企业能够执行并领导围绕该战略的公众沟通。
There’s a well-worn tradition of that in something called the interstate compact, where the federal government can provide funding, but it’s actually administered by state governments and often staffed by the private sector.
在所谓的州际契约中，有一个古老的传统，即联邦政府可以提供资金，但实际上是由州政府管理的，并且通常由私营部门配备人员。
At what rate of false negatives are these tests not worth doing?
假阴性率达到多少，这些测试就不值得做？
Probably around 50 to 60 percent.
大概是50%到60%左右。
Now, it depends a huge amount on whether those false negatives are what we call permanent false negatives or whether they’re from poor administration of the test.
现在，这在很大程度上取决于这些假阴性是否是我们所说的永久性假阴性，或者是否是由于测试管理不善造成的。
If they’re from poor administration of the test, you can just give a test multiple times.
如果它们是由于测试管理不善造成的，您可以多次进行测试。
And it appears that most false negatives are currently from poor administration of the nasal swabs, which, by the way, is another reason why moving towards a spit test is so desirable, because it’s much harder to screw up.
目前看来，大多数假阴性都是由于鼻拭子管理不善造成的，顺便说一句，这也是为什么需要进行唾液检测的另一个原因，因为这样做更难搞砸。
But the spit test doesn’t do better on false negatives, right?
但唾液测试在假阴性方面的效果并不好，对吗？
It probably does the same.
它可能也有同样的作用。
Swabs are more sensitive if they’re correctly administered, but they’re very easy to incorrectly administer because they’re a very invasive and complicated procedure.
如果正确使用，拭子会更敏感，但很容易错误使用，因为它们是一种非常侵入性且复杂的程序。
The spit test is much less prone to that sort of human error and so may actually, in practice, perform better even though the nasal swab has the potential to do better.
唾液测试不太容易出现这种人为错误，因此实际上在实践中可能表现更好，尽管鼻拭子有可能做得更好。
What do you think is the rate of false negatives right now?
您认为目前的假阴性率是多少？
Probably about 20 percent, 20 to 25 percent.
大概是20%左右，20%到25%左右。
At what rate of false positives are these tests not worth doing?
这些测试的误报率是多少就不值得做？
I think that even a relatively low rate of false positives could create a huge problem here because the disease prevalence is not that high.
我认为，即使假阳性率相对较低，也可能会造成一个巨大的问题，因为疾病患病率并不高。
So, if you start getting a lot of false positives, pretty much everything that’s going to come up is going to be a false positive.
因此，如果您开始收到大量误报，那么几乎所有出现的情况都将是误报。
Luckily, the PCR tests have shown a very low rate of false positives so far.
幸运的是，到目前为止，PCR 检测的假阳性率非常低。
But is that data on false positives very reliable?
但关于误报的数据非常可靠吗？
Because we don’t have another test to test the test, right?
因为我们没有另一个测试来测试这个测试，对吗？
There’s never been a control group when we subject people to all the different tests and then find out if they really had it.
当我们让人们接受所有不同的测试，然后看看他们是否真的有对照组时，从来没有对照组。
We have a lot of uncertainty about test quality?
我们对测试质量有很多不确定性？
I think that that’s true.
我认为这是真的。
I also think that we’re not getting a huge dragnet coming out of these PCR tests in countries where prevalence rates are low, and you would expect to see that if the false positive rate were nontrivial.
我还认为，在流行率较低的国家，我们并没有从这些 PCR 检测中得到巨大的天罗地网，如果假阳性率不低的话，你会期望看到这一点。
In Korea, they’re administering a lot of these tests, and they’re getting about 2 percent of tests coming back positive.
在韩国，他们进行了大量此类测试，大约 2% 的测试结果呈阳性。
If you look at countries where we know that there is very low prevalence, you would expect that, even if there’s zero prevalence, you would be getting a significant false positive rate.
如果你看看我们知道患病率非常低的国家，你会期望即使患病率为零，你也会得到显着的假阳性率。
The fact that some countries are really getting close to zero tests coming back positive suggest that there’s a very low false positive rate.
事实上，一些国家的检测结果确实接近零，结果呈阳性，这表明假阳性率非常低。
If we look at Singapore, which has done a lot with testing and track and trace, it seems, at least superficially, they did many things right.
如果我们看看新加坡，它在测试和追踪方面做了很多工作，至少从表面上看，他们似乎做了很多正确的事情。
Now they’re back to having over 900 cases a day , and they’re about the size of Fairfax County and have incredible governance.
现在，他们每天的病例数又恢复到了 900 多例，其面积相当于费尔法克斯县的大小，并且拥有令人难以置信的治理能力。
What did Singapore do wrong, and how will we avoid that same mistake?
新加坡做错了什么，我们如何避免同样的错误？
The truth is I haven’t followed the Singaporean case recently closely enough to figure out what went wrong recently.
事实是，我最近没有足够密切地关注新加坡的案件，无法弄清楚最近出了什么问题。
My impression is that they put too much confidence into a particular digital tracing system, which turned out to get very low take-up, and they pulled back on their manual tracing efforts before there was reason to be confident that they had the ability to pull back on them.
我的印象是，他们对特定的数字追踪系统过于自信，结果发现该系统的使用率非常低，并且在有理由相信他们有能力取消手动追踪工作之前，他们取消了手动追踪工作。
There’s also a big problem, which is that manual tracing efforts do a poor job of covering public spaces, and I think that the Singaporeans believed that these Bluetooth-based tracing technologies would cover those public spaces well, and they failed to do so.
还有一个大问题，那就是手动追踪工作在覆盖公共空间方面做得很差，我认为新加坡人相信这些基于蓝牙的追踪技术可以很好地覆盖这些公共空间，但他们没有这样做。
And they therefore allowed redensification of their public spaces too quickly, and I think that’s something we need to be very careful about.
因此，他们过快地重新密集化了公共空间，我认为这是我们需要非常小心的事情。
But whether or not we make those exact same mistakes, the fact that such a high-quality government made mistakes, didn’t we really truly fear the United States — with 50 different state governments, a barely competent federal government, if that — will make a lot more, possibly quite different mistakes?
但无论我们是否犯同样的错误，事实上，这样一个高质量的政府也犯了错误，我们难道真的不担心美国——有50个不同的州政府，一个几乎没有能力的联邦政府，如果那样的话——会犯更多、可能完全不同的错误吗？
How confident are you about how this is going to run?
您对此事的进展有多大信心？
Well, look, I think that there is likely going to need to be some capacity for states or localities — probably through some sort of identity certificate or something like that — to potentially limit travel across jurisdictions.
嗯，看，我认为州或地方可能需要具备某种能力（可能通过某种身份证明或类似的东西）来限制跨司法管辖区的旅行。
In Canada, they’ve done that across provinces.
在加拿大，他们已经跨省这样做了。
So this could limit travel across some US states?
那么这可能会限制美国某些州的旅行吗？
Yeah, I think so.
是的，我想是的。
I don’t know if it will come to that.
我不知道是否会发展到那一步。
There’s a possibility that we get very successful here in a very uniform way, but for the reasons that you’re saying — because of the federal structure — I think we’re going to face a choice between centralizing power more than I think we should want to and in a way that would reduce the scope for desirable experimentation, and allowing some restrictions on travel across localities.
我们有可能以一种非常统一的方式在这里取得非常成功，但由于你所说的原因 —— 因为联邦结构 ——我认为我们将面临一个选择，要么比我认为我们应该想要的更集中权力，要么以某种方式减少理想实验的范围，要么允许对跨地区旅行进行一些限制。
Actually, I look right now at New Zealand, Hawaii, and the Faroe Islands, in fact, also Taiwan.
其实我现在看的是新西兰、夏威夷、法罗群岛，其实还有台湾。
They’re all doing a great job.
他们都做得很好。
They’re all like islands in some way, or they’re literally islands.
从某种程度上来说，它们都像岛屿，或者说它们就是真正的岛屿。
Isn’t so much of the gain just from reducing the travel?
这么多的收益不就是因为减少了旅行吗？
And if we reduce travel, not worry so much about the tests.
如果我们减少旅行，就不用太担心测试。
We get most of the gain, or no?
我们获得了大部分收益，还是没有？
Well, there’s plenty of islands that have restricted travel, at least at some point, and have failed.
嗯，有很多岛屿至少在某些时候限制了旅行，但都失败了。
The UK has had a terrible experience and is also an island.
英国经历过可怕的经历，而且也是一个岛国。
So I don’t think being an island is enough.
所以我认为成为一个岛屿还不够。
It’s a big island, right?
这是一个大岛，对吧？
If you’re in Hawaii, it’s pretty carved up, even within Hawaii, and there’s not much mobility.
如果你在夏威夷，即使在夏威夷境内，这里也很分割，而且没有太多的流动性。
I think you can certainly achieve a lot if you don’t yet have the disease in country that way.
我认为，如果你的国家还没有出现这种疾病，你肯定可以取得很大的成就。
There are not that many places in the US that have low enough prevalence that I think that that would really succeed.
在美国，没有那么多地方的患病率足够低，我认为这会真正成功。
But it would probably succeed for some localities.
但它可能会在某些地区取得成功。
I just think it’s not a comprehensive strategy for most of the population centers of the US, where prevalence is already high enough that trying to treat yourself as an island is not really going to accomplish a lot.
我只是认为，对于美国大多数人口中心来说，这并不是一个全面的策略，因为这些地区的流行率已经足够高，试图将自己视为一座孤岛并不会真正取得多大成就。
Give me a sense of the timeline of what you’re proposing.
请让我了解一下您所提议内容的时间表。
What do we get the rate of transmission down to?
我们可以将传输速率降低到多少？
How quickly do we get the tests available?
