Take_100 - 你本就一无所有，快乐吗？

就在那段视频里，我还谈到了债务将会达到什么水平。

Well, in that same video, I talk about what the debt is going to be.

比如，你可以轻松预测十年后国债将达到什么规模。

Like, you can easily predict what the debt is going to be, what the national debt is going to be in ten years.

我回溯了1975、1985、1995、2005、2015和2025年的数据，对2025年的预测分毫不差。

And I just went back to I think I started it in '75, '85, '95, 2005, 2015, 2025, and I was right on the money with 2025.

那只是一年前的事，所以预测准确并不难，因为数据已经摆在那里了。

It was only a year ago, so it wasn't really hard to be right on the money because it already was there.

但它基本上是翻倍的。

But it basically doubles.

就像，它是每年都在翻倍。

Like, it's a it's a doubling every single year.

这是个指数级的增长。

It's it's a exponential equation.

比如在2015年，还只有18万亿美元。

Like, in 2015, it was only $18,000,000,000,000.

今天是37万亿。

It's 37 today.

2005年时大约是9万亿美元。

It was about 9,000,000,000,000 back in 2005.

我记得1995年左右是4万亿美元。

I think it was 4,000,000,000,000 in around 1995.

但如果继续往前追溯，唯一偏离这个规律的是1975到1985年间，那时不是翻倍，而是增长了三倍。

But if you just keep going back, the only time that it deviates from this think it was from 1975 to 1985, in which instead of doubling, it tripled.

我记得是从大约6000亿增长到了2万亿美元，如果我没记错的话大概就是这个范围。

I think it went from, like, 600,000,000,000 to 2,000,000,000,000, if I'm it's somewhere around there.

这些都是粗略估算。

These are all rough ballparks.

实际上，我觉得大约是1.8万亿美元。

Actually, think it's, like, 1,800,000,000,000.0.

但关键是这个趋势一直保持完好，而且只出现过高于预期的情况，这意味着到2035年，债务将达到70到80万亿美元，甚至更糟。

But the point is that this trend has been entirely intact, and it has only deviated on the high side, which means that in 2035, the debt's gonna be 70 to $80,000,000,000,000, if not worse.

再次强调，这列火车无法被阻挡。

And again, there's no stopping this train.

无法逐步缩减规模，因为整个经济结构现在都依赖于现状的持续。

There's no way to taper because the entire structure of the economy is now dependent upon this continuing as is.

否则，那些我们认为能抵御经济衰退、掌控一切且极其强大的主要企业，大部分都将崩溃。

Otherwise, most of the major businesses that we think of as major strong economy defying businesses that just run everything and they're super powerful would implode.

其中很大一部分企业完全不可持续，或者它们将不得不进行如此大规模的重组，以至于面目全非。

A huge portion of them are completely unsustainable, or they would have to restructure so much that they would not look like what they look like.

但如果真如韦伯在这篇文章中所说发生崩溃，那么最终整合的舞台已经搭好。

But if there is actually a collapse, as Webb lays out in this piece, the stage has been set for what is essentially the final consolidation.

这又回到了那个问题：这是场巨大阴谋，还是自然规律使然？我甚至怀疑这两者可能是一回事。

And this is one of those things where it goes back to is this some giant conspiracy, is this just natural incentives, because I almost wonder if those are kind of the same thing.

显然存在一个阴谋，要为当前主宰世界的庞大金融杠杆机器获取尽可能多的抵押品——因为我们所做的一切就是用新杠杆来偿还旧杠杆。

Because obviously there's a conspiracy to get as much collateral behind the massive financial leveraging machine that runs the world right now, because all we're doing is leveraging to pay for our last round of leverage.

但在该体系中前进的唯一方式就是如此，本质上就是用世界上一切资产作为抵押来支撑它。

But the only way to actually move forward in that system is to do that, is to basically back it with everything in the world as collateral.

因为即便以全世界资产作抵押，它仍然资不抵债。

Because it is still insolvent if it backs if if everything in the world is its collateral.

它依然处于水下状态。

It's still underwater.

这意味着维持表象运转的唯一方式就是——这也是我常说的——它必然走向集权化。

Which means that the only way to keep the facade rolling for the this is why I talk about, like, it necessarily centralizes.

因为每次你阻止崩溃、阻止有毒债务清除时，都不得不让更庞大的机构来社会化这些损失——要知道如果是个私企，本不必承担这种社会化损失。

Because every single time you prevent the collapse, prevent the removal of the toxic debt, what you have to do is you have to have a bigger institution essentially socialize the loss, which, you know, if it was a private company, wouldn't necessarily be socializing loss.

但如果你们在印钞，那就是在将损失社会化。

But if you're printing money, it's socializing loss.

它的作用只是将问题推向更高层面，并将那些有毒债务整合成规模更大、绑定更多实际资源的庞然大物。

What it's doing is it's just moving the problem higher up the stack and consolidating those toxic liabilities into something bigger that has more real resources tied into it.

比如想象一个10人社区，其中两人已完全资不抵债。

Like, think about it like there's a neighborhood of 10 people and two of them are completely insolvent.

你唯一能做的就是让持有另外八人资源或储蓄的机构介入。

Well, all you can do is have the institution that holds the other eight people's resources or savings.

要让这些有毒债务表面维持偿付能力的唯一方法，就是用该经济体中更多的实际储蓄和资源来背书。

The only way to actually make the toxic debt toxic debt appear solvent is to have it backed by more of the actual savings and resources that exist in that economy.

但如果最终未能真正纠正行为——因为你救助的正是那个不断制造有毒债务的机构，同时你还使其相对于实际资源贬值——那么结果就是：你实际上制造了更多有毒债务来让他们购买那些资源。

But if it ends up not actually fixing the behavior because you've bailed out the the very institution that was hold that was constantly issuing toxic debt and you actually devalued it against the real resources, well, then the only outcome, you've literally made more toxic debt to get them to purchase those resources.

最终结局就是：整个10人经济体将因层层叠加的债务而失衡破产，因为你始终不允许利率进行修正。

The only eventual outcome is then the entire 10 person economy ends up being out of balance and insolvent as more and more of this is stacked on top of it because you didn't allow the interest rates to correct.

所有相同的行为模式仍将持续存在。

And so all of the same behavior is still going to be there.

事实上你变本加厉了，于是更多债务变成坏账，又有更多债务基于同等规模的资源被发行——因为经济增长速度永远赶不上印钞速度，毕竟你陷入了必须印钞填补坏账损失的恶性循环。

In fact, you've doubled down on all of it, and so more of that debt actually becomes toxic and more of it gets issued against, again, the same amount of resources because the economy is not going to grow as fast as you're going to be able to print money because you've got a compounding problem where you have to print money to cover the losses of the toxic debt.

所以唯一解决方案就是将其社会化给20个勉强具备偿付能力（或接近偿付能力）的群体，让他们消化这个更大的问题。

And so the only fix is to socialize it into some group of 20 people that is actually moderately solvent or close enough that it can absorb this now bigger problem.

这种情况会不断循环往复，规模越来越大。

And this just happens again and again and again, bigger and bigger and bigger.

这就是为什么会出现万业归一的局面。

This is why you get the consolidation of everything.

这就是为什么你把原本500多家银行整合成类似2002年的样子。

This is why you turned what was, you know, 500 whatever it was various banks in kinda like the year 2002.

然后就在全球金融危机之后，大约2010、2011年时，突然就只剩下四家银行了。

And then just after the global financial crisis, like in twenty ten, twenty eleven, suddenly there's like four banks.

这些数字并不精确，但我记得是从几百家减少到屈指可数的几家。

Those numbers aren't accurate, but I remember it went from hundreds to something that you could count on your fingers.

有人做过一个夸张的图表，我把它藏在电脑某个地方，既没正确归档也没加标签，可能就随便用个推特话题当文件名。

Somebody made some wild graphic of it that I've got somewhere hidden in my computer that is not properly allocated or tagged and probably just is like some random Twitter hash or something for the file.

所以我永远找不到它，也不打算去找了。

So I'll never find it and I'm not gonna try to find it.

但总有一天，我要用AI来整理归类、添加标签、转录文字，并对所有资料进行OCR识别。

But one day, one day, I'm gonna have an AI go through and organize and tag and write transcriptions and do OCR on all of my stuff.

其实我正在慢慢搭建这个系统。

I'm actually slowly building that out.

只是最近没什么时间推进。

It's I haven't had much time to work on it.

可能自从上次提起后，这个项目就再没动过。

Probably since the last time I mentioned it, it hasn't even been touched.

但我决定要分阶段完成。

But I've decided I'm gonna do it in pieces.

