罗布·卡普兰谈美联储、人工智能以及全球化如何在无美国参与下推进

您可以通过彭博新闻快讯随时获取新闻资讯。我是艾米·莫里斯。

You can get the news whenever you want it with Bloomberg News Now. I'm Amy Morris.

我是凯伦·莫斯科，为您介绍我们全新的点播新闻简报——直接推送到您的播客订阅源。彭博新闻快讯是每日要闻的五分钟音频简报，每期节目全天滚动更新最新资讯和数据，助您随时掌握动态。

And I'm Karen Moscow here to tell you about our new on demand news report delivered right to your podcast feed. Bloomberg News Now is a short five minute audio report on the day's top stories. Episodes are published throughout the day with the latest information and data to keep you informed.

是的，虽然多家新闻机构都有类似产品，但它们通常只是全天重播电台新闻。而我们不同，我们制作的是彭博新闻快讯独家定制的专属内容。

Yes. There are other products like this from a variety of news organizations, but they usually rerun their radio newscasts throughout the day. That's not what we do. We create customized episodes that can only be heard on Bloomberg News Now.

我们不会延迟一小时才发布突发新闻。每当有重大事件发生，几分钟内就会有新节目上线您的播客订阅源，确保您始终获取最新故事与进展。

And we don't wait an hour to publish breaking news. When news breaks, we'll have an episode up on your podcast feed within minutes, so you're always getting the latest stories and developments.

获取彭博全球3000名记者和分析师带来的深度报道与专业解读。您可通过Apple、Spotify或任何常用播客平台收听彭博新闻快讯的最新内容。

Get the reporting and the context from Bloomberg's 3,000 journalists and analysts. We're all over the world. Listen to the latest from Bloomberg News Now on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen.

彭博音频工作室，

Bloomberg Audio Studios,

播客、电台、新闻。

podcasts, radio, news.

大家好，欢迎收听《法外之徒》播客新一期节目。我是吉尔·威森塔尔。

Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Outlaws podcast. I'm Jill Wiesenthal.

我是特雷西·阿拉维。

And I'm Tracy Allaway.

今天您将收听到本播客的特辑节目，这是在亨廷顿海滩未来证明大会现场的实况录制。

Today, you are listening to a special episode of the podcast. It was recorded live at the Future Proof Conference in Huntington Beach.

是的。我们将与前达拉斯联储主席罗伯特·卡普兰进行对话。他现在是高盛集团的副主席。再次说明，这是在Future Proof现场舞台上录制的，请大家收听。

Yep. We're gonna be speaking with former Dallas Fed president Robert Kaplan. He is now vice chairman of Goldman Sachs. Again, this was recorded live on stage at Future Proof, so take a listen.

好的。让我们直接开始吧。上周公布的那份就业报告，以你的观点，或许戴上美联储的帽子来看，下次会议是否有可能降息50个基点？

Alright. Let's, just kick it straight off. That jobs report that we got last week, in your view, with your Fed hat on maybe, is a is a 50 basis point rate cut in play for the next meeting?

我认为50个基点仍然不太可能。过去几个月我们的观点一直是就业市场疲软。最新报告显示情况更弱一些。话虽如此，25个基点比50个基点更可能的原因是就业市场并未急剧恶化。我们没有出现就业萎缩，而且通胀率仍高于目标2.75%到3%。

I think 50 basis points is still unlikely. I think we've been of of the view for the last few months the job market was weak. This latest report was a little weaker. Having said that, the reason 25 is more likely than 50 is it wasn't the jobs market is not falling off a cliff. We didn't get shrinkage, and inflation is running at two and three quarters to 3% above target.

因此这在一定程度上对实施超过25个基点的降息形成了阻力。

And so it sort of puts a little bit of a headwind on doing more than 25 basis points.

我明白你的意思，但这份报告仍然是个巨大的意外。如果你在新闻编辑室看到那个数字——仅新增2.2万个工作岗位时，现场几乎是一片倒吸凉气的声音，因为这个数字远低于该月几乎所有预期范围。如果你在美联储看到这样的数字，2.2万这个数字实际告诉你什么？或者你会坐着想：也许我应该等待修正数据再做决定？

I mean, I take your point, but the report was still a huge surprise. So if you were in the newsroom when that number came out, just 22,000 jobs added, there was a sort of collective gasp because it was way below basically the entire range of expectations for that particular month. If you're at the Fed and you see a number like that, what does 22,000 actually tell you, or are you sitting there going, well, maybe I'll wait for the revision until I really make up my mind?

我不认为就业市场的疲软对美联储来说是个大意外。他们虽然不知道具体数字，但预期会是疲软的。失业率保持低位的原因是我们限制了无证移民，没有增加合法移民额度。而且如你所知，我们正在遣返部分工人，并使得1000万到1500万在劳动力市场的无证移民感到不安，其中一定比例的人不再工作。

I don't know that the weakness in the jobs market was a big surprise to the Fed. They didn't know exactly what the number would be, but they expected to be anemic. The the reason that the unemployment rate has stayed low is we are not we've shut down undocumented immigration. We have not ramped up legal immigration. And as you well know, we are deporting some number of workers and chilling 10 to 15,000,000 undocumented immigrants who are in the workforce, and some percentage of them are not going to work.

因此劳动力供应疲软。过去几个月我们一直认为招聘处于我们所说的停滞状态。如果GDP增长率是1%到1.5%，招聘自然会疲软。所以我们可以争论具体数字，但我不认为疲软是个大意外。而且我认为看到下一个数字也 lethargic（疲软）不会让我感到惊讶。

And so supply is anemic. We've thought for the last few months that hiring was kind of we said at stall speed. You should assume if GDP growth is one a quarter, one and a half percent, hiring's going to be anemic. So we could debate the number, but I I don't think it was a big shock that it was weak. And I think it wouldn't surprise me to see the next number also lethargic.

