Europe at a Turning Point - Elon Musk on Bureaucracy and the Fight for Innovation

Well, the reason I say studying a company is like in glass and staring at the abyss is that in order to make a company successful, it requires doing a lot of painful work. Work that is not fun, working very long hours, and then maybe your company survives, maybe it does not. And the vast majority of startups fail. So that's why, you know, that's the eating glass and staring at the abyss is starting a company. Lots of hard work followed by death is usually what happens when people start companies. That's why I say if people need words of encouragement to start a company, they should not start a company.

我之所以说创办公司就像咬着玻璃、凝视深渊，是因为让公司成功需要做大量痛苦的工作。这些工作既不有趣又需要投入很长时间，最后可能公司活下来，也可能不会。而且，绝大多数初创公司都会失败。这就是为什么我把创办公司比作咬玻璃和凝视深渊。通常情况下，创办公司的人会面临很多艰苦的工作，最后还是以失败告终。因此，我认为如果有人需要鼓励才能创业，那么他们就不应该创业。

With respect to government, there's really the challenge is overcoming bureaucracy. And I think bureaucracy is perhaps the, I say the penultimate boss battle, the ultimate boss battle is defeating entropy, which we, physics tells us we cannot defeat entropy. The second hardest battle is defeating bureaucracy. Well, you know, that's how difficult it is to improve government. Now, one of the things that's happened, which always happens with an extended period of peace time is that you have a steady increase in the amount of bureaucracy. The size of the government grows the laws and regulations that are put in place get larger every year.

关于政府，真正的挑战在于克服官僚主义。我认为官僚主义可能是倒数第二个关卡，而最终的关卡是打败熵，物理学告诉我们，我们无法战胜熵。第二难的挑战就是战胜官僚主义。因此，你可以想象改善政府是多么困难。事实上，在长期的和平时期，官僚主义总是会不断增加。政府的规模会逐渐扩大，制定的法律法规每年都会增多。

So it's a sad reason that, you know, if you have regulators, regulators are going to add more regulations every year. All makers will add more laws every year. The cleansing process normally for getting rid of nonsensical laws and regulations is war. Now, obviously, we'd prefer to not have war, drive the reformation of government. So in the absence of war, you have to have something like what we have formed here in the U.S. at Department of Government Efficiency in order to get rid of laws and regulations. With laws, we have to require obviously the consent of Congress. But for regulations, this can be done at the executive branch level.

因此，这个原因令人感到悲伤，你知道，如果有监管机构，它们每年都会增加更多的法规。立法者每年也会制定更多的法律。通常，用于清理不合理的法律和法规的过程是战争。当然，我们更希望不通过战争来推动政府改革。所以在没有战争的情况下，就必须像美国这样设立一个政府效率部门，以清理法律和法规。对于法律，我们显然需要国会的批准。但对于法规，这可以在行政部门层面上进行。

It's to reexamine the vast body of regulations and get rid of those where there's more harm than good, of which there are many. And then reducing the size of the government and then also balancing the budget so that we are not driving the country with bankruptcy. These things are all very hard. And I want to be clear, like, we may need to fail in this objective. That's why I described it as an extremely difficult battle. This has never succeeded before. So prior attempts to reduce the size of bureaucracy to make out more efficient have generally failed. Even when parties are elected for that, so if you take, say, Reagan, he's campaigned on getting rid of the federal Department of Education and having that be done at the state level. And the Department of Education at the federal level is a recent creation. It was, I think, created about 45 years ago or something like that.

这段话的大意是：需要重新审视大量的法规，并淘汰那些弊大于利的法规，而这样的法规有很多。接着要缩减政府规模，还要平衡预算，以免让国家走向破产。这些事情都非常困难。我想明确指出，我们可能在这一目标上会失败。这就是为什么我把它称为一场极其艰难的战斗。以往在减少繁文缛节和提高效率的尝试一般都失败了。即便是那些承诺如此做的政党，当选后也未必能成功。比如，里根竞选时承诺要废除联邦教育部，把教育事务交给各州管理。而联邦教育部实际上是一个相对较新的机构，大约是在45年前成立的。

So I'm going to ask you're also very familiar with the German economy and the German market. So would you recommend a department of government efficiency for Germany too? I would. I think, generally, for governments that having, you basically need to have some process for trash collection, garbage collection. So if you only have a process for creating regulations, but no process for deleting regulations, eventually everything is illegal and nothing is allowed to happen and progress comes to a grinding halt.

