Paul Romer on a Culture of Science and Working Hard (Ep. 96)
Hello, everyone.
大家好。
Today I am chatting once again with Paul Romer, who needs no introduction.
今天我再次与保罗·罗默聊天，他不需要介绍。
Paul, welcome.
保罗，欢迎。
Good to be here.
很高兴来到这里。
You have a recent article in the periodical Foreign Affairs about the failings of economics.
您最近在《外交事务》杂志上发表了一篇关于经济学失败的文章。
Let me try to defend the economics profession.
让我尝试捍卫经济学专业。
Tell me what you think.
告诉我你的想法。
If I look at the big catch-up winners over the last few decades, it seems to me it’s Poland and Ireland, and they basically followed a neoliberal recipe.
如果我看看过去几十年里的追赶大赢家，在我看来是波兰和爱尔兰，他们基本上遵循了新自由主义的秘诀。
They more or less did what economists told them to do.
他们或多或少做了经济学家告诉他们做的事情。
What’s the failure in that?
这有什么失败的地方呢？
By the way, what about China?
顺便问一下，中国呢？
China caught up pretty well too, but they followed some of the basic insights from economics.
中国也迎头赶上，但他们遵循了经济学的一些基本见解。
And the Solow model.
还有索洛模型。
Yeah.
是的。
But the origins of that article were that I read some books that said economists got a lot more influence and things got worse in the United States, and this was a really troubling argument for me because it’s not easy to dismiss.
但那篇文章的起源是我读了一些书，这些书说经济学家的影响力更大，而美国的情况变得更糟，这对我来说是一个非常令人不安的论点，因为它不容易被驳回。
What I concluded in that article saying we should do a cost-benefit analysis — look at the big things that economics has done well, the things it may have done badly, and just see how it works out.
我在那篇文章中得出的结论是，我们应该进行成本效益分析 ——看看经济学做得好的大事，它可能做得不好的事情，然后看看它的结果如何。
The point you’re alluding to is something that my colleague, Peter Henry, has also made, which is that one of the areas where economics may really have been helpful is in the development process or the catch-up phase of growth.
你提到的观点是我的同事彼得·亨利也提出的，即经济学可能真正有用的领域之一是在发展过程或增长的追赶阶段。
So that should go on the plus side, I think, on the benefit side of the cost-benefit analysis, no question there.
因此，我认为，从成本效益分析的效益方面来看，这应该是有利的，毫无疑问。
And I think there’s some other ones that belong there too.
我认为还有其他一些也属于那里。
My point was that there may have been some things that have also been significant negatives, and it’s time to do the numbers and see what the net is.
我的观点是，可能有一些事情也带来了重大负面影响，现在是时候做一些数字，看看网络是什么了。
So if I ask myself, “What do I think has been the biggest negative?” I suppose I would say around 2000 date, economists for the most part did not understand the importance of the shadow banking system.
因此，如果我问自己：“我认为最大的负面影响是什么？”我想我想说的是，2000 年左右的时候，大多数经济学家并不理解影子银行体系的重要性。
What seemed to be a kind of ordinary real estate bubble, like the early 1990s, was far, far worse, and we totally missed that.
就像 20 世纪 90 年代初那样，看似普通的房地产泡沫实际上要严重得多，而我们完全错过了这一点。
That seems to be a defect of institutional knowledge, but you tell me what you think the greatest problem has been.
这似乎是制度知识的缺陷，但你告诉我你认为最大的问题是什么。
I think this problem is an interesting one.
我觉得这个问题很有趣。
I put a slightly different spin on it, but I think it’s in the class of things of a failure to understand or incomplete understanding.
我对它的看法略有不同，但我认为它属于未能理解或不完全理解的范畴。
I don’t think that’s a sign of a science that’s failed.
我不认为这是科学失败的标志。
That’s a sign of a science which is just making progress.
这是科学正在取得进步的标志。
There’s some things it knows and things it doesn’t know.
有些事情它知道，有些事情它不知道。
So I don’t view this one as a sign of a systemic problem that we’re not doing it right, in a sense.
因此，从某种意义上说，我不认为这是系统性问题的迹象，表明我们做得不对。
For what it’s worth, we can come back and talk about this, but I think the lesson from the financial crisis, which we’re learning again now, is one about the fragility of extensive interconnection.
不管怎样，我们可以回来讨论这个问题，但我认为我们现在再次吸取的金融危机的教训是，广泛互联的脆弱性。
We’ve paid attention to optimize efficiency with massive reliance on specialization and these complicated supply chains.
我们非常重视专业化和复杂的供应链来优化效率。
But the growth, the proliferation of connection means that our system is more fragile than we realize.
但连接的增长和扩散意味着我们的系统比我们意识到的更加脆弱。
A shock comes, and things happen that we didn’t anticipate.
震惊来了，我们没有预料到的事情发生了。
But again, that’s part of learning about a very new type of economy which is changing in real time.
但同样，这是了解实时变化的新型经济的一部分。
The ones that struck me as being particularly worrisome were, first, I think the negative effect that economists have had in terms of protecting competition.
让我特别担忧的是，首先，我认为经济学家在保护竞争方面产生了负面影响。
Through the law and economics movement, we ratified this notion that big is okay as long as you can make some case that it’s efficient.
通过法律和经济学运动，我们认可了这样一个观念：只要你能证明它是有效的，规模越大越好。
The upshot is, is that I think because of technical economics and the arguments of economists, antitrust is much more tolerant now of dominant firms, and if we believe that competition’s good in a whole bunch of ways, this could actually be very, very harmful.
结果是，我认为由于技术经济学和经济学家的论点，反垄断现在对占主导地位的公司更加宽容，如果我们相信竞争在很多方面都是好事，那么这实际上可能非常非常有害。
So that’s one.
这就是其中之一。
Doesn’t Amazon look pretty good right now in the midst of the pandemic?
在疫情期间，亚马逊现在看起来不是很不错吗？
Do you wish we had split it up into different parts?
您希望我们将其分成不同的部分吗？
My sense is that we’d be better off if we had five Amazons instead of one.
我的感觉是，如果我们有五个亚马逊而不是一个，我们会过得更好。
And I don’t see why we couldn’t have five Amazons if we, as voters, say, “This is the kind of society we want to live in.
如果我们作为选民说：“这就是我们想要生活的社会，我不明白为什么我们不能拥有五个亚马逊。
Let’s just aim for that.” And same thing — the more worrisome positions are those of the tech firms that are so deeply connected now to many aspects of our lives and where there’s really very little competition and a lot of opacity about what these firms actually do.
我们就以此为目标吧。”同样的，更令人担忧的是科技公司的处境，它们现在与我们生活的许多方面有着如此密切的联系，而且这些公司的实际业务几乎没有竞争，而且有很多不透明的地方。
Let me try to defend the economics profession a bit more.
让我尝试更多地捍卫经济学专业。
If we look at climate policy, a lot of economists have recommended a carbon tax — not quite a consensus, but a very common view.
如果我们看看气候政策，很多经济学家都建议征收碳税——这虽然不完全是共识，但却是一个非常普遍的观点。
Now, of course we haven’t done it, but it seems to me the profession, in some manner, is essentially correct there.
现在，我们当然还没有这样做，但在我看来，这个职业在某种程度上本质上是正确的。
So you would side with the profession on that?
那么你会站在这个行业一边吗？
Yeah.
是的。
Again, in some sense, the main point of the article that I’m making is that economists need to accept that our role is that of the technical adviser.
同样，从某种意义上说，我这篇文章的主要观点是经济学家需要接受我们的角色是技术顾问的角色。
We can say, “If you apply a carbon tax, carbon emissions will go down.
我们可以说，“如果征收碳税，碳排放就会减少。
Here’s what other effects we think they’ll have.
以下是我们认为它们还会产生的其他影响。
But it’s up to you, the voters, to decide whether you want to follow that policy or not.”
但这取决于你们，选民，来决定是否遵守这项政策。”
So, if the voters don’t follow us, I think, to a first approximation, that’s not really our responsibility.
因此，我认为，如果选民不追随我们，那么这实际上并不是我们的责任。
And what I’m critical of is this tendency for economists to assume the responsibility of philosopher king and say to voters, “Well, we know better what a society should be like, what society should do.
我批评的是经济学家承担哲学家国王的责任并对选民说：“好吧，我们更知道社会应该是什么样子，社会应该做什么。
Listen to us.
听我们说。
We’ll tell you the way things should be.
我们会告诉你事情应该是这样的。
We’ll tell you what you should do.”
我们会告诉你应该做什么。”
And, in truth, I think we get into that mode a lot more than we realize.
事实上，我认为我们进入这种模式的程度比我们意识到的要多得多。
Certainly, some members of the profession get into that mode.
当然，有些专业人士会进入这种模式。
And I think they’ve done, really, quite a bit of harm when they did that.
我认为他们这样做确实造成了相当大的伤害。
When you, as a voter, judge policies, what normative or philosophical standard do you use?
当你作为选民判断政策时，你使用什么规范或哲学标准？
Well, I think all of us have some notions about self-interest, and then the well-being of those around us.
嗯，我认为我们所有人都有一些关于自身利益以及我们周围人的福祉的观念。
Everything else equal, if our position is the same, we’re somewhat happier if those around us are happier as well.
在其他条件相同的情况下，如果我们的立场相同，如果我们周围的人也更快乐，我们就会更快乐。
Different of us have either a bigger or smaller circle of those we care about, so there’s some mixture of making sure everybody is doing okay, and then making sure I’m doing okay.
我们中不同的人都有一个更大或更小的我们关心的圈子，所以需要确保每个人都做得很好，然后确保我做得很好。
That’s the first thing that I look at as a voter.
这是我作为选民首先考虑的事情。
But I also look at — this is a little bit of a tangent relative to your question — but I also look at the question of, in what direction will this policy take our norms, our beliefs about right and wrong?
但我也考虑了“这与你的问题有点偏离”但我也考虑了这样的问题：这项政策将把我们的规范、我们对是非的信念带向什么方向？
I think those change.
我认为这些都会改变。
I think there’s some beliefs about right and wrong which are better in an objective sense, in the sense that we economists think of in terms of efficiency.
我认为有一些关于正确和错误的信念在客观意义上更好，在我们经济学家从效率角度思考的意义上。
If everybody thought this was the right thing to do, then we would actually all be better off in some objective sense.
如果每个人都认为这是正确的做法，那么从某种客观意义上来说，我们实际上都会过得更好。
So those issues weigh heavily in my thinking about policies.
因此，这些问题在我对政策的思考中占据着重要地位。
Economists have been a little slow to take those up, but frankly, I guess that is a part of the problem with economic analysis.
经济学家对这些问题的反应有点慢，但坦率地说，我想这是经济分析问题的一部分。
Because many of the arguments about, say, allowing the market to run and giving people more freedom make more sense if, when you do that, you don’t change norms.