那么为什么我们没有急剧恶化？我们仍然运行着巨额赤字。我们有税收激励政策即将出台。我们正处于AI数据中心电力繁荣的中期，正如你在上一场会议中听到的。我认为这些因素仍在支撑经济。

So why aren't we falling off a cliff? We still are running a large deficit. We have tax incentives coming. We're in the middle of an AI data center power boom, as you just heard about in the previous session. And I think that's still bolstering the economy.

那么让我来问特蕾西问题的另一面。好吧，也许先抛开担忧的理由，正如你提到的另一面是：通胀率按大多数衡量标准仍高于目标。股市——我不知道今天具体表现如何，但无论如何今天都非常接近历史高点。各种人群在南加州海滩上过得相当惬意。有什么证据表明美联储政策目前实际上是限制性的？

Well, let me take the flip side of Tracy's question because okay. Maybe setting aside reasons for concern, the flip side, as you mentioned, inflation's still running above target by most measures. The stock market, I haven't actually I don't know what it's doing today, but it's very close to all time highs regardless of what it's doing today. All kinds of people are having a really nice time on the beach in Southern California. What is the evidence that as currently standing that Fed policy is actually restrictive?

显然，FOMC已经转向降息的观点。降息似乎已经锁定，但你现在不必再持FOMC的观点了。比如，目前降息的必要性是否显而易见？

Clearly, the FOMC has come around to this view of cuts. It seems like cuts are locked in, but you don't have to have the FOMC view anymore. Like, is it obvious that cuts are needed at this point?

是的。我认为如果不是因为我们在劳动力市场看到的疲软，美联储会想要按兵不动，因为通胀高于目标是一回事，但我们并没有朝着通胀目标迈进。

Yeah. I think if it were not for the weakness that we've seen in the labor market, the Fed would wanna stand pat because we are it it's one thing to be above your inflation target. We're not moving toward the inflation target.

没错。

Right.

我们正在横盘甚至倒退。但鉴于劳动力市场疲软，我认为这带来了需要降息的事实。现在中性利率是多少？我认为当前的中性利率，考虑到2.75%的通胀率和75个基点的实际联邦基金利率，对我来说中性利率大约在3.5%左右。我们没有太多降息空间来达到中性水平，但我认为有75到100个基点的空间。

We're going sideways to backing up. But with this weak labor market, I think it brings the fact you need to cut into play. Now what's the neutral rate? I think the neutral rate today, you got a two and three quarters percent inflation rate, 75 basis point real Fed funds rate, means the neutral rate to me is around three and a half percent. We don't have a lot of space to cut to get to neutral, but I think you've got 75 to a 100 basis points.

我认为美联储的目标是在9月降息，保持限制性政策，如果劳动力市场持续疲软就继续降息。如果市场稳定下来，那么就可以选择暂停。我认为这就是他们会做的。

I think the goal of the Fed will be cut in September, stay restrictive, and if the labor market stays weak, keep going. If it stabilizes, then then you have the option to to hold off. And and I think that's what they'll do.

回到金融状况和股市处于历史高点的话题。我的意思是，如果美联储在当前时点降息，不管是称之为保险性降息还是什么，但如果经济在那之后重新加速

Just going back to financial conditions and stock markets at all time highs. I mean, if the Fed cuts at this current juncture, you know, call it an insurance cut or whatever, but if the economy reaccelerates after that

有可能会。

Which it may.

是的，有可能会。考虑到如你所说通胀压力似乎正在横盘甚至可能上升，你会担心这种结果吗？

Yeah. Which it may. Would you be worried about that side of the outcome given that, as you said, inflationary pressures seem to be going sideways to possibly up?

是的。很多人看金融状况并将其视为美联储不应采取行动的理由。但我实际上从不同角度看待这个问题。经济统计数据反映的是当前正在发生的情况，甚至更准确地说，是已经发生的情况，而不只是当前正在发生的。

Yeah. So a lot of people look at financial conditions and see see it as a reason the Fed shouldn't act. I actually come at it from someplace different. The economic statistics are reflective of what's going on right now. In fact, even more than that, what has gone on, not even what's going on right now.

股市和其他金融市场是对未来三到五年情况的评估。我们知道，我们正处于AI数据中心电力繁荣的中早期阶段。我认为这还没有体现在很多生产力数据上，但我觉得一两年后会的。股市无论对错，我认为正在下这个赌注。它赌的是生产力将会提高。

The stock market and other financial markets are a assessment of what's going to happen for the next three to five years. We as we know, we're in the middle and the early innings of an AI data center power boom. I don't think it's showing up yet in a lot of productivity, but I think a year or two from now, it will. The stock market, rightly or wrongly, I think, is making that bet. It's betting that productivity is going to improve.

企业盈利将会改善。你还没有在当前经济中看到这一点。美联储的工作是关注金融状况，但要根据当前经济来调整政策，而不是根据市场对未来两三年下的赌注。

Corporate earnings are going to get better. You're not seeing it show up in the current economy. The Fed's job is to look at financial conditions, but adjust policy based on the current economy, not the bet the market's making for two or three years.

我很高兴你提到了人工智能热潮、数据中心繁荣等问题，虽然这些尚未体现在生产力上，但可能已经给电网带来了更大压力。也可能对某些电力设备造成了更大负担，这些设备多年来一直对所有制造商都处于短缺状态。

I'm glad you brought that up about the AI boom, the powers the data center boom and so forth, and that it's not showing up yet in productivity, but it may be showing up in greater strain on the grid. It may be showing up in greater strain on certain electrical gear that's necessary, that's been in shortage for all manufacturers for years now.

没错。

That's right.

就目前而言，在2025年9月，我们是否可以说，人工智能热潮正在产生某种挤出效应或轻微的通胀压力？撇开长期预期不谈，仅从静态角度看，当前成本是否确实形成了一定拖累？

As of right now, in September 2025, could we say that if anything, the AI boom is, like, sort of having a crowding out effect or slightly inflationary, where the costs right now, just on a static stand, setting aside the bet, are a bit of a drag?

