中国入世、打仗不加税、救银行：斯卡拉穆奇复盘三步如何造出特朗普

《The Reason Interview》是《Reason》杂志的访谈节目，主持人 Nick Gillespie 每期请一位在政治、经济或文化上说得上话的人，做一场一小时上下的长谈1。2026 年 9 月 23 日上线的这一期，嘉宾是 Anthony Scaramucci：SkyBridge Capital 的创始人、SALT 大会的主席，2017 年 7 月 21 日到 7 月 31 日在特朗普政府里当过 11 天白宫通讯联络主任2。

这期 66 分 06 秒3，形式是一对一的长访谈，内容是一次历史复盘加一本新书的推销。Scaramucci 带来的是《All the Wrong Moves: How Three Catastrophic Decisions Led to the Rise of Trump》，Henry Holt 出版，336 页，9 月 22 日上架4。他在书里认了三笔账：克林顿时期把中国拉进全球贸易体系、小布什时期一边打反恐战争一边减税、奥巴马时期救银行的方式。他认为这三步各自加深了不平等，最后一起变成了把特朗普推上台的那股愤怒。

看点在三个地方。第一，他是当事人：一个在华尔街赚到钱、进过白宫、后来又和特朗普翻脸的人，第一人称地讲自己怎么看错了。第二，他给出的是一串具体的数字和制度名词——关贸待遇、赤字口径、预算规则，听完能自己去查。第三，最后 15 分钟话题拐到比特币，他把这条线放在"如果这个国家一直这样借钱下去"的上下文里讲，听众不会把它当成一条投资建议。

Scaramucci 的论证有一个明确的前提：特朗普是症状，不是病因。愤怒先出现，特朗普才找到它。而愤怒的来源，是三个先后发生、分属两党的政策选择——1990 年代末到 2000 年代初打开市场却没有配套保护、2001 年后打仗却不加税、2008 年救市的钱主要流向了金融系统。

他把这套说法写成了书的副题，也在节目里重新讲了一遍。值得注意的是他的自我定位：他在书的第一章里承认，1999 年西雅图那场反全球化抗议、1992 年罗斯·佩罗的警告，当时他都当成了笑话。

第一件，他承认自己当年看错了。 他在书里写，1999 年在西雅图抗议世界贸易组织的人是对的，而 35 岁的他是个"自鸣得意的华尔街红人"，当时在嘲笑他们。这个认错的姿态决定了整期节目的语气：他对面坐的是《Reason》——一家长期批评两党财政政策的自由至上主义杂志，两个人的判断在不少地方是重合的。

第二件，三个决策里有两次是共和党人做的。 小布什的减税与战争、特朗普时期的赤字延续，都由共和党主导。Scaramucci 在节目里直接说，共和党在 21 世纪把财政责任给丢了。

第三件，他给特朗普的唯一正面评价是边境。 他引米尔顿·弗里德曼的话说，有福利国家就必须守住边界。他同时批评特朗普把合法移民也一起收紧。

节目从 0 分开始的前六分钟不谈政策，谈出身，而且谈得很具体。Scaramucci 讲他小时候住在纽约长岛一个意大利裔中产社区，七八岁时母亲和祖母拎着装满衣服的袋子走几个街区去自助洗衣店；今天那家洗衣店的位置上是一家大通银行。他说这是他的一块"核心记忆"，还提到祖母手上被袋子提手勒出的红印。他把这段和美国人的共同经验连起来：那时候没有人开车送孩子上学，孩子自己拿着午餐袋走去学校，这比"直升机式育儿"早了一个世代。

对面坐的 Gillespie 也接了这段。他的父亲是爱尔兰移民的儿子，二战时在欧洲战场；母亲 1945 年从康涅狄格州沃特伯里的一所高中毕业，年鉴上几乎全是女生，因为男生都已经在服役，年鉴里还专门有一页是阵亡的同学。

这段铺垫不是闲笔。Scaramucci 的整个论证建立在一个代际比较上：他这一代人从底层往上走的坡度是真实的，而他认为今天这条扶梯慢了。

两人在这里第一次认真吵起来。Gillespie 问，现在的不满有多少是现实，有多少是叙事。Scaramucci 的回答方式是一个思想实验：假如可以让你选，是在 1926 年做一个年入 12.5 万美元的超级富人，还是在 2026 年拿同样数字的 12.5 万美元？

他的答案是今天，甚至愿意换成 20 年后的同等名义金额。理由不是钱多钱少，是那些钱当时买不到的东西：青霉素普及之前的医学、喷气式飞机、现代药物。他举了自己母亲的例子——快 90 岁，78 岁确诊慢性粒细胞白血病（CML），靠一种叫格列卫（Gleevec，通用名伊马替尼）的靶向药活到现在。

Gillespie 在这段里补了一组对比：12.5 万美元在今天仍比美国家庭收入中位数高约五成，所以在 2026 年拿着这个数字，日子过得并不勉强。

但 Scaramucci 立刻把话拉回来。他承认绝对生活水平在上升，同时说人是"相对的社会动物"，社交网络又不断放大财富的可见度，于是产生被落下的感觉。这构成了整期节目最核心的一组张力：绝对水平在涨，相对感受在跌，而政治是被后者驱动的。

14 分 58 秒进入第一个决策。Gillespie 的问题是：克林顿政府推动中国加入新成立的世界贸易组织，而当时没有配套的保障措施，为什么这算三次灾难性决策之一？

先把这个背景交代清楚。美国给中国的贸易待遇经历过一次身份转换：2000 年 5 月 24 日，众议院通过法案给予中国"永久正常贸易关系"（PNTR，Permanent Normal Trade Relations），克林顿在 2000 年 10 月 10 日签署成法56；中国在 2001 年 12 月 11 日正式成为世贸组织成员。

Scaramucci 说的不是"不该有贸易"。他明确说自己相信大卫·李嘉图的比较优势原理，认为全球寻找最低成本的生产者会让整个社会更富裕。他的问题是身份和条件：中国是以"新兴市场"的身份进来的，享受了保护，却没有对等开放。他提到一个量级对比——22 年前中国的 GDP 还小于意大利。他说，当中国的体量追到德国那个级别时，西方领导人本该要求对方换一套规则。

Gillespie 在这一段做了本场最有力的一次反驳。他说，制造业就业占劳动力的比重在 1940 年代末就见顶了，之后是一条几十年的下行线；美国经历过三四轮"去工业化恐慌"，2000 年代那轮只是最近的一次。他自己的结论是：未来的美国人不必都进工厂，那是机器人该干的活。

Scaramucci 部分接受。他说，即便没有放中国进来，去工业化也会发生；但如果没有中国这个变量，西方经济体和地缘空间的回旋余地会更大。他引用一个学界口径来支持自己：大多数经济学家认为北美自由贸易协定对美国就业的影响很小。他承认"美国工人感觉更糟"这件事成立，然后把落点移开——他真正担心的是地缘政治后果，用他的原话，是西方领导人"政治上的失职"，让中国变得不必要地更强。

这一节里还有一个值得记下的细节。他谈到弗里德曼的一个判断：如果你有福利国家，你就必须守边界，因为不守边界，人们就会跨过来参与福利分配。他由此说，特朗普在边境问题上抓对了，拜登没有；但特朗普把合法移民也一起收紧，这一点他明确反对。

29 分 45 秒进入第二个决策。Gillespie 先给了一个历史参照：美国几乎每一场战争都配了税，越战有，甚至 1812 年战争也是靠发债打的，而且结果不好。他问的是，反恐战争在财政上到底做错了什么。

Scaramucci 的回答从 2001 年 9 月 11 日当晚的财政位置开始。他说那天晚上美国手上有一份可以让国家"在 2010 年前把那笔债还掉"的财政安排，而克林顿交给后任的是一份约 2400 亿美元的年度盈余。（他在口述里把这个位置的数字说成"5.8 万亿"，接的却是"如果守住这个战略"和"还债"，听起来指的是十年期的累计盈余口径。公开资料里，美国国会预算办公室在 2001 年 1 月预测 2002 至 2011 年累计盈余约 5.6 万亿美元8。）

然后他给出这期的关键指控：美国去打仗，却没有加税，反而在 2001 年 3 月和 2003 年 3 月各减了一次税。他把这称为把预算轨迹推到了失控的位置。2001 年与 2003 年的两次减税，是那十年最大的税收政策变化9。

他随后给了两个总量数字，这里必须说明是他的口径：他说从乔治·华盛顿到老布什任期结束，累计赤字支出约 7 万亿美元；此后的奥巴马、特朗普、拜登、特朗普，又累计约 33 万亿美元。这两个数字在公开财政统计里没有一一对应的口径，听众可以把它当作他的量级判断。

真正让这一段立住的是他引的弗里德曼。他说，弗里德曼有一句话是"赤字支出就是一笔没有着落的税"，而政客们倾向于用最省事、也最退步的方式征税，那就是通胀。他随后的解释很具体：如果你付给我父亲 1000 美元，再让通胀拿走其中的三成，他就实实在在少拿了；而如果这笔钱变成股票或一栋海边房子，持有者可以用资产对冲掉通胀。同一场通胀，落在不同人身上，效果完全不同。这是他解释"为什么普通家庭会愤怒"的机制。

34 分 20 秒，Gillespie 把话题收窄到共和党自己身上：党曾经是"大政府是民主党的标签"，从什么时候起把财政保守主义丢了？

Scaramucci 的回答指向制度。他说，老布什时期的预算局长理查德·达尔曼推动过一套控制赤字的立法（即 1990 年的预算执行法案与随后的"现收现付"规则，PAYGO），要求新增减税或支出必须找到对应的补偿来源。他接着说了一句让 Gillespie 笑出来的话：真正遵守这套规则、并因此在 2000 年拿到预算盈余的，其实是比尔·克林顿。而这套规则在 2002 年前后失效，没有被续上。

他由此得出的结论是操作层面的：你不需要一把电锯，也不需要 DOGE 那样的项目来修预算，只要让政府支出的增速慢于 GDP 增速，十五年之后差距就会自己收窄。

这一段还有两个延伸。一个是他引艾森豪威尔对"军工复合体"的警告，说这笔钱有自我扩张的惯性：美国一年花一万亿美元军费，五个月就打光了弹药；用一枚上百万美元的"萨德"拦截弹去打一架五万美元的无人机，这套账已经过时。另一个是两党格局：他说两党通过程序把第三党挤了出去，佩罗、2000 年试图以改革党身份参选的特朗普、2024 年的小罗伯特·肯尼迪都撞在这堵墙上，结果是现在四成以上的选民自认独立派。

39 分 04 秒，Gillespie 提出第三个决策，并说明《Reason》当年对布什和奥巴马两届的救市都持批评立场。

还是先交代背景。2008 年 10 月，国会为"问题资产救助计划"（TARP，Troubled Asset Relief Program）授权 7000 亿美元，这一授权后来经《多德-弗兰克法案》压缩到 4750 亿美元11；国会预算办公室在收官报告里估算，TARP 的全生命周期净成本约为 310 亿美元12。也就是说，最终账单远小于最初授权。但危机本身的代价落在别处：失业率在 2009 年 10 月见顶于 10.0%13。

Scaramucci 承认救市在当时的意图是好的，也承认危机来临时政客会本能地往左靠。他关心的标准是"怎么救才算公平"：如果拿出一万亿美元救银行，同时有五千人拿到百万美元以上的奖金，那么中低收入家庭会觉得这套系统只照顾一头。他的判断是，占领华尔街和茶党就是这样被同时点着的——两股力量后来合流，成了推动特朗普的燃料。

这一段里有一个必须写下来的细节：他主动交代了自己的利益关系。他说自己并没有拿 TARP 的钱，但作为一个小的投资管理人，银行恢复之后他的生意也跟着恢复，所以他确实从那次救助里受益。他把这句话放在论证中间讲了出来。

Gillespie 补了另一层：美国有六成到六成五的家庭拥有住房，房价在危机中被打掉，这些人手里最大的资产缩水，愤怒就有具体来源。

43 分 11 秒。Gillespie 问的是通路：这些愤怒怎么最后落到了特朗普身上？

Scaramucci 的说法是"偶然"。他说特朗普起初没有一套完整的计划，只是决定要选，并且真的拼命在选；真正让他发现自己有机会的，是共和党比他想象的更空。他描述这个空：里根时代的核心原则不见了，自由至上主义那套原则也不见了，那这个党到底代表什么？

Gillespie 在这里引用了一句 Scaramucci 书里的转述——特朗普对他说，我的基本盘"财政上是自由派，社会议题上是保守派"。Scaramucci 由此展开：2010 年前后有人在集会上举牌写"让政府把手从我的医保上拿开"，而医保恰恰是政府项目；这些人交的保费和自付额加起来还覆盖不了四成的成本。他说特朗普理解了这种矛盾并且顺着它竞选，代表了一批经济上原本有奔头、如今感觉没有奔头的白人工人阶级。

节目的封面引言就出自这里：他说特朗普并没有为这些人做过什么，但他确实代表了他们——

关于 2016 年的结果，他的归因很直接：希拉里·克林顿没有去威斯康星、没有去密歇根、只去了宾夕法尼亚一次，特朗普在现场跑得更勤，最后以极小的差距赢下。他用了一个体育比喻，说那是一个空门点球被踢飞的机会。

49 分 24 秒，Gillespie 用"11 天的通讯联络主任"这个身份把话题引到拜登。Scaramucci 的批评集中在判断力和具体政策：他把前四年的外交说成连续误判，从乌克兰到阿富汗；他用了一组家庭比喻来形容 2024 年的选情，说先是"一个脑子不清醒的叔叔在推特上掀风暴"，后来换成"日落综合征的祖父对上那个疯叔叔"，最后又用妹妹替换了祖父。

他提到一个可核查的细节：2024 年 11 月 3 日选举夜，美国被搜索最多的词是"拜登退选了吗"。他的解释是低信息量选民不知道发生了什么。他的结论是特朗普赢下了全部七个摇摆州和普选票。

接下来这段是他对特朗普第二任期的评价：竞选时承诺结束战争，上任 19 到 20 个月后仍在打"永久的战争"；说要压价格，却通过关税与能源供给冲击把价格推高；说要提高政府透明度、公布爱泼斯坦文件，结果没有公布。说到这里，他主动补了一句自己的关联：他本人出现在爱泼斯坦文件里，因为早年一次关于比特币的采访邮件落在一个爱泼斯坦也在的邮件列表里；他还说自己是某俱乐部的主席团成员，俱乐部当年想把爱泼斯坦清出去，是他去通知的。Gillespie 回了一句，特朗普本人在那件事里的卷入程度比他或 Scaramucci 都深。