我们多快可以得到可用的测试？
And then when do we reopen the economy?
那么我们什么时候重新开放经济呢？
What’s the ticking of the clock?
时钟的滴答声是什么？
There’s one really critical element of this plan that I don’t think has been widely discussed, which is that there are 40 percent of people in the essential sector who are still out there doing their jobs.
我认为该计划中有一个非常关键的要素尚未得到广泛讨论，那就是基础部门有 40% 的人仍在工作。
There may have been some improvements in sanitation.
卫生条件可能有所改善。
There probably have been, though there have been a lot of issues with getting the PPE required to do that.
可能已经存在了，尽管在获得这样做所需的个人防护装备方面存在很多问题。
But those people are basically transmitting the diseases they always have been.
但这些人基本上正在传播他们一直以来的疾病。
And so, by far, our first priority has to be not “reopening the economy,” but rather stabilizing that sector of the economy so that transmission is not taking place within that sector.
因此，到目前为止，我们的首要任务不是“重新开放经济”，而是稳定该经济部门，以便该部门内不会发生传播。
Once we’ve accomplished that goal, it will actually be relatively easy to reopen the rest of the economy, given that that’s 40 percent.
一旦我们实现了这一目标，考虑到 40%，重新开放其他经济领域实际上会相对容易。
It’s just a doubling to get to everybody being in a disease-stabilized situation.
只需要加倍就可以让每个人都处于疾病稳定的状态。
So I really think the focus has to be on stabilizing the essential sector by building up this regimen.
因此，我确实认为重点必须放在通过建立这一方案来稳定重要部门。
I think we can do that by the end of June.
我认为我们可以在六月底之前做到这一点。
Once that’s accomplished, I think we can, over the course of July, reintroduce most of the rest of the economy and have the confidence that, because we haven’t seen reemergence of diseases within the essential sector, that reintroducing everybody else will proceed in a similar fashion.
一旦完成，我认为我们可以在 7 月期间重新引入大部分其他经济领域，并有信心，因为我们没有看到基本部门内再次出现疾病，所以重新引入其他所有人将以类似的方式进行。
I think if people not paying their rents, and maybe more importantly, not paying their mortgages — they worry, say, within four to six weeks, the whole banking system will be insolvent.
我认为，如果人们不支付租金，也许更重要的是，不支付抵押贷款——他们担心，比如说，在四到六周内，整个银行体系将资不抵债。
I don’t mean illiquid, where the Fed can prop it up.
我指的不是流动性不足，美联储可以支撑它。
I just mean flat-out, permanently insolvent.
我的意思是彻底破产，永久破产。
Isn’t there some very rapid, irreversible, nonlinear deterioration going on, and we’ll need to reopen more than we would like to pretty soon, no matter what our level of testing is?
难道不是正在发生一些非常迅速、不可逆转、非线性的恶化吗？无论我们的测试水平如何，我们都需要很快重新开放比我们希望的更多的开放？
What do you think of that claim?
您对这种说法有何看法？
Obviously, you’re an economist.
显然，你是一位经济学家。
I think it’s a little bit extreme, but I’m certainly inclined in that direction.
我认为这有点极端，但我确实倾向于这个方向。
The problem, Tyler, is that if we reopen under the current conditions, we’re going to see — and this is expected by all the epidemiological models — a resurgence of the disease, probably sooner rather than later, and we’re going to have to lock things down again.
泰勒，问题是，如果我们在目前的情况下重新开放，我们将看到 ——所有流行病学模型都预计这一点——疾病会死灰复燃，而且很可能是迟早的事，而我们将不得不再次封锁。
As problematic as it is to keep things closed for another month plus, it’s going to be much more problematic to suddenly and unexpectedly every so often have to shut everything back down again.
尽管将一切都关闭一个月以上是有问题的，但如果突然、出乎意料地不得不再次关闭一切，问题就会更大。
It will completely destroy the capacities of businesses to plan if that is looming out there.
如果这种情况迫在眉睫，它将彻底摧毁企业的规划能力。
As problematic as it is to keep things closed for another month plus, it’s going to be much more problematic to suddenly and unexpectedly every so often have to shut everything back down again.
尽管将一切都关闭一个月以上是有问题的，但突然、出乎意料地时不时地不得不再次关闭一切的问题就会更大。
Whereas, if we can plan for some period of bridge loans, some period of the Fed bailouts, et cetera, then at least we can get that into a bill and get ahead of it, rather than relying on people to just have to deal constantly with new crises emerging.
然而，如果我们能够计划一段时期的过桥贷款、一段时期的美联储救助等等，那么至少我们可以将其纳入法案并提前实施，而不是依靠人们不断应对新出现的危机。
Let’s say we never soon figure out the puzzle of immunity, how immune you are, and for how long, and we’re not sure how long contagiousness lasts.
假设我们永远无法很快弄清楚免疫力之谜，你的免疫力有多强，免疫力有多强，能持续多久，而且我们不确定传染性会持续多久。
You get the test, and we learn that you’ve had COVID-19.
您接受检测后，我们得知您感染了 COVID-19。
We’re not sure if you’re immune or you’re contagious for two months.
我们不确定您是否具有免疫力或在两个月内具有传染性。
What do we do with you?
我们拿你怎么办？
What box do you get put in?
你会被放进什么盒子里？
I think serological tests — if we get them working, and they’re not really working very reliably yet — can be quite helpful for that because there’s one of the antibodies — I always forget which one it is, MMM or MMG — but one of them is an indicator of convalescence and at least temporary immunity.
我认为血清学测试 —— 如果我们让它们发挥作用，但它们实际上还不是非常可靠地发挥作用 —— 对此非常有帮助，因为其中有一种抗体 —— 我总是忘记它是哪一种，MMM还是MMG ——但其中一种是康复的指标，至少是暂时的免疫力。
So serology is very useful in that case.
所以血清学在这种情况下非常有用。
It’s also widely believed that if you’ve had a period of symptoms and no longer have symptoms — though this is not known for sure because we have seen some returns of it in South Korea — but it’s believed that during that period when you don’t have symptoms, the amount of the virus that you’re shedding is low.
人们还普遍认为，如果您出现过一段时间的症状，然后不再出现症状 ——尽管这还不能确定，因为我们已经在韩国看到了一些复发情况 ——但人们相信，在您没有症状的那段时间里，您排出的病毒量很低。
So I don’t think we can quite say that those people are immune until they get a serology test, but at least they can go back to being in the same condition as the rest of the population unless we see a resurgence of symptoms.
因此，我认为我们不能完全说这些人在接受血清学测试之前就具有免疫力，但至少他们可以恢复到与其他人群相同的状况，除非我们看到症状再次出现。
What are the labor requirements for following up on people who test positive?
追踪检测呈阳性的人有哪些劳动力要求？
You track them down, you call them up, you text them reminders — whatever’s going to be done.
你追踪他们，给他们打电话，给他们发短信提醒 —— 无论要做什么。
How many people do we need to hire and train to do that work?
我们需要雇用和培训多少人来完成这项工作？
Somewhere on the order of a few hundred thousand.
大约有几十万。
Precisely how many depends, really, on how quickly you want to follow up on the cases because you can have one person on each case or you can have multiple, but somewhere in that range.
确切地说，有多少人实际上取决于您想要多快地跟进案件，因为每个案件可以有一个人，也可以有多个人，但在这个范围内。
And by the way, the Australian government managed to train 20,000 people in a week who had been laid off from Qantas.
顺便说一句，澳大利亚政府在一周内成功培训了 2 万名被澳航解雇的员工。
So we definitely have examples around the world of this being done, and I’m hopeful that we can replicate this in the US.
因此，我们在世界各地肯定有这样做的例子，我希望我们可以在美国复制这种做法。
Even a county in rural East Texas has managed to do this quite rapidly, as well as the state of Massachusetts.
甚至德克萨斯州东部农村地区的一个县以及马萨诸塞州也成功地迅速做到了这一点。
So we already have some success stories on that.
因此，我们在这方面已经有一些成功案例。
And the party ultimately making this work — is it the federal government or the state governments?
最终使这项工作完成的政党是联邦政府还是州政府？
Or if there’s a disagreement, who or what is the final adjudicator?
或者如果存在分歧，谁或什么是最终的裁决者？
I think it’s going to be many different things with many different roles.
我认为这将是许多不同的事情和许多不同的角色。
But if you’re talking about the pandemic testing board that would be the coordinating body, it could be a national forum or it could be an interstate compact.
但如果你谈论的是作为协调机构的流行病检测委员会，它可能是一个国家论坛，也可能是一个州际契约。
I’d prefer it to be an interstate compact, in which case it would be a consortium of governors who would be the final authority, but they would appoint the pandemic testing board, which I think would be mostly staffed by retired generals and business leaders, as well as probably someone representing labor and so forth.
我更希望它是一个州际契约，在这种情况下，由州长组成的联盟将成为最终权力机构，但他们将任命流行病检测委员会，我认为该委员会的成员主要是退休将军和商界领袖，可能还有劳工代表等。
Say my employer tests me, maybe it’s George Mason, and the test is wrong — false positive, false negative.
假设我的雇主对我进行测试，也许是乔治梅森大学，而测试是错误的 —— 假阳性、假阴性。
Can I sue them?
我可以起诉他们吗？
Or is there a complete liability waiver here?
或者这里有完全的责任豁免吗？
I think employers should have a responsibility to use the best tests.
我认为雇主应该有责任使用最好的测试。
There’s still a pretty high false rate, right?
错误率仍然很高，对吗？
High false negative rate.
假阴性率高。
At maximum, 1 percent false positive rate because —
假阳性率最多为 1%，因为 —
Total rate could be over 30 percent.