所以，我想请教一下，您对德国经济和市场也很熟悉。您会推荐德国政府设立一个提高效率的部门吗？我会的。一般来说，政府需要有一些处理日常事务的流程，比如垃圾收集。如果政府只制定法规，而不删除过时或不必要的法规，最终所有事情都会变得不合法，什么都不能做，进步也会陷入停滞。

So it's very important, I think, that all governments have a team that's responsible for reducing the size of government and for getting rid of regulations that may have made sense at one time, but no longer make sense currently. And simplifying the process, otherwise, you get these things build up like plaque on arteries. Like you start having the flow of blood through the government get constricted with more and more buildup on the walls of the arteries. So you must have this cleansing process very important.

我认为，各国政府都应该有一个专门的团队，负责缩小政府规模，并废除那些曾经合理但现在不再合理的规章制度。简化这些流程非常重要，否则就像动脉中的斑块一样，累积起来会阻碍血液流动。政府的运作也会因为这些堆积的问题而变得迟缓。因此，进行这样的清理工作是非常必要的。

Well, I think President Trump likes to get things done. And he's not looking to punish countries or do things that are economically insane, but he does view tariffs as a means to gain cooperation of countries for important matters. And obviously, if countries have implemented asymmetric tariffs without taxing the import of American goods, while America does not tax the import of their goods, then we have an imbalance. So what I suspect you will see is that President Trump will be – will want to – if we'll – countries that have asymmetric tariff barriers, like it could be either tariff or regulatory barriers that – which are basically – any restraint of trade, then the President Trump will want to take action to stop the restraint or trade and ensure that there is a fair and level playing field for American companies and companies in Europe or China or wherever the case may be.

嗯，我认为特朗普总统喜欢推动事情的进展。他并不是想要惩罚国家或做经济上不合理的事情，但他确实把关税视作获得国家合作的一种手段。这很明显，如果有些国家对美国商品的进口没有征收关税，而美国对他们的商品也没有征税，就会产生不平衡。因此，我猜测你会看到，特朗普总统会希望采取行动来阻止这种不平衡的贸易约束。例如，对于那些设置不对等关税壁垒的国家，无论是关税还是监管壁垒，特朗普总统将希望确保美国公司以及欧洲或中国等地的公司之间有一个公平和对等的竞争环境。

So that's my guess, my sense of it is that there needs to be – there needs to be – he's simply looking for a fair and level playing field. Yeah. Well, first of all, I think actually, Tesla would have existed without – if they have been in power, we would still have put the factory in Berlin. The – I'm generally against government incentives that distort markets, and there are – it tends to be a lot of government tariffs and incentives and penalties that distort markets. So that's – you know, now, if those things are put in place by others, then we obviously must take advantage of them or Tesla is at a competitive disadvantage. But the – you know, the reason that I am in favor of AFD is that there's some fundamental things that must happen without which – I'm concerned that Germany will fail, which is that there has to be – they have to be sensible controls on immigration. There has to be – if there are criminals in Germany who are committing crimes and hurting people in Germany, they must be deported, and that's not happening. Then there must also be freedom of speech such that the people know what the truth is, otherwise they cannot make an informed decision. So if you do not have freedom of speech, you cannot be of democracy because the public cannot make an informed decision about their vote if there is not freedom of information. So the – in Germany right now, there are draconian laws, rules against freedom of expression where even insulting a politician can get to you at present time, which is insane. So I like the fact that the AFD is in favor of freedom of speech. I like that the AFD is in favor of sensible immigration policies and deportation of criminals. And I like the generally libertarian policies of the AFD.