因为如果你在不改变规范的情况下允许市场运行和给予人们更多自由，那么许多关于允许市场运行和给予人们更多自由的争论就会更有意义。
But if, when you do that, you encourage norms that are destructive, that kind of laissez-faire approach can be harmful.
但如果当你这样做时，你鼓励了破坏性的规范，那么这种自由放任的做法可能是有害的。
Let me take a trivial example.
让我举一个简单的例子。
Suppose the promulgation of laissez-faire makes everybody feel like it’s okay to litter.
假设自由放任政策的颁布让每个人都觉得乱扔垃圾是可以的。
We used to have a norm that we shouldn’t litter because it was inconsiderate and it was just wrong.
我们曾经有一个不应该乱扔垃圾的规范，因为这是不体贴的，而且是错误的。
Laissez-faire convinces us I can litter if I want to.
自由放任让我们相信，如果我愿意的话，我可以乱扔垃圾。
It’s somebody else’s problem to deal with the litter.
处理垃圾是别人的问题。
That kind of laissez-faire would be bad because we’d live in a world that was full of trash all over the place.
这种自由放任是很糟糕的，因为我们生活在一个到处都是垃圾的世界里。
And I think in more important areas, economists have been inattentive to the effects that their policies have had on norms.
我认为在更重要的领域，经济学家没有注意到他们的政策对规范的影响。
But if you take, say, litter, why wouldn’t the economic approach be either create a private property right, which we do sometimes?
但是，如果你拿垃圾，为什么经济方法不创造私有财产权，而我们有时会这样做呢？
Other times that’s not possible, so we want something like a Pigouvian tax or a cap-and-trade.
其他时候这是不可能的，所以我们想要庇古税或限额与交易之类的东西。
And your view, then, is not really far from the standard economics view, if at all.
那么，你的观点与标准经济学观点相差并不远（如果有的话）。
No, but I think, actually, there’s enormous value in norms that are kind of self-enforcing.
不，但我认为，实际上，自我执行的规范具有巨大的价值。
Suppose people think litter’s bad.
假设人们认为乱扔垃圾是不好的。
Suppose they think it’s bad when other people litter.
假设他们认为其他人乱扔垃圾是不好的。
So they’ll kind of scold or criticize when they see somebody litter.
所以当他们看到有人乱扔垃圾时，他们会责骂或批评。
Then, without police powers, without courts, without taxes, you actually get the outcome we want, which is we live in a world with no litter.
然后，没有警察权力，没有法院，没有税收，你实际上得到了我们想要的结果，那就是我们生活在一个没有垃圾的世界。
And if we lost those norms, we’ve got to overlay these more heavy, expensive governmental solutions.
如果我们失去了这些规范，我们就必须叠加这些更繁重、更昂贵的政府解决方案。
Let’s look at macroeconomics.
我们来看看宏观经济。
If I look at the current crisis, which is turning into a depression, it seems to me we were on the verge of a financial implosion in March.
如果我看看当前正在演变成萧条的危机，在我看来，我们三月份正处于金融崩溃的边缘。
The Fed acted to limit that.
美联储采取行动限制这种情况。
The macroeconomic response, to me, from the Fed seems to be quite good.
在我看来，美联储的宏观经济反应似乎相当不错。
So, isn’t all well in macroeconomics?
那么，宏观经济学不都是一帆风顺的吗？
Yeah.
是的。
When I was talking about this cost-benefit exercise, one of the positives we mentioned was in the sphere of development and catch-up.
当我谈论这种成本效益练习时，我们提到的积极因素之一是发展和追赶领域。
I think another is in stabilization policy.
我认为另一个是稳定政策。
The kind of practical macro policy as practiced at the Fed is much better now than it was during the 1930s, and we get real benefits from that.
美联储现在实行的实际宏观政策比 20 世纪 30 年代要好得多，我们从中得到了实实在在的好处。
I think it’s good that the Fed is trying to make sure that we don’t have this cascade of bankruptcies.
我认为美联储正在努力确保我们不会出现一连串的破产，这是件好事。
There’s no question that economists have learned something and contributed to society.
毫无疑问，经济学家学到了一些东西并为社会做出了贡献。
Just as a side note, I’ve been critical of the more theoretical, rational-expectations macro, but set that aside because that really hasn’t had that much impact on policy.
顺便说一句，我一直对更具理论性、理性预期的宏观政策持批评态度，但将其放在一边，因为这实际上并没有对政策产生太大影响。
So macro policy as practiced at the Fed or as practiced by the Congress right now is, I think, a reflection of things we’ve learned relative to, say, the 1930s, and that’s good.
因此，我认为，美联储或国会目前实施的宏观政策反映了我们在 20 世纪 30 年代学到的东西，这很好。
But let me come back to what are the minus sides of this balance sheet.
但让我回到这个资产负债表的负面影响是什么。
I talked about antitrust and the failure of competition policy.
我谈到了反垄断和竞争政策的失败。
The other one is in regulation.
另一种是在监管中。
If you ask me who’s my representative of somebody, an economist who overstepped, overreached, and did real harm, it’s Alan Greenspan.
如果你问我，谁是我心目中超越、超越、造成真正伤害的经济学家的代表，那就是艾伦·格林斯潘。
Greenspan was this tireless advocate for cutting regulation.
格林斯潘是削减监管的不懈倡导者。
He was quoted at one point, saying he’s never met a regulation that he thought was valuable.
有人援引他的话称，他从未遇到过一项他认为有价值的规定。
And he played a very important role in deregulating the financial system for decades running up to the financial crisis.
在金融危机爆发前的几十年里，他在放松金融体系管制方面发挥了非常重要的作用。
That financial crisis cost us an enormous amount worldwide, and it’s because we unwound systems of regulation that kept our financial system from being as fragile as it’s become.
那场金融危机让我们在全球范围内损失惨重，这是因为我们放松了监管体系，从而避免了我们的金融体系变得如此脆弱。
You look across the board at other types of regulation — we’ve failed to support the kinds of regulations that we need alongside of Pigouvian taxes.
你全面审视其他类型的监管 ——我们未能支持除庇古税之外我们需要的监管类型。
There’s some bad things that people do, bad in a sense they’re inefficient.
人们会做一些坏事，从某种意义上说，他们效率低下。
We can try and tax them.
我们可以尝试对他们征税。
Other times you just use regulation.
其他时候你只需使用监管。
But one way or the other, we collectively want to stop people from doing things that are harmful.
但无论怎样，我们共同希望阻止人们做有害的事情。
But if you look at the profession as a whole, wouldn’t most economists agree that, say, tax preferences for owner-occupied housing are a bad idea?
但如果你从整个行业的角度来看，大多数经济学家难道不会同意，比如说，对自住住房的税收优惠是一个坏主意吗？
And various other subsidies built into the system for housing are a bad idea?
住房系统中内置的各种其他补贴是个坏主意吗？
If they had been listened to on that, we still might’ve had a crisis of some kind, but it would have been far smaller.
如果我们听取了他们的意见，我们仍然可能会遇到某种危机，但程度会小得多。
Scott Sumner has argued if we had targeted nominal GDP, the crisis would have been milder.
斯科特·萨姆纳 (Scott Sumner) 认为，如果我们以名义 GDP 为目标，危机就会温和一些。
You’re picking a bit on the one thing that Greenspan got wrong, but there’s many other things economists have said that would’ve made it much better.
你在格林斯潘犯错的一件事上挑剔了一点，但经济学家说过还有很多其他事情可以让事情变得更好。
Yeah, but we still should have been saying, “Given the choices that voters are making, which reflect your preferences as voters, like supporting owner-occupied housing, the regulatory choices that we’re recommending as economists are actually exposing us to just massive, massive harm.”
是的，但我们仍然应该说，“考虑到选民所做的选择反映了你作为选民的偏好，比如支持自住住房，我们作为经济学家建议的监管选择实际上让我们面临巨大的伤害。”
I don’t remember the number off the top of my head.
我不记得我脑子里的数字了。
Haldane did some calculation where the worldwide cost of the financial crisis was, I think, in the hundreds of trillions of dollars.
霍尔丹做了一些计算，我认为金融危机的全球损失达数百万亿美元。
This is a really huge, huge mistake.
这实在是一个非常非常大的错误。
And we’re still, I think, exposed to a financial system which could just blow up on us at any point in time.
我认为，我们仍然面临着随时可能崩溃的金融体系。
It’s part of why the Fed has to be so active right now with providing funds.
这就是美联储现在必须如此积极提供资金的部分原因。
So deregulation, especially of financial markets, I think was harmful, and competition policy was a failure.
因此，我认为放松管制，特别是金融市场的管制是有害的，而竞争政策是失败的。
And then the bottom line is, you just look at one of the most basic ways to measure progress: how long do people live?
最重要的是，你只需看看衡量进步的最基本方法之一：人们的寿命有多长？
People in the United States are not living as long as they used to.
美国人民的寿命不如以前了。
Life expectancy is declining, and life expectancy hasn’t been keeping up with other nations around the world.
预期寿命正在下降，而且预期寿命并没有跟上世界其他国家的步伐。
Sure.
当然。
Is that a failure of economists?
这是经济学家的失败吗？
Well, I think partly.
嗯，我认为部分是这样。
When the pharmaceutical firms that were trying to make money off of Oxycontin and these opioid-based painkillers — when they went to Congress to try and stop the DEA from shutting them down, what they used was the language of economics.
当那些试图从奥施康定和这些阿片类止痛药赚钱的制药公司——当他们去国会试图阻止美国缉毒局关闭他们时，他们使用的是经济学的语言。
“You have to have innovation.
“你必须有创新。
You’ve got to let the market proceed.
你必须让市场继续发展。
There’ll be some creative destruction, but you have to let us do our thing.
会有一些创造性的破坏，但你必须让我们做我们的事。
You can’t interfere — it will be bad for growth.” So, to the extent that we lent cover, indirectly, for those kinds of arguments against regulation so firms could make money killing people, we really did something bad.
你不能干涉——这对成长不利。”因此，就我们间接为那些反对监管以便公司可以杀人赚钱的论点提供掩护，我们确实做了一件坏事。
But again, there are people out there who have misused your ideas or misrepresented them.
但同样，有些人滥用或曲解了你的想法。
Oh, yeah.
哦，是的。
I think they’ve done the same with mine.
我想他们也对我做了同样的事。
I don’t blame you at all for that, right?
我一点也不怪你，对吧？
If something bad happens with a charter city, I don’t say, “Oh, Paul Romer gave them cover.” I say, “No, it’s the fault of the people who did it.” So I would say economists were pretty much not to blame for the opioid crisis.
如果特许城市发生了不好的事情，我不会说，“哦，保罗·罗默给了他们掩护。”我说：“不，这是做这件事的人的错。”所以我想说经济学家几乎不应为阿片类药物危机负责。
There’s a speech Greenspan gave, where he doesn’t cite me, but he could.
格林斯潘有一次演讲，他没有引用我的话，但他可以。
It’s all about “We can’t have regulation because we’ve got to have growth.