总比率可能超过30%。
So if result is wrong and you can sue your boss, bosses won’t want to test you.
所以如果结果不对，你可以起诉你的老板，老板就不会想测试你了。
I think that they should have a negligence requirement to use the best tests available, but I don’t think that they should have a strict liability requirement that if anything goes wrong, it’s their fault.
我认为他们应该有一个疏忽要求，以使用最好的可用测试，但我不认为他们应该有一个严格的责任要求，即如果出现任何问题，都是他们的错。
But we’d have to get, through all the different court systems of the country, some kind of agreement on liability, right?
但我们必须通过该国所有不同的法院系统就责任达成某种协议，对吗？
And just for going back to work.
只是为了回去工作。
You’re in the workplace, there’s a testing regime.
你在工作场所，有一个测试制度。
Yeah.
是的。
I think that’s fair.
我认为这是公平的。
I think the pandemic testing board should have some authority to set guidance about that, and my guess is, under standard common-law approaches, that there would be a fair bit of deference to that by most reasonable courts.
我认为流行病检测委员会应该有一定的权力来制定相关指导，我的猜测是，根据标准的普通法方法，大多数合理的法院都会相当尊重这一点。
I can’t say that that would happen everywhere, but that would be my guess.
我不能说这种情况在任何地方都会发生，但这是我的猜测。
Let’s say I love taking the test.
假设我喜欢参加考试。
I take the test every week.
我每周都参加考试。
It clears me every week.
它每周都让我清醒。
Do I get a certificate?
我可以获得证书吗？
We believe that taking the test frequently enough — and I don’t think once a week is enough; it should probably be twice a week — that that should give you an equal status to someone who’s been shown an immune.
我们认为，参加测试的频率足够了 ——而且我认为每周一次还不够；可能应该每周两次 ——这样你就可以与已获得免疫力的人享有平等的地位。
Can I get a certificate proving that, and it’s like a passport?
我可以获得证明这一点的证书吗？它就像护照一样？
Yeah, for both of those cases, both for immunity and for if someone takes frequent tests.
是的，对于这两种情况，无论是为了免疫力还是为了某人是否经常进行测试。
We don’t think people should have the right to do that until we have enough tests to do the more basic regime for the whole population.
我们认为，在我们进行足够的测试来为全体人民制定更基本的制度之前，人们不应该有权这样做。
But eventually, we would like to make them available through a more standard price mechanism like you’re describing.
但最终，我们希望通过您所描述的更标准的价格机制来提供它们。
And then, especially in essential sectors, I expect, yes, there would be a certification process like you’re describing for people who are either known to be immune or for people who get frequent enough negative tests.
然后，特别是在重要领域，我预计，是的，将会有一个像您所描述的认证流程，适用于那些已知具有免疫力的人或经常进行阴性测试的人。
We end up with a segregated nation.
我们最终会面临一个种族隔离的国家。
I don’t think so because first of all, we will not make that available — the immunity certificates or these ones that you’re talking about, the frequent negative tests — until we’ve already managed to really control the disease enough that we feel comfortable for people going back into most public amenities just based on the fact that we’re tracing down most of the disease.
我不这么认为，因为首先，我们不会提供这些——“免疫证书或你所说的这些证书，频繁的阴性测试”——直到我们已经成功地真正控制住了这种疾病，以至于我们对人们重返大多数公共设施感到放心，因为我们正在追踪大部分疾病。
So really, the only reasonable purpose of those types of things — either immunity or frequent negative tests — would be for jobs in extremely sensitive professions, where you’re close to people who are in a very vulnerable part of the population.
因此，实际上，这类事情的唯一合理目的——“免疫力或频繁的阴性检测”——是在极其敏感的职业中工作，在这些职业中，你与人口中非常脆弱的部分的人关系密切。
But if I can’t get a certificate for a long time, doesn’t that mean I just don’t want to take the test?
但如果长时间拿不到证书，是不是就不想参加考试了呢？
There’s no benefit for me.
对我来说没有任何好处。
Until that time, all the tests are being used in a test-and-trace regime.
在那之前，所有测试都在测试和跟踪制度中使用。
And if you test positive in the test-and-trace regime, you will go into supported isolation.
如果您在测试和追踪制度中测试呈阳性，您将进入支持性隔离。
So, both you’ll end up having your health protected, but also you’ll get the support so that you can actually be just as well off as if you didn’t get the negative test.
因此，您最终不仅会得到健康保护，而且还会获得支持，这样您实际上就可以像没有得到阴性检测结果一样过得很好。
Seems to me trust there will be very weak.
在我看来，信任将会非常薄弱。
I wouldn’t believe they’re going to send me enough money.
我不相信他们会给我足够的钱。
If they tell me they’re going to send me a nurse, I worry about rate of contagion amongst healthcare professionals.
如果他们告诉我他们要给我派一名护士，我会担心医疗保健专业人员中的传染率。
What’s the support I get that’s so valuable?
我得到的什么支持如此宝贵？
I think that getting the precise parameters of that right are really critical, Tyler, and I can’t say that I’ve gotten down to the level of precision necessary.
我认为获得正确的精确参数非常关键，泰勒，而且我不能说我已经达到了必要的精度水平。
But there’s obviously a real tradeoff there between not inducing people to voluntarily get the disease in order to obtain the support, but also not getting so low that people don’t want to go into that regime.
但显然，在不诱导人们自愿患病以获得支持与不让人们不想接受这种制度之间存在真正的权衡。
I think there is an incentive-compatible place between there.
我认为这之间存在一个激励兼容的地方。
I’m not sure precisely how to set it.
我不确定具体如何设置。
We do know that in the East Asian countries with a wide range of government structures, it seems to have worked out reasonably well, and they’ve managed to induce most people to isolate.
我们确实知道，在政府结构广泛的东亚国家，这种做法似乎效果相当好，他们成功地促使大多数人进行隔离。
I also think there’s a fair bit of altruism and desire to protect your family, which doesn’t go all the way, but it helps broaden the range of incentive compatibility there.
我还认为，存在相当多的利他主义和保护家人的愿望，这并不能完全实现，但它有助于扩大激励兼容性的范围。
What do you think of the Robin Hanson point — this is not a question unique to your system at all — that many young people will want to expose themselves to limited doses in order to get immunity at some point, the certificate, reenter normal life?
您如何看待罗宾·汉森的观点 ——“这根本不是你们的系统独有的问题”——“许多年轻人会希望自己暴露在有限的剂量下，以便在某个时候获得免疫力、证书、重新进入正常生活？”
And can that be a feature of a system rather than a bug?
这可能是系统的一个特性而不是一个错误吗？
I think that that is not desirable because during the period .
我认为这是不可取的，因为在此期间。
.
。
.
。
We don’t know how asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission precisely works here.
我们不知道无症状和症状前传播在这里到底是如何运作的。
And I think a lot of young people, if they do that, would be putting their more vulnerable and elderly relatives into a lot of risk.
我认为很多年轻人如果这样做，就会让他们更脆弱和年长的亲戚面临很大的风险。
So that’s something we would like to discourage, but I don’t think it’s something that we should have more than social sanctions against.
因此，这是我们想要阻止的事情，但我认为除了社会制裁之外，我们不应该对此采取更多措施。
You are estimating a benefit-cost ratio for your plan.
您正在估算您的计划的效益成本比。
What would that number be?
这个数字是多少？
Well, it depends on what the alternative plan is, but I think the most natural alternative —
嗯，这取决于替代方案是什么，但我认为最自然的替代方案 ——
Continuation of the mess we’re in.
我们所处的混乱局面还在继续。
I don’t even know how to describe it.
我什至不知道如何描述它。
I would say 10 to 1.
我想说 10 比 1。
The costs we estimate of our plan are on the order of a bit less than a month of continued freeze in place.
我们对计划的估计成本大约是持续冻结不到一个月。
What percentage of Americans do you think will download the tracing app?
您认为有多少美国人会下载追踪应用程序？
It’ll depend a huge amount on what part of the country you’re in.
这在很大程度上取决于您所在国家的哪个地区。
In suburban and rural areas, I don’t think many people will download it, and I don’t think there’s any reason for them to.
在郊区和农村地区，我认为没有多少人会下载它，我认为他们没有任何理由这样做。
I think in areas with a lot of high-density public amenities, a lot of people will download it.
我认为在公共设施密集的地区，很多人会下载它。
And some of them, especially some of the private amenities, may choose to require you to show that you have the app before you enter that amenity.
其中一些，特别是一些私人设施，可能会选择要求您在进入该设施之前证明您拥有该应用程序。
We all know, when doing policy, proposals go through the Washington, DC, meat grinder and the state- and local-government meat grinder.
我们都知道，在制定政策时，提案要经过华盛顿特区的绞肉机以及州和地方政府的绞肉机。
What do you think about the tradeoff between getting this done quickly and getting it done the way you want it to be done?
您如何看待快速完成这件事和按照您希望的方式完成这件事之间的权衡？
Let’s say your version is the best version.
假设您的版本是最好的版本。
You want speed more importantly or getting it right more importantly?
您想要速度更重要还是正确更重要？
There’s a clear tradeoff between the two of them, and there are minimum requirements that are needed to get this working at all.
两者之间存在明显的权衡，并且需要满足最低要求才能使其正常工作。
I would say those things have to be met, but the fastest possible, subject to those being met, is probably going to be much more important than getting it all precisely right.
我想说的是，这些事情必须得到满足，但在满足这些要求的前提下，尽可能快地完成可能比把一切都精确地做好要重要得多。
How do your views on testing differ from those of Paul Romer, if at all?
您对测试的看法与保罗·罗默的看法有何不同（如果有的话）？
Overall, I think there’s a lot of similarity between us and Paul.