所以，这只是我的猜测，我的感觉是，需要有一个公平和公正的竞争环境。首先，我认为，即使没有政府支持，特斯拉也会继续存在，我们仍然会在柏林建厂。总体来说，我反对那些扭曲市场的政府激励措施，因为它们通常会带来很多政府关税、激励和惩罚，扰乱市场。但如果这些措施已经被实施，那我们显然必须利用它们，否则特斯拉就会处于竞争劣势。不过，我支持德国选择党（AFD）的理由是，有一些基本的事情必须发生，否则我担心德国会失败。这些事情包括对移民的合理控制。如果在德国有犯罪行为并伤害他人的罪犯，他们就必须被驱逐，但这种情况目前并没有发生。还必须有言论自由，只有这样人们才能知道真相，否则他们无法做出明智的决定。如果没有言论自由，就不可能有真正的民主，因为公众无法在没有信息自由的情况下对投票做出明智的决定。现在在德国，有一些严厉的法律和规定限制言论自由，甚至侮辱一位政治家都会受到惩罚，这太荒谬了。所以我喜欢德国选择党支持言论自由的立场，我欣赏他们在移民政策上的理性，以及对犯罪分子驱逐的立场。我也喜欢德国选择党总体上偏向自由主义的政策。

Well, it is obviously easy to strawman my statement, which is what he's done, to say that that we should flip from entirely a sort of – where we sort of torture young children in Germany with nothing but guilt to saying, oh, we should completely ignore the sins of Nazi Germany. I have said, obviously, neither of those things. What I have said is that we should not be torturing children in Germany and telling that Germany is the worst country in the world, and that is all they are taught, and they are taught nothing about the great things that Germany has done in the past. And that Germany cannot be defined and children whose great grandparents may not have even been Nazis are told that Germany is the worst country that has ever existed and faced the earth and they must live with nothing but guilt and shame. This is wrong. This is wrong. This is not what I'm not saying is that Nazism should be ignored. I had never said that, but I am saying that the tremendous cultural history of Germany is incredible. If you think of the great philosophers, the great composers, the incredible contributions in terms of engineering and science that Germany has made, including those of Jewish people in Germany who are Einstein, for example. These things should be celebrated. Not to the exclusion of a Nazi is not to ignore it, but not to say that this is all Germany is about, is absurd and false. And so people should be proud of the great things that Germany has done, proud of that that Germany is an ancient nation, thousands of years old, that was one of the few nations to actually resist incorporation into the Roman Empire.

显然，很容易对我的陈述进行曲解，这正是他所做的，把我的意思扭曲成要么完全以一种折磨德国年轻人、让他们全身充满罪恶感的方式来教育，要么完全忽视纳粹德国的罪行。我显然没有说过这些。我说的是，我们不应该折磨德国的孩子，让他们认为德国是世界上最差的国家，让他们只学习这些，而完全不知道德国过去所做的伟大贡献。德国不应被定义为一个让孩子的曾祖父母可能都不是纳粹的孩子生活在只有罪恶和羞愧中的国家。这是错误的。我并不是说应该忽视纳粹主义，我从未这么说过，但我认为德国在文化历史上的成就是惊人的。想想那些伟大的哲学家、作曲家，德国在工程和科学方面的杰出贡献，包括犹太人，例如爱因斯坦。这些成就应该被庆祝。当然，这并不是要排除对纳粹罪行的关注，而是说仅仅将德国定义为罪恶是不符合事实的。因此，人们应该为德国的伟大成就感到自豪，应该为德国是一个有几千年历史、曾是少数几个抵挡住罗马帝国并入的国家之一感到自豪。

You see, go back 2,000 years ago, even Rome could not defeat Germany. Rome was the most powerful empire in the world at the time, but could not defeat Germany. They gave up. So once we need to understand the full context of German history, the great things as well as the terrible things. And when you look at, say, America, what happened to the Native people of America? Where are they? What happened to the Native people of Judea before the Jewish people got there? Where are they? So at some point, things cannot be simply about terrible things that have been done. The terrible things must be learned, but also the good things. Well, I mean, this is simply, I mean, that's, you know, we're going from like deep philosophical and political issues to trivia of the week.