这都是关于“我们不能有监管，因为我们必须有增长。
Growth comes from innovation.
成长源于创新。
Regulation slows innovation.
监管减缓了创新。
It’ll stop creative destruction.
它将停止创造性破坏。
We just have to live with greater destruction.”
我们只能忍受更大的破坏。”
So, I feel like, yeah, some of my ideas could have been used to support bad policy, but instead of asking whether I’m personally to blame or personally a bad person, what I’m stepping back and asking is, did we create a system that let someone like Greenspan make recommendations under the cover of science?
所以，我觉得，是的，我的一些想法可能会被用来支持糟糕的政策，但我不是问我个人是否应该受到责备，或者我个人是一个坏人，而是退一步问，我们是否创建了一个系统，让像格林斯潘这样的人在科学的掩护下提出建议？
Like, “I’m a scientist, I’m telling you how it should go.”
就像，“我是一名科学家，我告诉你事情应该如何进行。”
But those recommendations were really based on a worldview he got from a novel by Ayn Rand.
但这些建议实际上是基于他从艾因·兰德的小说中获得的世界观。
There was no technical scientific basis for them.
他们没有技术科学依据。
And they turned out to be really incredibly harmful, so we need to make sure that the system that we’re building isn’t misused in that way.
事实证明它们确实非常有害，所以我们需要确保我们正在构建的系统不会以这种方式被滥用。
Do you think there should be an obsession with math GRE scores when admitting people into graduate programs in economics?
您认为在招收经济学研究生课程时，应该关注数学 GRE 成绩吗？
We know there is, right?
我们知道有，对吧？
Yeah, yeah.
是啊是啊。
Well, it’s not the only — put it this way .
嗯，这不是唯一的——这么说吧。
.
。
.
。
Is that part of the problem, or is that how we need to do it?
这是问题的一部分，还是我们需要这样做？
It’s not the only thing I think we should be looking at.
我认为这不是我们应该关注的唯一事情。
And I’m not sure what are the other predictors, but I don’t think just practice in math is going to lead to a successful career in economics.
我不确定其他预测因素是什么，但我不认为仅仅数学练习就能带来成功的经济学职业生涯。
You’ve been interacting a lot with epidemiologists due, in part, to your arguments for testing.
您与流行病学家进行了很多互动，部分原因是您对测试的争论。
What’s your opinion of that field?
您对该领域有何看法？
There’s actually an interesting parallel in epidemiology with a technical kind of issue in economics.
实际上，流行病学与经济学中的技术问题有一个有趣的相似之处。
In macro, we shifted towards model-based reasoning about macroeconomics.
在宏观方面，我们转向基于模型的宏观经济学推理。
So representative agent — the whole rational-expectations movement was a shift towards “Let’s see what the models say,” rather than “Let’s see what the data say.”
因此，代表代理人——整个理性预期运动是向“让我们看看模型怎么说”的转变，而不是“让我们看看数据怎么说”。
In epidemiology, there’s a very well-established model — this SIR model that is behind a lot of these predictions, but there’s an alternative — the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which has this model that’s been very influential, widely watched these days.
在流行病学中，有一个非常完善的模型 ——这个 SIR 模型支持了许多此类预测，但还有一个替代方案 ——健康指标与评估研究所，该模型的影响力非常大，如今受到广泛关注。
The IHME is using a much more data-driven approach, kind of a curve-fitting approach.
IHME 使用的是一种更加数据驱动的方法，一种曲线拟合方法。
It’s almost like old-style Keynesian macro, where you just say, “Well, let’s just fit something to the numbers and see what comes out of that without imposing a lot of theory onto the estimation process.”
这几乎就像老式的凯恩斯主义宏观一样，你只需说：“好吧，让我们将一些东西与数字相匹配，看看会产生什么结果，而不需要在估计过程中强加大量理论。”
And I just found it interesting to see that tension in another field, from the outside.
我发现从外部看到另一个领域的紧张局势很有趣。
The way it looks to me is, it’s good to have both of those wings active in a discipline.
在我看来，让这两个侧翼都活跃在一个学科中是件好事。
And it’s good to have them in contention with each other.
让他们互相竞争是件好事。
If I have a criticism of macro in economics, it’s like the criticism in epidemiology — we may have biased things a little bit too much towards the models, and we’re not giving enough weight to just the facts themselves.
如果我对经济学中的宏观提出批评，就像对流行病学的批评一样——我们可能对模型有太多的偏见，而我们没有对事实本身给予足够的重视。
And I think that’s because it’s actually easier to do models than to look at data, so we need to have a little bit of collective pressure to, “Yeah, yeah, that’s what your theory says, but let’s look at the numbers.”
我认为这是因为做模型实际上比查看数据更容易，所以我们需要一点集体压力，“是的，是的，这就是你的理论所说的，但让我们看看数字。”
On Romer’s COVID-19 testing plan
关于 Romer 的 COVID-19 检测计划
Many people have supported mass testing plans.
许多人支持大规模测试计划。
Of course, you’ve been in the lead here.
当然，您在这里一直处于领先地位。
Why do you think they’re not getting more support?
您认为为什么他们没有得到更多支持？
Because the benefit-cost ratio, if you can pull it off, seems to be quite high.
因为如果你能做到的话，效益成本比似乎相当高。
Yeah.
是的。
I’ve actually been working — oddly, mind you, I’m the theorist criticizing the use of models, so, go figure — but what have I been doing recently?
我实际上一直在工作 ——奇怪的是，请注意，我是批评模型使用的理论家，所以，想想吧——但是我最近在做什么？
I’ve been using a model to try and figure out, what is actually the value of an additional test relative to its cost?
我一直在使用一个模型来尝试弄清楚，相对于其成本而言，额外测试的实际价值是多少？
Models definitely have their role, but you’ve got to stick to the idea that a fact beats a theory every time.
模型肯定有其作用，但你必须坚持事实每次都胜过理论的想法。
Now, the thing is, just very clear, that a test is worth a lot more than it would cost us to provide.
现在，事情非常清楚，测试的价值远远超过我们提供的成本。
Why aren’t we delivering more?
我们为什么不提供更多？
I think there’s a genuine confusion and puzzlement about how to increase the supply of tests.
我认为对于如何增加检测的供应确实存在困惑和困惑。
And because people don’t know how to go about increasing it, they say it’s not possible.
因为人们不知道如何增加它，所以他们说这是不可能的。
They treat it as if it’s just something beyond our control.
他们把它当作是我们无法控制的事情。
I think we have to look carefully at what changes should we make in policy to increase the supply of tests.
我认为我们必须仔细考虑我们应该在政策上做出哪些改变来增加检测的供应。
One part of that, as I’ve been saying, is we just have to pay for them.
正如我一直所说的，其中一部分是我们只需要为它们付费。
If we put up enough money, we can get tests.
如果我们有足够的钱，我们就可以进行测试。
It’s like I’ve been saying: if we spent about twice as much on tests as we spend on soda, we could have all the tests we need, like 23 million tests a day.
就像我一直在说的：如果我们在检测上的花费大约是在汽水上花费的两倍，我们就可以进行所需的所有检测，比如每天进行 2300 万次检测。
If we spent about twice as much on tests as we spend on soda, we could have all the tests we need, like 23 million tests a day.
如果我们在检测上的花费大约是汽水花费的两倍，我们就可以进行所需的所有检测，比如每天进行 2300 万次检测。
So first, you’ve got to provide money.
所以首先，你必须提供资金。
Because tests are a public good, this has got to be money that comes from the government.
因为测试是一项公共物品，所以这必须是来自政府的钱。
It’s hard to get there with having consumers pay.
让消费者付费很难实现这一目标。
But the Congress has allocated $25 billion.
但国会已拨款 250 亿美元。
There’s a proposal now for another $75 billion from the Democratic plan.
现在有人提议从民主党计划中再拨款 750 亿美元。
So, we’re getting there on the money.
所以，我们靠的是钱。
The other side, which frankly, I’m in this position — think about what I was saying before — I’m generally in the position of defending regulation.
另一方，坦白地说，我处于这个立场 ——想想我之前说过的话—— 我总体上处于捍卫监管的立场。
The more I’ve looked at the role of the FDA in holding back progress in testing, the more I’ve concluded this is a case where we have to say, as economists often say, “This regulation is just getting the cost-benefit tradeoff wrong.”
我对 FDA 在阻碍测试进展方面所扮演的角色了解得越多，我就越得出结论，在这种情况下，我们不得不说，正如经济学家常说的那样，“这项监管只是在成本效益权衡中做出了错误的选择。”
It’s way too restrictive.
这太受限制了。
There’s little harm from tests.
测试几乎没有什么坏处。
Tests don’t hurt people.
测试不会伤害人。
It’s not like a vaccine or a pharmaceutical agent, so that the FDA is just needlessly slowing down innovation that could otherwise flourish.
它不像疫苗或药剂，因此 FDA 只是不必要地放慢了本来可以蓬勃发展的创新。
So, pay some money, and then get the FDA out of the way.
所以，付点钱，然后让 FDA 让开。
And then all of these very clever researchers and university labs all across this country — they could give us all the tests we need.
然后全国各地所有这些非常聪明的研究人员和大学实验室——他们可以为我们提供我们需要的所有测试。
Germany has done a great deal with testing, as you know.
如您所知，德国在测试方面做了大量工作。
But at least now, as we’re speaking, as of, I think, May 12th, their R is still over one.
但至少现在，正如我们所说，截至 5 月 12 日，他们的 R 仍然超过 1。
Does that worry you?
这让你担心吗？
Does testing really get you into the promised land if you’re not a small island?
如果你不是一个小岛，测试真的能让你进入应许之地吗？
It does worry me.
这确实让我担心。
And I don’t think that, as well as they’ve done .
我不这么认为，他们也这么做了。
.
。
.
。
Let’s just pause for a second because this is a little tricky.
让我们暂停一下，因为这有点棘手。
If R is equal to one, that means that the number of deaths, the number of infections will stay constant over time.
如果 R 等于 1，则意味着死亡人数、感染人数将随着时间的推移保持不变。
So you can have R0 equal to one at a low level of infection and low rate of deaths, which is where Germany is.
因此，在低感染水平和低死亡率的情况下，R0 可以等于 1，这就是德国的情况。
We have R0 about equal to one at a higher rate of death.
当死亡率较高时，R0 大约等于 1。
But in any case, it is worrisome because what we want for suppression is R0 significantly less than one.
但无论如何，这都是令人担忧的，因为我们想要抑制的是 R0 明显小于 1。
And Germany is not testing at the scale that I would propose, and I’m afraid that the way to get there is that even Germany is going to have to do more testing, including more testing where you’re just kind of fishing for people who were infected.
德国并没有按照我提议的规模进行检测，而且恐怕要达到这一目标，即使是德国也必须进行更多检测，包括更多的检测，只是为了寻找感染者。
You just test people who are asymptomatic.
您只需测试无症状的人。
You’ve got no indication that they were in contact, but you test them anyway because that’s the only way to find some of the people who are currently infected.