总的来说，我认为我们和保罗有很多相似之处。
Paul believes in mass-scale testing, and we do as well.
保罗相信大规模测试，我们也相信。
Paul thinks that tracing is so problematic that he would rather see universal, very frequent testing, rather than tracing being used to reduce the number of tests necessary.
Paul 认为追踪存在很大问题，因此他宁愿看到普遍的、非常频繁的测试，而不是使用追踪来减少必要的测试数量。
His plans, correctly calculated, would require something like 10 to 20 times the number of tests that ours would and, therefore, has costs much closer to something like $500 billion rather than $100 billion.
如果计算正确，他的计划需要的测试数量是我们计划的 10 到 20 倍，因此成本更接近 5000 亿美元，而不是 1000 亿美元。
It would also be much more intrusive because there’d be a much greater reliance on these negative test certificates that you were talking about earlier, Tyler.
这也会更具侵入性，因为人们会更加依赖你之前提到的这些阴性测试证书，泰勒。
Therefore, from both a civil liberties and a cost perspective, I strongly prefer a regime that also involves tracing.
因此，从公民自由和成本的角度来看，我强烈倾向于一个也涉及追踪的制度。
The other thing I would say is, because it’s so ambitious, Paul’s plan, in terms of the number of tests required, will take much longer to ramp up to that point, so we’ll end up with one to two more months of freeze in place.
我要说的另一件事是，因为保罗的计划是如此雄心勃勃，就所需的测试数量而言，需要更长的时间才能达到这一点，所以我们最终将再冻结一到两个月。
Overall, I think that there’s a strong case to be made for test, trace, and supported isolation instead of just testing.
总的来说，我认为有充分的理由进行测试、跟踪和支持的隔离，而不仅仅是测试。
But on the other hand, I think it’s great that he’s advocating an ambitious target just as we are.
但另一方面，我认为他像我们一样倡导一个雄心勃勃的目标，这很好。
What do you think of the plans that say we should try to predict who is a super spreader and then test them incredibly often?
您对我们应该尝试预测谁是超级传播者然后极其频繁地测试他们的计划有何看法？
Maybe we won’t get that far in universal testing, but we’ll get most of the gains.
也许我们在通用测试方面不会走那么远，但我们会获得大部分收益。
Testing nurses, testing people who shake hands a lot, testing the extroverts, whoever people are at these nodes.
测试护士，测试经常握手的人，测试外向的人，无论这些人是谁。
Maybe they work in nursing homes — wherever we find, say, from analyzing big data.
也许他们在疗养院工作——比如我们通过分析大数据发现的任何地方。
How effective would that be?
效果如何？
I certainly support some forms of that.
我当然支持某些形式。
I think testing essential workers, especially in long-term care facilities where there is a possibility not just for a lot of spread but for a very dangerous spread, makes a lot of sense.
我认为对重要工作人员进行检测是很有意义的，特别是在长期护理机构中，那里不仅有可能出现大量传播，而且有可能出现非常危险的传播。
I think having a very top-down regime of someone analyzing a bunch of data and, on the basis of some probably pretty tenuous statistical correlation, claiming that such and such a person needs to be tested, and then coercively going in and testing them on a government basis — it does not seem to me like a very robust regime.
我认为，有一个非常自上而下的制度，由某人分析一堆数据，并根据一些可能相当脆弱的统计相关性，声称需要对某个人进行测试，然后在政府的基础上强制进行测试 ——在我看来，这并不是一个非常健全的制度。
So I think that there’s some robust elements of this that I would love to see implemented, probably largely through private demand.
因此，我认为其中有一些强有力的元素我希望看到实现，可能主要是通过私人需求实现。
“I want my person taking care of me to be tested.” And then there’s other things that seem to me problematic and potentially authoritarian.
“我希望照顾我的人接受测试。”在我看来，还有其他一些事情是有问题的，而且可能是专制的。
Here’s a question from a reader, and I quote, “What are the best ideas for applying radical markets to the COVID-19 crisis?”
这是一位读者提出的问题，我引用一下：“将激进市场应用于应对 COVID-19 危机的最佳想法是什么？”
Okay.
好的。
I think some of my favorite ideas actually aren’t necessarily on radical markets but on RadicalxChange ideas more broadly.
我认为我最喜欢的一些想法实际上不一定是激进市场，而是更广泛的 RadicalxChange 想法。
But the ones that are related…
但那些相关的……
That’s fine.
没关系。
Absolutely.
绝对地。
For example, I think a huge problem we have right now is that cultural industries are struggling to survive or thrive in the internet world.
例如，我认为我们现在面临的一个巨大问题是文化产业在互联网世界中难以生存或繁荣。
And we’re now, suddenly, completely in the internet world.
我们现在突然完全进入了互联网世界。
All the possibilities of doing in-person gigs that were really supporting a lot of the music sector are gone.
所有真正支持音乐界的现场演出的可能性都消失了。
I’d really love to see a pool of funding be put into the matching mechanisms that we’ve been emphasizing to improve the environment for things like Patreon and Kickstarter to fund cultural innovation that will help sustain morale during the times when people are separated from each other.
我真的很希望看到大量资金投入到我们一直强调的匹配机制中，以改善 Patreon 和 Kickstarter 等机构的环境，为文化创新提供资金，这将有助于在人们彼此分离的时期维持士气。
So that’s —
所以这就是 ——
They could write better incentive-compatible contracts by drawing on your other insights, and that would help these people raise money and support themselves.
他们可以利用你的其他见解来编写更好的激励兼容合同，这将帮助这些人筹集资金并养活自己。
That’s the idea.
这就是这个想法。
More generally about the crisis, should we allow price gouging, say, for masks or reagents?
更普遍地说，关于这场危机，我们是否应该允许哄抬物价，比如口罩或试剂的价格？
They don’t like calling it price gouging, by the way.
顺便说一句，他们不喜欢称之为价格欺诈。
Yeah, the problem I have with the price mechanism here is not the usual “price gouging” or variable pricing, but the fact that there’s so many externalities in the allocation of some of these critical inputs here.
是的，我在这里的价格机制遇到的问题不是通常的“哄抬物价”或可变定价，而是一些关键投入的分配存在很多外部性的事实。
In principle, we could try to price those externalities, but in practice, trying to get such a pricing mechanism and the information required for it in place quickly is going to be very hard.
原则上，我们可以尝试对这些外部性进行定价，但在实践中，试图快速建立这样的定价机制及其所需的信息将非常困难。
Therefore, I think we need to have a lot of nonprice allocation, not of the whole economy but just of the really critical elements, like testing and certain types of PPE, because I think otherwise we’re all going to be harmed by that not being allocated to those nodes, as you were talking about, where they have the largest costs associated with it.
因此，我认为我们需要进行大量的非价格分配，不是整个经济的分配，而是真正关键的要素的分配，比如测试和某些类型的个人防护装备，因为我认为否则我们都会因为不分配给这些节点而受到伤害，正如你所说，它们的相关成本最大。
If we need to do two million tests a day or whatever’s the number, and if you’re a little skeptical about targeting the super spreaders, or you just want high prices, mobilize elastic supply as quickly as possible.
如果我们需要每天进行 200 万次测试或无论多少，并且如果您对针对超级传播者有点怀疑，或者您只是想要高价格，请尽快动员弹性供应。
Make sure who should get the stuff.
确定谁应该得到这些东西。
Yeah, you definitely want high prices to the suppliers, for sure.
是的，您肯定希望向供应商提供高价。
Absolutely.
绝对地。
I just don’t think the best way to do that is by, on the demand side, allocating according to the price mechanism.
我只是认为最好的方法不是在需求方面根据价格机制进行分配。
I absolutely agree with Alex Tabarrok that things like advanced market commitments that throw a lot of money at the supply chain make a ton of sense.
我完全同意 Alex Tabarrok 的观点，即向供应链投入大量资金的先进市场承诺是非常有意义的。
But whatever comes out of the supply chain I don’t just want allocated by the price mechanism to a bunch of rich people who want to go out and have dinner somewhere.
但无论供应链产生什么，我不只是想通过价格机制分配给一群想出去吃饭的富人。
I want to allocate it to the people who are going to spread the disease the most because that will let everybody go out and go back to normal life at a much lower cost.
我想将其分配给那些最容易传播疾病的人，因为这将使每个人都能以更低的成本走出去并恢复正常生活。
But it seems a lot of the rich people have been big spreaders, right?
但似乎很多富人都是大传播者，对吗？
Prince Charles, Boris Johnson, Tom Hanks.
查尔斯王子、鲍里斯·约翰逊、汤姆·汉克斯。
Yeah, I’m not saying that there wouldn’t be some of that, but I wouldn’t say that, on average, that’s going to be the case.
是的，我并不是说不会有这样的情况，但我不会说，平均而言，情况会是这样。
A lot of the long-term care facility workers, who are some of the most dangerous spreaders, are not people who have a lot of means.
许多长期护理机构的工作人员是最危险的传播者之一，他们并不是有很多钱的人。
Now, in economics, why has price theory so fallen out of favor?
现在，在经济学中，为什么价格理论如此失宠？
I think price theory is actually making quite a bit of resurgence in the last couple of decades.
我认为价格理论在过去几十年里实际上正在复兴。
Raj Chetty, Amy Finkelstein, Jon Levin — people like this, who’ve won the John Bates Clark medal, recently have really drawn on it a lot.
拉杰·切蒂（Raj Chetty）、艾米·芬克尔斯坦（Amy Finkelstein）、乔恩·莱文（Jon Levin）——像这样的人，赢得了约翰·贝茨·克拉克奖章，最近确实经常利用它。
I think it fell out of favor in the ’80s and ’90s largely because of a lot of the rise of the mathematization of economics, the rise of technocracy within the profession, the increasing focus on refinement of methods as opposed to engagement with the public.