然后是本节的落点。他说现在的总统非常不受欢迎，支持率 33%、反对率 67%，是现代历史上最低的水平之一；而结论是那句"这种基于愤怒的民粹主义，解决不了问题"。

54 分 18 秒之后，Gillespie 提了一个反问：如果绝对生活水平在上升，那两国之争也许更多是叙事之争。他半开玩笑地说，今天美国缺的不是机会，是一个关于自己的正面故事——"我们不再说自己是移民的国家、奋斗者的国家"，连奥巴马那句"一个瘦瘦的、大耳朵、名字古怪的孩子也能在美国成功"这样的说法，现在也没人讲了。

Scaramucci 的回答分两层。制度层面，他给出三件事：恢复"现收现付"规则（这套规则在 2002 年前后失效，需要重新立法）；处理竞选资金，他提到联合公民案（Citizens United）——他记得基思·奥尔伯曼把这案子称作"我们的德雷德·斯科特判决"，他认为这个形容过头，但承认钱在政治里的作用需要管；以及对总统本人设定约束——他说特朗普告诉过身边的人，过去的总统本可以给自己赚几十亿却没有做，"我们不能这样"，所以应该把这些规矩写进法律，防止未来的总统再这么做。

动员层面，他给了一个数字：美国有大约 1 亿人有投票资格却没有登记或不投票，历次选举的投票率常年在五成上下。他的判断是，如果能把这批人重新拉进来，眼下的僵局就有被打破的可能。

62 分 55 秒进入最后一段。Gillespie 顺着前面"债务大到一定程度就得换货币"的话头问：比特币在这里扮演什么角色，是对冲，是约束，还是一艘救生艇？

Scaramucci 先声明自己不知道答案，只给推测。他的推理链是：比特币的技术属性让它会被继续采用；在财政一路超支的背景下，它会在未来的货币格局里有发言权。他给出的具体判断是：比特币未必成为世界储备货币，但它可能成为一种储值工具，市值有机会走到黄金的一半——按他的说法，这是当前水平的十倍。

他把这句话的受众说清楚了：这条线不是给六十几岁的人准备的，是给三四十岁的下一代准备的，所以他自己会配一部分。最后他补了一个很多人不会补的条件：他说自己更希望看到的是比特币涨到 50 万美元、同时法币体系还正常运转、美国把债务控制住；他提到 Galaxy 的创始人迈克·诺沃格拉茨14，说两人常聊这件事——如果比特币涨到 100 万，对他们的持仓是好事，对整个经济未必是。

PNTR（永久正常贸易关系）：美国过去每年要审议一次对华最惠国待遇，2000 年的立法把这种年度审议取消，改成永久安排，为中国入世扫清程序障碍5。

中国冲击（China shock）：经济学界对 2000 年后中国进口竞争给美国局部劳动力市场造成冲击的统称，由 David Autor、David Dorn、Gordon Hanson 在 2016 年的论文中系统提出，他们估计 1999 至 2011 年间因此流失的岗位在 200 万到 240 万个之间15。这组数字比节目里的定性说法更保守，可以作为参照。

TARP：2008 年 10 月设立的救市计划，国会授权 7000 亿美元，实际授权规模后来压到 4750 亿美元，最终净成本远低于授权额11。

PAYGO（现收现付）：要求新增减税或强制性支出必须由其他地方的增收或减支来抵消，是节目里 Scaramucci 反复提到的"程序性办法"。

CBO（国会预算办公室）：美国国会的无党派预算分析机构，节目里提到的十年期盈余预测就来自它。

CML 与格列卫：CML 是慢性粒细胞白血病；格列卫（伊马替尼）是把它从致死疾病变成可控慢性病的靶向药。Scaramucci 用它来解释"技术进步带来的生活水平提升为什么是真实的"。

军工复合体：艾森豪威尔在 1961 年告别演说里提出的说法，指军方与国防工业之间相互强化的关系。Scaramucci 用它来解释为什么战争开支会自我延续。

Anthony Scaramucci：1964 年 1 月 6 日生于纽约州 Port Washington，在长岛长大；塔夫茨大学经济学学士，哈佛法学院法学博士；1989 年进入高盛，做过投资银行、股票和私人财富管理；2005 年创办另类投资公司 SkyBridge Capital，2009 年创办 SALT 大会。2017 年 7 月 21 日出任白宫通讯联络主任，7 月 31 日去职，11 天是这一职位历史上最短的任期之一2。2024 年 4 月 26 日起，他与 BBC 的 Katty Kay 共同主持《The Rest Is Politics》美国版16。

Nick Gillespie：本期的提问者，《Reason》杂志的编辑，长期主持该杂志的访谈节目。这期里他承担了反驳的角色，尤其是在制造业比重和"恐慌周期"两处。

米尔顿·弗里德曼（1912—2006）：美国经济学家，芝加哥学派代表人物、货币主义的主要倡导者，1976 年获诺贝尔经济学奖。他的名言"通胀在任何时候、任何地方都是一种货币现象"是 Scaramucci 那段"通胀是最退步的税"论证的理论来源17。

罗伯特·莱特希泽：特朗普第一任期的美国贸易代表（2017—2021），北美自贸协定重谈与对华贸易战的主要设计者，2023 年出版《No Trade Is Free》。Scaramucci 在节目里说他是好朋友，并借用他的说法"没有自由贸易，只有公平贸易"18。

债务总量。 节目里给的"7 万亿"和"33 万亿"是 Scaramucci 自己的口径，公开财政统计里没有直接对应的两个数字，引用时宜保留"他说"这个前缀。

9/11 当晚的财政位置。 他口述为"5.8 万亿美元的预算赤字"，但同一句紧接着讲的是"守住这个战略就能在 2010 年前还债"，语义上指向十年期累计盈余。与之最接近的公开数字是国会预算办公室 2001 年 1 月对 2002—2011 年约 5.6 万亿美元累计盈余的预测8。

制造业岗位流失。 他把重点从岗位数量挪到了地缘后果，这与他引用的"NAFTA 影响很小"的学界看法是一致的；劳工统计局的数据显示，美国制造业就业在 2019 年 6 月为 1280 万人，比历史峰值少 670 万、降幅 35%19。

他的身份带来的立场。 他是华尔街出身、自己也从救市中受益的人，这一点他在节目里主动交代，可以当作理解他论证取向的一个变量。

书评界的另一种读法。 《卫报》在 9 月 15 日的书评里承认他的三件事"难以反驳"，同时指出这些论点在当年就被反复提出过——1992 年大选中的右翼挑战者、1999 年西雅图的抗议者都说过；书评批评他反省了结论，却没有反省自己当年为什么听不进去20。

逐字稿以讲话人为单位分段，每段先列英文原文、再附中文译文；时间轴每 10 分钟标注一次。开头数秒是节目固定开场，识别后只留下一个残句，这里按识别结果保留。

Nick Gillespie： This iToday, my guest is somebody who I follow voraciously, particularly on the The Rest Is Politics U.S. podcast, but everywhere he appears, it's Anthony Scaramucci, whose new book is called All the Wrong Moves, How Three Catastrophic Decisions Led to the Rise of Trump. Anthony Scaramucci, thanks for talking to Reason.

今天，我的嘉宾是我非常关注的人，尤其是在《The Rest Is Politics U.S.》播客上，但无论他出现在哪里，他都是安东尼·斯卡拉穆奇，他的新书名为《All the Wrong Moves: How Three Catastrophic Decisions Led to the Rise of Trump》（所有错误的举动：三次灾难性决策如何导致特朗普崛起）。安东尼·斯卡拉穆奇，感谢你接受 Reason 的采访。

Anthony Scaramucci： Oh, listen, it's a big honor to be on. I was very grateful to get invited. And I have a Nick. I have a Nick Scaramucci, you know. I love the name Nick, because Nick, it's like you're going to get punched in the face. You know, if you have a Nick Gillespie, Nick Scaramucci, it's like a tough name. You know, you didn't have a problem in middle school because of that name.

哦，听着，能上节目是一种很大的荣誉。我非常感激被邀请。我有一个叫尼克。我有一个叫尼克·斯卡拉穆奇的，你知道的。我喜欢尼克这个名字，因为尼克，就好像你要挨一拳的样子。你知道，如果你有一个叫尼克·吉莱斯皮或尼克·斯卡拉穆奇的名字，这听起来就是一个很硬朗的名字。你知道，因为这个名字，你在中学时不会遇到麻烦。

Nick Gillespie： Oh, is that right?

哦，是吗？

Anthony Scaramucci： Male sexual war.

男性性战争

Nick Gillespie： Well, that's all right.

好吧，那没关系。

Anthony Scaramucci： It was a tough thing growing up.

成长过程中很艰难。

Nick Gillespie： Nothing wrong with that.

那没什么错。

Anthony Scaramucci： And it came from the Italian side, my mother's side of the family, and I didn't meet a non-related Nick until, I don't know, I think I was in college or later. It's a popular name now. It's a big Italian name, so we have a Nick in our family. Anthony, Anthony and Tony as well.

它来自意大利那边的，我母亲一边的家族。我直到……我也不知道，可能是上大学或者更晚的时候，才遇到一个和我没有血缘关系的尼克。现在这个名字很流行。它是一个很大的意大利名字，所以我们家族里有一个尼克。还有安东尼、安东尼和托尼。

Nick Gillespie： You got that right. And you are, I guess you're named after the patron saint of lost things, right?

你说得对。我猜你是以迷失之物的守护圣人命名的，对吧？

Anthony Scaramucci： Right. I'm named after the patron saint of lost things, and I'm actually named after my uncle, Anthony, who fought on Normandy Beach.

对。我是以失物守护圣徒的名字命名的，实际上我是以我的叔叔安东尼的名字命名的，他曾在诺曼底海滩作战。

Nick Gillespie： Oh, wow.

哦，哇。

Anthony Scaramucci： And so that's my mother's oldest brother.

所以那是我母亲的大哥。

Nick Gillespie： I just want to ask real clear, he was fighting for the allies, right?

我只是想问得很清楚，他是为盟军作战的，对吧？

Anthony Scaramucci： He was, yeah. Yes, he was. He was fighting for the allies.

是的，他确实是。他在为盟军而战。

Nick Gillespie： This is an Italian immigrant story from the 1920s.

这是一个发生在 1920 年代的意大利移民故事。

Anthony Scaramucci： He was born in 24. They moved his high school. graduation from June to March of 43, so that he could participate in the Normandy invasion, but which he survived, thank God.

他出生于 24 年。他们将他的高中毕业时间从 43 年的六月提前到三月，以便他可以参加诺曼底登陆，感谢上帝，他幸存下来了。

Nick Gillespie： Yeah, I'm glad to hear that. My father, who was the son of Irish immigrants, was also not in the Normandy landing per se, but in the Normandy campaign. And my mother, Teresa Guida, was her maiden name, had a brother who invaded Italy. The same country her father had left only about 20 years before. And her yearbook, just to start on a kind of somber note, she graduated from a high school in Waterbury, Connecticut in 1945. And it's almost all women because all of the men were already serving. And there was a page of people who had died. An amazing kind

是的，我很高兴听到这个消息。我的父亲是爱尔兰移民的儿子，他本人虽然没有直接参与诺曼底登陆，但参加了诺曼底战役。我的母亲，原姓特蕾莎·圭达（Teresa Guida），有一个兄弟入侵了意大利——同一个国家，她的父亲大约二十年前才离开。而她的年鉴，先从一个有些沉重的角度说起，她于 1945 年在康涅狄格州沃特伯里的一所高中毕业。几乎全是女性，因为所有男性都已经在服役了。还有一页是关于去世的人。真是不可思议的一类

Anthony Scaramucci： It's a different generation, Nick. You and I are in that bridge, right? Because we're the tail end of the baby boom. So we remember all of those people. And now we're experiencing this new world where World War II and Pearl Harbor, things like that are distant memories, but it's something you and I grew up with all those stories.

这是不同的一代，尼克。你我都在那座桥上，对吧？因为我们属于婴儿潮的末端。所以我们记得所有那些人。现在我们正在经历这个新世界，二战和珍珠港之类的事情，已经是遥远的记忆了，但你我都是在那些故事中长大的。

Nick Gillespie： Absolutely. And let me, before we go into the book proper, which is not only important, but incredibly readable and open in the way you discuss events in your life, and particularly with the Trump administration and larger policy questions. But I just want to focus on this for a second. In one moment, I think it was in 1972, you said, You're a young kid and you said you came home and your grandmother and mother were beside themselves with glee because they had just gotten a washer and dryer installed in the cinder block basement of the house you grew up in. And that meant your grandmother never had to go to the laundromat again. Can you just talk a little bit about that America? I mean, it's not even that old.

当然可以。在我们进入正题之前，也就是书的内容本身——这本书不仅重要，而且极易阅读，对于你生活中的事件，尤其是关于特朗普政府和更大政策问题的讨论，你表现得非常坦诚——我想先专注于这一点。有一个时刻，我记得是在 1972 年，你说过，你还是个年轻孩子，你回到家时，你的祖母和母亲高兴得几乎失控，因为他们刚刚在你成长的房子的煤渣块地下室安装了洗衣机和烘干机。这意味着你的祖母再也不用去洗衣店了。你能谈谈那时候的美国吗？我的意思是，这也不是很久以前的事。

Anthony Scaramucci： It's a core memory for me, you know, and I'm coming out of the second grade. If I took you to my hometown or took you to the house I grew up in, I was very lucky that we had our school, which was called the Main Street School in Port Washington, was walking distance from my house. And this is...

这是我重要的记忆，你知道的，那时候我刚读完二年级。如果我带你去我的家乡，或者带你去我长大的房子，我非常幸运的是，我们的学校，叫做波特华盛顿的主街学校，离我家步行可达。而这……

Nick Gillespie： This predates helicopter parenting.

这早于直升机式养育。

Anthony Scaramucci： And so my parents, my mother would hand me a lunch bag and you go walk to the school. There was no driving or anything like that. We went right to the school. And I just remember coming home one afternoon and my mom and my mother were hugely excited. It's a core memory for me because I used to remember my grandmother and my mother They had those bags where they had, you know, those rope handles. I could still see the red indentation marks on my grandmother's hands. She would take our laundry up to the laundromat. And what's interesting, the laundromat was a few blocks away. There's a Chase Bank now where that laundromat was. But, you know, this is middle-class America, lots of Italian-Americans. Many people don't have... Well, I appreciate you reading it, but I told that story because that's the family I grew up in. That's the, and by the way, like you, Nick, I'm a grateful person. I would never tell anybody I grew up poor. I would never dishonor the work ethic of my grandmother, my dad, my mother. I did not grow up poor. We had everything that we needed. And on Sundays at one o'clock, we ate to the point of explosion. Okay, I guess the only thing I could be mad at my father or my older brother for is they made me a Mets fan. Other than that, I really have nothing to be upset with them for. I mean, we could have been a Yankee fan, but now I have to suffer for the remaining years of my life, and I have suffered for the last 50 years as a Mets fan. But, you know, that would probably be the only thing I would say.