不打算一次性构建整个系统。

I'm not gonna try to build the whole thing.

只想先搭建个框架，让我能完成第一部分，再继续下一步。

I'm just gonna try to build a structure that lets me get the first piece and then do the next thing.

我打算先对我所有的文件进行哈希处理，建立数据库，这样就能整理好我的媒体文件、RAID硬盘等所有内容，方便查找重复项。

And I think I'm just gonna start with kind of like hashing every file that I have and making a database of it just so that everything in like kinda like my media and my RAID drives and all of that stuff, just so I can find duplicates.

这让我有机会开始构建那个数据库，不过我在考虑是否要用Postgres？

And it gets me a way to kinda start building out that database and, you know, am I gonna use Postgres?

比如，我该怎么设计这个结构，才能让它在任何人的电脑上都能运行？

Like, how am I how am I actually gonna set up the structure of this so that this could be, you know, done on anybody's computer?

而且很可能有人会在我完成前就做好整个项目，说不定还会开源。

And, you know, somebody probably finish and build the entire thing before I do, and it might even be open source.

那就太好了。

That would be great.

请帮我省了这个麻烦吧。

Please save me the work.

但无论如何，或许它就在某个地方，也许某天我会找到它。

But regardless, maybe it's out there somewhere somewhere, and maybe I'll find it one day.

不过它也可能就在互联网上，反正放在我电脑里也是找不到。

But it might as well just be out there on the Internet because it's just as lost on my computer.

但所有这些整合——经济的集中化、平台的集中化、养猪场的集中化、企业化农业和农业结构的集中化，都是因为现在一切都由资本运作，土地价格太高导致人们只能租地耕种。

But all of that consolidation, all of the centralization of the economy, the centralization of the platforms, the centralization of hog farms, of of corporate farming, and the structure of farming, like how because it's all run by financing now, because price of the land is so high that everybody can only rent the land.

整个体系都是如此。

It just all of it.

这一切都形成了具有完全相同目的或结果的反馈循环。

All of it is this feedback loop that has the exact same purpose or the exact same result.

它在每个行业的表现形式略有不同，因为每个行业的需求和资本最集中的领域各不相同。

It manifests and looks slightly different in every single industry because the needs and the where the capital is most allocated in every single industry is different.

要知道，就像播客行业一样，运营成本微乎其微，任何形式的整合都不会对播客运营成本产生实质影响。

You know, it's like in podcasting, the overhead is so tiny that the any sort of consolidation isn't going to account or really matter for the cost of running a podcast.

因为我刚开始做这个播客时，只用iPhone录音。

Because I started this podcast just talking into my iPhone.

实际上我几乎没有任何成本支出。

Like, I practically had no cost whatsoever.

根本不存在运营开销。

There was no overhead.

我投入的只有时间成本。

I just had my time.

但农业领域的整合就截然不同了——土地租赁和管理会形成完全不同的运作模式，因为对农民而言，土地成本是获得收成的最大支出项。

Whereas when you're talking about farming and the consolidation of that, that's gonna happen in a much different way and with a different structure for renting and controlling the land because the land is a massive cost for a farmer to to actually get something to harvest.

而且从开始生产到最终产出的周期极其漫长。

And the time between the beginning of production and its output is huge.

往往需要经历完整的生长季，有时甚至跨越多个季节。

It's whole seasons and multiple seasons sometimes.

以林业为例，这种产业形态就大不相同——十五年期的投资周期，与播客、社交平台或房地产融资相比，各类产业不仅时限差异巨大，生产结构、投入要素也各不相同，但本质上都受相同趋势影响，被同一种激励机制所驱使，最终导致相似的恶果。

So this same manifestation looks very differently if you're talking about tree farming, which is like a fifteen year investment versus podcasting or or a social media platform or financing for housing because all of these things have different time spans, they have different structures, they have different inputs to the production process, but it's literally all suffering from the same tendency, from the same incentive structure that is producing the same bad results.

某种程度上，这种现象与所需融资规模成正比，也取决于金融体系内资金流动导致的价格波动程度。

And it is literally to some degree proportional to the amount of financing that is needed and the degree to which the prices change because of the amount of financing in the system.

事实正是如此。

And it has.

我们别无选择。

There is no alternative.

它必须不断膨胀、不断整合，必须找到越来越多真正的价值和真正的抵押品作为支撑，才能使杠杆持续更长时间。

It has to get bigger and bigger, more and more consolidated, and has to find more and more genuine value and genuine collateral to be used as backing in order for the leveraging to continue on for longer.

所以在某种意义上，我认为它就像癌症一样。

So in some sense, I think it's just like a cancer.

就像，癌症最初可能只有五个细胞，这五个细胞不需要说服任何人。

Like, you don't have to have like, a cancer starts with five cells, the five cells don't have to convince them.

它们一开始不需要有什么宏伟计划，最终却会接管整个身体，耗尽所有资源来滋养癌症。

They don't have to have a master plan at the beginning to eventually take over the entire body and consume all of its resources for the cancer.

癌症自然会这样做。

The cancer will naturally do that.

到了某个时刻，这就成了必然选择，因为这是获取更多资源、避免癌症自我毁灭的唯一途径。

And at some point, that will be the plan because that's the only other way to get more resources to keep the cancer from killing itself.

所以我看到韦伯在这篇文章中剖析的内容时，某种程度上也看到了这个已经建立的体系——它本质上把全球金融系统的全部权益当作抵押品，甚至在将其出售给人们后依然如此。

So there's part of me that looks at what Webb is breaking down in this piece and the structure that has been put in place to basically use the entire world's financial system's worth of, equity as like like, the equity of the world as their collateral even after selling it to people.

这不仅明显充满恶意，他们试图通过掠夺所有人来保全自己，而且由于整个体系的结构，他们其实别无选择。

Is it not only is it clearly malicious and they're trying to save their own asses by trying to steal everything from everyone, but they also don't really have a choice because of how the structure of everything is.

他们确实必须掠夺所有人的一切，因为这是唯一的方法。

They they literally have to steal everything from everybody because it's the only way.

他们的资不抵债如此严重，这是他们避免全面崩盘的唯一出路。

Their their insolvency is so bad that that's the only way to even position it without them losing everything.

这就引出了所有权的本质：如果紧急情况意味着你不再拥有它，那你从来就没有真正拥有过——你只是被允许在无关紧要时使用它，而真正掌控权永远在比你更强大的人手中。

And this is where we get to the idea of ownership is if an emergency situation means that you don't own it anymore, you don't own it at all because you only were granted access when it didn't matter more to somebody else who was more powerful than you.

在银行业巨头与你的生存之战中，他们根本不在乎你一无所有。

In the battle of survival between the banking giants and you, they don't care that you don't own anything.

他们只会保全自己。

Like, they are going to save their own asses.

问题是他们肆无忌惮，行为疯狂，他们的做法意味着我们将面临一个抉择：要么他们活，要么其他人活；要么他们的账户存续，要么你的账户消失。

And the problem is is they're reckless, they're insane behavior, and their practices mean like, we are getting to a point where it is survival of them or everyone else, survival of their accounts or yours.

他们绝不会对自己的决策和架构方式表现出任何模棱两可。

And in no way will they be ambiguous about what their decisions and how they structure things will be.

他们根本不在乎你是否拥有，甚至把这当作销售手段。

They don't care about you own it, They they even use it as a sales tactic.

国际货币基金组织、世界银行、美联储的所有盟友、所有中央银行实体、各大机构和政府在大重构中明确表示——他们甚至打出品牌标语：'你将一无所有，但你会感到幸福'。

They explicitly say in the great reset, this is the IMF, this is the World Bank, this is the the all of the best friends of the Federal Reserve, and all of the central banking entities and all of the major institutions and governments got together for a great reset, and they literally gave it the branding, you will own nothing and you will be happy.

他们毫不掩饰要夺取一切的意图。

They're not even shy about the fact that they're taking everything.

他们只想着只要能存活下来，就会对我们施以小恩小惠。

They just think that as long as they survive, they'll be really nice and they'll give us access.

但这意味着一旦他们犯错，付出代价的将是你。

But what that means is that if they ever do something wrong, you're the one that's gonna pay for it.

失去访问权限的是你。

You're the one that's gonna lose access.

信用破产的是你。

You're the one that's gonna lose credit.

退休金泡汤的是你。

You're the one that's gonna lose a retirement.

度假资金打水漂的是你——而他们将成为受保护的阶级。

You're the one that's going to lose your vacation funds, and they will be the protected class.

我来告诉你我无法相信什么。

I'll tell you what I cannot believe.

那不是真的。

That's not true.

我可以相信。

I can believe.

我经常这么说。

I say that a lot.