本届政府正在推行两大结构性举措。一是进行监管审查和放宽管制，旨在加速人工智能的应用并增加资本可用性。二是对电网进行全面重新评估。我们在为人工智能爆发提供足够电力方面落后于中国。必须加大对地热能和模块化核能的投资。

There are two big structural initiatives that are being pursued by this administration. One is regulatory review and regulatory relief because they want to ease the speeding to adoption of AI and get more capital available. But the second thing is there's an extensive rereview of the power grid. We are behind China in having enough power to fund the AI explosion. We've got to invest more in geothermal, more modular nuclear.

我们需要简化炼油厂运营和电力传输流程。我认为你将看到巨大的努力，因为我们确实落后了。正如你所说，在某些州确实存在挤出效应。一些州的领导层因为担心挤占居民用电而不敢接纳更多数据中心。这是一项重大的结构性举措，虽然媒体关注不多，但正在全国范围内大力推进，这是必要的深刻变革。

We need to make it easier to run a refinery, make it easier to do transmission. And I think you're going to find there's going to be enormous efforts because we are behind. In some states, to your point, there is a crowding out. And I think people are afraid at some states, the leaders are afraid to take more data centers for fear it's going to crowd out individuals. So this is a big structural initiative that isn't getting in the press a lot, but it's a big initiative going on in this country that's a dramatic change and it's needed.

这对美联储政策实际意味着什么？考虑到这种挤出效应以及数据库及其动力需求的激增，我们已经看到电价开始上涨。我知道美联储偏好的通胀指标排除能源和食品价格，但另一方面，电价几乎影响所有成本，而且这个瓶颈看起来在未来两三年甚至十年内都难以解决。如果你在美联储，看到电价上涨，会如何分析这种压力？

What does that actually mean for Fed policy? Because if I think about this crowding out idea and all the demand for databases and the things that power them, we have seen electricity prices start to go up. I know the Fed's preferred inflation measure is x energy and food prices, but on the other hand, electricity prices feed into the cost of pretty much everything and also this doesn't seem like a bottleneck that we're going to be solving, you know, within the next two or three years or even ten years to be frank. If you're at the Fed right now and you see electricity prices going up, how are you thinking through that pressure?

让我结合背景来说。存在多种相互矛盾的力量——你刚提到其中之一。一方面，政府正试图减少政府主导支出，代之以更多激励措施和税收优惠。

So let me put it in context. There are cross currents. I mean, cross currents. You just mentioned one. On the one hand, you've got the government is trying to reduce government directed spending and replace it with more incentives, tax incentives.

显然，关税已经实施。这些措施正在减缓增长，并有推高成本的趋势（可能是一次性影响）。劳动力方面，正如我刚提到的，由于移民政策，我们实际上正在减缓劳动力增长，这有助于实现充分就业，美联储也注意到了这点，但同时也使价格和工资更具粘性。与此同时，正如你所说，人工智能和电网领域蓬勃发展，而我们确实需要更多劳动力。

Obviously, the tariffs have been put in place. Those are slowing growth, and they have a tendency to raise costs. They might be one time. And the labor force, as I just mentioned, we are actually decelerating and reducing labor force growth because of immigration policy, that's actually helping us be at full employment, and the Fed's been taken by that, but also makes prices stickier, wages stickier. At the same time, you just said you've got these booms in AI and the grid, and you've got we don't we need more labor.

我们需要更多电力，这实际上会给价格带来压力。当你在美联储面对这种复杂局面时，我认为这是他们今年迄今按兵不动的一个原因。但劳动力市场正在迫使他们行动——如果市场进一步走弱，他们绝不希望看到这种情况，这就是他们采取行动的原因。

We need more power, and that actually stresses prices. So when you're at the Fed, when you've got this kind of confusion, I think that's one reason why they've done nothing so far this year. But I think the labor market is forcing their hand where if it gets even weaker, they really don't want that, and that's why they're acting.

本节目由Nuveen赞助播出。如果你知道未来正注视着你，你会如何投资？对Nuveen而言，这不是一个理论问题。这种视角源于125年市场周期的历练，运用前瞻性思维创新适应全球投资者不断变化的需求，并坚定不移地为客户、社区和全球经济追求持久业绩。Nuveen，投资如未来在注视。

This message is brought to you by Nuveen. How would you invest if you knew the future was watching? At Nuveen, this isn't a theoretical question. It's a perspective that comes from navigating one hundred and twenty five years of market cycles, using foresight to innovate and adapt to the changing needs of investors around the world, and remaining steadfast in the pursuit of lasting performance for clients, communities, and the global economy. Nuveen, invest like the future is watching.

访问 nuveen.com/future 了解更多信息。投资涉及风险，本金可能遭受损失。

Visit nuveen.com/future to learn more. Investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible.

Bloomberg Daybreak 是您清晨第一时间通过播客获取资讯的最佳方式。大家好，我是Karen Moscow。

Bloomberg Daybreak is your best way to get informed first thing in the morning right in your podcast feed. Hi. I'm Karen Moscow.

我是Nathan Hager。每天清晨，我们都会早起制作最新一期的Bloomberg Daybreak美国版。这是一档每日15分钟的播客，为您带来全球新闻、政治和国际关系的最新动态。

And I'm Nathan Hager. Each morning, we're up early putting together the latest episode of Bloomberg Daybreak US edition. It's your daily fifteen minute podcast on the latest in global news, politics, and international relations.

Bloomberg Daybreak 的特别之处在于我们每天东部时间早上6点前，通过播客为您带来的新闻即时性。

What's special about Bloomberg Daybreak is the immediacy of the news we bring you each day in your podcast feed by 6AM eastern time.