所以我的父母、我的母亲会给我一个午餐袋，然后你步行去学校。 There was no driving or anything like that. We went right to the school. 我只记得有一天下午回到家，我妈妈和我妈妈都非常兴奋。 It's a core memory for me because I used to remember my grandmother and my mother They had those bags where they had, you know, those rope handles. 我仍然可以看到祖母手上的红色压痕。 She would take our laundry up to the laundromat. 有趣的是，自助洗衣店就在几个街区之外。 原来的自助洗衣店现在变成了一家大通银行。 但是，你知道，这是美国的中产阶级，有很多意大利裔美国人。 Many people don't have... Well, I appreciate you reading it, but I told that story because that's the family I grew up in. That's the, and by the way, like you, Nick, I'm a grateful person. I would never tell anybody I grew up poor. 我永远不会辜负我祖母、父亲、母亲的职业道德。 我并不是贫穷长大的。 We had everything that we needed.而且在星期天下午一点，我们吃到快要爆炸。好吧，我想我唯一能对我父亲或哥哥生气的事情就是他们让我成为了大都会队的球迷。除此之外，我真的没有理由对他们生气。我的意思是，我们本可以成为洋基队的粉丝，但现在我必须在余生中忍受，而且在过去的 50 年里，我已经作为大都会队的球迷受苦了。不过，你知道，那可能就是我唯一会说的事情。

Nick Gillespie： Yeah, well, you could have been a Dodgers or a Giants fan and have to give up on baseball altogether, right?

是啊，你本来可以是道奇队或巨人队的粉丝，然后不得不彻底放弃棒球，对吧？

Anthony Scaramucci： Right. That was a big heartbreak for that generation.

没错。对于那一代人来说，那是一次巨大的心碎。

Nick Gillespie： I want to come back to this after we talk a little bit about the three big catastrophic decisions that you talk about. How much of what we're going through right now, you know, there is a palpable sense of, you know, of disunity, of stagnation, of negativity, particularly among younger generations, millennials and Gen Z, who, you know, there are no questions that they are facing certain types of difficulties and the economy is in a radical transformation, the culture is in a radical transformation, but materially, they are better off than ever. And one of the things that I guess, you know, what's interesting to me, and that is implicit in everything that you write in the book, is that our parents and grandparents, and I think most people in the baby boom generation inherited this, but it kind of ends with us in a way. You were grateful for what you had because you knew it was better than what you had had 50 years ago or your ancestors, you know, either in the old country or here. And how much of the problems in America are not about things that are really happening and it's more, we don't have a narrative. We grew up with that idea that, well, America is a land of immigrants and... It was better here than it was in Italy or Ireland or, you know, Poland or anything. And we don't think that way anymore because we've incorporated the idea that everything should be getting better, lightning fast. And if I don't have what I'm going to have at age 50, at age 25, screw the whole system.

我想在我们稍微谈一下你提到的三个重大灾难性决策之后再回到这个问题。我们现在所经历的，有多少是因为，你知道，有一种明显的、可以感受到的不团结、停滞和消极，特别是在年轻一代中，千禧一代和 Z 世代，他们面临某些类型的困难，这是毫无疑问的，并且经济正在发生根本性的转变，文化也在经历根本性的转变，但在物质上，他们比以往任何时候都要好。而我想，令我感兴趣的是，这在你的书中无处不在，这就是我们的父母和祖父母那一代人，我觉得大多数婴儿潮一代的人都继承了这一点，但在某种程度上，它在我们这代人那里结束了。你会感激你所拥有的一切，因为你知道那比你 50 年前所拥有的，或者你的祖先，无论是在老家还是在这里，都要好。美国的问题有多少并不是真正发生的事情，而更多的是，我们没有一个叙事。我们从小就有这样的想法，认为美国是一个移民的土地……这里比意大利、爱尔兰或者波兰等地方都要好。但我们不再这样想了，因为我们已经接受了这样一种观念：一切都应该以闪电般的速度变得更好。如果我在 25 岁时没有在 50 岁应该拥有的东西，那整个系统就毫无意义。

Anthony Scaramucci： Yeah. So listen, it's a great point. Living standards have gone up for everyone. I do think, unfortunately, we're relative social organisms, and so we always have this relative benchmarking. I do think in the age of social media, the glorification of wealth, As made people feel FOMO or feel left out. But I'm gonna frame it to you this way, and I'd love to get your answer on this. If I said to you, Nick, you could live in 1926, and I'm gonna give you $125,000 of $1926 a year, it's gonna make a very, very rich person for 1926. Well, I'm going to give you that same amount of money, $125,000, but it is $2,026 100 years later. Which society would you like to live in? Now, remember, this is pre-forced penicillin, before modern advancement of medicine, lots of things that we didn't know about the world that we do today, before computerization. Air travel, jet travel.

是的。所以听着，这是一个很好的观点。大家的生活水平都提高了。不幸的是，我确实认为我们是相对的社会性生物，所以我们总是有这种相对的比较。我确实认为在社交媒体时代，对财富的美化，使人们感到害怕错过（FOMO）或者感到被排斥。但我要这样给你构建这个问题，我也很想听听你的回答。如果我对你说，Nick，你可以生活在 1926 年，我每年给你 1926 年的 12.5 万美元，这在 1926 年会让你成为非常非常富有的人。那么，如果我给你同样金额的 12.5 万美元，但那是在 100 年后的 2026 年。你更愿意生活在哪个社会？现在记住，这是在强制使用青霉素之前，在现代医学进步之前，那时有很多我们今天才知道的事情都还不知道，在计算机化之前，航空旅行、喷气式旅行也都还没有。

Nick Gillespie： Yep.

嗯。

Anthony Scaramucci： And so what's the answer to that, Nick? Would you rather be super rich in that era or medium getting a buy in this era?

那么那个问题的答案是什么，尼克？你愿意在那个时代超级富有，还是在这个时代中等水平地获得入场机会？

Nick Gillespie： Yeah. I mean, and just to dial down on that a little bit more, $125,000 today is still about 50% more than the median household income in America. So it's not just getting by. It's actually doing pretty well now. You would be not quite rich as a Rockefeller 100 years ago, but you'd be doing very well. I wouldn't hesitate to pick today, or I would even say give me that amount of nominal dollars 20 years from now, and I'll take that because the world is going to be a better place.

是的。我的意思是，再稍微详细说一下的话，今天 12 万 5000 美元仍然比美国的家庭收入中位数高约 50%。所以这不仅仅是勉强维持生活，而是实际上过得相当不错。你可能不如 100 年前的洛克菲勒那样富有，但生活会非常好。我不会犹豫选择今天的收入，或者我甚至会说，20 年后给我同样面值的美元，我也愿意接受，因为到那时世界会更美好。

Anthony Scaramucci： Yeah, I think that's the issue. So you and I are in intellectual philosophical agreement. We're in a better place. That's the issue. I often tell younger people that, to think like that. The society is advancing. Peter Diamandis is a good friend of mine. We as gods. He just wrote this book, which is about... The technological abundance that we're about to embark upon. My mother is about to turn 90. God bless her. I hope she gets there. It'll be in January of 2027. God willing that she'll get there. But if she was born earlier, she would have not made 90 because she was diagnosed with leukemia. She has a disease called CML, chronic myeloid leukemia, and that diagnosis happened at age 78. And the drug that she's using is something called Gleevec, which was discovered at the University of Pennsylvania, that she's lived a relatively normal life.

是的，我觉得这就是问题所在。所以你和我在智力和哲学上达成了一致。我们处于一个更好的状态。这就是问题所在。我经常告诉年轻人，要这样思考。社会在进步。彼得·戴曼迪斯是我的好朋友。我们就像神一样。他刚写了一本书，内容是关于……我们即将进入的技术丰盛。我母亲马上就要 90 岁了，上帝保佑她。我希望她能活到那个年龄。那会是在 2027 年 1 月，如果上帝愿意，她能够活到那时。但如果她出生得早一些，她可能活不到 90 岁，因为她被诊断出患有白血病。她患有一种叫做慢性髓性白血病（CML）的疾病，而这个诊断是在她 78 岁时做出的。她所使用的药物叫做格列卫（Gleevec），是在宾夕法尼亚大学发现的，她已经过了相对正常的生活。

Nick Gillespie： To economically aspirational, because one of the things that I- Or abundant, right? To use a Diamandis-type term.

追求经济上的抱负，因为我其中一件事——或者充裕，对吧？用迪阿曼迪斯类型的说法。

Anthony Scaramucci： Yeah, exactly. Or abundant. I want my kids to do better than me. Maybe they won't, but I want them to at least have my living standards.

是的，完全正确。或者说充足。我希望我的孩子们比我做得更好。也许他们做不到，但我希望他们至少能过上我这样的生活水平。

Nick Gillespie： Well, can I ask, I mean, because, and I'm sorry, I'm kind of front-loading the conversation here, but your kids are not going to do better than you. Because you are, you know, you're a centimillionaire, are you a billionaire, or where do you land in these kinds of conversations?

嗯，我可以问一下吗，我的意思是，因为……我很抱歉，我有点提前引入了这个话题，但你的孩子们不会比你做得更好。因为你是，你知道的，你是一个千万元富翁，你是亿万富翁，还是在这种讨论中属于哪个层级？

Anthony Scaramucci： So I'm not a billionaire. I mean, if you looked at my S-86 from 2017, you know, which was publicly disclosed because I had to do that to go work in the White House, I had about $85 million of net worth. So obviously I'm a decent investor. It's probably more than that today, but... I'm not here to brag about that or even pat myself on the back.

所以我不是亿万富翁。我的意思是，如果你看过我 2017 年的 S-86 表格，你知道，因为我必须那样做才能去白宫工作，这份表格是公开披露的，我当时净资产大约是 8500 万美元。所以显然我算是一个不错的投资者。今天可能还不止这些，但是……我不是来吹嘘这个，甚至也不是来自我表扬的。

Nick Gillespie： But what I'm getting at is the idea, and I'm not saying this in a nasty way, but it's like your kids are not going to do better than you because you are squeezed in at the top of the pyramid and there's no place else to go. I'm not doing nearly as well as you, but I am doing so much better. I mean, by the time... My father hadn't graduated high school. By the time I got my first full-time job out of college, I was making more money than he had ever made. My kids are probably not going to do better than me because I'm doing very well, but they will do as well as I did.

但我想表达的意思是这个想法，我不是以一种刻薄的方式说的，但就像你的孩子不会比你做得更好，因为你已经被挤在金字塔的顶端，没有其他地方可去了。我远没有你做得那么好，但我已经好了很多。我的意思是，到……我父亲高中都没毕业。当我大学毕业找到第一份全职工作时，我赚的钱比他一生中挣的都多。我的孩子可能不会比我做得更好，因为我做得非常好，但他们会和我当初一样好。

Anthony Scaramucci： Well, listen, I mean, listen, I'm, oh, you see, I, it's so funny because I, I, I, even though we don't know each other, I feel like I do know you because you probably grew up very similarly.

嗯，听着，我是说，听着，我，哦，你看，我，这太有趣了，因为我，我，我，尽管我们不认识对方，我感觉好像认识你，因为你可能是以非常相似的方式长大的。

Nick Gillespie： Yeah.

是的。

Anthony Scaramucci： So I would say this to you, I've taken a different approach with my adult children. I have five children, three from my first marriage, two from my second marriage, but my adult children, ages 34, 30, and 27, I have said to them something that my parents could not say to me. And that was, I want you to pick something you really love. I don't care what it is. I want you to go at that with a vengeance and just do that. So my older son's a venture capitalist, went to Stanford Business School. He may end up doing better than me. Frankly, he may already be better than me because he owns Anthropic, the kid. But my daughter's an opera singer. And my younger son, my 27-year-old Anthony, is a filmmaker. He's done two very successful small, what they call short films, you know, now, and he's building up his film portfolio. But, you know, I've helped them and I've insulated them from a living standard perspective. So I think I'm more in the actualization business, Nick. I, if you had said to me, this is where I'm really gonna expose my vanity, Gillespie, okay, if you said to me, what did you really wanna do? I would have gone to Hollywood, tried to become an actor.

所以我会对你说，我对我的成年子女采取了不同的方式。我有五个孩子，三个来自我的第一次婚姻，两个来自我的第二次婚姻，但对于我的成年子女，分别是 34 岁、30 岁和 27 岁，我对他们说了一些我父母从未对我说过的话。那就是，我希望你选择一件你真正热爱的事情。我不在乎那是什么，我希望你全力以赴去做，就只做那件事。所以我大儿子是一名风险投资家，去了斯坦福商学院。他可能最终会比我更成功，坦白说，他可能已经比我更成功了，因为他拥有 Anthropic。但我女儿是位歌剧歌手。我小儿子，也就是 27 岁的 Anthony，是一名电影制作人。他已经制作了两部非常成功的小型短片，现在正在积累他的电影作品集。但是，你知道，我帮助过他们，并且从生活水平的角度为他们提供了保障。所以我认为我更多是在从事自我实现的事业，Nick。我，如果你对我说，这是我要真正暴露我的虚荣的地方，吉莱斯皮，好吧，如果你问我，你真正想做什么？我本来会去好莱坞，尝试成为一名演员。

Nick Gillespie： You know? Yeah.