你看，追溯到2000年前，即使是罗马帝国也无法打败日耳曼。当时罗马是世界上最强大的帝国，但仍无法征服日耳曼，他们最终放弃了。所以我们需要全面理解德国历史，不仅仅是它的伟大成就，还有那些可怕的事情。当我们看看美国，思考一下美洲原住民发生了什么？他们在哪里？在犹太人到达之前，犹太地的原住民又发生了什么？他们在哪里？因此，在某些时候，我们不能仅仅关注那些发生过的可怕事件。这些可怕的事情需要被反思，同时也要关注其中的好的方面。我的意思是，我们正在从深刻的哲学和政治问题，转向每周的琐事。

This is a, there are a lot of very smart, very motivated engineers in China. So you should expect that China will come up with many great things, and they have come with many great things. Again, look at the, and if one looks at the long history of China, also an ancient nation that hasn't invented and developed many things. And for most of actually human history, China has been the most powerful nation on earth. So, you know, I think particularly from, say, the possession of people in China, they simply view China's ascendancy as resuming the normal sort of place in history, which is the most powerful country on earth.

这是一种观点：中国有很多非常聪明和积极进取的工程师。因此，你应该预期中国会创造出许多伟大的事物，而且他们已经创造了很多伟大的成就。如果你查看中国的悠久历史，这个古老的国家一直在发明和发展许多事物。在大部分人类历史中，中国曾是世界上最强大的国家。所以，我认为，尤其是从中国人民的角度来看，他们只是将中国的崛起视为重新回到历史上正常的地位，即世界上最强大的国家。

And so you can expect that they will do many great things, deep-state being one of them. But that is simply the result of the immense amount of challenge in China. It's very impressive. But it's not, is it some sort of complete revolution in AI? No, it is not. The XAI and others will soon be releasing models that are better than deep-state. Well, as you know, Europe actually has more bureaucracy than what we can guess. Okay. Connection looks good. Europe actually has more bureaucracy than the US does because you don't just have the provincial and sort of national level. You also have the EU on top of that. And we totally frank EU headquarters in Brussels is essentially a giant cathedral to bureaucracy.

所以，你可以预料到他们会做很多伟大的事情，其中之一就是深度学习。但这只是因为中国面临巨大的挑战。这确实令人印象深刻。但这是不是意味着在人工智能方面有某种完全的革命呢？不是的。XAI和其他公司不久将发布比深度学习更出色的模型。正如你所知，欧洲其实比我们想象的更官僚化。好的，连接看起来不错。因为在欧洲，你不仅有地方和国家层面的机构，还有欧盟这一层。坦白说，布鲁塞尔的欧盟总部基本上就像是一座巨大的官僚体系大教堂。

So if one wishes to visit the grand cathedral of bureaucracy, visit EU headquarters in Brussels. I do think that Europe probably needs government efficiency more than the US does. And this needs to happen at the country level and at the EU level. And actually I think the job is more difficult in Europe than it is in the US. I think overregulation has inhibited a tremendous amount of progress and innovation in Europe. And I call it the slow strangulation by overregulation. I slow strangulation because it's not like at any one moment you feel like this is it. But the newness around the neck just gets a little tighter every year. And eventually it's going to kill Europe. So there must be in my opinion immediate action to reduce regulation at the EU level, at the country level and at the local level.