你没有任何迹象表明他们有接触，但你还是对他们进行了测试，因为这是找到目前被感染的人的唯一方法。
Do you worry that some of the countries that have done the best with testing have combined it with forced quarantine and that maybe you need forced quarantine for testing to work?
您是否担心一些在检测方面做得最好的国家将其与强制隔离结合起来，而您可能需要强制隔离才能使检测发挥作用？
Well, I was critical.
嗯，我很挑剔。
It’s been very funny to go from that real kind of angst, almost like crisis of the review I wrote of what economists have done, but then to shift into economist mode where I think we can actually provide some real benefit and some clarity in these conversations.
从那种真正的焦虑中走出来是非常有趣的，几乎就像我写的关于经济学家所做的事情的评论的危机，但随后转变为经济学家模式，我认为我们实际上可以在这些对话中提供一些真正的好处和一些清晰度。
The way I frame this on testing is, first ask, what would be the value of a particular piece of information?
我在测试中的框架方式是，首先问，某条特定信息的价值是什么？
How valuable would it be if we know who’s infected and who’s not?
如果我们知道谁被感染了，谁没有被感染，那会有多大价值？
Then, given that information, separately let’s think about, what’s a good way to use that information?
那么，有了这些信息，我们分别思考一下，使用这些信息的好方法是什么？
And I think there’s some open questions about how best to use this.
我认为关于如何最好地使用它还有一些悬而未决的问题。
I have some colleagues who I’ve written a paper on because they were also promoting this idea of test everyone.
我曾为我的一些同事写过一篇论文，因为他们也在提倡对每个人进行测试的想法。
Their view is that one of the ways we might do this is, at home, get devices that can test you at home, so everybody finds out if they’re infected or not.
他们的观点是，我们可以做到这一点的方法之一是，在家里购买可以在家进行测试的设备，这样每个人都可以知道自己是否被感染。
Their attitude is, that may be all you need to do because once people know they’re infected, they’ll take decisions, take actions to protect their colleagues, the people they know.
他们的态度是，这可能就是你需要做的全部，因为一旦人们知道自己被感染了，他们就会做出决定，采取行动来保护他们的同事和他们认识的人。
Most people are responsible.
大多数人都有责任。
Most people don’t want to inflict harm on others.
大多数人不想伤害他人。
They may well just self-isolate.
他们很可能只是自我隔离。
So maybe with enough testing, we just let everybody know, are you infectious or not?
因此，也许通过足够的测试，我们只是让每个人都知道，您是否具有传染性？
And that’s all we have to do.
这就是我们所要做的。
You could go to the other extreme and have some government system where the test system has to report every positive, and the government forces quarantine on people.
你可以走向另一个极端，建立一些政府系统，其中测试系统必须报告每一个阳性结果，并且政府强制对人们进行隔离。
I don’t think you need that.
我认为你不需要那个。
I don’t think you’d get that much benefit out of that.
我认为你不会从中得到那么多好处。
And it’s got a lot of potential costs.
而且它有很多潜在的成本。
So let’s get that information, and then let’s use it very gently.
因此，让我们获取这些信息，然后非常温和地使用它。
First, just let people know and let them adjust.
首先，让人们知道并让他们调整。
Second, maybe give someone like .
其次，也许给类似的人。
.
。
.
。
I keep talking about, recovery means I can actually go back to the dentist.
我一直在谈论，康复意味着我实际上可以回去看牙医。
Maybe my dentist will say, “Paul, I don’t want to be working in your mouth — and you can’t be wearing a mask when you’re in the dental chair — unless you have a recent test that shows that you’re not positive.
也许我的牙医会说，“保罗，我不想在你的嘴里工作 ——而且你坐在牙科椅上时不能戴口罩 ——除非你最近的测试结果显示你的检测结果不呈阳性。
Then fine, you can come on in, and I can work on your teeth.”
那好吧，你可以进来了，我可以给你治牙。”
We might give other people the right and the ability to say, “There’s certain things you can’t do, certain services you can’t have access to unless you can show that you got a negative.” Restaurants might offer sit-down meals but say, “You can only get a reservation if you can show us you’ve got a negative test result in the last couple of days.”
我们可能会赋予其他人权利和能力，让他们说：“有些事情你不能做，有些服务你不能获得，除非你能证明你得到了阴性结果。”餐馆可能会提供堂食，但会说：“只有当你能向我们证明你在过去几天的检测结果呈阴性时，你才能获得预订。”
We can use this information in ways that I think aren’t very oppressive, aren’t very risky.
我们可以以我认为不太压抑、风险不大的方式使用这些信息。
They could let us go back to going to the dentist and having restaurant meals and do it without big risks to our freedoms.
他们可以让我们回去看牙医和去餐馆吃饭，而且这样做不会对我们的自由造成很大的风险。
Take the people who test positive.
以测试呈阳性的人为例。
It seems that at some point they’re likely to be immune, and in a sense, they’re more valuable as workers.
似乎在某些时候他们可能会免疫，从某种意义上说，他们作为工人更有价值。
Yeah.
是的。
When do we give them the clear?
我们什么时候给他们明确的答复？
I read papers, “Oh, you can be infectious for up to five weeks, maybe more.” We’re in a very risk-averse society.
我读到一些论文，“哦，你的传染性可能长达五周，甚至更长。”我们生活在一个非常厌恶风险的社会。
Don’t you run the risk by getting a test at all that, in essence, you end up locked out of polite society?
难道你不会冒着接受测试的风险，从本质上讲，你最终会被排除在上流社会之外吗？
Well, again, this is where I’m defending science and economics as science.
好吧，这也是我捍卫科学和经济学作为科学的地方。
Here’s really the science of medicine.
这确实是医学科学。
We need to help everybody know, “Here’s what the facts are.
我们需要帮助每个人都知道，“这就是事实。
Based on these kinds of signals or this elapsed time, you can be confident that a person is not infectious any longer.”
根据这些信号或经过的时间，你可以确信一个人不再具有传染性。”
And then people may still have some emotional aversive reactions.
然后人们可能仍然会有一些情绪上的厌恶反应。
But I think if we can just credibly provide the facts, then that will start to change practice, and practice will start to change some of those deeper emotions.
但我认为，如果我们能够可信地提供事实，那么这将开始改变实践，而实践将开始改变一些更深层次的情感。
Should there be a liability waiver for businesses that test their employees?
对员工进行测试的企业是否应该免除责任？
We all know there are false negatives and positives, in fact.
事实上，我们都知道存在假阴性和假阳性。
Yeah.
是的。
Say your business tests you.
假设您的业务正在考验您。
They tell you you don’t have it.
他们告诉你你没有它。
It turns out you do have it.
事实证明你确实拥有它。
You infect your spouse.
你传染给你的配偶。
Should there be a liability waiver to encourage this testing?
是否应该有责任豁免来鼓励这种测试？
You know, for vaccines, we created a special compensation mechanism so that, instead of litigating, somebody who’s harmed by taking a vaccine — because there’s a small fraction of the population that has a negative side effect — there’s a separate compensation mechanism.
你知道，对于疫苗，我们创建了一个特殊的补偿机制，这样，因接种疫苗而受到伤害的人就不用提起诉讼 ——因为只有一小部分人会产生负面副作用—— 有一个单独的补偿机制。
I think there are many reasons to think that our judicial system is an ineffective way to address a harm or to provide insurance.
我认为有很多理由认为我们的司法系统无法有效地解决伤害或提供保险。
And it slows down many important things that we need to do.
它会减慢我们需要做的许多重要事情的速度。
But I’d be more in favor of a broader look at ways to improve the functioning of the judicial system, rather than just do a .
但我更倾向于更广泛地研究改善司法系统运作的方法，而不是仅仅采取行动。
.
。
.
。
Actually, I don’t have a strong view on this.
其实我对此并没有什么强烈的看法。
It may be that to move quickly, we want to have a special patch related to what firms do with test information.
为了快速行动，我们可能希望有一个与公司如何处理测试信息相关的特殊补丁。
But I don’t think we should stop there.
但我认为我们不应该就此止步。
We really should be asking, how can we tune the judicial system to make it work better?
我们真的应该问，我们如何调整司法系统，使其更好地运作？
Could it be that litigation is the ultimate reason why America is so slow in testing?
难道诉讼是美国检测速度如此缓慢的最终原因吗？
That any big push for anything — someone can raise their hand and object.
任何对任何事情的大力推动 ——有人都可以举手反对。
Someone could sue.
有人可以起诉。
“Well, this violates The Health Insurance Privacy Act (HIPAA).” I’m not even sure it does, but you would need a ruling.
“嗯，这违反了健康保险隐私法 (HIPAA)。”我什至不确定是否如此，但你需要做出裁决。
Someone sues on disabilities regulation.
有人就残疾人监管提起诉讼。
“Oh, I need to have this app.
“哦，我需要这个应用程序。
I can’t read it.” Someone sues about masks.
我读不懂。”有人就口罩提起诉讼。
“Well, I can’t do lip reading.” The actual solution — something we’re far from — and that’s to clear away all this emphasis on litigation in American policy.
“嗯，我不会读唇语。”实际的解决方案——“我们还远远没有实现”——那就是消除美国政策中对诉讼的所有强调。
And economists have been mostly right about that, too.
经济学家在这一点上也大多是正确的。
Or not?
或不？
Yeah, yeah.
是啊是啊。
Well, my dive into testing has persuaded me that the FDA is far more important as a force that’s slowing down progress there.
嗯，我对测试的深入研究让我相信 FDA 作为一支减缓进展的力量要重要得多。
There’s been speculation about lawsuits, but there’s really little indication that those will materialize.
人们一直在猜测诉讼，但几乎没有迹象表明这些诉讼会成为现实。
And the people I talk to who can’t do things they want to do in testing are failing to do it because of the concern about the FDA.
与我交谈过的那些在测试中无法做他们想做的事情的人由于对 FDA 的担忧而未能做到这一点。
So I don’t think the facts support that litigation is the big threat here.
所以我认为事实并不支持诉讼是这里的巨大威胁。
Also, in terms of moving quickly, I think one of the things we could leverage — because this is a public good — is the sovereign immunity of the states.
此外，就快速行动而言，我认为我们可以利用的一件事是国家的主权豁免权——因为这是一项公共利益。
I think the states can actually just purchase the test, say, with money they get from the feds and then even give instructions about “here are ways to use these tests.”
我认为各州实际上可以用从联邦政府获得的资金购买测试，然后甚至给出“以下是使用这些测试的方法”的说明。
Those could even be regulations.
这些甚至可能是法规。
“Here is what you have to do.
“这就是你必须做的。
If you’re a restaurant, if your employees test negative, you can open.
如果你是一家餐馆，如果你的员工检测结果呈阴性，你就可以开业。
You have legal permission to open.
您拥有打开的合法许可。
And you have to require that people test negative.
而且你必须要求人们测试呈阴性。
But if you do, that’s fine.”