你知道吗？嗯。

Anthony Scaramucci： I didn't have the balls to do it. Right. My parents had no money. I went to Wall Street, Nick. Like, what did Willie Sutton say about the banks? I'm robbing the banks. Yeah, yeah. Because that's where the money is. Right. So I went to Wall Street. So my foray into politics is so accidental. I'm on a Wall Street trading desk. I'm supposed to bring in clients. I don't know anybody. Never been to a country club, never swung a tennis racket or swung a golf club. What the hell am I going to do? And I say, hey, you know, I'm going to go to political fundraisers. Wealthy people go to political fundraisers. And I go to work for Rudy Giuliani. This is like pretty crazy Rudy, you know, and I'm working for Rudy. Hey, Nick, the best thing-

我没有勇气去做。没错。我的父母没有钱。我去了华尔街，Nick。比如，Willie Sutton 对银行说过什么？他说我要抢银行。是的，是的。因为钱就在那儿。没错。所以我去了华尔街。所以我涉足政治是非常偶然的。我在华尔街的一个交易台上工作。我应该带来客户。我不认识任何人。从没去过乡村俱乐部，从没打过网球或高尔夫球。我能做什么呢？然后我说，嘿，你知道吗，我去参加政治筹款活动。富人会去参加政治筹款活动。然后我去为鲁迪·朱利安尼工作。这真的很疯狂，Nick，我在为鲁迪工作。嘿，Nick，最棒的事情是——

Nick Gillespie： Yes. In All the Wrong Moves, Three Catastrophic Decisions That Led to the Rise of Trump. And what's great about the book is you actually also talk about how, like, it's not just the rise of Trump, it's the rise of populism. And when you're talking about the 2016 election, you're pairing Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump because there's a rise of populism, dissatisfaction with the establishment. The first catastrophic decision that you talk about is Is the Clinton administration's pushing to bring China into the newly created World Trade Organization without any kind of backstops or follow-ups on what China's doing? Explain why this is such a catastrophic decision that it's one of three that you're talking about in the book.

是的。在《All the Wrong Moves》中，有三项灾难性的决定导致了特朗普的崛起。这本书的优点是，你实际上也谈到，这不仅仅是特朗普的崛起，这是民粹主义的兴起。当你谈到 2016 年的选举时，你会把伯尼·桑德斯和唐纳德·特朗普放在一起讨论，因为民粹主义的兴起，对建制派的不满。你谈到的第一个灾难性决定是克林顿政府推动中国加入新成立的世界贸易组织，而没有任何后备措施或对中国行为的跟进。请解释为什么这是一个灾难性的决定，并且是你在书中讨论的三个决定之一。

Anthony Scaramucci： And I want to mention to everybody, I start the book out by saying... Man, did I get this wrong. I was a smug 35-year-old Wall Street hotshot, you know, self-assured, self-centered. I was sneering at those protesters thinking, how stupid are they and how smart am I? And they were right, Nick, and I was wrong. And what they were saying was this is going to lead to a devolution of manufacturing. It's going to hammer us on jobs. It was the Ross Perot narrative that you and I grew up with. The great sucking sound will be the sound of jobs leaving the country because of these deals. And we have to protect the American worker. And I bought into the Wall Street idea that the Chinese were going to open their markets. They were going to urbanize. They were going to create affluence in their society. And this would lead to much bigger global trade for American companies. And therefore, the American worker would be benefited from the openness. But it didn't happen. You know, the Chinese left their economy closed. They had protection and they had rights in the WTO. As I point out in the book, they came in as an emerging market. They came in with the treatment of an El Salvador or a DR, and that was fine because they were a very small economy at the time. They were still smaller than the GDP of Italy 22 years ago. And so as they started rising, once they got to the size and scale of Germany, American leaders, Western leaders should have said, okay, you're now the size and scale of Germany. We have to treat you.

我想向大家提一下，我在本书一开始就说……伙计，我是不是弄错了。 我是一位自鸣得意的 35 岁华尔街能手，你知道，自信、以自我为中心。 我嘲笑那些抗议者，心想，他们有多愚蠢，我有多聪明？ 他们是对的，尼克，而我错了。 他们所说的是，这将导致制造业的权力下放。 这将打击我们的工作。 你和我就是伴随着罗斯·佩罗的叙述长大的。 最大的吸吮声音将是工作岗位因这些交易而离开该国的声音。 我们必须保护美国工人。 我接受了华尔街的观点，即中国将开放他们的市场。 他们要城市化。 他们要为社会创造富裕。 这将为美国公司带来更大的全球贸易。 因此，美国工人将从开放中受益。 但它没有发生。 你知道，中国人关闭了经济。 他们在世贸组织中享有保护和权利。正如我在书中指出的，他们作为一个新兴市场进入。他们被当作萨尔瓦多或多米尼加共和国来对待，这没问题，因为当时他们的经济非常小。22 年前，他们的经济规模仍然小于意大利的 GDP。因此，随着他们的崛起，一旦他们达到了德国的规模，美国领导人和西方领导人本应该说，好吧，你们现在的规模和德国一样，我们必须以相应的方式对待你们。

Nick Gillespie： Partly because when you mentioned Ross Perot and he was the giant sucking sound he was talking about was NAFTA.

部分原因是当你提到罗斯·佩罗时，他所说的那个巨大吸音的事情就是北美自由贸易协定（NAFTA）。

Anthony Scaramucci： Yep, that was 1993.

是的，那是 1993 年。

Nick Gillespie： Creating a free trade zone between Mexico and Canada, along with China, those are our top three trading partners. Most economists now say, you know, NAFTA's effect on American employment levels was minimal and almost, you know, directly and then overwhelmingly when you look at the volume of trade. It's been good for the American people.

在墨西哥和加拿大之间创建自由贸易区，再加上中国，这些是我们的三大贸易伙伴。大多数经济学家现在说，你知道，北美自由贸易协定对美国就业水平的影响是最小的，而且几乎可以说，直接而且在观察贸易量时绝大多数情况都是如此。对美国人民来说，这是有好处的。

Anthony Scaramucci： Yeah.

是的。

Nick Gillespie： Is China, and you are at pains to say you're not anti-globalization, you're not anti-free trade. It's mostly that because China did not open its borders up, these are a problem. Is it, you know, to focus on industrial, the loss of industrial jobs in America in the 21st century, is that kind of missing the forest for the trees? Because industrialization or factory jobs as a percentage of the labor force in America peaked in the late 1940s. I mean, it actually peaked during World War II. And it's been a kind of straight line decline. You and I have probably gone through at least three or four major panics about deindustrialization, the most recent one in the aughts. And, you know, overall, like before the financial crisis and your stuff on that we'll get to in a minute, you know, the economy was, you know, labor force participation rates were still strong for years after, you know, up through 2006. And, you know, job creation was overall. It's just it was shifting out of the last few industrial jobs. And is that a problem? I say that as somebody who's worked in factories before. I don't want future people to be working in factories. That's something robots can do.

就是中国，你还煞费苦心地说你不反全球化，你不反自由贸易。 主要是因为中国没有开放边境，所以这些都是一个问题。 你知道，在 21 世纪，如果把重点放在工业上，美国工业工作岗位的流失，是不是只见树木不见森林？ 因为工业化或工厂工作占美国劳动力的比例在 20 世纪 40 年代末达到顶峰。 我的意思是，它实际上在第二次世界大战期间达到顶峰。 这是一种直线下降。 你和我可能经历过至少三四次关于去工业化的重大恐慌，这是最近的一次。 而且，你知道，总体而言，就像金融危机之前一样，我们稍后会讲到，你知道，经济，你知道，劳动力参与率在之后的几年里仍然强劲，你知道，直到 2006 年。而且，你知道，总体上创造了就业机会。 只是它正在从最后几个工业工作中转移出来。 这是一个问题吗？ 我是作为一个曾经在工厂工作过的人这么说的。我不希望未来的人们在工厂工作。那些是机器人可以做的事情。

Anthony Scaramucci： Yeah, okay, so, I mean, this is also, Jonah Goldberg actually presented more or less the same argument that you're making, and I'm gonna cede aspects of that argument to you and also to Jonah that you're correct. We probably would have had a de-industrialization, and we probably would have had a shifting in our labor force, whether we let China in or not. However, we would not, if we had just protected The West from Chinese, what I would say, I'm not going to say adventurism, that's the wrong word. I would say Chinese economic planning to become the colossus that they are. I don't even have a problem with them being a colossus, but we needed to protect the West by just making the trade fairer. I am for global trade. Yeah. I do believe in the David Ricardo principle of seeking the lowest cost provider globally, which will create more abundance for the society. But I think if Robert Lighthizer was joining this call, used to run the U.S. trade, he was the U.S. trade representative for Donald Trump, the first time a good friend of mine, he would say that there's no trade is free We have to have fair trade. And the reason I'm saying this is that China has now become sort of interesting. It's the only thing that they all agree on in a bipartisan way, that they have become adversarial to the economic and perhaps political interests of the United States. And so I point out in the book, yes, China. Minimal changes in manufacturing, yes, American workers feel worse or they feel left out, yes. But it's really, to me, the geopolitical pressure that China has put on the world. And had we checked them a little more carefully, Nick, I don't think they would have the influence they have now. It would have been a much fairer thing for the world. And so to me, it's malpractice. It's political malpractice by Western leadership to leave the door open like that. But remember, as I point out, and by the way, if this was a book about my mistakes, Nick Gillespie, it would be a phone book. It'd be like a trilogy. You wouldn't, you wouldn't be, you know, we'd have to have a 10 hour podcast.

是的，好吧，所以，我的意思是，这也是，乔纳·戈德堡实际上提出的论点或多或少和你在说的相同，我会把这个论点的一些方面让给你，也让给乔纳，你是对的。无论我们是否让中国加入，我们可能都会经历去工业化，也可能都会经历劳动力的转移。然而，如果我们只是保护西方免受中国——我不会用冒险主义这个词，那是错误的词——我会说中国为了成为如今的巨人而进行的经济计划影响，我们不会这样做。我甚至不反对他们成为巨人，但我们需要通过让贸易更公平来保护西方。我支持全球贸易。是的，我确实相信大卫·李嘉图关于全球寻找最低成本供应商的原则，这将为社会创造更多的丰富。但我认为，如果罗伯特·莱特希泽加入这个通话，他曾经管理美国贸易，他是美国的……唐纳德·特朗普的贸易代表，第一次是我的好朋友，他会说没有自由的贸易，我们必须有公平贸易。 我这么说的原因是中国现在变得有点有趣了。 这是他们以两党方式一致同意的唯一一件事，那就是他们已经成为美国经济利益甚至政治利益的对手。 所以我在书中指出，是的，中国。 制造业的微小变化，是的，美国工人感觉更糟，或者他们感觉被排除在外，是的。 但对我来说，这确实是中国给世界带来的地缘政治压力。 尼克，如果我们更仔细地检查一下他们，我认为他们不会有现在的影响力。 对于世界来说，这本来是一件更加公平的事情。 所以对我来说，这是一种渎职行为。 西方领导人如此敞开大门是政治渎职。 但请记住，正如我所指出的，顺便说一句，如果这是一本关于我的错误的书，尼克·吉莱斯皮，那它就会是一本电话簿。 这就像三部曲。你不会的，你不会的，你知道的，我们得做一个 10 小时的播客。

Nick Gillespie： Right.

对。

Anthony Scaramucci： The point of this book, and I really do appreciate you reading it, is it's not me being partisan or me being tribal. It's me being observant. And I'm saying that Democrats that were well-intended, they made some mistakes. Republicans, well-intended, trying to get to good outcomes, didn't. All so bad outcomes took place. And so, yes, you're right. If you're making the case, hey, we lost our industrialization because we let China into the WTO, you could come with facts and say, Anthony, that's not really true. And I'll cede that. But what we did though, is we made China unnecessarily more powerful and more competitive with the West than we needed to. And it would have given the West a little bit more flexibility in its economies and a little more flexibility in its geopolitical footprint around the world, which I would argue would have made us more prosperous.

这本书的重点，我真的很感激你在读它，不是我在偏袒某一方，也不是我有部落心态。我只是观察而已。我在说的是，那些出于良好意图的民主党人，他们犯了一些错误。出于良好意图、试图取得良好结果的共和党人，也没做到。结果都是导致了糟糕的结果。所以，是的，你说得对。如果你说：“嘿，我们失去了工业化，因为我们让中国加入了世贸组织”，你可以拿出事实来说，安东尼，那不完全正确。我会承认这点。但是，我们所做的，是让中国不必要地比我们需要的更强大、更具竞争力。这本可以让西方在经济上拥有更多灵活性，在全球地缘政治上也有更多回旋余地。我会认为，这本可以让我们更繁荣。

Nick Gillespie： Well, and I mean, you hinted this as well, that it also might have forced China to not just open up its economy, but liberalize its cultural and societal order.

嗯，我是说，你也暗示过，这也可能迫使中国不仅开放其经济，还自由化其文化和社会秩序。

Anthony Scaramucci： I'm not sure of that, but, you know, there's no question. And, you know, I say this as somebody with a lot of huge respect and admiration for Milton Friedman. But when he talked think our, you know, leaders in America have figured out that, like, okay, China, you talk about it as a post-communist economy. They're not doing a planned economy per se, but it is more and more of an authoritarian state, even as it is becoming more and more economically powerful. And we just really haven't seen that before. No question. And so this is a really, I didn't put this in the book, but this is something I'll mention to you. Really studying China, it's actually way more balkanized, Nick, than we would perceive. You know, like when you look at India, to really study India, you know, there's about 70 different countries inside of India with 70 different foods and cultures and dialects. We treat it as one monolith as the way we see the United States. China, same thing. There's seven distinct provinces. It's quite balkanized. It's glued together by the 90 million people that identify as common as party members. And so there is a level of repression. To keep that thing glued together, there's a level of authoritarian behavior in China. Look at what they're doing to the Uyghurs, or look at the situation. I mean, the Dalai Lama, all the different things that go on with Tibet, you get the point that I'm making. And we thought, you know, what Milton Friedman would say, they're going to get richer. As they get richer, they're going to seek more liberal political ideas and liberal philosophies. And they were not ready for that, nor did they not want that. And if you really study their 5,000-year culture, that was another thing that we got wrong. But since you brought up Friedman, if you don't mind, because I know you're a libertarian and I have a lot of libertarian streets in my personality, there are two things that he said that haunt us and I live with. Okay. And one, Trump got right. Okay. And I'll just, because I want to be as objective as possible. Milton Friedman once said, if you have a welfare state, you got to protect your border. If you don't protect your border, the people are going to run across the border, participate in the welfare state. That's their economic incentive to do so. And, you know, Biden didn't get that. Trump got that. You know, he's done a good job on the border. Drug trafficking is down. Narcotic trafficking, child traveling, God forbid, is also down. And that's generally been good. We need to have legal immigration, not illegal immigration. Which is where Trump... It's terrible, I mean, because his aim is not simply illegal immigration, but it is legal immigration.