因此，如果有人想要参观官僚主义的大本营，那就去布鲁塞尔的欧盟总部。我确实认为，欧洲可能比美国更需要提高政府效率。这种改进需要在国家层面和欧盟层面同时进行。实际上，我认为欧洲面临的挑战比美国更大。我觉得过度的监管已经极大地阻碍了欧洲的进步和创新。我把这种现象称为“被过度监管慢慢扼杀”。之所以说是慢慢扼杀，是因为在某一个时刻你可能并没有觉察到，但套在脖子上的绳索每年都会收紧一点，最终将扼杀欧洲。因此，在我看来，必须立即采取行动，在欧盟层面、国家层面和地方层面减少监管。

Well, I think we'll see that open source models generally lag the commercial models. So whatever is commercially powerful today will probably be open source in a year or less. And I expect that trend to continue. So essentially everyone will have AI. Do you see this is maybe the most profound change. You know, the advent of digital superintelligence.

我认为开源模型通常会落后于商业模型。因此，现在商业上强大的技术可能会在一年或更短时间内成为开源。我预计这一趋势会继续。所以基本上每个人都会拥有人工智能。你觉得这是数字超级智能时代到来后，也许是最深刻的改变吗？

Now, if you stand back and say like promise from 1000 years ago, sorry 1000 years from now, what will historians, well, assuming they're even human at that point, not computers. What will historians regard as the most important thing? Or the most important milestones in history. One of those fundamental milestones will be the advent of digital superintelligence. No question. They will long ago have forgotten who's in charge of which country. Well, that will be a minor by comparison with the advent of digital superintelligence. I think also the humanity becoming a multi-planet civilization would also fit on that list because I think that fits on the list.

现在，请你退一步来思考，如果我们从未来的1000年后看待今天的承诺，历史学家会如何评价这一时期，当然，假设那时的历史学家还是人类，而不是计算机。他们会认为什么是最重要的事情或历史上的重要里程碑？毫无疑问，数字超级智能的出现将是其中一个根本性的里程碑。到那时，他们早已忘记谁在统治哪个国家，因为相比之下，哪个国家的领导者将显得微不足道。我认为，人类成为多星球文明也会被视为重要里程碑之一，因为这也属于重大成就。

I mean, I want to say like looking at from a very broad standpoint, a very high level, I could say what are the what are my milestones that would perhaps be in the top 10 from it. And from the general standpoint of evolution in general, you'd say like there would be single self-life, multi-cellular life, differentiation into plants and animals, life going from ocean to land, mammals, cognitive function in mammals, that's like humans. And also then there would be life becoming multi-planetary and digital superintelligence would fit on that. You know, essentially top 10 list.

从一个非常广泛的角度来看，我想列出一些可能在我心目中排在前十的里程碑。在整体演化的宏观角度，你可以说：单细胞生命、多细胞生命、生命分化为植物和动物、生命从海洋到陆地的迁移、哺乳动物的出现、哺乳动物的认知功能（例如人类），然后是生命向多行星化发展以及数字超级智能的发展等。这些都可以算在这个“前十”列表中。

I mean, with great difficulty, it is quite a challenge. The, you know, our brain only consumes 20 watts of power. And of that, only 10 of that half of that is higher brain function. So I've got basically a 10 watt meat computer to do all this. And I find this all to be very challenging for my 10 watt meat computer. That is my brain. One thing that I think is helpful though is there's a big difference between training. How much mental workload training to do something takes versus inference or executing that thing. So you could take like, let's say, chess as an example, it might take for I can say 10,000 hours to become a grand master of chess. But then you can play the game in a few hours. So that's sort of what has happened here with say Tesla and SpaceX is that I have really way more than 10,000 into understanding how to build and grow a car company and a rocket company. And the satellites and all these things.

我想说，这确实非常困难，是一个相当大的挑战。你知道，我们的大脑只消耗20瓦的能量，其中只有10瓦用于高级脑功能。所以基本上我用一个10瓦的“肉质计算机”来完成这一切，对我来说真的是个挑战。让我觉得有帮助的一点是，训练与执行之间有很大区别。完成某件事所需的脑力训练工作量与执行这件事相比是不同的。比如说下棋，可能需要1万个小时来成为国际象棋大师，但一盘棋只需要几个小时。这就像是我在特斯拉和SpaceX的经历，我花了远远超过1万个小时去理解如何建立和发展一家汽车公司和火箭公司，还有卫星等各种事情。