这不是对昨日新闻的深度剖析，而是让您获取带有背景解读的最新故事。

This isn't a deep dive on yesterday's news. Instead, you get the latest stories with context.

这是您从其他新闻播客中无法获得的体验。所以，请加入我们，领略彭博社全球3000名记者和分析师带来的精华报道，其报道以数据为支撑，并由身处事件核心的记者完成。

And that's something you don't get from other news podcasts. So join us for the best from Bloomberg's 3,000 journalists and analysts around the world with reporting backed by data and journalists at the center of the stories we cover.

每天早上收听Bloomberg Daybreak美国版播客，获取重要新闻及其所需的背景信息。

Listen to the Bloomberg Daybreak US edition podcast each morning for the stories that matter with the context you need.

在Apple、Spotify或您收听播客的任何平台找到我们。

Find us on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you listen.

我们再多谈谈中国的AI。你提到了电力因素，很多人对美国电网的限制以及所有这些庞大的数字感到焦虑，甚至怀疑电网能否支撑。除了电力部分，还有什么不同？因为我们交谈过的一些人谈到，在技术扩散，特别是源自中国或经过中国供应链的技术扩散方面，态度非常不同。

Let's talk about AI in China a little bit more. You mentioned the power element, and there are a lot of people anxious about the constraints on The US grid and all these big numbers, and can the grid even support that. What else is different besides the electricity component? Because some people we've talked to talk about there's a very different attitude towards the tech diffusion, particularly out of China or supply chains that run through China.

我刚从亚洲回来，上周就在中国。当我们谈论AI时，我们倾向于关注超大规模企业，这些巨型公司在标普500指数中占据不成比例的份额，它们正在花费数千亿美元，也赚了很多钱。但当我在中国谈论AI时，他们谈论的词语是‘扩散’。他们谈论的是普通企业。

So and I just got back from Asia, and I was in China last week. When we talk about AI, we tend to look at the hyperscalers, these big giant companies that make up a disproportionate share of the S and P 500, and they're spending hundreds of billions of dollars. They're making a lot of money. When I'm in China and we talk about AI, they talk about the word used, diffusion. They talk about regular businesses.

中国的麦当劳，中国的Luckin Coffee（瑞幸咖啡），常规的

The McDonald's of China, Luke and Coffee in China, regular

我们现在纽约市就有它们的分店，我尝过，味道非常不错，

We have them in New York City right now, and I tried one, and it's very good,

确实。是的。但这些公司正在积极利用人工智能来降低成本。那么为什么会发生这种情况呢？我认为我们在这方面更先进一些。

actually. Yes. But they those companies are actively using AI to lower costs. And you got so why is that happening? I'd say we're further along.

中国比我们更先进。为什么？因为他们的利润率更低。他们是出于必要性才这么做的。而我们在美国的公司利润率更高。

China's further along than we are. Why? Their margins are lower. They're doing it out of necessity. Our margins in The US and our companies are higher.

因此，它们降低成本和进行人工智能实验的压力没那么大。在中国，他们没有选择。竞争太激烈了。他们必须降低成本。但让我印象深刻的是，我们可以从中国正在做的事情中学到很多。

And so they're not as much pressure to lower costs and make AI experiments. In China, they don't have a choice. It's so competitive. They need to lower costs. But the thing that struck me, there's a lot to learn from what they're doing in China.

通常，如果我们能更全球化一点，我们就会学到那些东西，并把那些经验带回美国。这让我意识到全球化并没有消亡。美国只是选择在其中扮演不同的角色并退后一步。但我必须告诉你，我在那里看到的另一件事是，中国与其他国家之间正在进行更多的耦合，比如加拿大就更积极地尝试建立新的伙伴关系。所以我认为全球化和人工智能的故事是相辅相成的。

Normally, if we were a little more globally integrated, we would learn those things and bring those those learnings back to The United States. And it reminded me that globalization is not dead. United States is is choosing to play a different role in it and stepping back. But I gotta tell you, the other thing I saw there is there's more coupling going on between China and other countries that are aggressively Canada is much more aggressive in trying to form new partnerships. So I think globalization and the AI story go together.

而且我必须告诉你，全球化不会消失，美国在未来几年将面临选择，即我们希望在参与中扮演多大的角色，但不管有没有我们，它都会发生。

And I gotta tell you, globalization not going away, and The US is gonna have a choice in the years to come how much of a role we wanna play in participating, but it's gonna happen with us or without us.

所以我们可以坐在这里问你在中国看到了什么，以及你对中国的看法。但我很清楚，当你进行那种类型的旅行时，你有中国客户在询问你对美国的看法以及这里的情况。目前你从中国客户那里收到什么样的问题？他们对什么感兴趣？

So we can sit here and ask you what you saw in China and what your thoughts were about China. But I am very aware that when you go on that type of trip, you have Chinese clients who are asking you your thoughts on The US and what's going on here. What are the type of questions that you're getting from Chinese clients at the moment? What are they interested in?

所以我认为讨论的最大议题是，我职业生涯早期曾在亚洲工作过。我在韩国、台湾以及很大程度上在中国发现，他们的全部努力是从低附加值制造业转向高附加值制造业。他们试图摆脱低附加值制造业。举个例子？T恤和运动鞋过去是在中国制造的。

So the biggest item I'd say of discussion is, and and I used to be in Asia for the first part of my career. And what I found in Korea, Taiwan, China to a large extent, their whole effort was to go from low value added manufacturing to high value added manufacturing. And they tried to wean off of lower value added manufacture manufacturing. What's an example? T shirts and sneakers used to be made in China.