要接受他们如此明目张胆很容易，但在某种程度上他们竟能如此明目张胆还是令人惊讶。

It's very easy to accept that they're that blatant, but it is surprising still to some degree that they are that blatant.

就像，你怎么会没有一点自我反省，真的把金融体系中资不抵债的部分单独划出来，建立一种结构，并公开称他们为所谓的'受保护阶层'，却连一点警觉都没有，甚至没有任何警示信号让你觉得，这听起来不太对劲。

Like, how do you not have a little bit of self reflection to genuinely call an insolvent portion of the financial system and put in a structure and openly call them the quote protected class, and not just have like a little bit of like alarm, but like just some sort of flag pop up and be like, you know, that doesn't sound right.

听起来有点像是，我们是不是坏人？

It sounds sounds like a little, are we the baddies?

不是。

No.

因为不可能所有央行和金融机构的人都这么想——我认识一些在这些金融机构工作的人，其中不乏成功人士。

Because there's no way that everybody in all of these central banks and financial institutions like, I know people in some of these financial institutions and successful people in some of these financial institutions.

他们绝不可能这么想。

And there is no way they think about it like that.

可能他们脑海中的框架是某种程度的重要性。

Probably the framing in their mind is some degree of importance.

就像是，'哦，我们不能让这种情况发生，看看会引发多少连锁反应。'

It's like, oh, well, we can't have this because look at all the fallout.

情况会非常糟糕，因为他们确实看到了与经济总量和市场完全绑定的这些事物。

It would be so bad because they do see the amount of the economy and market that are completely tied to these things.

但我真心认为，如果你用马基雅维利式的公开方式表述，这些就是受保护的阶层，而其他所有人都将为此付出代价。

But I genuinely think if you framed it in the very Machiavellian open, these are the protected class and everybody else is gonna have to pay for this.

他们中有些人可能会反应说，什么？

Some of them would go like, what?

是啊。

Yeah.

或许我们不该用那些词，因为那确实...那真的是我们想要采用的表述框架吗？

Maybe maybe we shouldn't use those words because that's that's a you know, is that really is that really the framing we wanna go with?

我有点预见到一个可能让我们形象受损的TikTok视频。

I kind of envision a TikTok that might put us in a bad light.

不过现在我有点超前了，我们在这部分还有很多内容要讨论。

But now I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself, and we have a lot to go through in this piece.

所以我想再引用一段话。

So I I wanna hit another quote.

这段其实还是来自序章部分。

This one's still from the prologue, actually.

这里讲的是量化宽松和全球金融危机爆发时的情况。

So this was talking about when quantitative easing and the global financial crisis hit.

这实际上是在危机爆发前的酝酿阶段。

And this was actually prior to, as they were leading up to this.

而这是该章节中的原话引用。

And this this is the quote from that section.

报告称货币供应量增长急剧下降。

It says money supply growth was falling sharply.

这主要是因为这一情况并未体现在引述中。

And this was largely because in this is not in the quote.

但这就像是，货币供应量增长会在严重紧缩时急剧下滑。

But this is because of, like, money supply growth will fall sharply in a heavily contraction.

这就是人人谈之色变的信贷紧缩。

This is the dreaded credit deflation that everybody worries about.

现代经济学家总说通缩是灾难性的。

And then modern economists will say deflation is terrible.

这就是为什么健全货币体系永远行不通——看看信贷紧缩多可怕。

This is why a sound money can never work because look at how bad credit deflation is.

拜托，那是因为你们在经济中放贷了10万美元，实际上只能负担2万。

It's like, bitch, that's because you've loaned a $100,000 in the economy and and literally you could only afford 20.

所以没错，8万美元就蒸发了。

So yeah, $80,000 disappears.

但这并非健全货币导致的通缩。

But that is not deflation because of sound money.

这种通缩纯粹是因为你们太蠢。

That's deflation because you're an idiot.

言归正传，回到引述部分。

So anyway, back to the quote.

货币供应量增长曾急剧下降。

Money supply growth was falling sharply.

工商业贷款正在减少。

Commercial and industrial loans were falling.

我怀疑资产支持证券和衍生品的增长极不健康，最终必将导致一场巨大的崩盘。

I suspected that the growth in asset backed securities and derivatives was highly unsound, and that inevitably there would be an epic bust.

到了年底，尽管信贷容易获取，但经济压力的迹象却在加剧。

At the end of the year, despite easy availability of credit, signs of economic stress were growing.

但人们并未意识到这点，除了那些直接受到冲击的人。

But people did not understand this, with the exception of those being hurt directly.

从媒体报道的叙事中根本无法察觉这些迹象。

One could not have known from listening to the media narrative.

而只要股市还在上涨，人们就认为形势一定很好。

And if the stock market can be made to go up, people think things must be good.

公用事业账单逾期未付的人数正在增加。

The number of people late in paying their utility bills was increasing.

止赎房屋占未偿还住宅贷款总额的比例正直线攀升至创纪录水平。

Foreclosures as a percentage of total residential loans outstanding were going straight up to record levels.

2004年，我正准备在季度报告中撰写相关内容时，发现彭博系统的DLQTFORE指数已被修改，转而显示止赎率直线下降。

In the 2004, I was preparing to write about this in my quarterly letter, when I found that the DLQTFORE index on the Bloomberg system had been changed to instead show that foreclosures were going straight down.

我让交易台的一位同事去查证这个数据系列被动了什么手脚。

I asked one of the guys on the desk to dig into what had been done to the data series.

他致电负责该数据的机构，最终被告知：虽然自1970年代以来该数据系列一直采用相同方法计算，但最近方法论被更改，且这一变更被追溯应用。

He called into the agency responsible for the data, and eventually he was told that while the data series had been calculated consistently in the same way since the 1970s, the methodology had recently been changed, and that this change had been applied retroactively.

事实上，现在每次数据发布时方法论都在被微调。

Indeed, the methodology was now being tweaked with each data release.

这样做使得发布任何想要的趋势线成为可能。

Doing so made it possible to publish any desired trend line.

9·11事件后，其他重要经济数据系列同样遭到篡改，以符合经济强劲和繁荣增长的剧本。

Post-nineeleven, other important economic data series were being similarly corrupted to fit the script of economic strength and growing prosperity.

政府正在实施前所未有的蓄意虚假信息操作。

An unprecedented level of deliberate government disinformation was being implemented.

作为一个曾投票支持乔治·布什的虔诚共和党人，我深感震撼。

Having been a god and country Republican who had voted for George Bush, I was shaken.

为什么我们自己的政府要误导公众对正在发生之事的认知？

Why would our own government work to give the public a false understanding of what was happening?

啊，我也曾如此天真的岁月。

Oh, the days when I was that naive as well.

这就是根源所在，也是问题如此棘手的原因。

This is the source of, this is why the problem is so hard.

因为问题的核心在于——你该相信谁的数据？

Because if you trust, the core of the issue is whose data do you trust?

当某人每次发布报告或数据时都在调整方法论，那么与过去的数据对比就毫无意义。

And when somebody is tweaking the methodology every single time they release a report or data, well then comparing it to the past makes no sense.

如果你每次测量房屋时使用的卷尺都不同，就不可能通过时间图表观察房屋的变化。

If your tape measure is different every single time you measure your house, then you can't possibly graph that over time to see the change in the house.

这简直是基本常识。

Like, this is basic.

这这这——毫无疑问，这必然是为掩盖真相而实施的有预谋的欺诈。

Like, this this is not there's no way for this not to be purposeful fraud to cover up what was going on.

这就是整个法定货币体系的问题。

And this is the entire fiat thing.

对吧？

Right?

就是让数字看起来合理，然后现实就变成这样了。

It's make the numbers work, and then that will mean the reality is what it is.

而非直面真相——你只是在阻止本应反映现实的系统真正发挥作用。

Rather than the truth of it, that all you're doing is preventing the system that's supposed to show us what's going on in reality from actually doing that.

就像操纵大学毕业生人数统计，或是降低教育标准来增加毕业生数量。

It's like manipulating the statistics for the number of people who graduate college, or dumbing down college to get more graduates.

然后自以为经济中受过良好教育的生产力人口因此增加了，因为你的统计方法只计算毕业生数量。

And then thinking that that means because your number of well educated and productive people in the economy has gone up because you list them, Your methodology is counting the number of graduates.

但实际上，这个数字根本没有增长。

It's like, well, no, you didn't increase that number at all.

你增加的只是颁发给那些未必达标之人的文凭数量。

What you increased was the number of papers that you issued to people who may or may not be that.

但若你刻意操纵数据来夸大这个数字，只会让人们基于谎言做出决策。

But if you manipulated it specifically to inflate that number, all you have done is made people make decisions now based on what is a lie.