我不确定，但是，你知道，这是毫无疑问的。 而且，你知道，我这么说是因为我对米尔顿·弗里德曼怀有极大的尊重和钦佩。 但当他讲话时，我们的美国领导人已经意识到，就像中国一样，你将其视为后共产主义经济体。 他们本身并不是实行计划经济，但它越来越像一个独裁国家，尽管它的经济实力越来越强大。 我们以前确实没有见过这种情况。 毫无疑问。 所以这确实是，我没有把它写进书里，但我会向你们提到这一点。 尼克，真正研究中国时，它实际上比我们想象的更加分裂。 你知道，就像当你观察印度时，要真正研究印度，你知道，印度境内大约有 70 个不同的国家，有 70 种不同的食物、文化和方言。 我们将其视为一块巨石，就像我们看待美国的方式一样。 中国，同样如此。 有七个不同的省份。 这是相当分裂的。它是由九千万像党员一样普通的人凝聚在一起的。 因此存在一定程度的镇压。 为了将这件事粘在一起，中国存在一定程度的独裁行为。 看看他们对维吾尔人做了什么，或者看看局势。 我的意思是，达赖喇嘛，西藏发生的所有不同的事情，你明白我的意思。 我们认为，你知道，正如米尔顿·弗里德曼所说，他们会变得更富有。 随着他们变得更加富有，他们将寻求更加自由的政治思想和自由哲学。 他们还没有准备好，也不想那样。 如果你真正研究他们五千年的文化，那就是我们犯的另一件事。 但既然你提出了弗里德曼，如果你不介意的话，因为我知道你是一个自由主义者，而且我的性格中有很多自由主义者的倾向，他说的有两件事困扰着我们，我也忍受着。 好的。 第一，特朗普是对的。 好的。 我只是说，因为我想尽可能客观。米尔顿·弗里德曼曾经说过，如果你有福利国家，你就必须保护你的边界。如果你不保护你的边界，人们会越过边界，参与福利国家。这就是他们的经济动机。你知道，拜登没有理解这一点，而特朗普理解了这一点。你知道，他在边界问题上做得很好。毒品贩运下降了，麻醉品走私和儿童旅行（天哪）也下降了。总体上，这是件好事。我们需要合法移民，而不是非法移民。这就是特朗普所关注的……这很糟糕，我的意思是，因为他的目标不仅仅是非法移民，还有合法移民。

Nick Gillespie： Well, that's the problem. Yeah, well, he's heard it. He's heard it. Well, that's a different argument. He's heard us that way because we, you and I, would agree that we need the intellectual capital flowing into the country. And the labor, you know, the migrant labor. And the labor. I mean, these crops themselves.

嗯，这就是问题所在。是的，好吧，他已经听过了。他听过了。嗯，那是另一个论点。他之所以那样听我们说，是因为你我都会同意我们需要智力资本流入这个国家。还有劳动力，你知道，移民劳动力。还有劳动力。我的意思是，这些作物本身。

Anthony Scaramucci： No question. Yeah, he stopped the legal stuff, even though he said he wasn't going to do that. And that's a shame, because this is what Lee Kuan Yew would have said about the country, right? That he said that America always has this advantage, because it's going to bring the Gillespies in or the Scaramucci's or Sergey Brin, and these guys are going to get here and they're going to have this opportunity to create wealth and growth in the society. And we have a great assimilation culture. You can come here and be Irish-American or Italian-American in a couple years. You can't be American-Japanese. It's not going to work. You can't be American-Chinese. So this is a competitive advantage that we need to restake, if you will.

毫无疑问。是的，他停止了法律事务，尽管他说过他不会那样做。这很可惜，因为这正是李光耀会对这个国家说的话，对吧？他说美国总是有这种优势，因为它会吸引吉勒斯皮或者斯卡拉穆奇，或者谢尔盖·布林，这些人会来到这里，他们会有机会在社会中创造财富和增长。而且我们有很棒的同化文化。你可以来到这里，在几年内成为爱尔兰裔美国人或意大利裔美国人。但你不能成为美日混血，也行不通。你也不能成为美中混血。所以这是一个竞争优势，我们需要重新强调，如果可以的话。

Nick Gillespie： So can I guess what your second point on-

那么我可以猜测你的第二点是关于——

Anthony Scaramucci： Yeah.

是的。

Nick Gillespie： Is it that his early 70s essay in the New York Times Magazine, where he said that the only social responsibility of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value?

是他在《纽约时报杂志》上发表的七十年代早期的文章吗，他在文中说，公司的唯一社会责任就是最大化股东价值？

Anthony Scaramucci： Okay, so that is a good one. That would be in the top five. But the number two one for me is Friedman said, deficit spending is unfunded tax liability. And what he said was, unfortunately, the politicians are weak and so they are going to use the most pernicious and most regressive form of taxation Which is inflation. Okay. So he was a great monetarist. If you remember, he wanted a stable currency and he wanted, because he knew that by protecting the lower and middle class, because they don't have assets, Nick, right? My dad, let's talk about my dad. Dad didn't have assets. He did own his house. But if you paid my dad $1,000 and you took 30% of it away in inflation, he's screwed. If you and I own a portfolio of stocks, we can inflation hedge. If we own a beach house, it'll go up in value. We can protect ourselves, but people like my dad couldn't protect themselves. And what Friedman said is the politicians are going to be incentivized to inflate rather than tax.

好吧，这是一个很不错的例子。那可以排进前五名。但对我来说第二重要的一条是弗里德曼说过，赤字开支就是未融资的税收负担。他说，不幸的是，政治家很软弱，所以他们会使用最有害、最退步的征税形式——那就是通货膨胀。好吧，他是一位伟大的货币主义者。如果你还记得，他希望货币稳定，因为他知道保护低收入和中产阶级的重要性，因为他们没有资产，对吧，Nick？我父亲，让我们谈谈我父亲。我父亲没有资产。他确实拥有自己的房子。但如果你付给我父亲 1000 美元，然后抽走 30%用于通胀，他就完了。如果你和我拥有一组股票投资组合，我们可以对冲通胀。如果我们拥有一栋海边别墅，价值会升值，我们可以保护自己，但像我父亲这样的人无法保护自己。弗里德曼说，政治家会因为激励而倾向于通胀，而不是征税。

Nick Gillespie： Hey Reason fans, if you live in the New York City area, I want to tell you about the world premiere on Tuesday, October 13th of a feature-length Reason documentary directed by Jim Epstein. It's called Escaping Venezuela, and it tells the horrifying story of that country's collapse through the experience of Carlos Mora, an entrepreneur whose thriving business was crushed by the state. Mora was even thrown in prison. At a time when democratic socialists here are singing the praises of authoritarians like Hugo Chavez, it's more important than ever to understand exactly how socialism destroyed one of the richest countries in Latin America. The premiere of Escaping Venezuela is on Tuesday, October 13th at the IFC Film Center in Greenwich Village. Tickets are just $15 and there'll be a panel discussion afterwards. Go to Reason.com slash events to watch the trailer and buy your tickets to Escaping Venezuela. And that leads to the second catastrophic decision, which has to do with George Bush's global war on terror, particularly the Iraq War, where you very astutely point out that, you know, the Iraq War is a war that we did not tax to pay for. And that even, you know, even Lyndon Johnson passed, you know, there were taxes passed to pay for the Vietnam War. There were taxes, you know, for basically almost every war. I think you go back to the War of 1812 and point out that was debt finance and it didn't work out well. But explain why, I mean, the global war on terror was a misstep for a lot of reasons, just strategically and militarily, but then you really zero in, as it makes sense to, given your background in Wall Street, in, you know, the way that the Bush administration

嘿，Reason 的粉丝们，如果你住在纽约市地区，我想告诉你一个消息：由 Jim Epstein 执导的长篇 Reason 纪录片《逃离委内瑞拉》将于 10 月 13 日星期二全球首映。影片讲述了该国崩溃的恐怖故事，通过企业家 Carlos Mora 的经历展现，他的成功生意被国家压垮，Mora 甚至被投入监狱。当民主社会主义者在这里高歌像 Hugo Chavez 这样的威权主义者时，更有必要了解社会主义究竟如何摧毁了拉丁美洲最富有的国家之一。《逃离委内瑞拉》的首映礼将在 10 月 13 日星期二于格林威治村的 IFC 电影中心举行。门票仅售 15 美元，首映后将有小组讨论。请访问 Reason.com/events 观看预告片并购买《逃离委内瑞拉》的门票。这就导致了第二个灾难性的决定，这个决定与乔治·布什发起的全球反恐战争有关，特别是伊拉克战争。你非常敏锐地指出，伊拉克战争是一场没有通过征税来支付的战争。甚至连林登·约翰逊执政期间，也是通过征税来为越南战争筹集资金的。几乎每一场战争都是如此。我想如果你回顾到 1812 年战争，那也是通过债务融资，而且结果并不理想。但请解释一下，我的意思是，从战略和军事角度来看，全球反恐战争因为很多原因都是一个失误，但随后你确实聚焦于这一点，这很符合你的背景——华尔街的经验，以及布什政府的做法。

Anthony Scaramucci： First attack since the Civil War on American soil, unmitigated tragedy, no question about that, but please do not overreact. And he said, and I just posted this on my sub stack, Nick, and I'll share it with you, but he said, "'Bin Laden declared war on us in 96 and in 98. And Bin Laden was helpful to Afghanistan in bleeding out the Soviet Union in the quagmire of Afghanistan. And he wants to force the Americans into a similar quagmire. And a way to do that is to hit us on our homeland. We would wildly overreact and we would spill blood and treasur I beat up on the Soviets. I'm going to bring down the American empire. And so on the evening, this is 25 years ago, but on the evening of 9-11, we had a $5.8 trillion budget deficit. Bill Clinton had just printed a $240 billion surplus. And there was a strategy in place if we'd held it, where we could have paid down that debt by the end of 2010. But we went to war. Not with a tax increase, which we typically did, but we cut taxes twice, Nick. We cut taxes in March of 01, March of 03. We went to war in Afghanistan in October of 01, war in Iraq March of 03, coincident to the tax cut. And this set the budget trajectory into an out-of-control position. And let me just state the obvious, George Washington, to the end of George Walker Bush, $7 trillion of deficit spending.

这是自内战以来美国领土上的首次袭击，这是一场彻头彻尾的悲剧，这是毫无疑问的，但请不要反应过度。 他说，我刚刚把这个贴在我的子堆栈上，尼克，我会与你分享，但他说，“‘本拉登在 96 年和 98 年向我们宣战。本拉登帮助阿富汗，让苏联陷入阿富汗的泥潭。他想迫使美国人陷入类似的泥潭。而做到这一点的一个方法就是在我们的祖国打击我们。我们会反应过度，我们会流血， 我要打败苏联。 那是 25 年前的晚上，但在 9 日至 11 日晚上，我们有 5.8 万亿美元的预算赤字，如果我们坚持下去，我们可以在 2010 年底之前偿还债务。 但我们不是通过增加税收来发动战争。 确实如此，但我们减税了两次，尼克，我们在 01 年 3 月和 03 年 3 月减税。我们在 2001 年 10 月发动了阿富汗战争，在 2003 年 3 月发动了伊拉克战争，恰逢减税。这使预算轨迹进入了失控状态。让我直言不讳，从乔治·华盛顿到乔治·沃克·布什结束时期，赤字支出达到了 7 万亿美元。

Nick Gillespie： Right.

对。

Anthony Scaramucci： The ensuing presidents, and there haven't been many of them, you know, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, $33 trillion of deficit spending. And, you know, listen, I'm an economist. I can tell you that we can probably handle it because of the size of our economy. We could probably handle it because of our combined net worth of a society. You know, the U.S. does own 28% of the land in the country and has mineral rights and all of this other stuff. Do you see what I mean? But... If we keep the trajectory going and we go to 200% GDP, debt to GDP, that's going to be a horror show for the average American. That's not going to be sustainable.

随后的总统，而且你知道，他们也不多，巴拉克·奥巴马、唐纳德·特朗普、乔·拜登、唐纳德·特朗普，赤字支出达到 33 万亿美元。你知道，听着，我是个经济学家。我可以告诉你，由于我们经济的规模，我们可能能应付得来。我们可能能应付得来，因为社会的总净资产。你知道，美国确实拥有全国 28%的土地，并拥有矿权以及所有这些其他东西。你明白我的意思吗？但是……如果我们继续按照这个轨迹走下去，债务与 GDP 的比率达到 200%，那对普通美国人来说将是一场灾难。这将无法持续下去。

Nick Gillespie： No, no, and it certainly isn't. And, you know, we've been... The revenue as a percentage of GDP over the past 25 or so years usually is in the 17 to 18, maybe 19% of GDP range. But if we're consistently spending 20% or 25%, it just compounds catastrophically.

不，不，当然不是。而且，你知道，我们一直……过去大约 25 年的收入占国内生产总值的百分比通常在 17%到 18%，可能是 19%的 GDP 范围内。但如果我们持续支出 20%或 25%，结果只会成倍地灾难性增加。

Anthony Scaramucci： Oh, there you go. But that's where we are right now. We're 7% over what our incoming revenues are.

哦，你说得对。但这就是我们目前的情况。我们的收入比预期多了 7%。

Nick Gillespie： And where, you know, you mention in the book, or you quote Dick Cheney kind of infamously or notoriously saying that Reagan-proof deficits don't matter. It was, you know, the call was coming from inside the House. Republicans are always quick. To say, you know, the Democrats are the party of big government and, you know, deficits. And Bob Dole, you know, of course, talked about all those Democrat wars. And there's some truth to that when he said it.

你知道，在书中你提到，或者你引用了迪克·切尼那句臭名昭著的话，说里根无法阻止的赤字无关紧要。你知道，这个呼声是来自众议院内部的。共和党人总是很快地说，民主党是大政府和赤字的党派。鲍勃·多尔当然也谈到了所有那些民主党的战争，他说的确有一些道理。

Anthony Scaramucci： But there's no question. I mean, the Republican Party dismantled fiscal responsibility in the 21st century.

但这是毫无疑问的。我的意思是，共和党在 21 世纪拆除了财政责任。

Nick Gillespie： Right.

对。

Anthony Scaramucci： And I mean, it started with Bush and it's continuing with Trump.