今天，它们在越南制造。为什么中国想要向价值链上游移动？因为他们觉得通过高附加值制造业可以提高生活水平。有时我在那边会被问到的问题是，如果你要回流到美国，你真的会回流木材、铝材以及其他一些低附加值制造业吗？巩固与加拿大和墨西哥的关系不是更有意义吗？你可以从加拿大获得廉价的自然资源，从墨西哥获得廉价劳动力，并巩固北美市场。

Today, they're made in Vietnam. Why China wants to move up the value chain? Because their feeling is they're gonna raise the standard of living to higher value added manufacturing. The the question sometimes I get when I'm over there is if you're going to reshor to The United States, are you going to really reshor lumber, aluminum, some of these other lower value added manufacturing? Wouldn't solidifying the relationship with Canada and Mexico make sense where you can get cheap natural resources from Canada, cheap labor from Mexico, and solidify North America?

所以我会说他们并非批评我们，而是有点挠头地问：战略理由是什么？因为你们劳动力紧张，通常希望向价值链上游移动。我认为他们也意识到其中一些关税旨在帮助增加收入并减少赤字。他们理解这一点。

And so I'd say they're not critical of us, but they're scratching their heads a little bit to say, what's the strategic rationale? Because you you're tight on labor. You you normally wanna move up the value chain. And I think they realize that some of these tariffs are also intended to help generate revenue and reduce the deficit. They understand that.

他们只是在质疑其战略意义有多大。

They're just questioning how strategic it is.

那么，让我问一个关于我们将把什么带回美国（如果有的话）的问题。仅从你在高盛的视角来看，你是否看到有任何私人资金因为关税改变了计算方式、使投资变得经济可行，而进入美国进行新的——我不知道怎么说——绿地资本投资，无论是低利润率还是高利润率的项目？

Well, let me ask you a question of the on the question of what are we going to bring back in The United States, if anything. Just from your perch at Goldman, do you see any private money that's come into The US for fresh, sort of, I don't know, greenfield capital investment, either in something low margin or high margin because the tariffs have changed the math and made that investment economical?

所以我的回答是：是的。我认为有些美国公司会在边际制造方面在这里做更多。我和一些海外公司谈过，包括一家中国的合同制造商（我不会点名）。他们正在美国建设更多。所以问题是，我不知道这需要多长时间，规模会有多大，但是的，这正在发生。

So I will say there yes is the answer. I I think there are US companies that will do more on the margin manufacturing here. I've talked to overseas companies, including, I won't mention the name of, one contract manufacturer in China. They are building more in The United States. And so the the thing is, I don't know how long it will take, what the magnitude will be, but yes, it is happening.

另一方面，美国有许多公司受益于获得低成本商品。是的。我不会点名，但你知道其中一些公司，他们的利润正在受到挤压。然后我和一些没有能力管理这些关税的小企业谈过，其中一些实际上会在年底前倒闭或正在考虑这样做。

The flip side of that is there are many companies in The US that benefited from access to lower cost goods. Yeah. And I won't mention their name, but you can you know some of them, and their their margins are being squeezed. And then I talked to a number of small businesses that don't have the leverage to manage these tariffs, and some of them will actually go out of business or considering it by the end of the year.

这可能有点不公平，但我还是要问：如果你现在必须选择，你会说关税在将制造业带回美国方面更有效，还是在人们担心赤字的时候为美国政府增加收入方面更有效？

This is a little bit of an unfair question, but I'm gonna ask If it you had to if you had to choose one right now, would you say that tariffs are more effective at bringing back manufacturing to The US or more effective at raising income for the US government at a time when people are worried about the deficit?

我想从第二部分开始。关税增加收入，但会减缓增长。因此，对于每一美元的关税收入，你必须接受可能会因为增长略低而返还一些。我认为，如果你带回高附加值制造业，这笔交易非常值得。但如果你推动带回低附加值产业，我不确定这是否是一笔好交易。

I think we'll start with the second part. Tariffs raise revenue, but they slow growth. And so for every dollar of tariff revenue, you have to you have to accept you may give some back in a little bit lower growth. I think that trade is very much worth it if you're bringing back high value added manufacturing. I don't know if it's such a good trade if you are pushing to bring back lower value added.

我认为本届政府明白这一点，而且他们会更有策略性。我认为你可以两者兼顾。我认为你可以创造公平的竞争环境，获得更多关税收入或一定水平的关税收入。我们原本以为会更接近10%而不是20%。你的意思是高 teens 比我们预期的要高一些。

I think this administration knows that, and I think they'll be more strategic. I think you can do both. I I think you could level the playing field, get get more tariff revenue or some level of tariff revenue. I think we were thinking they were going to be closer to 10% than 20%. You mean the high teens is a little higher than we expected.

而且你也可以，是的，在半导体和其他战略领域，你可以将这些产业重新安置。我认为问题是，你确定要走木材和铝这条路吗？

And you can also, yes, on semiconductors and other strategic areas, you can redomicile those. I think the question is, you sure you wanna go down the road of lumber and aluminum?

没错。

Right.

还是你想让加拿大来做？这是个好的战略交易吗？我、我、我不确定。

Or do you wanna let Canada do it? Is that a good strategic trade? I I I'm not sure.

既然你提到了，为什么中性利率——就我们能做出一些有根据的猜测而言——在你看来，会远高于2019年时的水平？

Since you mentioned it, why is the neutral rate of interest to the extent that we can form some educated guesses to what it is, why is it so much higher than it was in, say, 2019 in your view?

所以，事实是，我认为如果你追溯到石器时代的2019年。

So the the the fact of the matter is, I think if you go way back in the stone age to 2019.

那确实感觉像是很久以前的事了。

It does seem like forever ago.

确实。我认为如果没有新冠疫情，就在疫情爆发前，十年期国债收益率大概在1.75%到2%左右。联邦基金利率在1%中段。我认为我们本会逐步小幅上升

It does. I think if we had not had COVID, I think at the right before COVID hit the ten year treasury, I think it was in the neighborhood of maybe one and three quarters to two. The Fed funds rate was in the mid ones. I think we would have inched our way up a little

更高。知道我们当时有多好。所有人都在抱怨，哦，收益率太低了，而现在他们都希望能回到那时候。

higher. Know how good we had it. All those people were complaining, oh, yields are so low, and then now they all wish they could go back there.