我认为它在 80 年代和 90 年代失宠，很大程度上是因为经济学数学化的兴起、行业内技术官僚的兴起、越来越注重方法的完善而不是与公众的接触。
I think those were some of the underlying reasons.
我认为这些是一些根本原因。
There’s also an association with the University of Chicago and a particular ideological view there, which sort of mixed it all up with politics.
它还与芝加哥大学有联系，那里有一种特殊的意识形态观点，这有点与政治混在一起。
And that’s something that I think has become less and less true with this new wave that I was describing.
我认为，随着我所描述的新浪潮的出现，这一点已经变得越来越不真实。
Now, you’re a reformer.
现在，你是一名改革者。
How would you reform the economics profession, which you’ve seen from a number of different vantage points, right?
您从许多不同的角度看待经济学行业，您将如何改革它？
Yeah, one of the most important failings of the economics profession right now — and I think this is something you’re doing a great job of trying to rectify with the engagement work you do — has to do with the lack of accountability to public discourse.
是的，目前经济学界最重要的失败之一————我认为你们正在通过所做的参与工作来努力纠正这一点——这与缺乏对公共话语的问责有关。
This is something that’s really systematic across American society, not just in economics.
这是整个美国社会真正系统化的事情，而不仅仅是在经济学中。
There’s a very unhealthy relationship to expertise, where either there’s a total disregard of and distrust of expertise or a deference to it, rather than the notion .
与专业知识的关系非常不健康，要么完全忽视和不信任专业知识，要么尊重专业知识，而不是概念。
.
。
.
。
If you look at someone like Milton Friedman — the way you judge an expert is by their ability to distill things down and convey a message that becomes part of the public discourse.
如果你观察像米尔顿·弗里德曼（Milton Friedman）这样的人，你判断专家的方式就是看他们提炼事物并传达成为公众话语一部分的信息的能力。
That’s hurting us in the COVID situation, and it’s been a disaster in the economics profession.
在新冠疫情形势下，这对我们造成了伤害，这对经济学界来说是一场灾难。
What’s the mechanism design you would implement to get us there?
为了让我们实现这一目标，您将实施什么机制设计？
We might all agree with the outcome, but what do you change?
我们可能都同意这个结果，但是你要改变什么？
Tenure procedures?
任职程序？
Peer review?
同行评审？
One thing we need to change is the way that universities evaluate professors for tenure and the way that we evaluate people for prizes.
我们需要改变的一件事是大学评估教授终身职位的方式以及我们评估人们获得奖项的方式。
There needs to be a much, much greater emphasis on your ability to bring things into public discourse in evaluating people rather than just the esteem of your colleagues.
在评价他人时，需要更加重视你将事情纳入公共讨论的能力，而不仅仅是同事的尊重。
One thing we need to change is the way that universities evaluate professors for tenure and the way that we evaluate people for prizes.
我们需要改变的一件事是大学评估教授终身职位的方式以及我们评估人们获得奖项的方式。
There needs to be a much, much greater emphasis on your ability to bring things into public discourse in evaluating people rather than just the esteem of your colleagues.
在评价他人时，需要更加重视你将事情纳入公共讨论的能力，而不仅仅是同事的尊重。
Getting the right metrics on that is a really tricky thing.
获得正确的指标是一件非常棘手的事情。
I bet it’s something you’ve thought about, actually, Tyler.
我敢打赌，这实际上是你考虑过的事情，泰勒。
But I think we need to be bringing that public engagement and delivery of things directly to the public much more into how we evaluate people.
但我认为我们需要将公众参与和直接向公众提供的东西更多地纳入我们评估人们的方式中。
You look at someone like Henry George.
你看看像亨利·乔治这样的人。
Henry George was one of the great economists.
亨利·乔治是最伟大的经济学家之一。
He ran for mayor of New York, and he actually beat Theodore Roosevelt.
他竞选纽约市长，实际上击败了西奥多·罗斯福。
I’d like to see more economists living that sort of life.
我希望看到更多的经济学家过上这种生活。
Milton Friedman obviously had a bit in that direction.
米尔顿·弗里德曼显然有一点朝这个方向发展。
John Kenneth Galbraith.
约翰·肯尼思·加尔布雷思。
We need more of that.
我们需要更多这样的东西。
Here’s another reader question.
这是另一个读者问题。
“How have the events around COVID-19 changed Glen’s views on RadicalXchange and related issues?”
“围绕 COVID-19 的事件如何改变了 Glen 对 RadicalXchange 及相关问题的看法？”
It’s actually interesting because the first thing I wrote about COVID was not the stuff that I’m doing now.
这实际上很有趣，因为我写的关于新冠病毒的第一件事并不是我现在正在做的事情。
It was about Taiwan’s experience and how much better Taiwan had done — and it appears this is still going — than even places like Singapore and China.
这是关于台湾的经验以及台湾做得比新加坡和中国等地好得多——而且似乎仍在继续。
I think one critical reason for that is that Taiwan has this really rich democratic technology tradition in which citizens are engaged in making technical tools that then help scale up and govern the country.
我认为其中一个关键原因是台湾拥有这种真正丰富的民主技术传统，公民参与制造技术工具，然后帮助扩大规模和治理国家。
In China and in the US, for different reasons, the technical leads are quite divorced from those who their technology is meant to serve, and therefore they’ve been very poorly responsive to the emerging issues on the ground.
在中国和美国，由于不同的原因，技术领导者与其技术的服务对象脱节，因此他们对当地出现的问题反应很差。
The signals have not been reaching them from the local knowledge very effectively.
他们还没有非常有效地从当地知识中得到信号。
That actually makes me believe that RadicalxChange ideas may be a very powerful mechanism for warning us about future crises.
这实际上让我相信 RadicalxChange 的想法可能是一个非常强大的机制，可以警告我们未来的危机。
It’s very hard to innovate in those fundamental ways in the midst of a crisis, which is why, at some level, the proposals I’ve been pushing for this have been conservative in nature.
在危机期间，很难在这些基本方面进行创新，这就是为什么在某种程度上，我一直在推动的提案本质上是保守的。
They’re drawing on things we really know have worked in the past rather than experimenting with new things.
他们借鉴了我们确实知道过去行之有效的东西，而不是尝试新的东西。
But as an early warning system for this type of thing, I believe all the more in that type of democratic technology.
但作为此类事情的预警系统，我更加相信这种民主技术。
Now, you may wish to challenge the premise here.
现在，您可能希望挑战这里的前提。
Why do I see so little talk about the blockchain during this pandemic?
为什么在这次大流行期间我很少看到关于区块链的讨论？
Just doesn’t seem that salient.
只是看起来没那么突出。
Well, first of all, I don’t think blockchain is very salient, period.
嗯，首先，我不认为区块链非常突出。
If you think about the conversations around technology and society, AI is way up there.
如果你考虑一下围绕技术和社会的对话，人工智能就遥遥领先。
Internet of things is way up there.
物联网已经很发达了。
Blockchain is pretty far down in terms of the broad public imagination.
就广泛的公众想象力而言，区块链还远远落后。
Within the blockchain community, obviously that’s a bit different.
在区块链社区内，显然这有点不同。
And within that community, I think there has been quite a bit of focus on what are the best ways to do things like contact tracing.
在这个社区中，我认为人们非常关注什么是进行接触者追踪等事情的最佳方法。
Now, if you call that blockchain or not is a bit of a question, but certainly privacy-preserving cryptographic technologies, if anything, I think are getting more attention now than they were getting before because of the emphasis on trying to do contact tracing in a privacy-preserving way.
现在，你是否称其为区块链是一个问题，但肯定是保护隐私的加密技术，如果有的话，我认为现在比以前受到更多的关注，因为人们强调尝试以保护隐私的方式进行接触者追踪。
Other than possibly the adoption of your plan, what do you think will be the most enduring economic or social change from this pandemic?
除了可能通过您的计划之外，您认为这次大流行带来的最持久的经济或社会变化是什么？
My guess is that there will be a lot of large corporations that take on important social responsibilities because of the trust environment that you were talking about and that it becomes increasingly illegitimate for them to be run under a pure shareholder-maximization perspective once they’re taking on that role.
我的猜测是，由于你所谈论的信任环境，将会有很多大公司承担重要的社会责任，一旦他们承担了这一角色，在纯粹的股东最大化的角度下运营就变得越来越不合法。
I think we’re going to see fundamental shifts in some of the corporate governance parameters as a result of the social role that a bunch of companies end up taking on.
我认为，由于一批公司最终承担的社会角色，我们将看到一些公司治理参数发生根本性变化。
On things under- and overrated
关于被低估和高估的事情
In the middle of these dialogues, we have a section, overrated versus underrated.
在这些对话的中间，我们有一个部分，被高估与被低估。
I have some easy ones for you.
我有一些简单的给你。
Are you game?
你是游戏吗？
Yeah, sure.
是的，当然。
Rio de Janeiro — overrated or underrated?
里约热内卢 — 被高估还是低估？
About correctly rated, I would say.
我想说的是关于正确评级。
What do you like most about it?
你最喜欢它的什么？
Best place in the world to be as a tourist, but a very challenging place to live and be productive.
这是世界上最适合旅游的地方，但对于生活和工作来说却是一个非常具有挑战性的地方。
Song by Don McLean, “American Pie.” Overrated or underrated?
唐·麦克莱恩的歌曲《美国派》。被高估还是被低估？
Oh, that’s one of my favorites.
哦，那是我的最爱之一。
Underrated.
被低估了。
Underrated.
被低估了。
What’s so good about it?