我的意思是，这从布什开始，并且在特朗普时仍在继续。

Nick Gillespie： Where did that go? Where did the fiscal chang

那到哪去了？财政变化到哪去了？

Anthony Scaramucci： You know, beat up on our adversaries in their homelands, and we're going to be, you know, the force of America, or, you know, a larger stake in what he would have said, Pax Americana. And so when you're doing that, you can't be a fiscal hawk, because you're going to project your power everywhere, and you're going to end up spending ridiculous amounts of money. The other thing, and again, not just to pick on Dick Cheney because this is a committed bipartisan problem, is the feedback loop that Eisenhower warned about. You know, Nick, I want you to think about this. We spent a trillion dollars on the military. We ran out of munitions in five months. Guys, what are you doing? You know, and I've written about this as well. You have a circuit between the lobbyists, the senator, the defense contractor, the Pentagon. The circuit is we're spending money hand over fist on stuff that we don't even need, but it's in the senator's state or the local House of Representatives district. And so we're not going to close the base. We're not going to end the program. We're shooting $50,000 drones out of the air with $1 million THAAD interceptors. And, you know, this is obsolete. Now, we have to rethink this for our survival. But, you know, what happened, and I write about this in the book, is we have a cartel now. We have a duopoly at the top. They've squeezed out any opportunity for a Libertarian Party, a Reform Party. They got scared by Ross Perot, and so procedurally they've tightened themselves. Trump himself tried to run in 2000 as a Reform candidate. He realized he couldn't do it. RFK Jr., as recently as 2024, realized he couldn't do it. So they've squeezed everybody out. The electorate hates them, Nick. As evidenced by the fact that 40 plus percent of the electorate are independents now.

你知道，在他们的祖国击败我们的对手，我们将成为美国的力量，或者，你知道，我们将成为他所说的“美国治下的和平”的更大赌注。 因此，当你这样做时，你不能成为财政鹰派，因为你将把你的权力投射到各处，而你最终会花费大量的金钱。 另一件事，不仅仅是为了指责迪克·切尼，因为这是一个两党共同面临的问题，而是艾森豪威尔警告的反馈循环。 你知道，尼克，我希望你考虑一下这个问题。 我们在军事上花费了一万亿美元。 我们在五个月内就耗尽了弹药。 伙计们，你们在做什么？ 你知道，我也写过相关内容。 在游说者、参议员、国防承包商、五角大楼之间有一条线路。 电路是我们把钱花在我们甚至不需要的东西上，但它是在参议员所在的州或当地众议院选区。 所以我们不会关闭基地。 我们不会结束这个计划。我们用价值一百万美元的末段高空区域防御拦截导弹击落价值五万美元的无人机。你知道，这已经过时了。现在，我们为了生存必须重新思考这一点。但你知道，发生的事情，我在书中有写，就是我们现在有了一个卡特尔。最高层形成了双头垄断。他们挤压了自由党、改革党的任何机会。他们被罗斯·佩罗吓到了，所以在程序上收紧了自己。特朗普本人在 2000 年曾试图以改革党的候选人参选。他意识到自己做不到。RFK Jr.直到 2024 年也意识到自己做不到。所以他们把所有人都挤出去了。选民恨他们，尼克。正如现在有超过 40%的选民是独立人士那样，这就说明了问题。

Nick Gillespie： Yeah, right.

是啊，没错。

Anthony Scaramucci： Okay, so they've cycled out of the two parties, and yet the two parties are sitting there, and they have this perpetuation of incumbency through gerrymandering. This effing guy, Chuck Grassley, I think he's like George Washington's great-grandfather. The guy's like 500 years old.

好吧，所以他们已经从两个政党中轮换出来了，然而这两个政党仍然坐在那里，并且他们通过操纵选区维持着现任者的延续。这个该死的家伙，查克·格拉斯利，我觉得他就像乔治·华盛顿的曾曾祖父。这个家伙好像已经 500 岁了。

Nick Gillespie： Right.

对。

Anthony Scaramucci： And he'll be 506 if he wins his next Senate race. Of course, he's never leaving. And so we have this perpetual political class of self-interested people that are self-dealing, and you've got a $2 trillion deficit. So that's where it all went. But I write in this book, All the Wrong Moves, that George Herbert Walker Bush and Dick Darman created legislation to control the deficit. And believe it or not, and you wouldn't have guessed this, I didn't guess this, Bill Clinton was actually the smaller government guy. He was the one that said, you know what, I'm going to adhere to this. And he stayed with it, and you got the budget surplus in 2000. It's 25 years ago, sir, but we can do that again. You don't need a chainsaw. You don't need a Doge program to fix the budget. You can just figure out a way to slow the governmental growth. So that the GDP, all this abundance that you and I are talking about, the GDP can grow faster than the actual deficit spending. 15 years from now, we'll be sitting around and the percentages will go into a more... And for, you know, kind of trust and confidence in America and our currency and things like that and the economy. You don't even have to close the gap. You just have to show you're making a good effort and squeezing it down a little bit in ways.

如果他赢得下一次参议院竞选，他将获得 506 票。 当然，他永远不会离开。 因此，我们的政治阶层永远都是自私自利、自我交易的，因此出现了 2 万亿美元的赤字。 这就是一切的经过。 但我在《所有错误的举动》一书中写道，乔治·赫伯特·沃克·布什和迪克·达曼制定了控制赤字的立法。 不管你信不信，你不会猜到这一点，我没有猜到这一点，比尔·克林顿实际上是较小的政府人物。 他说，你知道吗，我会坚持这一点。 他坚持了下来，2000 年就获得了预算盈余。先生，那是 25 年前的事了，但我们可以再次做到这一点。 你不需要电锯。 您不需要 Doge 计划来确定预算。 你可以找到一种方法来减缓政府的增长。 因此，GDP，你和我正在谈论的所有这些富足，GDP 的增长速度可以快于实际赤字支出。 15 年后，我们将坐着不动，百分比将进入更......而且，你知道，这关系到对美国、我们的货币以及经济等的信任和信心。你甚至不需要完全弥合差距。你只需要展示你正在努力，并以某种方式把它稍微压缩一下。

Nick Gillespie： Well, that brings us to the third catastrophic decision, which is under Obama, who, you know, inherited the beginning while he voted as a senator for TARP. At the end of 2008, but he took the, you know, the kind of, you know, The response to the financial crisis of 2008 that Bush had put into place, you know, and everybody in Congress basically voted for it after the first round, and then exploded it. What was it about the way that TARP and the American Recovery, God, what was it, ARA, the American Recovery and Reconstruction Act or something like that?

好吧，这把我们带到了第三个灾难性的决定，也就是奥巴马的决策，你知道，他在担任参议员时投票支持 TARP，继承了开始阶段的局面。2008 年底，但他采取了应对方式，你知道的，也就是布什在 2008 年金融危机中实施的那种应对措施，你知道，而国会中的每个人基本上在第一轮后都投了赞成票，然后扩大了它。TARP 和美国复苏，天啊，那叫什么来着，ARA，美国复苏与重建法案，还是类似的东西，对吗？

Anthony Scaramucci： Yeah. Yeah.

嗯。嗯。

Nick Gillespie： What were these, you know, and this is something Reason covered a lot, we were highly critical both of what Bush was doing as well as what Obama did. Why was, first, why did that screw up more things than it helped? And then how did it further this populist anger that has really been driving American politics for the past decade?

这些是什么，你知道的，这是 Reason 讨论了很多的事情，我们对布什所做的以及奥巴马所做的都持高度批评态度。首先，为什么，这件事为什么会弄砸的东西比它帮助的东西还多？然后，它是如何进一步激发这种真正推动过去十年美国政治的民粹愤怒的？

Anthony Scaramucci： Well, I would say that, again, well-intended. I would say that, unfortunately, as a fellow libertarian, when the banks go into crisis like that, if you don't bail them out, I mean, even George W. Bush said this, you know, you would have had a 25, 30 percent unemployment. All these politicians lean to the left when there's a crisis like that. But the mistake was, if you're going to do the bailout, and I'm not disagreeing with it, You have to put something in the bailout for middle and lower income people so they too feel fairly treated, right? It's about fairness. You're bringing up the point, and I'm agreeing with you, we're way better today with $125,000 than we would be with the same amount of money 100 years ago. But if you're giving a billion, or excuse me, if you're giving a trillion to the banks, and you have 5,000 people that get a million dollar or more bonus in calendar year 2008 after these banks literally wiped themselves off the face of the earth, and there's no mortgage relief, there's no rental relief, there's no credit card relief, but all there is is relief for the banks, you're going to piss people off, Nick. And they're going to form Occupy Wall Street. They're going to form the Tea Party. And I just submit to you that those two guys got together. They got married and had a baby, and they named the baby MAGA, right? Number two, we go to war. We do exactly what Osama bin Laden wants us to do. We play right into it. Unbelievable. Oy, oy, oy. And now we're bleeding from a treasury perspective, blood and treasure being bled out.

嗯，我会说，那是出于好意的。我会说，不幸的是，作为一名自由意志主义者，当银行陷入那样的危机时，如果你不救助它们，我的意思是，即便是乔治·W·布什也说过，你知道的，失业率会达到 25%到 30%。所有这些政治家在遇到那样的危机时都会倾向左派。但错误在于，如果你要进行救助，而且我并不同意这种做法，你必须在救助中为中低收入人群提供一些东西，这样他们也会感到被公平对待，对吧？这是关于公平的问题。你提出了这个观点，我同意你的，我们今天有 12.5 万美元的收入，比起 100 年前拿到同样的钱，我们的生活要好得多。但是，如果你给银行一万亿，或者抱歉，如果你给银行一万亿美元，而在这些银行实际上已经从地球上消失之后的 2008 日历年中，有 5000 人获得了 100 万美元或更多的奖金，而且没有抵押贷款救济，没有租金救济，没有信用卡救济，只有银行得到救济，你会惹恼人们，Nick。他们会组成“占领华尔街”。他们会形成茶党。我只是想向你陈述，这两个家伙走到了一起，结婚并生了一个孩子，并给孩子取名为 MAGA，对吧？第二，我们去战争。我们完全按照奥萨马·本·拉登的意思行事。我们完全落入了他的圈套。难以置信。哎，哎，哎。现在从财政角度来看，我们正在出血，血和财富正在被榨干。

Nick Gillespie： Right.

对。

Anthony Scaramucci： And now the third thing is we give all the money to the fat cats. I benefited from that, by the way, because I didn't get any TARP money, but I'm a small investment manager. And once the banks started doing better, I started doing better. So I definitely benefited from it. I'm not saying- But it was definitely the sense was that Wall Street got bailed out, Main Street kind of got the back of the hat, right?

现在第三件事是我们把所有的钱都给了大鳄们。顺便说一下，我从中受益，因为我没有拿到任何 TARP 资金，但我是一个小型投资经理。一旦银行开始好转，我也开始好转。所以我确实从中受益。我不是说——但确实给人的感觉是，华尔街得到了救助，而普通街坊则有点被忽视，对吧？

Nick Gillespie： 100%. 100%. Yeah, go ahead.

100%。100%。是的，继续吧。

Anthony Scaramucci： That would piss somebody off, Nick.

那会惹人生气的，尼克。

Nick Gillespie： Well, it's also if your main asset, and for many Americans, I mean, you know, somewhere between 60 and 65% of Americans tend to own their houses. If you see your asset depreciate, you know, by 30% or 40% over a couple of years and take a decade to get back to where you were. You're going to be kind of angry, right?

嗯，这也取决于你的主要资产，对于许多美国人来说，我的意思是，你知道，大约有 60%到 65%的美国人倾向于拥有自己的房子。如果你看到你的资产在几年内贬值 30%或 40%，并且需要十年才能回到原来的水平，你会有点生气，对吧？

Anthony Scaramucci： 100%.

100%.

Nick Gillespie： Now, let's talk about how this... Okay, so that kind of sets the table, and the chapters or sections on Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are really great, because this is recent history, but... You know, we forget so quickly. It was really helpful to me to remind myself, and I was, you know, writing daily about this kind of stuff and visiting these encampments and these rallies, to remember the anger coming from the right and the left. And you talk about how populism, you know, it can sit on either the right or the left, but it generally confuses and kind of, it powers both sides. It's not... It's not partisan in the way that Republicans and Democrats tend to be. How does this get to Trump? And you talk about there were moments where Trump realized that the Republican Party was kind of this like Potemkin village, a papier-mâché facade that he could take over in the 2016 race. Talk a little bit about how you came to understand that.

现在，让我们谈谈这个……好的，所以这有点奠定了基础，而关于占领华尔街和茶党运动的章节或部分真的很棒，因为这是近代历史，但是……你知道，我们很快就会忘记。对我来说，提醒自己这一点非常有帮助，而当时我每天都在写这类事情，并且拜访那些营地和集会，我才记起来自右派和左派的愤怒。你谈到民粹主义，你知道，它可以存在于右派或左派，但它通常会造成混乱，并在某种程度上推动双方的力量。它不是……它不像共和党人和民主党人那样具有党派性。这是怎么传到特朗普的？你提到过有些时候，特朗普意识到共和党就像一个空壳村，是一个纸糊的外壳，他可以在 2016 年的竞选中接手它。谈谈你是如何理解这一点的吧。

Anthony Scaramucci： Yeah. So again, accidental. I don't think Trump thought that in the beginning. He said, hey, I'm going to run for president. He probably saw it as a, you know, I think he looked at it and said he's 69 years old. He's going to run and see if he can win. He wanted to win. All these people that said he did it for publicity didn't understand him. He definitely wanted to win and he was working his ass off. I was there. But when he started, he didn't realize how weak the Republican Party was. What was the Republican Party standing for? The core principles of Ronald Reagan, gone. First principles, libertarian principles, gone. So what was the Republican Party standing for? It was like corporate interests and tax cuts and things like that.

是的。所以再次强调，是意外的。我不认为特朗普一开始就这样想。他说，嘿，我要竞选总统。他可能只是把它看作一个，你知道，我想他看了看自己，说他 69 岁了，他要试着竞选看看能不能赢。他想要赢。所有那些说他是为了宣传才这么做的人都不理解他。他绝对想赢，而且他在拼命努力。我在那里见证过。但当他开始的时候，他没意识到共和党有多弱。共和党到底代表什么？罗纳德·里根的核心原则，没了。首要原则，自由主义原则，没了。那么共和党到底代表什么呢？就像是企业利益和减税之类的东西。

Nick Gillespie： Right. And social conservatives. If I may, at one point you quote him telling you, you know, my base is fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

对。还有社会保守派。如果我可以的话，有一次你引用他的话说，你知道，我的基础选民在财政上是自由的，在社会上是保守的。

Anthony Scaramucci： Right.

对。

Nick Gillespie： And it's like, that's the, if fiscal, you know, Trump says to you, my base is fiscally liberal and socially conservative. So it's that ugly upper left quadrant of the political compass, which, you know, as a libertarian, I'm like, oh my God, this is the worst. This is what made Ireland a shitty place to live after independence until the 90s.