是的。听着。如今的通胀率更具粘性。回到2019年，可能只有1.5%、1.75%。我仍然认为即使在那时，实际中性利率也是0.75%。

Yeah. Listen. The inflation rate today is stickier. Back in '19, it was probably one and a half, one and three quarters. I still think even then the neutral rate real rate was three quarters of 1%.

所以当时的联邦基金中性利率，我认为是2.5%左右。今天，它更接近3.5%，但这只有一个原因。通胀率更高了。如果通胀率回落到2%，我认为你会看到中性利率回落到2.75%左右。

So the neutral Fed funds rate back then, I think, was two and a halfish. Today, it's closer to three and a half, but there's only one reason for that. The inflation rate's higher. If inflation got back down to two, I think you'd see the neutral rate back down to two and three quarters.

既然你提到了粘性通胀，还有另一件事似乎是当前最受关注的，那就是美联储的独立性。我们应该谈谈这个，但我想我们可以稍后听听你对这个具体问题的看法。不过，到目前为止令人惊讶的一点是，我们正在就美联储的未来进行辩论，面对一个似乎更加活跃、并希望更深度干预货币政策的特朗普政府，市场却似乎没有太多反应。如果你看长端利率，那里似乎没有形成很大的风险溢价。这是怎么回事？

Since you mentioned sticky inflation, there's one other thing that seems to be top of mind at the moment, which is Federal Reserve independence. And we should talk about that, but I guess we can get your thoughts on that specific idea in a second, but one thing that seems surprising so far is that we're having this debate about what happens to the Federal Reserve with what seems to be a more activist Trump administration that seems to wanna have a heavier hand in monetary policy. We haven't really seen much much, response from the market. If you look at the long end, it doesn't seem like there's a big risk premium building there. What's going on?

所以，我来说两点。关于政治独立性，让我先确保我把这个说清楚。美联储的监管政策从根本上说并不是政治独立的，而且多年来一直不是。我这么说是什么意思？新总统上任，他们会挑选新的监管负责人，这在过去很多年里一直深受执政者的影响。

So I'd let's make two comments. So regarding political independence, let me just make sure I I I frame this. Regulatory policy at the Fed is not, underlying not, politically independent, and it hasn't been for a number of years. What do I mean by that? You get a new president, they pick a new head of supervision, and it's very much has been influenced for the last many years by whoever's in office.

我认为资产负债表可能处于一个灰色地带。但在设定联邦基金利率方面，美联储一直保持政治独立性。你说市场为什么对此反应不大？现实情况是股市喜欢降息的想法。我认为问题不在于市场没有反应。

The balance sheet, I would argue, is maybe a little bit in the gray area. On setting the Fed funds rate though, the Fed has been politically independent. Why is the market, you said, not reacting more to this? I mean, the reality is the stock market likes the idea of lower rates. I think the thing it's not that the markets aren't reacting.

股市喜欢这样，所以现在开始将其纳入考量，使你谈到的真正加速更有可能发生。黄金市场对此非常关注，金价年内涨幅已超过35%。我看到今天又上涨了1%。所以确实有反应。实际上，我认为尽管长期债券的期限因增长放缓而回升，但我们仍然面临问题。

The stock market likes it, so it's it's starting now to take into account, makes the real acceleration you talked about more likely. The gold market is very much taking note of it, and gold is up more than 35% year to date. I see it's up another 1% today. So it has. And I actually think duration on the long bond while while the tenure has rallied because of slow growth, I still think we have an issue.

我们需要出售37万亿美元的债务，最终将达到40万亿美元。我认为债券市场可能会在长期端关注当前局势的进展。

We've got 37,000,000,000,000 of debt to sell on our way to 40,000,000,000,000. I think that the bond market may pay at the long end will pay attention to how this current situation works out.

这是怎么回事？如今关于黄金的讨论比几年前多了多少？

What is going on? How much more gold talk is there these days than there were a few years ago?

我实际上回顾了过去五十年。上一次出现这样的黄金上涨是什么时候？是的，我认为是在大衰退之后。记得大衰退时期，美联储将其资产负债表从8000亿扩大到4万亿美元，然后停止并开始小幅缩减。

Well, I actually I've gone back over looked back over the last fifty years. When's the last time we got a rally in gold like this? Yeah. I think in the aftermath of the Great Recession remember the Great Recession, the Fed took its balance sheet from 800,000,000,000 to 4,000,000,000,000, okay, and stopped. And we started to run it down a little bit.

为应对新冠疫情，我们从4万亿扩大到9万亿美元，并在27万亿美元的经济体中授权了6万亿美元的特别支出。净债务与GDP之比从70%中期升至超过100%。当美国乃至某种程度上发达国家的杠杆率因疫情而大幅上升时，人们开始关注黄金、比特币等纸币替代品，因为他们担心这种杠杆化会持续不断。这是可以理解的。

In response to COVID, we went from 4,000,000,000,000 to 9,000,000,000,000, and we authorized $6,000,000,000,000 of extraordinary spending in a $27,000,000,000,000 economy. And the GDP the net debt to GDP went from mid seventies to over a 100%. When you've got leverage in The United States and to some some extent in the developed world getting much higher in response to COVID, that's where people start to look at gold, Bitcoin, other alternatives to paper currency because they're worried that this leveraging is just keeping going on and on and on. And so it it's understandable.

等等，但真是这样吗？因为当前市场的一个奇怪矛盾是：美股处于历史新高，同时黄金几乎每周都在创新纪录。感觉这两件事是不相容的，至少长期来看是这样。也许能持续几周或几个月，但总有一方是错的。

Wait. Is it though? Because one of the weird tensions of our current market situation is we have US stocks at all time highs, but also gold making new records almost every week. It feels like those two things are incompatible, at least in the long run. You know, maybe we could do it for a few weeks or a few months, but someone's gotta be wrong here.