它有什么好处呢？
It manages in a very accessible and catchy way to be just allusive enough about historical events that you can make sense of it and yet still appreciate the poetry and complexity of how it’s speaking to things.
它以一种非常容易理解和吸引人的方式，对历史事件进行了足够的暗示，让你可以理解它，但仍然欣赏它如何与事物对话的诗意和复杂性。
Why didn’t Don McLean have a better career?
为什么唐·麦克莱恩没有更好的职业生涯？
There’s “Starry Night,” and then it seems to end, or am I missing something?
有《星夜》，然后似乎就结束了，还是我错过了什么？
I actually don’t know much about the dynamics of his career.
事实上，我对他职业生涯的动态了解不多。
And I like a couple of his other songs, but I agree, it is kind of remarkable that he’s such a one-hit wonder.
我喜欢他的其他几首歌，但我同意，他是这样一个一击成名的奇迹，这有点了不起。
How much people respect law in Latin America — does the typical educated outsider underrate or overrate that, law-abidingness in the Latin countries?
拉丁美洲有多少人尊重法律 ——典型的受过教育的局外人是否低估或高估了拉丁美洲国家的守法情况？
I think that they think people respect law more than they actually do because they don’t really see the favelas and the informal settlements very much on most standard trips, and they don’t realize how pervasive the fact that people are living outside the law is to the way that everyday life works in Latin America.
我认为他们认为人们比实际更尊重法律，因为他们在大多数标准旅行中并没有真正看到贫民窟和非正式定居点，而且他们没有意识到人们生活在法律之外的事实对拉丁美洲的日常生活方式有多么普遍。
Julius Krein — overrated or underrated?
Julius Krein — 被高估还是低估？
Underrated.
被低估了。
I’m a big fan.
我是它的忠实粉丝。
He’s your coauthor, right?
他是你的合著者，对吧？
Yeah, I met —
是的，我遇见了 ——
Tell us the story there.
给我们讲一下那里的故事吧。
First of all, Julius and I disagree on a great many things, but I have a huge amount of respect for his intellect.
首先，朱利叶斯和我在很多事情上存在分歧，但我非常尊重他的才智。
He’s one of the people who really challenges a lot of the ways that people have fallen into thinking.
他是真正挑战人们思维方式的人之一。
And he did it, really, at a time when I think that was incredibly necessary, so I’m a big fan of his.
他真的做到了，在我认为这是非常必要的时候，所以我是他的忠实粉丝。
I really like collaborating with him, even though in some ways we’re sort of polar opposites.
我真的很喜欢与他合作，尽管在某些方面我们是截然相反的。
He’s a nationalist.
他是一个民族主义者。
I’m very much an anti-nationalist in my basic outlook.
我的基本观点是非常反民族主义者。
What was Milton Friedman most wrong about?
米尔顿·弗里德曼最大的错误是什么？
Monopoly power.
垄断权力。
Say just a little more.
多说一点吧。
Milton Friedman — if you read Capitalism and Freedom, it’s beautiful.
米尔顿·弗里德曼（Milton Friedman）——如果你读过《资本主义与自由》，它就很美。
It’s one of my favorite books.
这是我最喜欢的书之一。
I actually think it’s very similar to Rawls.
我实际上认为这与罗尔斯非常相似。
It’s funny because a lot of people on the left love Rawls, but they hate Milton Friedman.
这很有趣，因为很多左翼人士喜欢罗尔斯，但他们讨厌米尔顿·弗里德曼。
I actually think their visions are very similar.
我实际上认为他们的愿景非常相似。
I think both of them dramatically underestimated the importance of increasing returns phenomenon.
我认为他们都大大低估了收益递增现象的重要性。
Friedman says, “Well, there may occasionally be a temporary monopoly, but it’ll go away because of competition anyway, and we need to try to just avoid it becoming too permanent by the government getting involved in it,” and so forth.
弗里德曼说，“嗯，偶尔可能会出现暂时的垄断，但无论如何它都会因为竞争而消失，我们需要尽力避免政府介入而使其变得过于永久性，”等等。
I don’t think he perceived that increasing returns phenomena that tend to create monopolies are really the foundation of what creates the possibility of civilization.
我认为他没有意识到倾向于创造垄断的收益递增现象实际上是创造文明可能性的基础。
He had in the back of his mind this sort of decreasing returns model that’s dominant in economics, and I think that that colors his whole worldview in a way that leads him to miss a lot of the key questions, even though he was right on a lot of the things that he spoke about, actually.
他的脑海里有这种在经济学中占主导地位的收益递减模型，我认为这在某种程度上影响了他的整个世界观，导致他错过了很多关键问题，尽管实际上他所说的很多事情都是正确的。
I’m actually largely sympathetic to a lot of Milton Friedman’s ideas on the things he focused on.
事实上，我在很大程度上赞同米尔顿·弗里德曼（Milton Friedman）关于他所关注的事情的许多想法。
But the problem is, the things he focused on weren’t the key problems, I don’t think.
但问题是，他关注的事情并不是关键问题，我认为不是。
Speaking of increasing returns, what’s your favorite movie?
说到收益递增，您最喜欢的电影是什么？
Memento.
纪念。
Why?
为什么？
Because it captures a really critical philosophical issue in an extremely engrossing thriller fashion.
因为它以极其引人入胜的惊悚片风格捕捉了一个真正关键的哲学问题。
It’s sort of like Don McLean.
这有点像唐·麦克莱恩。
It’s getting at something deep and rich, but in a way that’s broadly accessible.
它正在以一种可以广泛理解的方式获得深刻而丰富的东西。
What makes for a good movie critic?
怎样才能成为一名优秀的影评人？
You were a movie critic once, right?
你曾经是一名影评人，对吧？
For The Daily Princetonian.
为《普林斯顿日报》报道。
I once tried to be one.
我曾经尝试成为其中之一。
I don’t think I was all that successful.
我不认为我那么成功。
I don’t read nearly as much movie criticism as I used to in the past.
我读的电影评论已经不像过去那么多了。
What I like in a movie critic is when they’re able to capture the emotional feeling of a film and what it would be like to experience it without talking too much about what actually happens.
我喜欢影评人的一点是，他们能够捕捉到电影的情感以及体验它的感觉，而无需过多谈论实际发生的事情。
Galapagos Islands aside, what’s the best place in Latin America to go see turtles?
除了加拉帕戈斯群岛之外，拉丁美洲最好的观赏海龟的地方是哪里？
I love turtles, and I love Latin America.
我喜欢海龟，也喜欢拉丁美洲。
But I don’t feel I have a definitive answer to give to that.
但我觉得我对此没有明确的答案。
I do have the place that I’ve enjoyed seeing turtles most, which was Puerto Escondido, which is a relatively small beach town where we saw some nice turtles.
我确实有一个最喜欢看海龟的地方，那就是埃斯孔迪多港，这是一个相对较小的海滩小镇，我们在那里看到了一些漂亮的海龟。
I’m sure there are better places.
我确信还有更好的地方。
I’ve heard that some of the islands off of Venezuela are some of the best.
我听说委内瑞拉附近的一些岛屿是最好的。
But my wife got banned from going to Venezuela because she wrote a critical report on the government.
但我的妻子被禁止前往委内瑞拉，因为她写了一篇批评政府的报告。
And so, we’ve never been able to go to Isla Magdalena, I believe, which is supposed to be one of the best places.
所以，我相信我们从来没有去过马格达莱纳岛，那应该是最好的地方之一。
One of the ideas you pushed earlier in your career — not that long ago — was quadratic voting, which would place greater weight on more intense preferences.
您在职业生涯早期（“不久前”）提出的想法之一是二次投票，这将对更强烈的偏好给予更大的重视。
Let’s say we take the current pandemic, and right now we had some form of quadratic voting.
假设我们以当前的大流行为例，现在我们有某种形式的二次投票。
How would that change the nature of our response?
这将如何改变我们反应的性质？
I’m a big fan of quadratic voting still.
我仍然是二次投票的忠实粉丝。
I think the question is, quadratic voting for precisely what?
我认为问题是，二次投票到底是为了什么？
The things I’d most like to see quadratic voting be used for in the pandemic response is eliciting from people informed and rich feedback about what things they value or what elements of the response they value most.
我最希望看到二次投票在大流行应对中的作用是从人们那里获得知情且丰富的反馈，了解他们看重什么事情或他们最看重应对措施的哪些要素。
I think it could be quite powerful there in allowing basically large-scale deliberation in a remote fashion.
我认为它在允许以远程方式进行基本上大规模的审议方面可能非常强大。
I think we would learn a lot more about what elements, for example, of the social distancing are hurting people the most and what elements people are most willing to accept.
我认为我们会更多地了解哪些因素（例如，社交距离）对人们的伤害最大，以及人们最愿意接受哪些因素。
And we might get a much richer picture of the cost-benefit tradeoffs that we’re facing, which I don’t think have been very well factored into public policies.
我们可能会对我们面临的成本效益权衡有更丰富的了解，我认为公共政策并没有很好地考虑到这一点。
Do you think we, as a collectivity, would value human lives more or less with quadratic voting?
您认为我们作为一个集体，会通过二次投票或多或少地重视人的生命吗？
I think probably quite similar, but a lot of the more rich and nuanced things — for example, restrictions on parks versus restrictions on theaters — I think we’d learn a lot about what’s most important to people there.
我认为可能非常相似，但有很多更丰富、更微妙的事情 ——例如，对公园的限制与对剧院的限制—— 我认为我们会了解到很多关于那里的人们最重要的事情。
Let’s say you’re applying your ideas on mechanism design to higher education.
假设您正在将机制设计的想法应用于高等教育。
In general, what would you change?
一般来说，你会改变什么？
One thing I’ve thought about quite a bit has been the evaluation of people for tenure and some of the publications stuff.