就像是，如果从财政角度来说，你知道，特朗普对你说，我的基础选民在财政上是自由主义的，在社会上是保守的。所以就是政治指南针上那个丑陋的左上象限，你知道，作为一个自由意志主义者，我是觉得，天哪，这太糟糕了。这就是为什么爱尔兰在独立后直到 90 年代一直都是一个糟糕的居住地的原因。

Anthony Scaramucci： Yeah. Okay, but isn't that an insight, Nick? Because we were seeing people with placards saying, get your government hands off my Medicare.

是的。好吧，但那不是一个见解吗，尼克？因为我们看到了人们举着标语牌，上面写着‘别让政府动我的医保’。

Nick Gillespie： Right.

对。

Anthony Scaramucci： We're like, excuse me, that's a government program. And they were like, you know. And then when they say I paid into it, it's like, you don't even cover 40% of the costs through premiums and co-pays and things like that. Well, so, but see, you got, you know, listen, Trump understood this.

我们就像，打扰一下，那是一个政府项目。他们就像，你知道的。然后当他们说我为此支付了费用，就像，你通过保费和共付等方式甚至都没覆盖到 40%的成本。嗯，所以，但是你看，你知道，听着，特朗普明白这一点。

Nick Gillespie： Yeah.

是的。

Anthony Scaramucci： Okay, Trump educated me on it. I, you know, people can hate Trump or like Trump. I'm trying to write in the book as objectively as possible so somebody can pick up the book and be provoked by what I'm saying. But to your point, Trump said that, and he meant that, by the way, and he campaigned on that. So there was his lane, economically once aspirational, white, blue-collar workers, now feeling economically desperational. And, you know, Donald Trump didn't do anything to help them, by the way, but he did represent them. He was an avatar for their anger, and they showed up. Trump also said to me, I wrote this in the book. We were in Michigan and we were driving around in the suburban and it was pouring rain. And the people were queued up for his rally. And it was like three weeks before the election. And he looks over at me, he said, it's pouring rain. They're queued up disarray of the Democrats because she didn't campaign. No trips to Wisconsin, no trips to Michigan, one trip to Pennsylvania. She doesn't campaign, and he's campaigning. He's working his you-know-what off, and he narrowly wins that election. I mean, by the squeakiest of margins, but it's totally legit. And I mean, I think in a lot of ways, if the past decade has been terrible for America, and in some ways it's been catastrophic, in other ways it's been, you know, Not terrible, but it's all Hillary's fault, really, because she that was the easiest layup. You know, the goalie was not even in the goal during the penalty kick and she missed the net. Attention, rgot a big word from a big sponsor. If you're interested in making the world more free, pay attention. Nobody is going to hand you the job you actually want, so you have to build it yourself. The Cato Institute, the country's leading independent libertarian think tank, is paying people to design their dream job for what they call the Innovation Project. This is a full-time role advancing individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. It pays at least $100,000 a year with full benefits and no committee watering down your idea. Give it a shot for two years, and if it's a success, you join Cato permanently. If not, you gave it your all and you'll have a hell of a story. The Innovation Project isn't just for policy warrants or scholars, either. It's for people of every background—business, journalism, tech, law, communications, you name it. If you've got a good idea and a plan, that's all that matters. But they're closing this round of applications on November 1st. So send in your proposal and start building a freer society. Apply at Cato.org slash innovation. That's Cato.org slash innovation and do it before November 1st. Let's talk a little bit about Biden, the Biden interregnum, and then we'll come back to Trump. And also you, you know, because you were that fabulous 11-day comms director for Trump in his first administration, which you have a lot of fun with, and we'll get to that. You have like an insight into his psychology that I think is unmatched by anybody who talks freely about him. But what, you know, how bad was Biden? Because Biden, you know, he, beyond being, you know, kind of out of it, his policies were not good, right? I mean, he was a big spender, a big regulator. I mean, it was, you know, there was no bounce back from, okay, Trump was bad, let's do something different or better. So, unfortunately, Joe Biden, you know, it's like we have the nutty uncle tweeting up a shitstorm. He's a nut. And it's during COVID. So now let's go with the sane, benign grandfather. But it turns out the sane, benign grandfather is just going to be an Obama-lite strategy of excess regulation, deficit spending, Can't get out of our own way in certain things. Total miscalculation of Ukraine and Russia, the war there. I mean, just an unmitigated foreign policy disaster. And he's sundowning. But because his wife wants to stay in power, and power is this great aphrodisiac, rather than doing what he said he was going to do, which is do one term, announce that's all he could do due to his age, and open up a primary, he doesn't do that. And so now we have a sundowning grandfather up against the crazy uncle, and then we replace the sundowning grandfather with the sister. Right. And the sister shows up, and no one knows who she is. And the most searchable term on the evening of the election on the 3rd of November, 2024 was, did Joe Biden drop out? That's the most searchable term because we have low information voters, Nick. And so they don't know what the hell's going on. They're like, okay, we got the sister that we don't know, the untested sister. Let's bring back the crazy uncle. So the crazy uncle wins all seven swing states and he wins the popular vote. But he campaigns on something, and now we're 19, 20 months into it, and he does the opposite of that. He's running a forever war. He said he wouldn't do that. He's gonna try to bring prices down. He stratospheres prices through tariffs and an energy supply shock as a result of the forever war. He says he's gonna offer transparency to the government and give you exposure to the Epstein files. But, you know, hey, down deep, I'm in the Epstein files, so I can't really give them to you. So, too, I'm in the Epstein files because an early interview I did with somebody about Bitcoin was on a listserv that Epstein was part of, so.

好吧，特朗普在这方面教育了我。 我，你知道，人们可以讨厌特朗普，也可以喜欢特朗普。 我试图尽可能客观地在书中写作，以便有人拿起这本书并被我所说的话所激怒。 但就你的观点而言，特朗普是这么说的，顺便说一句，他是认真的，他也以此为基础进行竞选。 因此，他的巷子里曾经是经济上有抱负的白人蓝领工人，现在却感到经济上的绝望。 顺便说一句，你知道，唐纳德·特朗普没有做任何事情来帮助他们，但他确实代表了他们。 他是他们愤怒的化身，他们出现了。 特朗普还对我说，这个我写在书里了。 我们当时在密歇根州，在郊区开车，当时正下着倾盆大雨。 人们排队等待他的集会。 那时距离选举只有三周了。 他看着我，说，正在下倾盆大雨。 因为她没有参加竞选，他们让民主党陷入混乱。 没有去威斯康星州，没有去密歇根州，只去宾夕法尼亚州一次。 她不竞选，而他却竞选。他正在尽其所能，并以微弱优势赢得了那次选举。 我的意思是，从最细微的角度来看，但这完全是合法的。 我的意思是，我认为在很多方面，如果过去的十年对美国来说是可怕的，在某些方面它是灾难性的，在其他方面它是，你知道，并不可怕，但这都是希拉里的错，真的，因为她是最容易的上篮。 要知道，点球时守门员甚至没有进入球门，结果偏失了球门。 注意，我得到了一位大赞助商的大力支持。 如果您有兴趣让世界变得更加自由，请注意。 没有人会给你真正想要的工作，所以你必须自己构建它。 卡托研究所是该国领先的独立自由主义智库，它正在资助人们为他们所谓的创新项目设计他们梦想的工作。 这是一个致力于促进个人自由、有限政府、自由市场和和平的全职角色。 它每年至少支付 100,000 美元，并提供全额福利，并且没有委员会会淡化您的想法。尝试两年，如果成功，你就永久加入卡托。 如果没有，你已经全力以赴，你将会有一个精彩的故事。 创新项目也不仅仅针对政策授权或学者。 它适合各种背景的人——商业、新闻、科技、法律、通信，凡是你能想到的。 如果你有一个好主意和一个计划，那就很重要了。 但他们将于 11 月 1 日结束这一轮申请。 因此，请提交您的提案并开始建设一个更自由的社会。 在 Cato.org 申请削减创新。 这就是 Cato.org 削减创新并在 11 月 1 日之前完成的事情。 我们来谈谈拜登、拜登的空位期，然后我们再回到特朗普。 还有你，你知道，因为你是特朗普第一届政府中出色的为期 11 天的通讯总监，你对此很感兴趣，我们会谈到这一点。 你对他的心理有一种洞察力，我认为这是任何自由谈论他的人都无法比拟的。 但是，你知道，拜登有多糟糕吗？因为拜登，你知道，他除了有点出格之外，他的政策也不好，对吧？ 我的意思是，他是一个大花钱者，一个大监管者。 我的意思是，你知道，没有任何反弹，好吧，特朗普很糟糕，让我们做一些不同的或更好的事情。 所以，不幸的是，乔·拜登，你知道，这就像我们有一个疯狂的叔叔在推特上掀起了一场狗屎风暴。 他是个疯子。 而且是在新冠疫情期间。 现在让我们跟随那位神志清醒、和蔼可亲的祖父一起去吧。 但事实证明，理智、仁慈的祖父只会采取奥巴马式的过度监管、赤字支出的策略，在某些事情上无法摆脱我们自己的方式。 乌克兰和俄罗斯完全误判了那里的战争。 我的意思是，这只是一场彻头彻尾的外交政策灾难。 他正在日落。 但因为他的妻子想继续掌权，而权力就是这种伟大的春药，所以他没有像他说的那样去做，即完成一个任期，宣布这是他由于年龄而所能做的一切，并开始初选，所以他没有这样做。现在我们有了一个日落的祖父来对抗疯狂的叔叔，然后我们用妹妹取代了日落的祖父。 正确的。 妹妹出现了，但没有人知道她是谁。 2024 年 11 月 3 日选举当晚搜索次数最多的词是“乔·拜登退出了吗？” 这是最容易搜索的术语，因为我们选民的信息量很少，尼克。 所以他们不知道到底发生了什么。 他们就像，好吧，我们有一个我们不认识的妹妹，未经考验的妹妹。 让我们把疯狂的叔叔带回来吧。 因此，疯狂叔叔赢得了所有七个摇摆州，并赢得了普选。 但他在某件事上进行竞选活动，现在我们已经进行了 19、20 个月了，但他却做了相反的事情。 他正在进行一场永远的战争。 他说他不会那样做。 他会努力降低价格。 他通过关税和永久战争造成的能源供应冲击来推高价格。 他说他将向政府提供透明度，并让你了解爱泼斯坦的文件。但是，你知道，嘿，实际上，我在爱泼斯坦的档案中，所以我真的不能把它们给你。同样，我之所以在爱泼斯坦的档案中，是因为我早期对某人关于比特币的采访出现在了爱泼斯坦参与的邮件列表上，所以。

Nick Gillespie： Okay, yeah, a lot of people were in the Epstein files.

好吧，是的，很多人都在爱泼斯坦的档案里。

Anthony Scaramucci： I mean, I had some emails go back and forth with him. He was a member of a club that I'm the membership chair of. They wanted to kick him out of the club. I had to deliver that news to him.

我的意思是，我和他来回发过一些电子邮件。他是我担任会员主席的一个俱乐部的成员。他们想把他踢出俱乐部。我不得不把这个消息告诉他。

Nick Gillespie： I mean, okay, but I'm just saying Trump himself was more involved than you or me in that.

我是说，好吧，但我只是想说特朗普本人在这件事上比你我都更参与。

Anthony Scaramucci： Yeah, obviously. So, he didn't want that information out there, right? So now, here's where we are. We have a very unpopular president. 67% of the people are saying no. 33% approval, the lowest approval rating in modern history leading into a midterm. And again, we'll have to see what happens. But my point in the book is... This anger-based populism is not solving the problems. To me, the central problem is I would like kids who grew up like me to have my opportunity. I would like kids that grew up like you to have your opportunity. I do feel, yes, living standards are better. Everything you said at the beginning of this conversation, but I do feel that they feel They don't have the shot. You know, like you said about your children or my children, they feel, and then if you have somebody like Trump, that's like taking a billion here and taking a billion there, they also feel, wait a minute, that's a two-tiered system now. Trump is generally exonerated by the Department of Justice. Apparently you can't even audit his taxes anymore.

是的，显然。 所以，他不想让这些信息泄露出去，对吗？ 所以现在，这就是我们现在的处境。 我们有一位非常不受欢迎的总统。 67%的人表示不。 33%的支持率，是进入中期选举以来现代历史上最低的支持率。 再说一次，我们必须看看会发生什么。 但我在书中的观点是……这种基于愤怒的民粹主义并不能解决问题。 对我来说，核心问题是我希望像我一样长大的孩子有我的机会。 我希望像你一样长大的孩子也有机会。 我确实觉得，是的，生活水平更好了。 你在谈话开始时所说的一切，但我确实觉得他们觉得他们没有机会。 你知道，就像你所说的关于你的孩子或我的孩子，他们觉得，如果你有像特朗普这样的人，那就像是这里拿了十亿，那里拿了十亿，他们还觉得，等一下，现在这是一个两层体系。 司法部普遍认为特朗普无罪。 显然你甚至不能再审计他的税款了。

Nick Gillespie： Right.

对。

Anthony Scaramucci： And so, but my taxes are getting audited and I feel like there's a two-tiered system. That type of cronyism, Never works in a society that wants to lift everybody.

所以，但是我的税正在被审计，我感觉好像存在一个两级制度。那种裙带关系，在一个想要提升每个人的社会中，永远行不通。

Nick Gillespie： Yeah.

是的。

Anthony Scaramucci： Yes, other societies, you can have permanent classes in those societies, but not this society. We're not built for that.

是的，其他社会，你可以在那些社会中设立永久阶层，但在这个社会不行。我们没有为此而建立。

Nick Gillespie： So, I mean, I will come back to the idea that I think what we are arguing about more is the narrative rather than facts on the ground. And I'm not saying these are totally disparate. But, you know, when you look at, you know, intergenerational mobility, you know, can kids, you know, match where their parents were at age 30, adjusted for inflation and education? It's like, you know, most people get there. I think there's a lot of good in America. We do not have a story. We don't have a positive story to tell about America anymore. We're not a nation of immigrants. We're not a nation of strivers. You quote from Barack Obama's breakout speech at the Democratic National Convention of 2004, where he talks about the skinny-eared, You know, a skinny, big-eared kid with a weird name who can make it in America. Like, nobody's talking like that anymore. From the right and the left, everybody is saying, like, things are terrible and they're only getting worse. My question for you, regardless, you know, and again, we can disagree over how... How is inequality going? Is opportunity still there? What do we do? How do we get out of this funk which we've been in? And I think your book is on point that Trump is the person who saw this and articulated it most fully when he was Speaking, you know, using FDR's term in 2016, you know, I'm speaking for the forgotten man. When he said to black Americans, it's like, you know, Democrats have run your cities for decades. And what have they done for you? You know, give me a try. And he gained he gained among blacks and Latinos significantly in 2024. I think he's given that all back, along with many white votes. But, you know, what do we do? I mean, how do we get back to an aspirational society?