但如果你这样做了，那就好了。”
If somebody who tests negative goes to restaurants and other people get infected because of that, the restaurant could actually have the protection of the mandate from the state that this is what you should do to protect public health.
如果检测呈阴性的人去餐馆，而其他人因此而被感染，餐馆实际上可以得到国家的授权保护，这是你应该采取的措施来保护公众健康。
So I think the states could actually provide cover for firms to do — and individuals to do — what’s best in terms of how to use this test information.
因此，我认为各州实际上可以为公司和个人提供掩护，让他们在如何使用这些测试信息方面做到最好。
Let’s say we make you testing czar, and the Romer regime is put into place.
假设我们让你测试沙皇，罗默政权已经就位。
Over the first month, what percentage of Americans do you think would show up to be tested?
在第一个月内，您认为有多少美国人会参加测试？
Well, I would try and do a calculation about where might tests be most valuable.
好吧，我会尝试计算一下哪些测试可能最有价值。
And if the states are the ones who are buying tests and providing them, encourage states to use them for those high-value purposes.
如果各州是购买并提供测试的人，则鼓励各州将其用于这些高价值目的。
I think frequent testing in nursing homes might be all it would take to cut the death rate in half right now.
我认为现在只要在疗养院进行频繁的检测就可以将死亡率降低一半。
The estimates are that as many as half of the deaths are actually taking place in nursing homes.
据估计，多达一半的死亡实际上发生在疗养院。
And it seems to me that there’s no hope for contact tracing there.
在我看来，在那里进行接触者追踪是没有希望的。
There’s talk about rebuilding all of the nursing homes.
有人谈论重建所有疗养院。
That’s not going to happen anytime soon.
这不会很快发生。
But if you tested everybody, initially every day so you know exactly who’s infectious inside a nursing home — test all of the staff; test all of the visitors — then we should be able to isolate the few who are infectious and really bring down the deaths in nursing homes.
但如果你对每个人进行测试，首先是每天进行测试，这样你就可以准确地知道疗养院内谁具有传染性 ——对所有工作人员进行测试；对所有访客进行测试——然后我们应该能够隔离少数具有传染性的人，并真正降低疗养院的死亡人数。
So I’d use those, there, first.
所以我会首先使用这些。
Second, I think it would be great to get Major League Baseball started again.
其次，我认为美国职业棒球大联盟重新开始会很棒。
I think we should use the relatively small number of tests it would take to test all the baseball players every day, and let them start playing games in empty stadiums, because you need a lot more tests to test the fans, to have them come in.
我认为我们应该使用每天测试所有棒球运动员所需的相对较少的测试数量，并让他们在空荡荡的体育场开始比赛，因为你需要更多的测试来测试球迷，让他们进来。
But we could be playing baseball in empty stadiums without any risks that we’re increasing this R factor, and people enjoy baseball.
但我们可以在空荡荡的体育场打棒球，而不会增加这个 R 因素的风险，而且人们喜欢棒球。
It would be an important signal of how we go back to work in this regime.
这将是我们如何在这个政权下重返工作岗位的重要信号。
I think that could be an important complement to nursing homes.
我认为这可能是对疗养院的重要补充。
To keep going —
继续前进 —
There’s a study out.
有一项研究出来了。
I think it came out May 10th or May 11th, and they did test everyone in Major League Baseball — a lot of the staff, not just the players.
我认为它是在 5 月 10 日或 5 月 11 日发布的，他们确实测试了美国职业棒球大联盟的每个人——很多工作人员，而不仅仅是球员。
And hardly any of them are COVID positive.
而且几乎没有人呈新冠病毒阳性。
We tested so many of the NBA players.
我们测试了很多NBA球员。
But given those sports are still not reopening, doesn’t that mean testing isn’t enough?
但鉴于这些运动仍未重新开放，这是否意味着测试还不够？
Well, nobody made a plan, which says .
好吧，没有人制定计划，这就是说。
.
。
.
。
Look, there was an initial plan, which is put all the baseball players in a big dome or something and isolate them.
看，有一个初步计划，将所有棒球运动员放在一个大圆顶或其他东西中并将他们隔离。
But obviously, they don’t want that.
但显然，他们不希望这样。
They’re going to be going home to their families.
他们将回家与家人团聚。
Some of them are going to get infected in their families, so you need a plan for testing and retesting the baseball players if you want to make sure that one player doesn’t infect another.
其中一些人会在家人中被感染，因此，如果您想确保一名球员不会感染另一名球员，您需要制定一项对棒球运动员进行检测和重新检测的计划。
You need to do some calculations about, how frequently do we need to test?
您需要计算一下我们需要多长时间进行测试？
Also, you alluded to this point before, which is, how do we have to respond when somebody tests positive?
另外，您之前也提到过这一点，就是当有人检测呈阳性时，我们该如何应对？
How long should they be isolated, both from other players but also from the general public?
他们应该与其他玩家以及公众隔离多久？
But if we just put together the plan, I think we could safely restart baseball and do it with confidence, knowing that we’re not going to increase the number of infections.
但如果我们把计划放在一起，我认为我们可以安全地重新开始棒球比赛，并充满信心地做到这一点，因为我们知道我们不会增加感染人数。
Not under the Romer regime, but in the world we live in, can we reopen our colleges and universities for this coming fall?
不是在罗默政权下，而是在我们生活的世界中，我们能否在即将到来的秋天重新开放我们的学院和大学？
Well that’s one of my list of plans to actually work out.
嗯，这是我实际制定的计划清单之一。
So there’s Major League Baseball, but then universities and then K–12 education, I think, are the next two.
所以有美国职业棒球大联盟，但我认为接下来的两个是大学和 K-12 教育。
Part of the reality is that people are afraid of opening universities and K–12 education right now.
部分现实是，人们现在害怕开放大学和 K-12 教育。
If we had the tests, we can show everyone, if you test people frequently, isolate the few who are infectious as soon as you find out that they’re infectious, you can actually let people start to interact again without raising this R number.
如果我们进行了测试，我们可以向大家展示，如果你经常对人们进行测试，一旦你发现他们具有传染性，就隔离少数具有传染性的人，你实际上可以让人们重新开始互动，而无需提高这个R值。
So I think it’s totally possible to reopen universities and reopen schools.
所以我认为重新开放大学和学校是完全有可能的。
The universities — you may make some adjustments beyond just test and isolate.
大学——除了测试和隔离之外，你还可以做一些调整。
It may be that a 300-person lecture hall, unless it’s well ventilated, is just too risky because even just one person who’s infectious could infect many more, and we’d have to see if that’s true.
一个容纳 300 人的演讲厅，除非通风良好，否则风险太大，因为即使只有一个人具有传染性，也可能感染更多人，我们必须看看这是否属实。
So you might have to have better ventilation or not have those big lecture halls, but we could surely restart university education, restart K–12.
因此，你可能必须有更好的通风，或者没有那些大演讲厅，但我们肯定可以重新启动大学教育，重新启动 K-12。
And these would be very important things to do because we know how valuable human capital is.
这些都是非常重要的事情，因为我们知道人力资本有多么宝贵。
We know how high the returns are to those kinds of investments.
我们知道此类投资的回报有多高。
I said before, I was doing some calculations the last couple of days.
我之前说过，这几天我在做一些计算。
The calculation I’m looking at is for each unit of testing capacity.
我正在查看的计算是针对每个测试能力单位的。
And if we could test one more person each day, how many more jobs or how many more people could reenter, return to their previous activities?
如果我们每天可以多测试一个人，就会增加多少工作岗位或有多少人可以重新进入、回到之前的活动？
The model suggests that it’s about nine.
该模型表明大约是九点。
Testing one person per day throughout the year would free up about nine people who could go back to doing what they were doing before, get out of the shelter-in-place rules and have no net effect on the reproduction number R because the tests depress it.
全年每天对一个人进行测试将释放大约九个人，他们可以回到以前做的事情，摆脱就地避难的规则，并且对繁殖数 R 没有净影响，因为测试会压低它。
More people in circulation raise it.
更多流通中的人提出它。
You just set those numbers so that they balance each other out.
您只需设置这些数字，使它们相互平衡即可。
Nine economically active people is worth a hell of a lot more than it costs to provide one test a day for a year.
九个从事经济活动的人的价值远远高于一年中每天进行一次测试的成本。
On Romer’s plan vs. Weyl’s
罗默的计划与韦尔的计划
How does your testing idea differ from Glen Weyl’s testing idea?
您的测试想法与 Glen Weyl 的测试想法有何不同？
I think Glen and I are in agreement that tests are very valuable.
我认为格伦和我都同意测试非常有价值。
Glen thinks that we can target the tests.
格伦认为我们可以有针对性地进行测试。
I’m saying just test everybody on a regular basis.
我的意思是定期测试每个人。
Glen is saying you don’t have to test everybody.
格伦说你不必测试每个人。
What you can do is target your tests to people who are more likely to be infectious.
您可以做的是将测试针对更有可能具有传染性的人。
I agree that if you can target tests effectively, then you don’t have to test as many people because really all you have to do is find enough positives and get them into isolation.
我同意，如果你能有效地进行有针对性的测试，那么你就不必测试那么多人，因为实际上你所要做的就是找到足够的阳性结果并将他们隔离。
But I think Glen is assuming that the way we’re going to predict safely and reliably who’s infectious is through apps that do digital contact tracing, and I’m skeptical that that’s going to be ready in time and ready in the sense that everybody will be comfortable using it.
但我认为格伦假设我们安全可靠地预测谁具有传染性的方式是通过进行数字接触追踪的应用程序，我怀疑这是否会及时准备好，并且准备好让每个人都能轻松使用它。
I’m saying if we want to have a plan that we know we can execute now, where we know we’re not going to have a divisive fight and get stuck because we can’t make a decision, the way to do that is just don’t make the digital contact tracing part of the critical path.
我的意思是，如果我们想要制定一个我们知道现在就可以执行的计划，我们知道我们不会因为无法做出决定而陷入分裂斗争并陷入困境，那么做到这一点的方法就是不要让数字接触者追踪成为关键路径的一部分。
Just create a path where we get there, whether or not apps could work.
只需创建一条我们到达那里的路径，无论应用程序是否可以工作。
If it works, great.
如果有效的话，那就太好了。
I’m not opposed to targeting the tests if you’ve got a good way to do it, but don’t make that a requirement for the path that protects us all.
如果你有好办法的话，我不反对进行针对性测试，但不要将此作为保护我们所有人的道路的要求。
Would you ever get involved in another charter city project?
您会参与另一个特许城市项目吗？
Actually, before I leave the testing — one of the things, as economists and scientists, I think we really can usefully bring to these debates is just quantification, just talk about the numbers.
实际上，在我离开测试之前，作为经济学家和科学家，我认为我们真正可以有效地进行这些辩论的一件事就是量化，只谈论数字。
This morning, I was trying to think the best estimate, say, from New York State is that this infection fatality rate is about a half a percent.