这是故意伪造数据来制造虚假繁荣的表象。

It is it's fraudulent data on purpose to give the appearance of a result.

这就是整个法定货币体系的本质。

This is the entire fiat system.

通过操纵货币量来压低利率，因为低利率意味着经济健康。

It's manipulate the amount of money to get the interest rate down because a low interest rate is a healthy economy.

印更多钞票以获得名义增长，因为投资上升意味着经济表现良好。

Print more money to get nominal growth because investments going up means the economy is doing good.

这就是当你试图把经济变成方程式时会发生的事。

And this is what happens when you try to turn the economy into an equation.

你以为只需让方程末尾的I数值上升，就能赢得这场游戏。

And you think that all you need to do is get the I number at the end of the equation up, and then you've won the game.

或者你只需要货币流通速度更快，或GDP更高。

Or you just need the velocity of money to be greater, or the GDP to be higher.

这意味着经济客观上更好了，因为对你而言经济只是个方程式。

And this means that the economy is objectively better because the economy to you is just an equation.

当定性衡量标准——当价值，实际价值（整个经济都建立在人们对自身价值的个体评估基础上，评估什么是值得他们付出生命代价去交换的）

When the qualitative measure, when the value, the actual value, which the entire economy is based on people's individual assessment of what is valuable to them and what is worth the skin in the game trade offs to actually spend their life on.

这意味着如果你不考虑价值，你就什么都没考虑。

Which means that if you don't account for the value, you've not accounted for anything.

这不过是个庞大、美化、自指的点数分配系统。

You're just it's just a giant, glorified, self referential point allocating system.

如果脱离了人们对'值得投入时间精力'的评估，它就毫无意义。

It literally means nothing if it's not attached to people's assessment of what is worth investing their time and energy into.

这些方程式完全没有考虑上述因素。

This takes none of that into account.

所有现代经济方程式和统计数据中，对经济好坏完全缺乏定性衡量。

There is zero qualitative measurement in any of the modern economic equations and stats on what is a good or a bad economy.

这意味着：在一个经济体系里，每天有10人受雇购买并食用人类粪便，然后排出并卖回市场供人再次食用...

Meaning, that an economy where 10 people every day are paid to go buy human feces and eat human feces, and then poop that back out and sell it back to the marketplace where they're going to go to eat it again.

与之相比，那10个人什么都不做，或者他们存钱不是为了购买粪便食用，而是为了日后另作他用，只是现在不花这笔钱。

Comparing that to one where those 10 people literally just do nothing, or they are literally saving their money to instead of buying feces to eat, they're going to actually use it for something else later, but they're just not spending it right now.

根据《现代经济学家》的观点，另一种经济模式更为优越。

According to The Modern Economist, the other economy is the better one.

他的货币流通速度和国内生产总值要高得多。

He has way higher velocity of money and GDP.

但如果市场的这一整块完全是人造的，因为美联储只是任意支撑并为这个循环粪便消化系统提供无限资金，那么这一切都与实际市场的真实需求毫无关系。

But if that whole part of the market is completely artificial because the Federal Reserve is just arbitrarily propping up and giving infinite financing to the circular fecal digestion system, none of it has any relevance at all to what the actual market actually wants.

这纯粹是为了在数学方程式中追求更高的数字而追求更高的数字，而不关心这对实际经济意味着什么。

It is literally just chasing a higher number in your math equation for the sake of getting a higher number, without caring what any of it means for the actual economy.

这正是我想表达并极力强调的，就像克努特的《行动学》一书所探讨的，试图理解现代经济学为何如此崩溃，因为他们有一种奇怪的物理嫉妒，想把经济变成某种机器。

This is exactly what I mean and what I try to stress so much when we, like Knut's book, Praxeology, and trying to understand, like, why modern economics is so broken, is because they think it's this weird physics envy where they want the economy to be some sort of machine.

他们希望经济成为万有引力方程，但它不是。

They want it to be this equation of gravity, but it's not.

它是有机的。

It is organic.

它是有机且主观的。

It is organic and subjective.

而经济的产出，是衡量所有参与者真实切身利益的主观估值。

And what the economy the output of the economy is is the measure of the genuine skin in the game subjective valuations of all of its people.

如果你用一家毫无切身利益的巨型机构的任意决策，取代数百万人的独立价值判断，仅仅为了让我们这个评分系统的某个区域看起来更好，你就彻底颠覆了市场的本质。

If you just replace millions of people's separate valuations of skin in the game with one giant institutions, no skin in the game whatsoever, arbitrary, let's get this point this area of our point system higher so that we look good, you've just undone what the market is.

它的全部目的已被硬盘上的任意数据覆盖——我们只是消耗了更多字节。

Its entire purpose has been overwritten on the hard drive with an arbitrary, we've used up more bytes.

总之，这很有趣。

Anyway, what's it it it's funny.

其中关于金融危机的部分也展示了情况有多糟糕，以及我们现在所处的境地——实际发生的救助规模之大——是多么疯狂，当时的情况确实有多恶劣。

Some of the great financial crisis stuff in this also just shows you how bad it got and how crazy really it is that that we are where we are now to the degree of bailout that actually occurred and how, like, how bad the situation genuinely was.

这一点让我深受触动。

And this one was this one just hit me.

文中引用道：‘这得以实现要归功于精妙的诡辩术和信用违约互换（CDO）——格林斯潘口中的现代金融奇迹。’

It says, quote, this was enabled with remarkable sophistry and with credit default obligations or CDOs, quote, miracles of modern finance as Greenspan called them.

当被问及风险敞口时，他说：‘风险理应由最有能力承担的人来承担。’

When questioned about the risk exposures, he said, presumably the risk will be borne by those best able to bear that risk.

为此奠定基础的是罗伯特·鲁宾和拉里·萨默斯，他们与《时代》杂志封面的‘拯救世界委员会’成员格林斯潘一起，主导废除了自1933年起分离商业银行与投资银行的《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》关键条款。

In laying the groundwork for this, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers had joined Greenspan, billed by Time Magazine and as the Committee to Save the World, that had presided over the repeal of key sections of the Glass Steagall Act, which had separated commercial and investment banking since 1933.

到2002年，未平仓衍生品名义金额已达到全球经济规模的两倍。

By 2002, the notional amount of derivatives outstanding had reached twice the size of the global economy.

仅仅六年后，这个数字就膨胀到全球GDP的十倍。

Just six years later, it had reached 10 times global GDP.

其中约10%是信用违约互换产品。

About 10% of this was credit default obligations.

仅CDO的规模就达到了全球GDP总量。

CDOs alone had reached the size of global GDP.

深入研究全球金融危机就会发现，情况恶化得有多严重、多迅速，简直令人难以置信。

Digging into the global financial crisis just it is wild how bad it got and how quick.

基本上，在接下来的章节里他谈到：那么到底是谁在买这些信用违约互换（CDS）或信用违约互换（CDO）呢？

And basically, the section shortly down from this, he talks about, like, know, so who the hell was buying these credit default swaps or credit default obligations, the CDOs?

因为问题是当时有大量这些低评级的分级债券，华尔街无法销售这些大批低评级资产。

Because the thing is is there were a lot of these low rated tranches, like these these big batches of stuff that Wall Street couldn't sell because they were low rated.

没人想要它们。

Nobody wanted them.

于是他们引入了这些信用违约互换，有人通过承担信用风险来获取保费。

So what they did is they added in these credit default obligations where somebody was just paying for or getting a premium for the for the taking on the credit risk.

但如果把它们与不良信贷打包在一起，就能将整个组合评为AAA级。

But then if they were batched with the bad credit, they could rate the whole thing together as triple a.

这就是评级这些产品时最荒谬的地方——所有人都盲目相信'这是AAA级，所以我要买'。

And this is where the the complete absurdity of rating all of these things, and everybody just kind of like blindly, oh, this is triple a, so I'm gonna buy this.

他们向这个市场注入了巨额资金，并不断在上面加码。

And the amount of money that they got to flood into this thing, and the amount that they just continued to put on top of this.

本质上他们创造的是：'这是个垃圾投资，但里面混着有人做空的交易'。

Because they basically made it it was it's kind of like this, oh, here's this really crappy investment, but here's a short play that somebody's buying mixed in with it.

所以没关系。

So it's okay.

如果它崩盘或完蛋也无所谓，因为整个组合里包含做空对冲。

If it crashes or it dies, then it's fine because the whole thing together has a short.

同时还包含对它的反向押注。

It has a bet against it as well.

好吧。

Okay.

那他妈到底是谁在承担违约风险？

So who the hell is betting who who the hell is taking the default risk?