我花了很多时间与大型机构讨论资产配置。我认为这也是我们的观点：我们认为经济可能会在2026年重新加速。我们认为人工智能繁荣是真实的，将会从AI中获得大量生产力提升。

I I spent a lot of time talking to big institutions and about asset allocation. I think and this is our view also. We think there could be a reacceleration into '26. We think the AI boom is for real. We think we're gonna, like, get a lot of productivity out of AI.

这对企业盈利和股票来说是个好环境。但我们不确定能否成功控制债务与GDP比率的曲线。即使有关税，我们是否还会出现2万亿美元的赤字？会不会更高？

Okay. That is a good environment for corporate earnings and for stocks. What we don't know is how successful we're gonna be on bending the curve of debt to GDP. Are we gonna run another $2,000,000,000,000 deficit even with tariffs? Is it gonna be higher?

在这方面，我认为人们可以既买股票又买黄金，同时对十年期和三十年期国债保持谨慎。我认为这正是我们现在看到的情况。

And in that regard, I think people can buy stocks and buy gold and be very careful about buying the ten year and the thirty year treasury. And I think that's kind of what we're seeing.

实际上，我想回到你之前关于全球化正在发生——无论我们参与与否的观点。中国和美国在AI技术扩散方面采取了不同路径。但放眼全球，美国的技术提供商——无论是云技术还是微软等公司——它们是否仍会胜出？即使美国不参与这波全球化浪潮，美国科技是否仍会扮演重要角色？毕竟现在有太多因素都押注在这七家公司的持续盈利能力上。

Actually, I want to go back to your point about sort of globalization is happening with us or without us. There's a different approach to AI diffusion out of China than there is in The US. But when you go around the world, are the American providers of tech, whether it's cloud tech or whether it's Microsoft, etcetera, are they still are they gonna win? Even if The US isn't part of that globalization wave, will US tech still be part of the story? Because so much is riding on the ongoing earnings power of seven companies.

我先对美国企业做个总体评论。典型经营全球业务的美国CEO，职业生涯中可能去过欧洲75次以上，去过亚洲75次，多次访问中国，建立了人脉关系并持续多年。我认为科技行业也是如此，毫无疑问。嗯。

So I'll make a general com comment about US companies generally. A typical CEO in The United States that runs a global company has probably been to Europe in their careers 75 times or more, and has been to Asia 75 times, has been to China multiple times, has built relationships and has been doing it for years. And I think that's true of tech. No doubt. Mhmm.

你看到的很多科技领袖经常海外出差。而我们的政治领袖和某些政府职位的领导人可能去中国或海外的次数没那么频繁。这就是为什么在这样的时期，企业界仍在持续推进全球关系建设，尽管在国家层面我们正在重新定位，试图将更多产业带回美国，实际上是在去全球化。所以我们存在一种二元对立，这种对比非常鲜明。就像八年前我们退出《巴黎气候协定》时的情况一样。

Many of the tech leaders you see are overseas regularly. Our political leaders and and some of our leaders in certain governmental positions maybe have not been to China or overseas quite as much. And that's why you see during periods like this, the corporate world is continuing to chug along and build relationships globally, even though at at national level, we're sort of reorienting and trying to bring more to The United States and in fact deglobalize. So we've got a kind of a dichotomy, and it stands in sharp relief. This is the same way even eight years ago where we withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord.

没错。

Right.

但据我观察，美国企业丝毫没有放缓建设LEED认证建筑、关注温室气体排放和可持续性的步伐。

And yet companies in The United States, from my to my eye, did not slow down at all in trying to build LEED certified buildings and focus on greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability.

您之前谈到中美企业界在AI应用方面的差异。当您观察美国时，您寻找哪些迹象来判断AI是否真正对美国生产力产生了决定性影响？您关注的具体信号是什么？

You talked earlier about the difference between how China and The US, the corporate sphere, is actually using AI. When you're looking at The US and you're looking for signs that AI is actually having a definitive, you know, needle moving impact on US productivity, what are you looking for here? What are the signs?

我关注的是跨行业的广泛采用，因为发展规律是这样的：首先公司让你试用，然后你开始采用；其次基于这个采用过程尝试各种应用场景。

I'm looking for adoption in a broad set of industries because here's here's how this works. First, your company gets you to try it. Okay? And you adopt it. Second thing you try is various use cases based on that adoption.

第三步是弄清楚哪些应用场景有效，哪些无效。美国目前正处于这个阶段。我说中国稍微领先，是因为他们认为已经在更多行业中验证了某些应用场景的有效性。我们也会达到那个阶段，但十年后回头看时——我猜测可能不如世界其他地区快——我们会完成整个周期，明确哪些应用可行哪些不可行。

And then third thing, you figure out which use cases work and which use cases don't work. We're kind of in that phase right now in The United States. When I say China's a little farther ahead, I think they've already tried and proven some of the use cases in more industry. We'll get there too, but but you'll know when we look back ten years from now, my guess is, maybe not as fast as other parts of the world, we will have gone through all that. We'll know which use cases work, which don't.

我们将采纳有效方案，获得更高效率。工作岗位数量可能不变甚至更多，但会发生转移，我们需要将人员重新部署到空缺岗位。但必须经历整个周期，我认为目前还处于早期阶段。

We'll adopt them. We're gonna get a lot more efficiencies. There may be as many or more jobs, but they're gonna shift, and we're gonna have to redeploy people to where the open jobs are. But we have to go through that whole cycle, and I would say we're early we're early in that.