今天早上，我试图认为纽约州的最佳估计是这种感染死亡率约为 0.5%。
So if a half a percent of the people who catch an infection die, and if you look at where we have got about 2,000 people a day in the United States who are dying, that means there’re about 400,000 people a day who are newly infected.
因此，如果有 0.5% 的感染者死亡，如果你看看美国每天有大约 2,000 人死亡，那就意味着每天大约有 400,000 人新感染。
Now, each of those 400,000 people has, say, 10 contacts, which I think is modest — it could be more.
现在，这 40 万人中每人都有 10 个联系人，我认为这个数字是适度的——可能会更多。
That means that there’s 4 million people a day that you’ve got to go out and find with your contact tracers.
这意味着每天有 400 万人需要您使用接触追踪器出去寻找。
I’m not sure we’ve got the capacity to do that.
我不确定我们是否有能力做到这一点。
But the real point here is that whether you follow Glen’s model or my model, you’re already up to 4 million tests a day, which is 10 times the capacity we’ve got.
但这里真正的要点是，无论你遵循 Glen 的模型还是我的模型，你每天都已经进行了多达 400 万次测试，这是我们容量的 10 倍。
So let’s not even argue about whether Glen’s right or I’m right.
所以我们甚至不要争论格伦是对的还是我是对的。
Let’s just get a lot more tests because both of us think we need way more than we have.
让我们进行更多的测试，因为我们都认为我们需要的比我们拥有的更多。
On trying again with charter cities
关于再次尝试特许城市
Okay.
好的。
Charter cities — would you try it again someday?
特许城市 — 有一天你会再尝试一次吗？
Sure, absolutely.
当然，绝对。
Under what conditions?
在什么条件下？
I might rename it.
我可能会重命名它。
I don’t know that, in communicating the idea, that charter city is the best name, but I think the idea is still a compelling alternative.
我不知道在传达这个想法时，特许城市是最好的名字，但我认为这个想法仍然是一个引人注目的选择。
And unfortunately — maybe this is now my shtick — it’s like a $100 billion a year on testing.
不幸的是，“也许这就是我现在的伎俩”——“每年的测试费用相当于 1000 亿美元。”
It’s an unpleasant, bad idea that nobody likes, but it’s just better than the alternatives.
这是一个令人不快的坏主意，没有人喜欢，但它比其他选择要好。
The same thing is true, I think, on migration flows, as on dealing with the pandemic, which is that the alternatives are so terrible, the best option may be something that’s kind of bad, it’s kind of expensive — we just do it anyway.
我认为，同样的情况也适用于移民流动，就像应对大流行病一样，那就是替代方案是如此糟糕，最好的选择可能是某种不好的东西，它有点昂贵——“我们无论如何都要做。”
I’m not sure we should call it charter city, but the thing I think we could do is create new cities that would solve the current impasse, where you’ve got 750 million people who say they want to leave the countries where they currently live, and the existing countries that say, “We don’t want to take that many people.”
我不确定我们是否应该称其为特许城市，但我认为我们可以做的就是创建新的城市来解决当前的僵局，其中有 7.5 亿人说他们想离开他们目前居住的国家，而现有的国家则说，“我们不想带走那么多人。”
So I’m saying, “Okay, what’s the middle ground here?
所以我说，“好吧，这里的中间立场是什么？
What’s the deal we could do?
我们能做些什么？
Let’s create some new places that are still places that people want to go to, but where nobody in existing countries feels threatened by the creation of those new places.
让我们创建一些新的地方，这些地方仍然是人们想去的地方，但现有国家中没有人感到受到这些新地方的创建的威胁。
And let’s try and offer that as a solution to what seems like this impasse.”
让我们尝试将其作为解决这一僵局的解决方案。”
How do you frame what happened in Honduras, conceptually?
您如何从概念上描述洪都拉斯发生的事情？
I thought in selling this idea, to do this, you’d need both some country that is willing to volunteer or supply the location for a new jurisdiction, and then some countries — a country, or more than one country — that can help establish the new jurisdiction, like its legal systems and so forth, and administrative — all the systems you’d need.
我认为，在推销这个想法时，要做到这一点，你需要一些国家愿意自愿为新的司法管辖区提供地点，然后需要一些国家（一个国家或多个国家）可以帮助建立新的司法管辖区，例如其法律体系等，以及行政管理——所有你需要的系统。
I thought the biggest risk constraint on this idea was that it would be hard to find countries that would be willing to say, “You could use our land to start something new.”
我认为这个想法最大的风险限制是很难找到愿意说“你可以用我们的土地开始新事物”的国家。
So I spent time in Madagascar.
所以我在马达加斯加呆了一段时间。
I spent time in Honduras.
我在洪都拉斯呆过一段时间。
They were actually willing to try this, but what I think, in retrospect, I should have done, and what I’ll do now, is go first to the countries which are willing to help set something up because a country like Honduras was not — the reason it was willing to do something radical like a new charter city was that it did not have the internal capacity to do something like a charter city.
他们实际上愿意尝试这个，但我认为，回想起来，我应该做的，也是我现在要做的，是首先向那些愿意帮助建立一些东西的国家提供帮助，因为像洪都拉斯这样的国家不愿意做一些激进的事情，比如一个新的特许城市，因为它没有内部能力来做一些像特许城市这样的事情。
What went wrong was that we couldn’t get sufficient participation from outside of Honduras in setting this up.
问题在于我们无法从洪都拉斯以外的地方获得足够的参与来建立这个项目。
And then, frankly, in Honduras there was a little bit of lack of transparency.
然后，坦率地说，洪都拉斯有点缺乏透明度。
They didn’t really want outsiders either because it was kind of a small group that actually wanted to set these things up and control it internally.
他们也并不真正想要外人，因为这是一个小团体，实际上想在内部建立这些东西并进行控制。
So I think the scarce player, the short side of this market is going to be countries that are willing to say, “We will help set up a new place that people can go to.” It’s the citizens of those potential countries that we need to persuade.
因此，我认为这个市场的稀缺参与者、空头将是那些愿意说“我们将帮助建立一个人们可以去的新地方”的国家。我们需要说服的是那些潜在国家的公民。
This would be worth trying.
这值得尝试。
And if they’re willing to do it, then I think we can find locations where it could be done.
如果他们愿意这样做，那么我认为我们可以找到可以做到这一点的地点。
Do you worry about a negative selection effect in the volunteers?
您担心志愿者的负面选择效应吗？
In a lot of your work, you’re concerned with corruption, quite appropriately, I would say.
我想说，在你的很多工作中，你都关心腐败，这是很恰当的。
And could it be, the countries that want to do charter cities — well, it’s one branch of the government wants to do something a little funny without the other branches of the government seeing, and, in essence, cut its own deal, and that there’s something intrinsically worrisome about a country volunteering to do it.
可能是那些想要建立特许城市的国家——好吧，政府的一个部门想做一些有点有趣的事情，而政府的其他部门却没有看到，并且本质上是达成了自己的协议，而一个国家自愿这样做本质上令人担忧。
I think this is one of these places where we have to be willing to just select from the feasible alternatives and not hold out for some ideal that we can’t achieve.
我认为这是我们必须愿意从可行的替代方案中进行选择的地方之一，而不是坚持一些我们无法实现的理想。
It’s worth being specific here.
值得在这里具体说明。
My hunch is that China will eventually realize that the way to pay for the infrastructure that it’s building as part of this Belt and Road program is to do urban real estate development.
我的预感是，中国最终将意识到，支付其作为“一带一路”计划一部分建设的基础设施的费用的方式是进行城市房地产开发。
The transport never pays for itself.
运输永远不会收回成本。
It’s always the real estate that goes up in value that you use to pay for all of this.
您用来支付所有这些费用的始终是升值的房地产。
So I think that the Belt and Road project is inevitably going to turn to a version of new city, city-scale real estate development to finance what they’re trying to do.
因此，我认为“一带一路”项目不可避免地会转向新城市、城市规模的房地产开发，为他们想要做的事情提供资金。
In parallel, the United States could be offering its own version of cities around the world that are new.
与此同时，美国可能会在世界各地提供自己版本的新城市。
There’s gains in the value of the land that pay for the stuff you want to do.
土地价值的增长可以支付你想做的事情的费用。
Then to answer your question, would I be worried if that’s the way that China and the US compete with each other?
那么回答你的问题，如果中美之间就是这样竞争的话，我会担心吗？
Actually, no, I think that would be pretty good.
事实上，不，我认为那会很好。
The Chinese wouldn’t set up those cities and run them exactly the way that somebody from the United States might prefer.
中国人不会完全按照美国人喜欢的方式建立和管理这些城市。
But if people who want to migrate could choose between a Chinese location and a US location, that would put some pressure on both the US and China to organize these new opportunities in ways that really benefit the people who will go there.
但如果想要移民的人可以在中国和美国之间进行选择，这会给美国和中国带来一些压力，要求他们以真正有利于前往那里的人的方式组织这些新机会。
How important is religion for explaining economic development?
宗教对于解释经济发展有多重要？
You said before, norms are important, and charter cities, in a way, are identifying laws, rules, norms as a public-good legal structure.
您之前说过，规范很重要，特许城市在某种程度上将法律、规则、规范视为公共利益的法律结构。
So why isn’t religion also a key?
那么为什么宗教不是一把钥匙呢？
Well, I think it’s important for us to think about what are the mechanisms that we use to try and shape norms over time.
嗯，我认为，对于我们来说，重要的是要思考随着时间的推移，我们用来尝试和塑造规范的机制是什么。
Some of them are just an invisible-hand process where nobody’s in charge and norms often, I think, go in directions that are beneficial and appropriate.
其中一些只是一个看不见的手过程，没有人负责，我认为规范通常会朝着有益且适当的方向发展。
There’s a great book you may know of, called The Civilizing Process, that looked from the Middle Ages up to the present, looked at norms about just what it means to be polite or civilized, even just table manners.
你可能知道一本很棒的书，叫做《文明进程》，这本书从中世纪到现在，着眼于礼貌或文明的含义，甚至只是餐桌礼仪。
And it’s really a fascinating account.
这确实是一个令人着迷的帐户。
Some of this happens automatically, but some of it happens because of activists and organizations and structures like churches, and we should be at least mindful of, what are the ways in which those different bodies can push norms?
其中一些是自动发生的，但另一些是由于活动家、组织和结构（例如教堂）而发生的，我们至少应该注意，这些不同的机构可以通过哪些方式推动规范？
What are the ways that are beneficial to everyone, like that increase efficiency?
有哪些对每个人都有利的方法，比如提高效率？
What are the ones that might harm efficiency?
哪些可能会损害效率？
How do we get more of the ones that increase efficiency?
我们如何获得更多能够提高效率的方法？
Say I’m a Christian missionary.
假设我是一名基督教传教士。
I’m working in Nigeria, and say I’m fairly persuasive and effective.
我在尼日利亚工作，我说我很有说服力，也很有效率。
Is it possible I’m doing more for economic development than any economist?