如果这一切都完蛋了，到底是谁在买这些玩意儿？

If this all goes belly up, who the hell is buying those?

最终人们发现，正是那些最大的银行自己，被允许或指示成立了对冲基金子公司。

Eventually it was possible to know that it had been the biggest banks themselves, and that they had been allowed or directed to form hedge fund subsidiaries.

这些实体显然热情高涨地承担了违约风险，因为他们知道年底可以使用估值模型，基于‘从未发生过违约’这种简单逻辑，证明不存在违约风险。

These entities had apparently enthusiastically taken on the default risk knowing that they would be allowed to use valuation models at year end showing that there was no default risk based on the simplistic logic that there had never been a default.

他们实际上分割业务，成立对冲基金子公司来安置所有这些，然后继续加杠杆，并评级为无违约风险，只因历史上未曾违约。

They were literally they they segmented out, they made hedge fund subsidiaries to place all of this, and then continued to up the leverage and rated it as no default risk because there had not been a default.

这就像你不停地办信用卡。

That's like you keep buying credit cards.

你不断办新卡刷爆，然后再办一张继续刷爆。

You keep getting credit cards and filling them up and then get another credit card and you fill it up.

然后你声称能持续这么做的理由是你从未在任何一张卡上违约过。

And then you claim that the reason you can keep doing this is because you have yet to default on any of your credit cards.

而这个规模——它不是美国经济的几倍。

And the scale of this, it wasn't it wasn't multiples of The US economy.

不是金融行业的几倍。

It wasn't multiples of the finance industry.

而是全球GDP的几倍。

It was multiples of global GDP.

就像，法币体系不是稍微有点失衡。

Like, the fiat system isn't a little bit out of balance.

这不是个小问题。

It's not a little bit problem.

这个数字之所以天文般庞大，是因为它与现实世界毫无联系。

It's astronomical because there is no tether to the real world.

它完全脱离了实际存在的一切——从资源分配方式、价值评估标准到杠杆运用手段。

It is completely detached from all of the stuff that actually exists when it comes to how things are being allocated, and how things are being evaluated, and how things are being leveraged.

这种恶性循环永无止境，直到虚假数字糟糕到必须用全体民众的资产作抵押，才能勉强维持那看似可持续实则恐怖的杠杆率——而这一切不过是为下一次万亿级'储备金'印钞做铺垫。我们不断重复这个游戏，每次只是在数字末尾多加个零。这疯狂现象其实与我想要制作的视频主题相关：全球GDP十倍杠杆的根本问题，与零售支付体系毫无关系。

It's just endless until even the fake numbers get so bad that they have to take what all normal of people own as collateral just to get it back in some margin of really awful, horrible, terrible leverage that seems more sustainable for a short span of time before they just print themselves again into trillions and trillions of dollars of quote unquote reserves and we do this again we do this again with another zero on the end basically just so crazy and this actually goes back to the video that I want to make and try to make sense of it is that none of that problem, like the size of this problem, the 10 times leveraged to global GDP, that is not an issue with retail payments.

无论你在零售支付主权上做多少改进，只要解决不了万亿级金融交易的杠杆问题——只要没有能锚定现实的超大规模价值载体——

Like, and no matter how much you fix sovereignty of retail payments, if you cannot solve the leveraging of the largest financial transactions, of the fact that there is nothing that scales up to something of trillions of dollars to keep it grounded in reality.

你就永远无法实现真正的货币健全。

If you can't do that, then you have no way to actually secure sound money.

届时你们所谓的'零售主权'将毫无意义——这正是比特币可能被俘获的漏洞所在。

And all of your quote unquote retail sovereignty doesn't matter because that is how Bitcoin would be captured.

货币体系就是这样被攻陷的：你可以盗取万亿资产，却难偷走100美元现金或等值黄金。

That is how the money is captured such that you can you can steal a trillion dollars, but it's hard to steal a $100 if you've got it in physical cash or you've got it in physical gold.

黄金体系的崩溃源于万亿级交易，而非五十美元的小额支付。

Gold failed because of the trillion dollar transactions, not because of the $50 transactions.

实体货币在消费者零售支付领域的有效性，远超过它在巨型机构国际结算中的持续时间。

Physical coins worked for consumer and retail payments far longer than it did for huge international settlements, exchanges between huge institutions, powerful, you know, the church and the government.

正是在这个层级，信贷彻底脱离了现实根基。

That is the layer where credit got totally divorced from the on the ground reality.

由于情况恶化到如此地步，他们建立了这样的结构：当整个体系崩溃时，金融系统中所有人拥有的资产都将作为抵押品赔付给他们。

And because of how bad this has gotten, they have set up a structure in which everything that everybody owns in the entire financial system is basically up for collateral to be paid to them when it all goes bust.

这个结局注定会发生——因为它从未与现实真正连接。

And it necessarily has to, because it was never connected to reality.

这从来就不是可持续的。

It was never sustainable.

这是我标注的另一个部分，我非常喜欢这个解释。

This is another section that I highlighted, and I really like this explanation.

说道：为了向你们说明发生了什么，让我用一个比喻开始。

Says, In order to convey to you what has been done, let me start with an analogy.

假设你用现金购买了一辆汽车。

Let's say that you have purchased an automobile for cash.

由于车辆没有负债，你认为自己已经完全拥有它。

Having no debt against the vehicle, you believe that you now own it outright.

尽管如此，汽车经销商却被一个新发明的法律概念允许将你的车视为其资产，并用作抵押来为自己借款。

Despite that, the auto dealer has been allowed by a newly invented legal concept to treat your car as his asset and to use it as collateral to borrow money for his own purposes.

现在汽车经销商破产了，你的车辆连同经销商卖出的所有其他车辆都被某些有担保的债权人没收，无需司法审查，因为法律上已确定他们在经销商破产时有权立即收回你的车。

Now the auto dealer has become bankrupt and your vehicle along with all of the others sold by the dealer are seized by certain secured creditors of the dealership, with no judicial review being necessary, as legal certainty was previously established that they have absolute power to take your car in the event of the bankruptcy of the dealer.

需要明确的是，我并不是在说你的车。

Now to be clear, I am not talking about your car.

我是在揭示这个谎言的可怕与简单。

I am illustrating the horror and simplicity of the lie.

你被引导相信自己拥有某物，但别人却秘密地将其作为抵押品控制，并且他们已经确立了法律确定性，可以在破产时立即夺走它——不是你的破产，而是那些秘密将你财产作为抵押品的人的破产。

You are led to believe that you own something, but someone else secretly controls it as collateral, and they have now established legal certainty that they have absolute power to take it immediately in the event of insolvency, and not your insolvency, but insolvency of the people who secretly gave them your property as collateral.

这看起来不可能，但全球所有可交易金融工具正是这样被操作的。

It does not seem possible, but this is exactly what has been done with all tradable financial instruments globally.

这方面的证据绝对无可辩驳。

The proof of this is absolutely irrefutable.

现在可以开始了。

This is wired to go now.

好的。

Alright.

我想解释一下，我喜欢用汽车作类比，但我想尝试描绘一个不同的画面来说明原因。

So I want to explain I like the analogy with the car, but I I I wanna try to paint a a different picture of exactly why.

因为我不得不承认，我当时有点困惑，比如清算银行，就像中央清算方。

And because I have to admit, I was a little bit I was like, okay, a clearing bank, like a clearing central clearing party.

你知道，我大概知道他们是做什么的，但又不完全清楚具体细节。

You you know, like like, I I know what they do, but I don't know what they do.

他们具体承担的是什么职责？

Like, what's the what is the thing that they take on?

他们存在的真正意义是什么？

Like, why do they really exist?

他们的核心角色就是充当'别担心钱在他们那里'的保障者，或者说'别担心证券会转移，你将在两个实体间收到这笔款项'，无论是银行还是对冲基金之间。

And so their whole role is to be basically the don't worry they have the money guy, or don't worry, this security is going to be shifted to you're going to get this payment between one entity and another, between one bank or a hedge fund and another one.

他们实质上是通过承担信用风险来完成实体间的交易结算。

They are the ones that literally take the credit risk in order to settle a transaction between one entity and another.

因此他们是审核者、中间人、交易对手方，其职能就是承担结算和对手方风险。

So they are the vetters, they are the middleman, they are the counterparty, that their function literally is to take on settlement and counterparty risk.

所以我提到摩根大通的案例，或者说他提出摩根大通的例子，正是为了说明这种情况有多么荒谬。

And so the case that I talk about with JPMorgan or that he brings up with JPMorgan and why this is, like, setting a precedent of how crazy this is.