I also before SpaceX, you know, was a co-founder of two internet companies. So I understand the internet, I understand payments and all that kind of thing. And so the mental workload required once you have trained on something is very low compared to the training itself. That is how I'm able to do things that required immense amounts of training over decades. But only but do not require much mental workload once the training is completed. Now right now for government, although interface with government tremendously, this is. This is my first time actually trying to improve government. So there will be some initial training workload that is significant and then we'll move to inference, which is several orders of magnitude easier than training. I have not actually I'm not put in a bit for TikTok. And I don't have any plans for what would I do if I had to take talk. I mean, I guess I would look at the algorithm and try to decide how. How helpful or useful is this algorithm and what can we do to shift the algorithm to be more productive. And ultimately be beneficial to humanity. You know, we should just generally lean in the direction of something which is. More beneficial than than more harmful.

在加入SpaceX之前，我也曾是两家互联网公司的联合创始人。所以，我对互联网、支付系统等方面非常了解。一旦学习完成后，所需的心理负荷相较于学习过程本身就很低了。这就是为什么我能够处理那些需要几十年艰苦培训的事情，因为一旦培训完成，维持这些工作的心理负荷就不大。至于政府工作，尽管我与政府有很多互动，这却是我第一次试着改进政府。所以一开始会有相当大的学习负担，但之后进入应用阶段，这会比培训容易很多倍。我并没有对TikTok提出收购，也没有计划接手后来做什么。假如真的负责TikTok，我会先看一下算法，判断其有多大帮助或用途，然后想办法调整其方向，使之更加积极有益。我们总体应该倾向于做那些对人类更有益而不是有害的事情。

I don't use TikTok personally, so. You know, it's I'm not that familiar with it. I've just seen, you know, just see the videos occasionally appearing on X or people show me something. But I'm not jumping at the book at the book to acquire TikTok. I don't know acquire companies in general. It's quite rare that acquiring Twitter knuckle decks was highly unusual. I usually build companies from scratch. And the reason I acquired Twitter, which is what I said at the time, which is that it was important for to preserve freedom of speech in America and to the extent we're legally allowed to in the rest of the world. That's it was a fairly acquired Twitter would be an important productive step for the future of humanity. And even though it's it's really quite painful and has been very difficult. It was I thought I think none of us important to do so. I don't know if the same logic I don't know if the same logic applies to TikTok, but. So I'm not I'm not going to. I don't I don't I don't actually I don't acquire things just for economic reasons. And so I'm it's not clear to me what what the purpose of acquiring TikTok would be apart from economics.

我个人不使用 TikTok，所以我对它不太熟悉。我只是在 X 平台上偶尔看到一些视频，或者别人向我展示了一些内容。但是，我并没有迫不及待地想要收购 TikTok。我一般也不常收购公司。收购 Twitter 是个很不寻常的决定，因为我平时是从头创建公司的。我当时收购 Twitter 的原因，是因为我认为保护美国及其它法律允许范围内国家的言论自由很重要。我认为收购 Twitter 是对人类未来发展的一个重要而有意义的步骤。虽然这真的很痛苦，过程也很艰难，但我认为这是重要的。我不知道同样的理由是否适用于 TikTok，所以我不会因为经济原因去收购公司。对我来说，除了经济因素外，我还没有明确收购 TikTok 的目的。

I generally regard these movements as as positive. So and this this whole definition of what is right what is what is sort of a right wing what is left wing. This whole thing is shifted over time. Policies like simply having sensible immigration and. You know, since we're going to spend it in. Are those used to be in fact people on the left used to have those. Opinions as well and the centrist government certainly had those opinions. So. What we've seen in media is a defining. Things that used to be centrist to center left such as a sensible immigration policy as somehow far right, which is absurd and false.