我思考了很多的一件事是对人们的终身教职和一些出版物的评估。
I don’t know if that’s higher education, really, though, because it’s a little more research.
不过，我不知道这是否真的是高等教育，因为它需要更多的研究。
Part of it.
一部分。
I’ll ask about students next, but what’s your idea for that?
接下来我会问关于学生的问题，但你对此有何想法？
We’ve been working for a while at RadicalxChange on trying to create a new system of peer review in journals, where rather than having a set of authors and then referees and editors, instead there’s just an ordered list of people who sign on to the article, so that authors would have the first chance to sign, and maybe editor next, and the referees next.
我们在 RadicalxChange 已经工作了一段时间，试图在期刊中创建一个新的同行评审系统，该系统不是有一组作者，然后是审稿人和编辑，而是只有一个签署文章的人员的有序列表，这样作者就有第一个机会签名，也许接下来是编辑，然后是审稿人。
I think this would be a much more incentive-compatible way to get good-quality referee reports and to actually allocate credit in proportion to what people have contributed to making an article work, as compared to the current system, where there’s a very binary division between the authors who get credit and everybody else who gets very little.
我认为，与目前的系统相比，这将是一种更加激励相容的方式，以获得高质量的审稿报告，并根据人们为使一篇文章发挥作用所做的贡献实际分配学分，在当前系统中，获得学分的作者和获得很少学分的其他人之间存在着非常二元的划分。
You could add into that some really rich stuff around having some quadratic voting in there, and then maybe having individualized views of how many citations or how much respect someone gets from a journal based on who you respect, and who they respect, and how that filters through.
你可以添加一些非常丰富的东西，围绕在那里进行一些二次投票，然后可能根据你尊重的人、他们尊重的人以及如何过滤，对某人从期刊中获得多少引用或多少尊重有个性化的看法。
I’d have to go into more of it, but I think that those are some ways you can put these elements together to get a much better approach to understanding how you evaluate a scholar.
我必须深入探讨这一点，但我认为这些是你可以将这些元素组合在一起的一些方法，以便更好地理解你如何评价一个学者。
How would you apply mechanism design to improving admissions?
您将如何应用机制设计来提高录取率？
It’s been very controversial.
这是非常有争议的。
It seems unfair.
这似乎不公平。
Some people would say intensity of preference being counted is the problem.
有些人会说，计算偏好的强度是问题所在。
Do you agree?
你同意？
I think it’s really critical in admissions that we — and this is a really different element than intensity of preference — but that as the American system does, at the point when people need to make a lot of costly investments in figuring out what places they like, that they have a sense of who might let them in.
我认为，在录取过程中，我们————这与偏好强度是一个非常不同的因素————但正如美国的制度所做的那样，当人们需要进行大量昂贵的投资来弄清楚他们喜欢什么地方时，他们知道谁可能会让他们进入。
If you think about the medical match system that Al Roth is very famous for being involved in, and Gale and Shapley — they have a system where you rank all the institutions before you know which ones are going to admit you.
如果你想想阿尔·罗斯（Al Roth）因参与而闻名的医疗匹配系统，以及盖尔（Gale）和沙普利（Shapley）——他们有一个系统，在你知道哪些机构会录取你之前，你可以对所有机构进行排名。
That requires you either to do a huge amount of due diligence about all the different institutions or to make guesses about where you’re going to get into.
这要求你要么对所有不同的机构进行大量的尽职调查，要么猜测你将进入哪里。
That’s not a very effective process, even though it has some other properties that people have highlighted.
这不是一个非常有效的过程，尽管它具有人们强调的其他一些特性。
Something more like the way that we admit students in the university — an undergraduate admission—is more sensible.
类似于我们在大学录取学生的方式——本科录取——更为明智。
And I think there are ways to further improve on that, to add more stages of letting in the top matches first — the people who most want to go to someplace and the schools most want them — and allowing those parts in the market to clear, and then doing the other things later.
我认为有一些方法可以进一步改进这一点，增加更多阶段，首先让顶级比赛进入——“最想去某个地方的人和学校最想要他们的人”——然后允许市场中的这些部分出清，然后再做其他事情。
That’s a little bit like early admission, but actually making it much more finely graded.
这有点像提前录取，但实际上评分更加精细。
As I’m sure you know, at a school like Harvard or Princeton, you can’t just buy your way into getting a graduate admission.
我相信你知道，在哈佛或普林斯顿这样的学校，你不能靠花钱来获得研究生录取。
It’s run by the faculty, correct?
它是由学院管理的，对吗？
Yeah.
是的。
Could we do undergraduate admissions the same way?
我们可以用同样的方式进行本科招生吗？
It would be a lot of work, of course, the faculty.
当然，对于教师来说，这将是一项繁重的工作。
It’s interesting.
这很有趣。
I think you’d probably have to filter a little bit.
我想你可能需要稍微过滤一下。
Maybe it should be graduate students who should be helping admit undergrads or something like that.
也许研究生应该帮助录取本科生或类似的人。
I think it’s a very interesting idea.
我认为这是一个非常有趣的想法。
You wrote a paper in 2009 called “Whose Rights?
您在 2009 年写了一篇论文，名为《谁的权利？
A Critique of Individual Agency as the Basis of Rights.” Do you think now, standing in 2020, are individual rights ever an appropriate concept to invoke, to argue for or against a policy?
对作为权利基础的个人能动性的批判。”您认为现在，站在 2020 年，个人权利是否是一个适合援引、支持或反对某项政策的概念？
I think almost any moral concept is a useful concept in certain contexts because all our ideas are proxies for some deeper truth that we don’t fully understand.
我认为几乎任何道德概念在某些情况下都是有用的概念，因为我们所有的想法都是我们不完全理解的一些更深层次真理的代表。
I often make arguments about individual rights, individual liberties, even though I ultimately think we need to get past our standard conception of individuals as atomized and understand individuals more as being an intersection of different social circles that they’re a part of.
我经常就个人权利、个人自由进行争论，尽管我最终认为我们需要超越个人原子化的标准概念，更多地将个人理解为他们所属的不同社会圈子的交集。
But of course, the more sophisticated these ideas are, the more true to reality, the more complicated and foreign they are.
但当然，这些想法越复杂，越真实，就越复杂和陌生。
And we always need to strike a balance between clearly communicating and verisimilitude to the reality we’re trying to describe.
我们总是需要在清晰的沟通和我们试图描述的现实的真实性之间取得平衡。
You still think, in principle, that either group rights can be meaningful or even a component of an individual could have rights, and that there’s no particular reason to necessarily stop at the level pinpointed to methodological individualism.
原则上，你仍然认为，群体权利可以是有意义的，甚至个人的组成部分也可以拥有权利，并且没有特别的理由一定要停留在方法论个人主义的水平上。
Would that be a fair description for you now?
现在这对你来说是一个公平的描述吗？
Yeah.
是的。
I would enrich that story a little bit.
我会稍微丰富一下这个故事。
I alluded to this in that original piece, but now I have a clearer sense of it.
我在那篇原始文章中提到过这一点，但现在我对此有了更清晰的认识。
I think often the parts of individuals that we’re talking about actually are associated with various groups, so we should think of individuals as being made up of group identities to a large extent, and group identities as being made up of individuals to a large extent.
我认为往往我们所谈论的个体的各个部分实际上是与不同的群体相关联的，所以我们应该认为个体在很大程度上是由群体身份构成的，而群体身份在很大程度上是由个体构成的。
So we should be moving towards a dual perspective on these things rather than a grounding that sees one as the endpoint that composes the others.
因此，我们应该对这些事情采取双重视角，而不是把其中一个视为构成其他事物的终点。
But this would be one foundational reason why you’re less libertarian than maybe you might have been before you wrote the paper.
但这可能是你不像写这篇论文之前那么自由主义的一个根本原因。
Yeah.
是的。
The practical reason would be increasing returns, correct?
实际原因是收益递增，对吗？
Yeah, and those are, I think, actually just two different ways of expressing the same thing.
是的，我认为这些实际上只是表达同一事物的两种不同方式。
I view the fundamental role of groups as just a different way of expressing the notion of increasing returns.
我认为群体的基本作用只是表达收益递增概念的一种不同方式。
Do you have a unified theory of you and what you believe?
你对你自己和你的信仰有一个统一的理论吗？
I don’t often have time enough for the meta-rationality that that requires.
我常常没有足够的时间来思考所需的元理性。
David Foster Wallace was one of the most remarkable people at doing that sort of thing.
大卫·福斯特·华莱士是做这类事情最杰出的人之一。
I aspire to it, but I haven’t had quite enough time to figure it out.
我渴望它，但我还没有足够的时间来弄清楚。
Here’s the unified theory of you, which I’m not endorsing, just playing with.
这是你的统一理论，我并不赞同，只是玩玩。
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
是的。
At heart, coming out of the Jewish socialist tradition, through a matter of biographical accident, you first became a libertarian.
从本质上讲，你出于犹太社会主义传统，通过传记上的偶然事件，你首先成为了一个自由主义者。
Needed time to find your way back to the tradition you belonged to.
需要时间来找到回归你所属传统的方法。
Along the way, did economics, so you believe in some notion of markets, albeit directly adjusted by regulation and mechanism design.
一路走来，经济学也是如此，所以你相信一些市场概念，尽管直接受到监管和机制设计的调整。
And you’ve moved away from methodological individualism.
而且你已经摆脱了方法论的个人主义。
But you’re this weird person of a Jewish socialist, believes in markets, and had this path leading away from libertarianism.
但你是一个奇怪的犹太社会主义者，相信市场，并且走上了一条远离自由主义的道路。
No other person in the world probably is that, but you are.