因为他们是雷曼兄弟的清算银行，而雷曼兄弟作为巨型清算银行显然承担着大量业务。

Because they were Lehman Brothers clearing bank, which means that if Lehman Brothers is doing any and obviously, they're a huge clearing bank.

这家银行整体规模庞大，由于其高度集中化的系统特性，已成为整个金融体系的系统性隐患。

They're a huge bank in general that is, you know, system because of how horribly centralized it is, they are a systemic problem for the entire financial system.

因为正是这些清算机构的存在，使得银行能够接受来自其他网络的交易，或脱离其自身生态圈进行交易，而无需直接承担对方银行的偿付风险——除非他们直接投资了该银行。

Because they are the reason those clearing parties are the reason why a bank can accept a transaction from a different bank, basically, out of their network or out of their their bubble without being subject to the solvency of that bank unless they directly invest in the bank.

但如果只是与银行进行交易，由于清算机构会确保双方都具备结算所需的相应资产和资本，并在出现问题时承担风险，因此交易仍能顺利完成。

But if they're just doing transactions with the bank, it is settled because the clearing party is ensuring that both parties have the relevant assets necessary, the relevant capital to settle this transaction, and they take on the risk in the case of something going wrong.

但问题在于：

But here's the thing.

当前系统中以资金形式流转的负债规模已达到了天文数字级别。

There's such an astronomical amount of liabilities that are being exchanged as if they're funds.

基本上，由于整个体系完全建立在信用货币基础上，所有人都面临着偿付能力不足的风险。

Like, nobody there's basically, everybody's at risk of insolvency because there's no way to it it's it's fiat all the way down.

所有参与者都处于过度杠杆状态，包括清算机构也不例外。

Everybody is overleveraged, including the clearing parties.

实际上他们并没有足够的抵押物，因为系统中流动的资金量已远超实际存在的任何资产价值。

They don't actually have enough collateral because there's not enough there's more money moving around in the system than actual value of anything that exists.

这就像一场100人参加但只有20把椅子的抢椅子游戏。

So it is literally a game of musical chairs where there's, like, a 100 people walking around and there's only 20 chairs.

只要同时坐下的人数不超过20人，只要音乐永不停止，我们就能继续假装游戏还在正常进行。

And as long as more than 20 people at one time don't sit down, as long as the music never stops, we can keep pretending that it's working.

关键在于，他们这样做的动机是能够出售100把根本不存在的椅子。

And importantly, the reason they're all doing this is because they get to sell a 100 chairs when only 20 exist.

他们可以用仅有的20把椅子作为抵押放出100把椅子的贷款，并从中获利。

They get to loan out a 100 chairs when only 20 exist, and they get to make a return.

他们能从100把根本不存在的椅子中抽取5%或10%之类的利润。

They get to make their 5% or 10% or whatever it is off of a 100 chairs even though they don't exist.

只需从个人角度思考这个问题。

Just think about it from an individual perspective.

如果你存了10万美元并想获得回报，就必须把钱借给别人，然后他们以5%、10%之类的利率还给你。

If you've saved up a $100,000 and you want to make a return on that, you have to lend it to somebody, and they pay you back, you know, 5%, 10%, whatever it is.

就像你想通过承担风险的本金赚取相应比例的回报。

Like, you wanna make that that percentage back on the capital that you have risked for this.

但如果你能直接加杠杆呢？

But what if you could just leverage it up?

如果能免费加杠杆直接印钱呢？

What if you could leverage it up for free and you could just print?

你突然就能拥有80万美元。

You could just suddenly have $800,000.

要知道，80万美元的5%可比10万美元的5%多出八倍。

Well, then, you know, 5% on $800,000 is a lot is eight times more than 5% on a $100,000.

只要没人违约，你确实可以一直这么操作。

And as long as nobody defaults, well, yeah, you can just keep doing that.

实际上，如果他们只是投资某些资产，而你告诉他们投资这些资产——由于你刚印了70万美元来追逐这些资产，资产价值就会上涨，形成自我实现的逻辑，最终只有不参与这个游戏的人会变穷。

And in fact, if they're gonna just invest it in some asset and you tell them, you know, invest in these assets and those assets go up in value because you just printed $700,000 to chase those assets, becomes self fulfilling logic, and it's just everybody who's not playing this game who gets poor.

但归根结底，支撑这一切的真实价值只有10万美元。

But at the end of the day, there's only a $100,000 worth of genuine stuff that's backing all of this.

让我快速读一下这部分内容，这样我们能有基本的背景认知。

So let me just read this section real quick before just so we have kind of the context.

文件指出，新的安全港制度通过围绕雷曼兄弟破产案的法庭程序，被确立为判例法。

It says, the new safe harbor regime was cemented into case law with the court proceedings around the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers.

在破产前夕，摩根大通作为客户资产的托管人，以有担保债权人的身份占有了客户资产。

In the lead up to the failure, JPMorgan had taken client assets as a secured creditor while being the custodian for these client assets.

根据长期适用的破产法，这显然构成具有欺诈性偏好的财产转移，使内部人士受益。

Under long standing bankruptcy law, this would clearly have been constructively fraudulent preference transfer, benefiting an insider.

因此，资产被占用的客户对摩根大通提起了诉讼。

And so, JPMorgan was sued by clients whose assets were taken.

我将引用律师事务所向美国破产法院提交的为摩根大通辩护的备忘录。

I'll cite the following memorandum filed in defense of JPMorgan by the law with the US Bankruptcy Court.

安全港条款自设立之初的目的，就是通过保护这些市场中的交易不受破产程序干扰，来促进规模庞大且天生不稳定的金融市场的稳定性。

Purpose of the Safe Harbors from their inception has been to promote stability in large and inherently unstable financial markets by protecting transactions in those markets from being disturbed during a bankruptcy.

正如原始安全港条款的立法历史所解释的，清算所掌握着数百万美元资金，其财务稳定性若面临撤销权主张将受到严重威胁。

As explained in the legislative history of the original Safe Harbor, the financial stability of the clearinghouses with often millions of dollars at their disposal would be severely threatened by exposure to avoidance claims.

同样，试图撤销清算所保证金支付的行为可能引发市场其他参与者连锁破产，危及整个行业。

As well, actions to avoid margin payments made by clearinghouses could set off a chain reaction of insolvencies among all other market participants, threatening the entire industry.

法院判决支持摩根大通的观点，认为安全港条款适用于本案，为维护市场稳定，应严格按照条款字面意思执行。

The decision of the court agrees with JPMorgan that the safe harbors apply here, and it is appropriate for these provisions to be enforced as written and applied literally in the interest of market stability.

涉案交易正是那种应当豁免于破产法院依据更宽松标准（如推定欺诈性转移或偏颇清偿责任）进行干预的合约安排。

The transactions in question are precisely the sort of contractual arrangements that should be exempt from being upset by a bankruptcy court under the more lenient standards of constructive fraudulent transfer or preference liability.

这些是市场财务困境时期，成熟金融机构之间具有系统重要性的交易。

These are systemically significant transactions between sophisticated financial players at a time of financial distress in the markets.

换言之，这正是安全港条款设计的适用场景。法院必须首先考虑摩根大通是否符合第546条规定的保护资格。

In other words, the precise setting for which the safe harbors were intended, The court must first consider whether JPMorgan is eligible for protection under section five forty six.

如同安全港条款普遍适用的那样，该小节仅适用于特定类型的合格实体。

Subsection, like the safe harbors generally, applies only to certain types of qualifying entities.

摩根大通显然是全球领先的金融机构之一，属于受保护类别成员，同时具备金融机构和金融参与者的双重资格。

JPMorgan is one of the leading financial institutions in the world, quite obviously, a member of the protected class, and qualifies as both a financial institution and a financial participant.

好的。

Okay.

那么这意味着什么？

So what does that mean?

他们曾是雷曼兄弟的清算银行，也是雷曼兄弟向客户出售资产的托管方。

They were the clearing bank for Lehman Brothers, and they were the custodian for the assets that Lehman Brothers sold to their clients.

所以他们做了什么？

So what did they do?

这里提到的是内幕人士的交易。

The the reference to the the trade of an insider.

既然你们都是比特币玩家，或许用比特币来解释这个问题最合适。

Since you guys are a bunch of Bitcoiners, this is probably Bitcoin is the best way to actually explain this.

假设你有一家经营交易所的业务。

Is imagine you have a business that sold you have there's an exchange.

这个交易所就叫比特币交易所，你去那里购买比特币。

It's called it's called the Bitcoin exchange, and you go up there and you buy Bitcoin.

他们有个托管方，比方说是BitGo，代表他们为你保管比特币。

And they have a custodian, let's say it's BitGo, who is holding Bitcoin for them, for you.