我通常认为这些运动是积极的。不过，关于什么是右派和左派的定义，随着时间的推移发生了变化。像实施合理的移民政策这样的政策，以前也是左派人士持有的观点，而且中间派政府也通常支持这些观点。然而，我们在媒体上看到的是，将一些过去被认为是中间派或中左派的政策，比如合理的移民政策，定义为极右，这是荒谬和错误的。

Because it really far right should refer to extremely fascist situations like far right should refer to. You know, electing regimes that want to launch wars or genocides or something like that. That's what that far is supposed to mean far is not supposed to mean a sensible immigration policy. That literally if you took speeches from politicians that were center left and just go take this beaches from 10 15 years ago. They were literally saying the same thing. So what we've seen is really a drift left to. You know, it's a use the same modifier, but where a lot of companies actually are far left, but think they are centrist or think they are merely left or centrist, but they are actually far left compared to what the left. Was you can tell from. In years ago. You can take speeches for that Obama or Hillary Clinton gave about immigration and they sound identical to President Trump. And that's just as of 10 15 years ago, not that long ago. So I think what we've seen is a redefinition of what is right and left, but an inaccurate redefinition. And frankly, it's just propaganda because people are generally have the association that will anything far right must be bad. So then we're going to just label things that are common sense far right, which is absurd.

这段文字认为“极右翼”的定义被错误地使用了。极右翼本应指极端法西斯的情况，比如选举出想要发动战争或种族屠杀的政权。然而，现在有些人将“极右翼”用于描述合理的移民政策，这是不准确的。举个例子，如果你回顾10到15年前中左翼政治家的演讲，他们实际上说的话与现在被标签为“极右翼”的内容相同。作者指出，近年来左翼的定义发生了变化，一些公司自认是中间或左派，但实际上与之前的左派相比，他们是极左的。从奥巴马或希拉里·克林顿在不久前的演讲中可以看出，他们关于移民的问题与特朗普的说法并无不同。因此，这种定义右派和左派的方式是不准确的，更像是一种宣传，因为人们通常觉得极右翼是不好的，所以就把一些常识性的问题贴上极右翼的标签，这是荒谬的。

Now what I'm big fan of. President of a lay, he's doing fantastic job in Argentina. The results speak for themselves. I'm just here is. Argentina is experiencing unprecedented growth. He has inflation under control. Finally, he has reduced the size of government dramatically. And reducing the size of government is very important because you need to move people from low to negative productivity roles in the government sector to high productivity. And the economic improvement. If you move people from low to negative productivity roles to high productivity roles, then the output of goods and services increases and the standard of living increases. This is. Leaving is like, because sometimes people get caught up in that. They think money's real, but money's not real. Output of goods and services is real money is simply a representation of that.

现在，我非常支持的一个人是阿根廷的一位总统，他在阿根廷干得非常出色。结果显而易见。阿根廷正经历前所未有的增长。他终于把通货膨胀控制住了，并大幅缩减了政府规模。缩小政府规模非常重要，因为这样可以把人从政府部门低到负生产力的岗位转移到高生产力的岗位。这种经济改善意味着，如果你把人从低到负生产力的岗位转移到高生产力的岗位，那么商品和服务的产出会增加，人们的生活水平也会提高。生活水平的提升有时会让人们忽略了，他们以为钱才是真的，但钱其实不是真实的，商品和服务的产出才是真实的，而钱只是其代表。

Yes, well, let's just define what is meant here. I mean, if I work as one means. You know, just like racism on the basis of sex and gender and other matters, which. You know, D is simply racism rebranded. Then yes, I'm against racism and sexism, no matter who is directed against. It is entirely possible to be racist against white people or black people or agents or anyone else. And we should really accept no racism or sexism in any form, no matter what it's called. Dei and workers and. Essentially advocate racism is sexism. Sexism does wrong. They're also anti-meritocratic. So we should really, in my view, have a meritocratic society where people succeed on the as a function of their abilities and how hard they work. That should be the only way that people. Succeed and not through any some of the prior measures that are discriminatory.