世界上可能没有其他人是这样的，但你是。
Is that a unified theory of you?
这是你的统一理论吗？
Well, the thing that throws a little bit of a wrench into that is that I was actually a Jewish socialist before I became a libertarian.
嗯，有点麻烦的是，在我成为自由主义者之前，我实际上是一名犹太社会主义者。
Does that strengthen or weaken the theory?
这会加强还是削弱该理论？
Well, the thing that’s funny is that it’s certainly the case that I came back to identifying with my Judaism at around the same time that I was starting to move away from libertarianism.
有趣的是，在我开始远离自由主义的同时，我又重新认同了我的犹太教。
I don’t know if that’s because of the entanglement between the collective element of religion and the ideological element of this other stuff.
我不知道这是否是因为宗教的集体因素和其他东西的意识形态因素之间的纠缠。
But my unified theory of me on those lines has always been that I’ve been someone who’s hugely about Hegelian synthesis and trying to find things that seem persuasive and to find a way to simultaneously fully embrace them both in my mind by finding some syncretic fusion of them.
但我在这些方面的统一理论一直是，我一直是一个非常热衷于黑格尔综合的人，并试图找到看起来有说服力的东西，并找到一种方法，通过找到它们的某种融合，在我的脑海中同时完全拥抱它们。
Intellectually, that’s something that is quite important to me.
从理智上来说，这对我来说非常重要。
I actually saw, from my senior year of high school, I had a capstone project, which was about conservative liberalism.
实际上，我从高中四年级开始就看到了一个关于保守自由主义的顶点项目。
And actually, if you read it, it reads a lot like what I’m writing recently.
事实上，如果你读它，它读起来很像我最近写的东西。
So the reality is I think I have these themes of trying to find syntheses of different things, and those keep recurring and getting nuanced by the more I learn about different fields.
所以现实是，我认为我有这些主题，试图找到不同事物的综合，随着我对不同领域了解的越多，这些主题不断重复出现并变得细致入微。
As you well know, there’s a long-standing historical connection between Judaism and socialism: Karl Marx, Moses Hess, Eduard Bernstein.
众所周知，犹太教和社会主义之间有着长期的历史联系：卡尔·马克思、摩西·赫斯、爱德华·伯恩斯坦。
One could go on with this.
人们可以继续这样下去。
What do you think, ultimately, is the foundational reason for that historical connection, and yourself as well, right?
您认为最终这种历史联系以及您自己的根本原因是什么，对吧？
Well, I also think there’s a deep historical, maybe even stronger historical association between Jews and capitalism.
嗯，我还认为犹太人和资本主义之间存在着深刻的历史联系，甚至可能更强烈的历史联系。
I think it really has to do much more with just abstraction and the ways in which Jews have engaged with the economic world, coming from the ways in which they’ve been able to express their political voice, the fact that there was literacy much earlier in the Jewish community than there was in many other communities in a broad scale.
我认为这确实与抽象和犹太人参与经济世界的方式有关，来自他们表达政治声音的方式，事实上，犹太社区比许多其他社区更广泛地识字。
I’ve actually written about that issue and why Jews have been so engaged with economics.
我实际上已经写过这个问题以及为什么犹太人如此热衷于经济学。
But I don’t think it’s really socialism in particular.
但我认为这并不是真正的社会主义。
It’s both socialism and capitalism.
这既是社会主义，又是资本主义。
If you look at the Nazis, they often depicted one Jew of socialism and one Jew of international capitalism, both eating the German nation, so Jews have always been put in that position of representing these abstracted economic systems, rather than one or the other in particular.
如果你看看纳粹，他们经常描绘一个社会主义犹太人和一个国际资本主义犹太人，两者都在吞噬德国民族，所以犹太人总是被置于代表这些抽象经济体系的位置，而不是具体代表其中一个或另一个。
On the Glen Weyl production function
关于格伦韦尔生产函数
Our final segment is about what I call the Glen Weyl production function.
我们的最后一部分是关于我所说的格伦韦尔生产函数。
This is about you.
这是关于你的。
Simple question: at Princeton, as an undergraduate, why did you rollerblade to class?
简单的问题：在普林斯顿大学，作为一名本科生，你为什么要滑旱冰去上课？
I had always been into rollerblading since I was very young, and I thought it would be a good way to get around Princeton, though the hills ended up having a big challenge for getting around on rollerblades.
我从很小的时候就一直喜欢滑旱冰，我认为这是游览普林斯顿的好方法，尽管最终在山上滑旱冰对我们来说是一个巨大的挑战。
I pretty quickly abandoned it for that reason.
由于这个原因，我很快就放弃了它。
I didn’t really like biking like other kids did.
我不像其他孩子那样喜欢骑自行车。
And luckily, it caught the eye of my future wife, so that was great.
幸运的是，它引起了我未来妻子的注意，所以这很棒。
What’s your own account of why you were so successful before the age of 27?
您自己如何解释自己在 27 岁之前为何如此成功？
I think I developed intellectually much more quickly than a lot of my peers, and I developed physically and emotionally a lot more slowly.
我认为我的智力发展比许多同龄人快得多，但我的身体和情感发展却慢得多。
Eventually I had to balance those things out.
最终我不得不平衡这些事情。
But as it turned out, that made me very unsuccessful until I got into high school, very successful from high school through the very beginning of my career.
但事实证明，这让我在进入高中之前非常不成功，但从高中到职业生涯的一开始都非常成功。
And then, I faced a number of challenges because of it after that.
之后，我因此面临了许多挑战。
There are just different times in life where different forms of development are more important than others.
只是在生命的不同时期，不同形式的发展比其他时期更重要。
If you’re looking for talent in young economists, other than the obvious, like people who work hard, what is it you look for?
如果你正在寻找年轻经济学家的人才，除了那些显而易见的人才，比如努力工作的人，你还在寻找什么？
I look for people who have an ability to see beyond the ways in which the field shapes them to see, while at the same time internalizing it, who can sort of live within the world of economics and then also see it from the outside.
我寻找那些有能力超越该领域塑造他们的看待方式的人，同时将其内化，他们可以生活在经济学的世界中，然后也可以从外部看待它。
What do you view yourself as rebelling against?
你认为自己在反抗什么？
The foundational level.
基础水平。
Oh, many things.
哦，很多事情。
Look at Robin Hanson.
看看罗宾汉森。
Robin, to me, is rebelling against hypocrisy.
对我来说，罗宾正在反抗虚伪。
I think he even might agree with that.
我认为他甚至可能同意这一点。
What are you rebelling against?
你在反抗什么？
I think I’m most deeply rebelling against the separation between the role of the expert and the role of the politically engaged person.
我认为我最强烈地反对专家角色和政治参与者角色之间的分离。
I grew up wanting to be a politician for long periods, and also wanting to be a physicist for long periods, and I’m deeply frustrated by the ways in which these things are these separate and contradictory roles in our society.
我从小就想长期成为一名政治家，也想长期成为一名物理学家，但我对这些东西在我们社会中扮演的这些独立且矛盾的角色深感沮丧。
I’m struggling to straddle the divide.
我正在努力跨越鸿沟。
Well, that’s a good answer.
嗯，这是一个很好的答案。
But if you had to boil it down to something more foundational, what institutional failure or what personal quality lies behind that?
但如果你必须把它归结为更基础的东西，那么其背后隐藏着什么样的制度失败或个人品质呢？
What would that be?
那会是什么？
Why do we screw that thing up?
我们为什么要把那件事搞砸？
Singular identity is one way of putting it.
单一身份是一种表达方式。
Many people who are economists think they’re an economist.
许多经济学家认为自己是经济学家。
Many people who think that they’re libertarian think they’re libertarian.
许多认为自己是自由主义者的人认为自己是自由主义者。
Every identity that I’ve been part of, that I thought I believed in, ended up having so much corruption entwined in it, and ultimately, it’s the plurality and intersection of those things where I find meaning.
我曾经参与过的每一个身份，我自以为相信的身份，最终都缠绕着如此多的腐败，最终，我在这些事物的多重性和交叉点中找到了意义。
It’s that sort of singular definition of what I am, who I am that I find most constraining.
对我来说，这种对我是谁、我是谁的单一定义对我来说是最有约束力的。
So people aren’t Hegelian enough, and there’s a lot of corruption out there.
所以人们还不够黑格尔，而且存在很多腐败现象。
And that’s a big part of what you’re rebelling against.
这是你所反抗的一个重要部分。
Yeah.
是的。
Let’s say I’m a young person.
假设我是一个年轻人。
Maybe I want to do economics, or maybe I want to be a politician, or I’m conflicted.
也许我想从事经济学，或者也许我想成为一名政治家，或者我很矛盾。
And I go to you, and I say, “Glen, what can or should I do to become more Hegelian?” What’s your advice?
我去找你，我说：“格伦，我可以或者应该做什么来变得更加黑格尔主义？”你有什么建议？
Travel in different circles.
游历不同的圈子。
Take them all really seriously, and don’t let yourself totally compartmentalize them.
认真对待它们，不要让自己完全将它们区分开来。
Ask why there are contradictions and what it means.
询问为什么会出现矛盾以及这意味着什么。
And don’t get intellectually lazy about just writing it off to people being different.
并且不要因为智力上的懒惰而将其视为与众不同的人。
Glen Weyl, thank you very much.
格伦·韦尔，非常感谢你。
Again, for our listeners and readers, I recommend you all read Glen’s new paper, coauthored, on how to fight the pandemic.
再次，对于我们的听众和读者，我建议你们都阅读格伦与人合着的关于如何抗击这一流行病的新论文。
Thank you, Glen.
谢谢你，格伦。
Thank you so much.
太感谢了。
Tyler.
泰勒.