就像在你的账户里存有3个比特币，这些币由BitGo托管。

Like, in your account, you have 3 Bitcoin, and that is being held by BitGo.

他们是托管方。

They are the custodian.

但重要的是，比特币交易所的资金和资产也由这个实体——BitGo保管。

But importantly, the Bitcoin exchanges funds and assets are also being stored with this entity, with BitGo.

所以他们某种程度上能掌握内部情况。

And so they kinda have an inside view as to what's going on.

他们持有这些资产。

They have the assets.

他们代表被出售的客户以及机构本身持有资产。

They're holding assets on behalf of the clients that are sold to as well as the institution itself.

但这家比特币交易所经营状况不佳。

But the Bitcoin exchange is not doing really well.

他们的商业运作很薄弱，看起来即将倒闭，公司可能面临破产，客户会想要赎回、提取他们所有的比特币。

Their business practices are weak, and it's starting to look like they're going to go under and clients there's gonna be a bankruptcy on the company itself, and clients are gonna want to redeem, withdraw all of their Bitcoin.

在这发生之前，BitGo预见到这种情况即将发生，于是冻结了资金。

Before this happens before this happens, BitGo sees that this might occur, and this is about to happen, and so they freeze the funds.

他们甚至在对方正式宣布破产前就先没收了该实体的资金，这样这些资金就无法在破产程序中支付给客户。

They immediately confiscate the funds from the entity before they're even fully before they've actually declared bankruptcy so that it cannot be paid out in bankruptcy to the clients.

所以他们基本上是在夸大其词。

So they basically exaggerate.

他们基本上就是在对方破产前窃取了资金，尽管他们本是代表对方行事的托管方。

They basically just steal the funds from them beforehand even though they are the custodian that is doing it on their behalf.

这些资金在法律上并不属于他们。

It's legally not owned by them.

他们欠企业的，企业又欠客户的。

They owe it to the business, and the business owes it to clients.

他们没收这些资产，是因为不想承担那家机构的信用风险——该机构通过中间人账户与其他方进行交易。

They confiscate it because they don't want to be subject to to the credit risk of that institution that's doing trades with other people through their through their, you know, balances in this in this this middleman.

因此他们预先窃取了机构资金和客户资产，尽管承担这种信用风险本就是他们的职责所在。

And so they pre steal the institution's funds and the client funds of the institution because they're too important when their whole job is to take on that credit risk.

所以在摩根大通的案例中，那些资产实际存放在公司的客户——雷曼兄弟原本能够履约的客户。

So clients whose assets were actually there in the company, In in the context of JPMorgan, clients who Lehman Brothers could actually fulfill.

原本雷曼可以归还客户应得的证券、现金及其他资产，但这些全在破产前被窃取，以确保摩根大通不会倒闭。

They could have actually given them their securities and the money and the assets that they owe them, had them all stolen prior to the bankruptcy so that JPMorgan did not go under.

在整个过程中，摩根大通对这些资产从未拥有过合法债权。

And at no point during any of this does JPMorgan have any legal claim on these assets.

他们只是个托管人。

They're just a custodian.

法院支持这一裁决，因为摩根大通太重要了。

And the court upheld it because JPMorgan is too important.

所以当面临是你还是摩根大通会破产的问题时，金融系统中的一切都会流向摩根大通，无论你是否拥有它。

So when it comes to whether or not you are going to go insolvent or JPMorgan is going to go insolvent, Anything in the financial system is going to go to JPMorgan whether you own it or not.

这就是整个体系的运作方式。

And this is how the whole thing is structured.

想象一下，我卖给你一套房子，全款现金交易，没有贷款，你完全拥有它。

So this is like imagine I sold you a house, straight up cash, no mortgage, you own it outright.

然后我离开后变得极其鲁莽，与一家机构合作，这家机构为我开出的所有支票提供担保。

And then I go off and I'm being super reckless, and I'm working with an institution that is guaranteeing all the checks I'm making.

我正在开出无法兑现的支票，而这家机构实际上承担了风险，因为他们的职责就是担保这些支票，但他们根本没有进行任何尽职调查来确认我确实有资金兑现这些支票。

I'm I'm writing checks that I can't cash, and this institution is literally taking on the risk because that's their job of guaranteeing those checks, and they're not doing any due diligence whatsoever to say that I actually do have the cash to cash those checks.

他们的职责就是拥有资产，确保如果我没法兑现这些支票时，他们可以代为兑现，这样所有人都安全。

And their job is to literally have assets to make sure that if my ass can't cash those checks, they can cash those checks and everybody's safe.

但他们却无法为那些他们明知我根本没有资金兑现的支票提供资金支持。

And they can't back up the cash of the cash that I'd that they know I don't have for those checks.

本质上，我和合作的这家机构正在实施欺诈。

Basically, me and the institution I'm working with are committing fraud.

但碰巧这家机构还负责市政厅的房产登记，决定谁拥有哪栋房子。

But it just so happens that this institution also maintains the ledgers at city hall that determine who owns what house.

他们为市政府提供同样的服务，这样如果市政府要与他人交易房产，都可以通过这家机构完成清算和结算。

And they provide this same function function for the city so that if the city is trading property with somebody else, it can all be cleared and settled through this institution.

除了你之外，所有人都深陷债务，因为你刚全款买了房子。

All of them are underwater except you because you just bought a house outright.

但字面意义上，就是字面意思，因为他们太重要了。

But literally, literally, because they're too important.

如果他们破产，房产登记就会变更成房子归他们所有而不是你。

If they go under, they get a change in the registry that they own the house and not you.

如果他们因自身的鲁莽和欺诈而倒闭，他们就能无缘无故地拿走你的房子。

If they fail to their own recklessness and fraud, they get your house for literally no reason.

整个体系设计得让你实际上并没有真正买下那栋房子。

And the structure is such that you didn't actually buy that house.

房产登记和你拥有这个地址的事实，都只是表象，掩盖了你只是从大型机构那里分配到了一个可替代的住房单元这一本质。

The registry and the fact that you own the address and all of that is just a facade on top of the fact that you bought a single fungible housing unit that is being allocated to you from the large institution.

从法律上讲，在金融体系中没有人真正拥有任何东西，因为如果资不抵债的银行最终破产，它们将接管一切。

Legally, in the financial system, no one actually owns anything, because if the insolvent banks turn out to be insolvent, they own all of it.

他们已向公众全额出售股权、证券和各种金融工具，但最终会全部收回，因为他们开出的支票根本无法兑现——但这些机构太重要了，而你的所有权已无关紧要。

They have sold equity and securities and instruments outright, full price paid to all of the people, to the population, and they will snatch it right back because they are writing checks that their ass can't cash, but their ass is too important, and your ownership doesn't matter anymore.

你实际上什么都不拥有，因为一切都是信用体系，你根本无法掌握任何资产的真正控制权。

You literally already own nothing because it is all credit, because you literally cannot hold the keys to anything.

在全球金融体系中，每一个金融工具本质上都是'非你的密钥，非你的货币'。

This is actually not your keys, not your coins on a global scale with every single instrument in the financial system.

从结构上看，如果黑石集团或其清算银行倒闭，我不认为有人真正拥有比特币ETF的所有权。

And understand the way it sounds this is structured, I don't see how anybody actually owns a Bitcoin ETF either if BlackRock or their clearing bank is going under.

这只是个ETF。

It's a ETF.

这是个金融衍生品。

It's a financial instrument.

这不是真正的比特币。

It's not real Bitcoin.

这是法币体系的终局。

This is fiat in its endgame.

如果一切都由法令决定，那么当房间里最重要的人下令时，没有人能真正拥有任何东西。

If everything is by decree, then nobody owns anything if the wrong if the most important person in the room decrees it so.

而且他们已经改变了全球的法律框架。

And they they've changed the laws around the whole world.

想想这有多疯狂。

Think about how crazy that is.

所有人的资产，整个金融体系中每个人所拥有的一切，都毫无理由地成为了他们的抵押品——不是因为他们购买了这些资产，不是因为他们通过正当途径获得，而是他们单方面宣称这些资产价值相当甚至数倍于实际，尽管事实并非如此。仅仅因为他们自诩‘至关重要’，就要求用你们的所有来为他们的谎言买单。

Everybody's assets, everything that everyone owns in the entire financial system is their collateral for absolutely no reason, not because they purchased it, not because they earned it for no other reason, then they're guaranteeing that they have value equal to that and many multiples even though they don't and they're too important, so their lies have to be paid for with whatever it is that you own because they're too important.

这简直荒谬至极。

That is insane.

而当前局面的一个重要发展节点，实际上曾被法院搁置审理。

And a major development leading up to the state that it is currently in was actually held up in court.