我为经济发展做的事情有可能比任何经济学家都多吗？
It’s possible, but you’d really want to look in detail and see which parts of the norms that are being conveyed there are beneficial and which parts are not.
这是有可能的，但你确实想详细了解一下，看看所传达的规范的哪些部分是有益的，哪些部分是无益的。
One also has to be thoughtful about the fact that you should ask, are the people who are being socialized into some new norms aware of what the transaction is?
人们还必须考虑这样一个事实：您应该问，正在适应某些新规范的人们是否意识到交易是什么？
And are they agreeing in some sense?
他们在某种意义上同意吗？
Do they actually have some agency and some ability to choose “Yes, I’m okay with this” or “No, maybe not”?
他们是否真的有一定的代理权和能力来选择“是的，我同意这个”或“不，也许不行”？
This is why I like the migration decision, because it involves a more affirmative choice.
这就是为什么我喜欢移民决定，因为它涉及到更肯定的选择。
If some missionaries set up a city and said, “Here’s how this city will work.
如果一些传教士建立了一座城市并说：“这座城市将如何运作。
You’re welcome to come,” and people could choose to go to that city or not, and can choose to leave if they don’t like it when they get there — I’d be a lot more comfortable with it.
欢迎你来”，人们可以选择去或不去那个城市，如果到达那里后不喜欢也可以选择离开 —— 我会更舒服。
How optimistic are you more generally about the developmental trajectory for sub-Saharan Africa?
您对撒哈拉以南非洲地区的发展轨迹总体上有多乐观？
There’s a saying I picked up from Gordon Brown, that in establishing the rule of law, the first five centuries are always the hardest.
我从戈登·布朗那里学到了一句话，在建立法治的过程中，前五个世纪总是最艰难的。
I think some parts of this development process are just very slow.
我认为这个开发过程的某些部分非常缓慢。
If you look around the world, all the efforts since World War II that’s gone into trying to build strong, effective states, to establish the rule of law in a functioning state, I think the external investments in building states have yielded very little.
如果你环顾世界，自二战以来为建立强大、有效的国家、在正常运转的国家中建立法治所做的所有努力，我认为建设国家的外部投资收效甚微。
So we need to think about ways to transfer the functioning of existing states rather than just build them from scratch in existing places.
因此，我们需要考虑如何转移现有国家的功能，而不是仅仅在现有的地方从头开始建立它们。
That’s a lot of the impetus behind this charter cities idea.
这是这个特许城市想法背后的很大推动力。
It’s both — you select people coming in who have a particular set of norms that then become the dominant norms in this new place, but you also protect those norms by certain kinds of administrative structures, state functions that reinforce them.
既是——你选择进来的人拥有一套特定的规范，然后这些规范将成为这个新地方的主导规范，但你也可以通过某些类型的行政结构和国家职能来保护这些规范，以加强这些规范。
We need to think about ways to transfer the functioning of existing states rather than just build them from scratch in existing places.
我们需要考虑如何转移现有国家的功能，而不是仅仅在现有的地方从头开始建立它们。
If we don’t pay attention to that and just keep doing what we’ve been doing in development assistance, I’m still fairly pessimistic about how many will make the radical transformation that China made.
如果我们不关注这一点，只是继续做我们在发展援助方面一直在做的事情，我仍然对有多少国家能够实现中国所做的彻底转变持相当悲观的态度。
On reforming the World Bank
关于世界银行改革
If you could reform the World Bank, what would you do?
如果你可以改革世界银行，你会做什么？
Oh, that’s an interesting question.
哦，这是一个有趣的问题。
I think the Bank is trying to serve two missions, and it can’t do both.
我认为央行正在努力实现两个使命，但它无法同时完成两个使命。
One is a diplomatic function, which I think is very important.
一是外交职能，我认为这非常重要。
The World Bank is a place where somebody who represents the government of China and somebody who represents the government of the United States sit in a conference room and argue, “Should we do A or B?” Not just argue, but discuss, negotiate.
在世界银行，代表中国政府的人和代表美国政府的人坐在会议室里争论“我们应该做A还是B？”不只是争论，而是讨论、谈判。
On a regular basis, they make decisions.
他们定期做出决定。
And it isn’t just China and the US.
不仅仅是中国和美国。
It’s a bunch of countries.
这是一群国家。
I think it’s very good for personal relationships, for the careers of people who will go on to have other positions in these governments, to have that kind of experience of, basically, diplomatic negotiation over a bunch of relatively small items because it’s a confidence-building measure that makes it possible for countries to make bigger diplomatic decisions when they have to.
我认为，对于个人关系、对于那些将在这些政府中担任其他职位的人的职业生涯来说，基本上，拥有就一堆相对较小的项目进行外交谈判的经验是非常有好处的，因为这是一种建立信任的措施，使各国能够在必要时做出更大的外交决定。
That, I think, is the value of the World Bank right now.
我认为，这就是世界银行目前的价值。
The problem is that that diplomatic function is inconsistent with the function of being a provider of scientific insight.
问题在于，外交职能与提供科学见解的职能不一致。
The scientific endeavor has to be committed to truth, no matter whose feathers get ruffled.
科学事业必须致力于真理，无论谁的羽毛被激怒。
There’s certain convenient fictions that are required for diplomacy to work.
外交要想发挥作用，需要一些方便的虚构。
You start accepting convenient fictions in science, and science is just dead.
你开始接受科学中方便的虚构，而科学就死了。
So the Bank’s got to decide: is it engaged in diplomacy or science?
因此，世行必须做出决定：它是从事外交还是科学？
I think the diplomacy is its unique comparative advantage.
我认为外交是其独特的比较优势。
Therefore, I think it’s got to get out of the scientific business.
因此，我认为它必须脱离科学业务。
It should just outsource its research.
它应该将其研究外包。
It shouldn’t try and be a research organization, and it should just be transparent about what it can be good at and is good at.
它不应该试图成为一个研究组织，而应该只是对其擅长和擅长的领域保持透明。
Do you regret the time you spent there?
你后悔在那里度过的时光吗？
Or what would you have done differently?
或者你会采取什么不同的做法？
Well, I was brought in to reform the research group.
嗯，我被请来是为了改革研究组。
People in the Bank could tell that research was dysfunctional there, but shortly after I arrived, the number two, who I think had been behind this initiative, left to go take a position back in finance minister in Indonesia, and a different number two came into the Bank.
央行的人可以看出那里的研究功能失调，但在我到达后不久，二号人物（我认为是这一举措的幕后黑手）离开了，重新担任印度尼西亚财政部长，而另一位二号人物进入了央行。
In retrospect, what happened was that number two decided we’re not going to reform research.
回想起来，第二个决定我们不打算改革研究。
We don’t want any noise.
我们不想要任何噪音。
Because you reform things, you’re going to get noise.
因为你改革事物，你就会收到噪音。
You’re going to get complaints.
你会收到投诉。
All other parts of the Bank had been reformed.
银行的所有其他部门都进行了改革。
Research hadn’t.
研究没有。
So I wasted 16 months talking to the number two and the number one and saying, “You understand if I’m really going to reform the research group, there’s going to be noise, and it’s going to be a little contentious.
所以我浪费了 16 个月的时间与二号人物和一号人物交谈，并说：“你明白，如果我真的要改革研究小组，就会有噪音，而且会有点争议。
You really want to do this, right?”
你真的很想这么做，对吧？”
And they, “Yeah, no, no, absolutely, full speed ahead.
他们说：“是的，不，不，绝对，全速前进。
We’re totally 100 percent behind you.
我们百分百支持您。
We totally agree with each other.” And they were just lying to me.
我们完全同意彼此的观点。”他们只是对我撒谎。
So I would go out and try and do something, and they would undercut every simple thing I tried to do.
所以我会出去尝试做一些事情，而他们会削弱我尝试做的每一件简单的事情。
What I regret is the dishonesty of the leadership and failing to just say what was true, which is, “We changed our minds.
我感到遗憾的是领导层的不诚实，没有说出事实，即“我们改变了主意。
We don’t want to reform research anymore.”
我们不想再改革研究了。”
So I spent months and months doing really simple things like trying to move two direct reports, who reported to me, who didn’t have the integrity to have the kind of responsibility that they had.
所以我花了好几个月的时间做一些非常简单的事情，比如试图调动两名直接下属，他们向我汇报，但他们没有正直的品格，无法承担他们所承担的责任。
But I was facing a bureaucratic system that opposed moving these positions — and I’m not even talking about firing them, just moving them out of the critical positions so other people could fill those roles and do them correctly.
但我面临着一个反对调动这些职位的官僚体系——我什至不是在谈论解雇他们，只是将他们从关键职位上调出来，这样其他人就可以填补这些职位并正确地完成工作。
I faced not only internal bureaucratic delays, but my bosses were undercutting me and stopping me from doing this.
我不仅面临内部官僚主义的拖延，而且我的老板们也在削弱我的实力并阻止我这样做。
I finally figured it out and said I was going to resign.
我终于想通了，说我要辞职了。
They told me, “Oh no, it’d do enormous damage to the Bank if you resigned.” And I still took what they said seriously.
他们告诉我，“哦，不，如果你辞职，会对银行造成巨大损害。”而且我还是认真对待他们说的话。
So then I went out and just got myself fired.
然后我就出去了，然后就被解雇了。
I gave an interview in the Wall Street Journal, which I knew would make them mad.
我接受了《华尔街日报》的采访，我知道这会让他们生气。
Then they said, “Okay, well, you broke the rules, so we have to have an investigation.” I said, “No, you don’t have to have an investigation.
然后他们说：“好吧，好吧，你违反了规则，所以我们必须进行调查。”我说：“不，你不必进行调查。
I broke the rules.” They said, “Okay, well then we have to put you on administrative leave, and you have to sign this agreement where you won’t say anything without our approval.” “I’m not going to do that.” And then they said, “Okay, well then you have to resign.” And I said, “Well, that was what I tried to do on Thursday.
我违反了规则。”他们说：“好吧，那么我们必须让你休行政假，你必须签署这份协议，未经我们批准你不能说任何话。” “我不会那样做。”然后他们说：“好吧，那么你必须辞职。”我说：“嗯，这就是我周四尝试做的事情。
I resign.” And that was the end of it.
我辞职了。”事情就这样结束了。
Why are you interested in the American philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce?
您为什么对美国哲学家查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔斯感兴趣？
Charles —
查尔斯 —
Charles Sanders Peirce.
查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔斯。
Oh, is that how you pronounce his last name?
哦，你是这么发音他的姓氏的吗？
People say it “Pierce” sometimes, but Peirce is —
人们有时会说它是“皮尔斯”，但皮尔斯是 ——
I was thinking “Pierce,” so funny.
我在想“皮尔斯”，太有趣了。
COWEN: The pragmaticist, yes.
COWEN：实用主义者，是的。
Because I’m really interested in science, and I think he was a very deep thinker about science from this pragmatic perspective of, how does it work?
因为我对科学真的很感兴趣，而且我认为他是一位从务实的角度思考科学的非常深刻的思想家，科学是如何运作的？
What does it accomplish?