我们只剩几分钟时间。最近我一直在思考一个问题想听听您的看法：美国实体经济对股市的依赖程度有多高？在您观察中，是否感觉很多事物都依赖于这些公司年复一年地实现正资产回报？

We just have a couple minutes left. Here's something that's been on my mind a little bit lately that I would like your take on. How levered to the stock market is the real US economy? How much when you look around, does it feel like things are dependent on these companies continuing to deliver year after year in positive asset returns?

这是个很好的问题。我认为美国75%是服务型经济，这是一个非常以消费者驱动的经济体。这使得我们的经济与世界许多国家不同。如果分析这里的消费者，这个国家一半的工人——大约8085万人——年收入5万美元，不太可能拥有金融资产，已经失去了25%以上的购买力，并且在努力维持生计。

So it's a great question. So I would say The US is 75% a service economy. It is a very heavily consumer driven economy. This is what makes our economy different from many in the world. And if you break down the consumer here, half the workers in this country, let's take it $8,085,000,000, make $50,000 a year, are unlikely to have financial assets, have lost 25% plus purchasing power, and are struggling to make ends meet.

他们花光赚的每一分钱。但如果你是服务他们的企业，你会发现他们非常谨慎。是的。还有另外大约8000-8500万消费者——我在夸张和概括——55岁及以上，拥有自己的房屋和金融资产，而且如你所说，他们在市场上赚了很多钱，他们正在消费因为他们变得越来越富有。

They're spending every dollar they make. But if you're a business that serves them, you're seeing they're being very careful. Yeah. There's another eighty, eighty five million consumers tend to be I'm exaggerating I'm generalizing. 55 and older own their home, have financial assets, and and they've made a lot of money in the markets, to your point, and they're spending because they're getting wealthier.

我们有两种消费者群体的故事。我认为本届政府部分试图做的是帮助提升第一群体，使他们能够更富裕、过得更好，因为目前我们非常依赖这第二个引擎。

And we've got a tale of two consumer groups. I think part of what this administration, I believe, is trying to do is help lift up this first group so that they can be more affluent and do better because right now, we're very heavily dependent on this second engine

没错。

Right.

基于股市的表现。

Based on the stock market.

好的。我再悄悄问一个问题，回到我们对话开始的地方——关于降息。我知道你说过50个基点可能不在考虑范围内，但你的直觉告诉我，这会是一个持续到明年、2026年的降息周期的开始吗？还是说可能只有一次或两次降息，不会持续更久？

Alright. I'm gonna sneak in one more question and go back to where we started this conversation, which is on rate cuts. I know you said 50 basis point probably not on the table, but your your gut instinct, is this going to be the start of a rate cycle, a rate cut cycle that goes into the next year, 2026, or is this something that, you know, maybe you get one rate cut, maybe you get two rate cuts, but it's not going to go on for much longer than that?

我认为如果是一个周期，将会是一个断断续续的周期。我这是什么意思？9月降息25个基点，我认为这会发生。然后在接下来六周内拭目以待。

I think it will be if it's a cycle, it's gonna be a halting cycle. What do I mean by that? Cut 25 in September. I think that's going to happen. Wipe the slate clean for the next six weeks.

美联储每六周开会一次。拭目以待，确保你仍然确信劳动力市场疲软，检查通胀情况。如果继续疲软且通胀至少温和，可能会再次降息。我指出的问题是我们没有超过75到100个基点的空间达到中性利率。所以今年我们最终可能会进行两到三次降息吗？

Fed meets every six weeks. Wipe the slate clean, make sure that you're convinced still the labor market is weak, check inflation. If it's continued to be weak and inflation is at least moderate, you may do another one. The issue I'm pointing out is I don't think we have more room to get to neutral than 75 to a 100 basis points. So might we wind up doing two or three this year?

也许。我们会最终降息150-200个基点吗？这意味着你必须决定——我认为没有理由实施非常刺激的货币政策。而且我认为，以当前配置来看，只要通胀高于目标，美联储会非常不愿意低于限制性或适度限制性水平。

Maybe. Are we gonna wind up doing a 150, 200 basis points? It means you would want you would have to decide, which I don't see a justification for running a very stimulative monetary policy. And I think the Fed, as it's currently configured, will be enormously reluctant to to be below restrictive or modestly restrictive as long as inflation's running above target.

罗布·卡普兰，非常感谢您参加这次直播。

Rob Kaplan, thank you so much for doing this live.

谢谢。

Thank you.

拥有广阔的未来。

Have lots of future.

内容非常丰富。以上就是我们在Future Proof会议上现场录制的与罗伯特·卡普兰的节目。我是特雷西·阿拉维，你可以在特雷西·阿拉维关注我。

So much. So that was our episode with Robert Kaplan recorded live on stage at the Future Proof conference. I'm Tracy Allaway, and you can follow me at Tracy Allaway.

我是乔·维森塔尔。你可以在The Stalwart关注我。关注我们的制作人：克曼·罗德里格斯（Kermann Armen）、达希尔·贝内特（Dashpot）和凯尔·布鲁克斯（Kale Brooks）。更多Odd Lots内容，请访问bloomberg.com/oddlots，那里有每日通讯和所有节目集锦。你还可以在我们的Discord（discord.gg/oddlots）中全天候讨论所有这些话题。

And I'm Joe Wiesenthal. You can follow me at the stalwart. Follow our producers, Kermann Rodriguez at Kermann Armen, Dashiell Bennett at Dashpot, and Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks. For more Odd content, go to bloomberg.com/oddlots where have the daily newsletter and all of our episodes. And you can chat about all of these topics twenty four seven in our Discord, discord.gg/oddlots.

如果你喜欢Odd Lots，喜欢我们这些现场节目，请在你最喜欢的播客平台上给我们留下好评。记住，如果你是彭博订阅用户，可以完全无广告收听我们所有节目。只需在Apple Podcasts上找到彭博频道并按照说明操作即可。感谢收听。

And if you enjoy Odd Lots, if you like it when we do these live episodes, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.