法院确立的先例是：摩根大通作为客户托管方（或是另一家银行的托管方）——该银行已向客户出售资产、股权和证券——却在对方机构破产前窃取其资金与资产。试想，若因预判某机构将破产就窃取其资金，这行为本身就会导致该机构破产。

The precedent was set that JPMorgan as the custodian of clients or of a of different bank that has sold their asset to sold equity and securities to clients that prior to that other institution's bankruptcy, they stole their funds and their assets, which will make a that'll make a firm go bankrupt if you if you steal their money because you think they're gonna go bankrupt.

确实如此。

That'll do it.

更重要的是，他们窃取了曾向客户承诺并出售的资产。客户提起诉讼是因为雷曼兄弟实际持有的所有资产、破产本应偿还债权人的所有证券，最终却都流向了清算方。

And more importantly, they steal what they have promised to clients and sold to them, And the clients sued because all the assets that that Lehman Brothers actually had, all of the securities that in bankruptcy should go to the people they owed it to went to the clearing party instead.

这就好比——假设Bigo持有数万甚至数十万（具体数量无人知晓）...

So this is literally like, you know, Bigo holds tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of don't even know.

惊人数量的比特币，这些比特币来自大量不同交易所和金融合作伙伴。

Just an astonishing amount of Bitcoin for, like, a ton of different exchanges and, you know, financial partners.

这种情况就如同：BitGo发现某些交易所可能破产或经营不善时，就直接没收所有比特币。

This would be as if BitGo started to see that some of these exchanges might go bankrupt or that these companies aren't doing very well, and BitGo just seizes all of the Bitcoin.

那些公司的所有客户在破产时将一无所得，只因Bigo擅自窃取了资产。

And all of the clients of those companies get nothing in bankruptcy just because Big O's stole it.

为什么？

Why?

仅仅因为Bigo自认‘过于重要’。

Just just because of Big O's too important.

整个行业都依赖于他们。

The whole industry depends on them.

问题在于这实在太疯狂了。

The problem with this is it it's so insane.

人们不会相信的。

People won't believe it.

他们会激烈反驳，因为这太荒谬了。

They they will refute like, because that is nuts.

正如他所指出的，我们对此已有先例。

And as he laid out, we have precedents for this.

我们还没这么做。

We haven't done it.

从未在这种规模上实施过。

It's never been done on this scale.

但大萧条正是这样发生的——他们没收了黄金。

But the great depression is exactly what happened, and they confiscated the gold.

他们竭尽所能，甚至要获取体系外的资产。

They they did everything they can to even get assets that were outside of the system.

但由于一切都被金融化、数字化，这简直像是放大了100倍。

But since everything has been financialized, everything has been digitized, it's literally like that on it's like a 100 x.

规模扩大了上千倍，这个系统建立的完备程度，以及默认的即时反应将是这些实体吞噬金融体系内的所有资产。

It's like a thousand x the scale, and the degree of completeness that this system is set up, and the the the default and immediately response will be the consumption of every asset in the financial system by these entities.

就像大萧条只是一次预演。

It's like the Great Depression was a trial run.

这太疯狂了。

It's just wild.

简直不可思议。

It's so crazy.

这正是比特币在此情境下如此强大的原因——因为它是你真正能掌握密钥的东西。

This is exactly why Bitcoin is so unbelievably powerful in this context because it's the one thing that you can actually hold keys for.

用比特币你确实可以全身而退。

You can actually exit with Bitcoin.

你知道，我觉得自己应该远离股市，不该持有金融体系里的任何资产，因为我根本不信任它。

You know, I felt like I should stay out of the stock market and I shouldn't own anything in the financial system because I didn't trust it.

但天啊，我没想到情况会糟糕到这种地步。

But holy crap, I didn't think it was this bad.

我本不会想到，所有资产实际上都有一条直接路径——用他们的话说——为了维持清算所运转，清算方的失职竟可能导致全体民众被牺牲。

I would not have considered it as, like, the totality of everything, like, of all assets actually having a direct path to, quote, unquote, keeping the it's it's literally all population can be shot in order to keep the clearing houses alive due to the irresponsibility of the clearing parties.

太离谱了。

Just crazy.

不过我已经抱怨够久了，我要结束这个话题，Rad正在找我。

But I've, ranted long enough, so I'm gonna I'm gonna close this one out, and Rad's looking for me.

我要去陪他一会儿。

I'm gonna go spend some time with him.

这几天简直一团糟，家里还有几个人病倒了。

It's been a crazy couple of days, and we got a couple members of the house that are sick.

不过伙计，这真是篇重磅内容。

So, but, man, what a piece.

再次声明，我不记得是谁指引我找到这个的，但对他们表示万分感谢。

Again, I don't remember who directed me to this, but a huge thank you to them.

我很高兴找到了这个。

I'm glad I found this.

而且我很高兴自己一无所有——我庆幸自己摆脱了所有退休金、2001年4月的那些事以及诸如此类的麻烦。

And I'm glad I do not have any I'm glad I crashed out all my retirements and 04/2001 ks and all that stuff.

就像，我很高兴能抽身而出，因为你知道，我不想尝试它。

Like, I'm glad I am out of that because, you know, I don't wanna test it.

我不想尝试它，而且某种程度上我也认同这种逻辑——正如他们所说，国际货币基金组织和大重构之类的理念声称'你将一无所有但感到幸福'。

I don't wanna test it, and I kinda wanna take the it makes sense too that said, you know, they you know, the IMF and the Great Reset and all this stuff, they say you will own nothing and be happy.

你要知道，这本质上就是政府和大型腐败机构一贯的运作方式：他们只有在木已成舟后才会公开承认。

You you know, this is basically the way, like, government and large corrupt institutions have always worked, is that they only finally say something out loud after it's already done.

他们现在推销的并非未来计划，而是既成事实——你们早已一无所有。

You know, they're not selling you something that they're going to do and that, you know, that will be, you already own nothing.

他们现在敢推销这个的唯一原因，是早已确保自身安全无虞。

And the only reason they're okay with selling it to you now is because they already know that they are safe.

他们早已掌控了我们所有的财产。

They already own all of our stuff.

我们全款购买的资产在出现任何问题时都会成为他们的担保品，现在他们正向我们推销这个早已建成、而我们早已深陷其中的体系。

Our assets that we have purchased outright are all guaranteed to them in the case of anything going wrong, and now they're selling us on the system they've already built and that we are already under.

不要在法币体系中持有你承受不起损失的资产。

Do not hold anything in the fiat system that you cannot afford to lose.

向人权基金会（HRF）及其出色的时事通讯致敬，它追踪的许多动态实际上与此非常相似。

A shout out to the HRF, Human Rights Foundation, and their amazing newsletter, which keeps up on a lot of developments actually very similar to this.

一个不可思议的资源。

An incredible resource.

别忘了去看看Synonym出品的BitKit钱包。

And don't forget to check out the BitKit wallet by Synonym.

链接和详情都会放在节目说明里。

The links and details will be right down in the show notes.

BitKit是一款支持链上和闪电网络的移动钱包。

BitKit is a mobile on chain and Lightning wallet.

如果你还没体验过闪电网络，或者想要一个直观易用的钱包，不妨试试BitKit。

If haven't you gotten to play around with Lightning or you haven't you want a intuitive and simple to use wallet, check out BitKit.

重申一下，这些信息都能在节目说明里找到。

Again, you'll find all that down in the show notes.

特别感谢David Rogers Webb。

And a shout out to David Rogers Webb.

如果他碰巧听到这期节目——还有一直支持我的各位听众，对近期内容单薄表示抱歉。

If for some reason he ever listens to this, and to all you guys who stick with me, sorry for the the light episodes.

过去几周简直忙疯了，现在我终于能重新投入工作了。

It's been it's literally been a crazy few weeks, and I am finally getting back into it.

所以做好准备吧。

So get ready.

我们准备了些超棒的内容。

We got some really cool stuff.

最后，非常感谢大家的收听。

With that, thank you so much for listening.

我是盖伊·斯旺。

I am Guy Swann.

这里是《比特币之声》，以上是我的两分钱观点。

This is Bitcoin Audible, and that is my two sats.

我认为除非我们将货币发行权从政府手中夺回，否则我们永远不会再有良币。

I don't believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government.

也就是说，我们不能用暴力手段从政府手中夺回货币发行权。

That is, we can't take it violently out of the hands of government.

我们唯一能做的，就是通过某种迂回的方式引入他们无法阻止的东西。

All we can do is, by some sly roundabout way, introduce something that they can't stop.

弗里德里希·奥古斯特·冯·哈耶克。

Friedrich August von Hayek.