它有什么作用？
How can we get more of that?
我们怎样才能得到更多呢？
I think it was Tim Besley, actually, another economist, pointed me to him.
我认为实际上是另一位经济学家蒂姆·贝斯利（Tim Besley）向我指出了他。
I have to say, it’s heavy going to read his stuff, but I’m still quite interested.
我不得不说，读他的东西很沉重，但我仍然很感兴趣。
If you go back to what we were saying before, about what could an existing successful society bring when it sets up a new one, I used to think a lot about — and as economists, we talked a lot about — the rule of law.
如果你回到我们之前所说的，关于一个现有的成功社会在建立一个新社会时会带来什么，我曾经思考过很多关于“——”作为经济学家，我们谈论了很多关于“——”法治。
Law is, in some sense, the basis for things like honesty and trust.
从某种意义上说，法律是诚实和信任等事物的基础。
I’m starting to think that science may have actually been more important for the West in developing a culture where a reputation for integrity and telling the truth became something that was valued.
我开始认为，对于西方来说，在发展一种文化时，科学实际上可能更重要，在这种文化中，正直和说实话的声誉变得很有价值。
Science may have actually been more important than we realize for that.
科学实际上可能比我们意识到的更重要。
I very much agree with that — and engineering, right?
我非常同意这一点——还有工程学，对吧？
And engineering also is a broader branch of science.
工程学也是一门更广泛的科学分支。
And if you look today at software engineers who have to make things work, they tend to be blunt people who will frequently speak the truth.
如果你看看今天那些必须让事情正常运转的软件工程师，他们往往是直率的人，经常说实话。
Yep.
是的。
When you think about this level of norms — a commitment that it’s a good thing to be honest; it’s a good thing to be disapproving of people who were found not to be honest — that’s very helpful because it helps build trust, and trust is an important part of social interaction.
当你考虑到这一水平的规范时，即承诺诚实是一件好事；反对那些不诚实的人是一件好事——这非常有帮助，因为它有助于建立信任，而信任是社交互动的重要组成部分。
I think we may have underestimated the value of science, so it’s all the more important to support it.
我认为我们可能低估了科学的价值，所以支持科学就显得尤为重要。
It isn’t just that it gives us some facts that feed into a discussion.
这不仅仅是因为它为我们提供了一些可供讨论的事实。
It conveys norms about integrity.
它传达了关于诚信的规范。
Also, there’s a harsh side to this, that when you are found to have misled people intentionally, those norms say you’re no longer taken seriously.
此外，这也有一个残酷的一面，即当你被发现故意误导人们时，这些规范就表明你不再受到认真对待。
You’re excluded.
你被排除在外了。
You’re not respected or listened to anymore.
你不再受到尊重或倾听。
Those kinds of things are critical for supporting trust.
这些事情对于支持信任至关重要。
I think that we should learn how to protect science and get it to do its job better in building those norms and encouraging trust.
我认为我们应该学习如何保护科学并让它在建立这些规范和鼓励信任方面更好地发挥作用。
What do you find most interesting in French fiction?
您觉得法国小说中最有趣的是什么？
Well, actually, let me just bore on for one minute about this.
好吧，实际上，让我继续讨论这个问题一分钟。
Sure.
当然。
One of my predecessors at the World Bank as chief economist, Justin Lin, has a very interesting paper on this puzzle of why didn’t China develop the industrial revolution.
我在世界银行担任首席经济学家的前任之一林毅夫（Justin Lin）有一篇非常有趣的论文，探讨了中国为何没有发展工业革命的难题。
His argument is basically that China — because there were so many people looking and discovering; they discovered a lot of things, like gunpowder, steel, printing, and so forth — but what China didn’t do was invent the social system we call science.
他的论点基本上是中国 —— 因为有这么多人在寻找和发现；他们发现了很多东西，比如火药、钢铁、印刷术等等——但是中国没有发明我们称之为科学的社会体系。
They had some knowledge and some technology.
他们有一些知识和一些技术。
They didn’t invent science.
他们没有发明科学。
And what was different in Europe was the invention of science.
欧洲的不同之处在于科学的发明。
I found that argument really compelling, and I’ve taken it one step further and think that part of what the West benefited from were notions about integrity and individual responsibility for what we say that fostered trust, and that science indirectly gave us those things.
我发现这个论点确实很有说服力，而且我更进一步，认为西方受益的部分是关于诚信和个人对我们所说的话的责任的观念，这些观念培养了信任，而科学间接地给了我们这些东西。
For any country around the world, it’s worth thinking about — if you’re short on that, if there’s a tendency for a lot of people to cheat on their taxes, to lie about what’s true, if there’s norms that hold a society back in those ways, I think it would be good to think about, how do we rebuild a system where we respect and admire people who consistently tell the truth, and where we look down on, disapprove of people who are found to have intentionally misled us?
对于世界上任何一个国家来说，这都值得思考——如果你缺乏这一点，如果很多人有偷税漏税、谎报真相的倾向，如果存在以这些方式阻碍社会发展的规范，我认为我们应该好好思考一下，我们如何重建一个体系，让我们尊重和钦佩那些始终说真话的人，并且瞧不起、不赞成那些被发现故意说谎的人。误导我们？
Do you think the evolution of science in the West has much to do with Christianity and Christian norms, which do emphasize some of those values?
您认为西方科学的发展与基督教和基督教规范有很大关系吗？它们确实强调了其中的一些价值观？
And science evolved in the West, right?
科学是在西方发展起来的，对吗？
And out of the church.
并出了教堂。
That’s a very good question.
这是一个很好的问题。
I speculated in one group meeting about a difference between the Old Testament version of Christianity and the New Testament version.
我在一次小组会议上推测旧约圣经版本的基督教和新约圣经版本之间的区别。
And my conjecture was that some of the Old Testament norms were closer to the ones that matter for science.
我的推测是，旧约的一些规范更接近对科学重要的规范。
Christianity really succeeded by competing with other religions, partly because it brought in redemption, forgiveness.
基督教确实通过与其他宗教的竞争而取得了成功，部分原因是它带来了救赎和宽恕。
The New Testament version of Christianity was a softer, kinder form of Christianity.
新约版本的基督教是一种更温和、更仁慈的基督教形式。
It may be the older form of Christianity, which is a tradition shared with Judaism, where there was a little bit more strictness about truth and integrity and more harmful consequences from violations of that.
它可能是基督教的旧形式，它是与犹太教共有的传统，其中对真理和正直的要求更加严格，违反这一点会产生更有害的后果。
It may actually be that earlier tradition that was the one that was most beneficial.
事实上，早期的传统可能是最有益的。
I tried to say this about Old Testament values, and somebody accused me of being anti-Semitic.
我试图谈论旧约价值观，但有人指责我反犹太主义。
I was talking about Christianity, and I was actually saying it was good, so I don’t really quite understand.
我讲的是基督教，实际上是说基督教好，所以我不太明白。
But one has to be a little careful when you talk about these issues.
但当你谈论这些问题时必须要小心一点。
French fiction — what do you find most interesting in that area?
法国小说 — 您觉得该领域最有趣的是什么？
Oh, we have a division of labor in my house.
哦，我们家有分工。
My wife is the one who you should ask about French fiction.
关于法国小说，你应该向我的妻子询问。
Right now, her goal is to get me to read any fiction at all.
现在，她的目标是让我读任何小说。
I’m heavily biased towards nonfiction, and she’s trying to broaden my horizons a little bit.
我对非小说类作品有很大的偏见，而她正试图拓宽我的视野。
But fiction is arguably one of the best ways to understand the norms of a society, right?
但小说可以说是理解社会规范的最佳方式之一，对吧？
Yeah, that’s true.
是的，确实如此。
So what am I going to cite to support that?
那么我要引用什么来支持这一点呢？
A piece of nonfiction.
一篇非小说类作品。
A colleague of mine at NYU who had served as dean for many years — he looked at a large sample of promotion cases, and he then tried to generalize, what are the differences between the humanities and the sciences?
我在纽约大学的一位担任院长多年的同事，他看了一大堆升职案例，然后试图概括，人文学科和理科学科有什么区别？
What makes these things tick?
是什么让这些事情发生？
Where are they similar?
他们哪里相似？
Where are they different?
它们有什么不同呢？
He wrote a really nice book called The Geography of Insight that talks about what’s distinctive about humanities, as opposed to sciences, and how they both contribute to a better understanding of the world that we live in.
他写了一本非常好的书，名为《洞察地理学》，讲述了人文学科相对于科学的独特之处，以及它们如何有助于更好地理解我们所生活的世界。
Last question thread, what did you learn at Burning Man?
最后一个问题，你在火人节学到了什么？
Sometimes physical presence is necessary to appreciate something like scale.
有时，要欣赏规模之类的东西，必须亲自到场。
The scale of everything at Burning Man was just totally unexpected, a total surprise for me, even having looked at all of these pictures and so forth.
火人节上一切的规模完全出乎我的意料，即使看了所有这些照片等等，对我来说也是一个完全的惊喜。
That was one.
那是一个。
Another thing that really stood out, which is not exactly a surprise, but maybe it was the surprise in that group — if you ask, what do people do if you put them in a setting where there’s supposed to be no compensation, no quid pro quo, and you just give them a chance to be there for a week.
另一件真正引人注目的事情，这并不完全是一个惊喜，但也许这是那个群体中的惊喜 —— 如果你问，如果你把人们放在一个没有补偿、没有交换条件的环境中，而你只给他们一个在那里呆一周的机会，他们会做什么。
What do they do?
他们做什么？
They work.
他们工作。
What people do at Burning Man is they go there and they work.
人们在火人节所做的就是去那里工作。
They’ll do a different job, like they’ll work as part of the volunteer police force, or they’ll help maintain sanitation.
他们会做不同的工作，比如作为志愿警察部队的一部分，或者帮助维持卫生。
They’ll work to set up something which offers a service to other people.
他们将努力建立一些为其他人提供服务的东西。
But there’s enormous satisfaction that we draw from accomplishment and the provision of the output that we produce, making it available to others.
但是，我们从成就和提供我们生产的成果并将其提供给他人中获得了巨大的满足感。
If somebody asked me, “What’s a post-scarcity society going to look like?” Somebody actually said this to me there.
如果有人问我：“后匮乏社会会是什么样子？”确实有人对我说过这句话。
He was like, “What does post-scarcity society look like?” People work hard because they like it.
他说：“后匮乏社会是什么样子？”人们努力工作是因为他们喜欢它。
They work on things that they care about and they think others will care about, and that’s an encouraging insight, I think, about people.
他们致力于自己关心的事情，并且认为其他人也会关心，我认为这是关于人的令人鼓舞的见解。
We can leave it at that.
我们就这样吧。
Paul Romer, thank you very much.
保罗·罗默，非常感谢你。
Hope we can do this again someday.
希望有一天我们能再次这样做。
Good.
好的。
My pleasure.
我的荣幸。