所以，我的意思是，我会回到这个想法，我认为我们争论更多的是叙述而不是事实。 我并不是说这些是完全不同的。 但是，你知道，当你看到代际流动性时，你知道，孩子们在 30 岁时能否与他们父母的水平相匹配，并根据通货膨胀和教育进行调整？ 就像，你知道，大多数人都到达那里。 我认为美国有很多好处。 我们没有故事。 我们不再有关于美国的正面故事可讲。 我们不是一个移民国家。 我们不是一个奋斗者的国家。 你引用巴拉克·奥巴马 (Barack Obama) 在 2004 年民主党全国代表大会上的突破性演讲，他在演讲中谈到了“瘦耳朵”，你知道，一个骨瘦如柴、名字怪异的大耳朵孩子可以在美国取得成功。 就像，没有人再这样说话了。 从右翼到左翼，每个人都在说，事情太糟糕了，而且只会变得更糟。 我要问你的问题是，无论如何，你知道，我们可能会在……不平等现象如何方面存在分歧？ 机会还有吗？我们该怎么办？我们如何摆脱一直困扰我们的这种消沉状态？我认为你的书说得很对，特朗普是那个最早看清这一点并最充分表达出来的人，当他在演讲时，你知道，用罗斯福的说法，2016 年他说：‘我在为被遗忘的人发声。’当他对美国黑人说时，就像是在说：‘民主党人治理你的城市几十年了，他们为你做了什么？给我一次机会吧。’他在黑人和拉美裔群体中获得了显著支持，2024 年也是如此。我认为他把所有这些支持都失去了，包括许多白人选票。但是，你知道，我们该怎么办？我是说，我们如何回到一个充满理想的社会呢？

Anthony Scaramucci： Well, you would need a reformer. So, Nick, you would need a reformer. You know, Gillespie for president, who doesn't care about himself and aggrandizing his bank account, but wants to reform the system. And so the last couple of chapters are about that. You'd have to end Citizens United. You'd have to return to something that's closer to the Volstead Act or remade. You'd have to, you probably need a constitutional amendment to do that because of the Supreme Court case. You would have to end gerrymandering or at least restrict it. You would have to restore the pay-as-you-go laws.

嗯，你需要一个改革者。所以，Nick，你需要一个改革者。你知道，Gillespie 当总统，他不关心自己，也不想扩大自己的银行账户，但想要改革体制。因此，最后几章就是关于这一点的。你必须结束《公民联合案》。你必须回到更接近《沃尔斯特德法案》或加以改造的法律。你可能需要通过一项宪法修正案来实现这一点，因为最高法院的判例。你必须结束操纵选区，或者至少限制它。你必须恢复按收入支付的法律。

Nick Gillespie： Right.

对。

Anthony Scaramucci： And you'd have to tell people you have a fifth. Which expired in the early 2000s.

而且你得告诉别人你有一个第五个。它在 2000 年代初就过期了。

Nick Gillespie： Yeah, 2002 it expired. Right, exactly.

是的，2002 年它过期了。对，正是这样。

Anthony Scaramucci： We needed to have renewed them. You know, these are procedural things. And, you know, Citizens United, which I remember Keith Olbermann, to talk about somebody who nobody thinks about anymore. He referred to that as our Dred Scott decision. I think that's hyperbolic. I don't think that attempts to regulate campaign finance laws never work. They just create the next scandal. But what about old age entitlement? What about old age entitlements that boomers like you and me, who have no business... They look at me and they say, oh, that'll never happen, or this will never happen, and they're probably right. But as an entrepreneur, what do entrepreneurs do? We take something that's at a zero and we turn it into one. And so if we start the conversation... Nick, there's 100 million people that are eligible to vote. They're either not registered or they don't vote. Every single election, we only have a 50-ish percent voter participation. So imagine if we could get these people inspired and bring them back into the swimming pool, we could break this deadlock that we're under and this sort of psychosis that we're in where nobody cares about... The direction that we're going in or the reforms that are necessary. You know, Trump has flouted the norms. He has told his friends, hey, other presidents could have made a few billion for themselves. I mean, here are the rules. I just went and made a few billion for them. Okay, guys, we can't do that. It's not in the interest of the country to do that. He was able to do that, but without breaking the law. So let's codify and protect the country from future presidents doing that.

我们需要重新续签它们。你知道，这些都是程序性的问题。而且，你知道，《公民联合案》，我记得 Keith Olbermann，为了谈论某个现在没人再想起的人，他称那案为我们的德雷德·斯科特判决。我认为那是夸张的。我不认为试图监管竞选资金法律从来有效，它们只会创造下一个丑闻。但是养老福利呢？养老福利呢，像你我这样的婴儿潮一代，本不该…他们看着我说，哦，那永远不会发生，或者这永远不会发生，他们大概是对的。但作为企业家，企业家会做什么？我们把零变一。所以如果我们开始这个讨论…尼克，有一亿人有资格投票。他们要么没有注册，要么不去投票。每次选举，我们的投票率只有大约五成。所以想象一下，如果我们能够激励这些人，让他们重新回到游泳池里，我们就能够打破我们所处的僵局，以及我们所处的这种心理状态，在这种状态下没有人关心……我们前进的方向或必要的改革。你知道，特朗普公然违反了规范。他告诉他的朋友们，嘿，其他总统也可以为自己赚几个亿。我的意思是，规则就是这样。我只是去帮他们赚了几个亿。好吧，伙计们，我们不能那样做，这不符合国家利益。他能够做到这一点，但没有违法。所以让我们将其编纂成法，并保护国家不受未来总统这样做的影响。

Nick Gillespie： Yeah. You mentioned Peter Diamandis, the great evangelist for kind of superabundance and life extension and technological innovation. And, you know, his new book, Name Checks the Whole Earth Catalog, you know, back in 1968, the same year it started in 68, the same year Reason did. And it's one of its slogans was we are as gods and we might as well get good at it. You are also interested in things like life extension, but even more importantly, the human potential movement. You use the term self-actualization, the Maslow concept. In a world where we are now, is the way out through politics or is it getting past politics so that people are actually

是的。你提到了彼得·迪亚曼迪斯，这位致力于超级充裕、延长寿命和技术创新的伟大福音传道者。你知道，他的新书，名字提到了《全地目录》，你知道，这本书最初是在 1968 年出版的，同一年《理性》杂志也开始出版。它的口号之一是“我们如同神，也不妨把这件事做好”。你也对延长寿命等事情感兴趣，但更重要的是，对人的潜能运动感兴趣。你使用了“自我实现”这个术语，这是马斯洛的概念。在我们现在所处的世界里，出路是通过政治，还是超越政治，使人们真正能够

Anthony Scaramucci： Great question. So the goal is to get beyond politics to the stuff in life that's really exciting and really matters.

好问题。所以目标是超越政治，去关注生活中真正令人兴奋和真正重要的事情。

Nick Gillespie： That's a good question. Can you speak to that? Can you speak to that?

这是个好问题。你能谈谈这个吗？你能谈谈这个吗？

Anthony Scaramucci： Yeah, I think- Because you can design your freak flag, you can let it fly, you can sell it now in a way because of technology, the very social media and internet-enabled technologies that might be hurting us in some areas, free us and liberate us in so many other ways.

是的，我认为——因为你可以设计你的怪异旗帜，你可以让它飘扬，现在由于科技，你甚至可以以某种方式销售它，那些可能在某些方面伤害我们的社交媒体和互联网技术，在许多其他方面却解放了我们，释放了我们。

Nick Gillespie： How do we get to that?

我们怎么到那里？

Anthony Scaramucci： So, first of all, it's a great question. And I think that is a very big part of our future, is sort of outside of the government or taking care of ourselves. It could be corporate, entrepreneurial, individualistic. I think that's a very good point. And I think a lot of that's going to happen one way or another. However, if we don't solve for the government expenditure... If we don't figure that out, that's the military expenditure, the social benefit expenditure, and the other things that are-

所以，首先，这是一个很好的问题。我认为我们的未来很大一部分确实在于政府之外，或者说关乎我们自身的照顾。它可能是企业的、创业的、个人的。我认为这是一个非常好的观点。我认为这些事情很多迟早都会发生。然而，如果我们不解决政府支出的问题……如果我们不弄明白这一点，那就是军事支出、社会福利支出以及其他一些支出——

Nick Gillespie： Interest on the debt.

债务利息。

Anthony Scaramucci： Interest on the debt. If we don't solve for that, it's going to weigh down all the libertarian things that you just said. So yes, that will happen because that's the nature of human beings, but you're now sitting with this behemoth. To your earlier point, eating up 27% of the GDP or 25% of the GDP. We're only taking in 18% in terms of tax revenues. It's too big of an imbalance, Nick. And so for that world that you're describing to flourish, we have to reduce this world, or we at least have to get this other world that we're talking about, this centralized world, the opposite of libertarianism. We've got to get it under control. So I see the point to you, but I'm just saying, even with all of that happening, if this thing goes to 50 trillion, 70 trillion, 80 trillion, it's going to have an impact. You're going to have to switch your currencies. There's no way to pay that back.

债务利息。如果我们不解决这个问题，它将拖累你刚才提到的所有自由主义的事情。所以，是的，这将会发生，因为这就是人性的本质，但你现在面对的是一个庞然大物。回到你之前的观点，它消耗了 GDP 的 27% 或 25%。而我们的税收收入只占 18%。这个不平衡太大了，尼克。因此，为了让你描述的那个世界蓬勃发展，我们必须缩减这个世界，或者至少我们必须控制我们正在谈论的另一个世界，这个中央集权的世界，是自由主义的对立面。我们必须将其控制住。所以我理解你的观点，但我要说的是，即便这一切都发生了，如果这个东西升到 50 万亿、70 万亿、80 万亿，它也会产生影响。你将不得不更换货币。没有办法偿还它。

Nick Gillespie： Let's end then. You just mentioned you have to switch your currencies. You are a big fan of Bitcoin. Does Bitcoin act as a hedge in this, or does it act as a constraint? Does it act as a kind of life raft or a supplement, or does it become like a new actual system of, you know, store of value as well as a, you know, what it was originally intended to be, at least in the Satoshi White Paper, a payments processing system?

那我们就结束吧。你刚才提到你必须转换你的货币。你是比特币的忠实粉丝。在这种情况下，比特币是起到对冲作用，还是起到约束作用？它是起到某种救生筏或补充作用，还是像一种新的实际体系，既是价值储存，又像它最初在中本聪白皮书中设想的那样，是一个支付处理系统？

Anthony Scaramucci： Such a great question. And so I obviously don't know the answer to that question. I can only give you my surmise. And so I believe that it has the technical properties where it will become a base layer of the future of finance in some way. It'll be a store of value because it's basically a hardened spreadsheet. And that's basically what money really is. If you think about money as a technology. And I think it will continue to get adopted. It'll grow. And because of this runaway train of spending, Bitcoin will have a big say in the future of how we transact and how we store value. And it's immutable. A gold meteor could land and we have more supply of gold, but technologically tight on Bitcoin. And so, therefore, I think it will continue to adopt and continue to attract people and add value. Will it be the reserve currency of the world? I don't, Michael Saylor thinks that, Safa Dayan Amos thinks that. I don't think it has to be that. I'm probably more skeptical. But I do believe it could be a store of value and it could trade to half of the market capitalization of gold, which is a 10X from here. And so therefore, as an investor, I want to own some of that because I'm looking at the macro situation in the world. And it's maybe not for guys like you and me that are in our 60s, but it is for our children that are in our 30s, you know, as they turn 40. And you and I turned 70, God willing, I make it. They're going to be using it. And so I want to own a piece of it. And by the way, I don't want Bitcoin to go to a million. Let me tell you why, Nick. If Bitcoin's at a million, we're in a lot of trouble in this country. It means that inflation has gone completely out of control and people are now using that in replacement of the dollar. So I I would prefer Bitcoin to be at 500,000 and our fiat system functioning and America getting its debt in control. You know, honestly, that, you know, I'm with Novogratz and I'm Mike Novogratz, the founder of Galaxy. We always talk about this. We're like, man, if it goes to a million, that might be good for my Bitcoin exposure, but it may not be good for the overall economy.

这是一个很棒的问题。显然，我不知道这个问题的答案。我只能给你我的推测。我相信它具有技术属性，会在某种程度上成为未来金融的基础层。它会成为价值储存，因为它基本上是一个加固的电子表格，而钱实际上就是这个。如果你把钱看作一种技术的话。我认为它会继续被采纳，会不断增长。由于这种不断增加的支出方式，比特币将在我们未来的交易方式和价值储存方面发挥重要作用。而且它是不可篡改的。即使有黄金陨石落下，增加了黄金供应，但从技术上来说，比特币是固定的。因此，我认为它会继续被采纳，继续吸引人们并增加价值。它会成为世界储备货币吗？我不知道，Michael Saylor 认为会，Safa Dayan Amos 也认为会。我不认为它非得是那样，我可能更持怀疑态度。但我确实相信它可以成为一种价值储存手段，并且可以交易到黄金市值的一半，这是现在的 10 倍。 因此，作为一名投资者，我想拥有其中的一些，因为我正在关注世界的宏观形势。 也许这不适合你我这样 60 多岁的人，但适合我们 30 多岁的孩子，你知道，他们已经 40 岁了。而你和我都已经 70 岁了，上帝保佑，我能做到。 他们将会使用它。 所以我想拥有它的一部分。 顺便说一句，我不希望比特币达到一百万。 让我告诉你为什么，尼克。 如果比特币达到一百万，我们这个国家就会遇到很多麻烦。 这意味着通货膨胀已经完全失控，人们现在正在用它来代替美元。 所以我希望比特币达到 500,000，我们的法定系统正常运转，美国的债务得到控制。 老实说，我是诺沃格拉茨的一员，我是银河公司的创始人迈克·诺沃格拉茨。 我们总是谈论这个。我们就像，兄弟，如果它涨到一百万，那可能对我的比特币持仓有好处，但对整体经济可能没好处。

Nick Gillespie： Yeah. Yeah. We're going to leave it there. Anthony Scaramucci, the book is All the Wrong Moves, How Three Catastrophic Decisions Led to the Rise of Trump. Thank you very much.

是的。是的。我们就讲到这里。安东尼·斯卡拉穆奇，这本书是《所有错误的举动：三次灾难性决定如何导致特朗普崛起》。非常感谢你。

Anthony Scaramucci： Hey, really great to be on with you, Nick.

嘿，真高兴能和你在一起，尼克。