好的，那么我们来定义一下这里的意思。我的意思是，如果我提供一个工作上的观点。你知道，就像基于性别和其他问题的种族歧视一样。你知道，“D”只是重新包装的种族歧视。那么是的，我反对任何形式的种族歧视和性别歧视，无论它针对谁。有可能对白人、黑人、亚洲人或其他任何人表现出种族歧视。我们应该坚决不接受任何形式的种族歧视或性别歧视，无论它叫什么。DEI（多样性、公平性和包容性）和它的倡导者本质上是在支持种族歧视和性别歧视。这是错误的，它们也不符合功绩至上的原则。所以我认为，我们应该有一个功劳至上的社会，让人们根据他们的能力和努力程度获得成功。这应该是人们成功的唯一途径，而不应该通过任何带有歧视性的先行措施。

So we need a meritocratic society and we need freedom of speech. And freedom of speech is only relevant if people are allowed. If people you don't like are allowed to say things you don't like. That is the only time freedom of speech is relevant. It can't be that the government is deciding what is missed. What is or is not misinformation or disinformation. Because then you get politics applying to those labels and in fact you simply get the suppression of freedom of speech. So really. I think it's work is is evil because it is racist sexist and anti free speech.

我们需要一个精英统治的社会，也需要言论自由。言论自由只有在人人都被允许表达、甚至是那些你不喜欢的人说出你不喜欢的话时才有意义。不能由政府来决定什么是错误信息或虚假信息，因为这样会导致政治影响这些定义，而事实上这就是对言论自由的压制。因此，我认为这种做法是不正当的，因为它是种族主义的、性别歧视的，并且反对言论自由。

Yeah, I mean, it's it's very basic that if if people stop having. No, if there are no babies people stop having babies humanity will come to a halt. And we see now for many years very low birth rates in almost all of the world. So even India recently went to a replacement rate. So so that you will say well, we'll just we'll just replace people with immigration like immigration from where. If you look at China, for example, they are roughly at half a place with great. I think maybe it maybe 60% or something like that. So that means call it something like 600 million people will be lost. And of this generation will where you're going to get 600 million immigrants that would require almost two Americas to move to China. That's impossible. If you look at Korea, Korea has a replacement. The birth rate is now one third replacement rate. That means in three generations Korea, the size of the Korean population will be about three to four percent of what is currently is basically a career was a spirit. And I think that there are. Great things in every culture. We don't want the German German culture to disappear. We don't want French culture to disappear. We don't want a Korean culture to disappear or Japan or America or anywhere.

是的，我的意思是，很简单，如果人们不再生育，或者说如果没有宝宝出生，人类就会停止发展。我们现在看到世界上几乎所有地方的出生率多年来都非常低。即使是印度，最近也达到了人口更替率。那么你可能会说，我们可以通过移民来填补，比如从哪里来的移民。如果看看中国，他们的出生率大概只有一半，可能仅达到60%左右。这意味着会损失大约6亿人，而这些人如何通过移民来补充呢？这几乎意味着需要有两个美国的人口移到中国，这是不可能的。如果看韩国，韩国的出生率现在只是一半更替率的三分之一。也就是说，再过三代，韩国的人口将只有现在的3%到4%，基本上相当于韩国的消失。我认为每种文化都有其伟大的地方，我们不希望德国文化消失，不希望法国文化消失，也不希望韩国、日本、美国或其他任何地方的文化消失。

I think it's good. You know, this is part of why I'm like, I think we should be very cautious about. Having some sort of global mixing part because we will then not have every place will look will be the same and there won't be any unique cultures in the world, which I think would make the world worse. So I think we need to preserve these country cultures. And that's the future that I think is better. I think that most people would agree is better.

我认为这是好的。你知道的，这就是为什么我认为我们应该非常谨慎地对待全球混合。这会导致每个地方都变得一样，世界上将不再有独特的文化，我认为这会让世界变得更糟。所以我认为我们需要保护各国的文化。我觉得这样的未来会更好，我相信大多数人也会同意这个观点。

We should not have cultures disappear. And currently, basically on the current birth rates and the sort of. So called multiculturalism and globalism. What we're actually seeing is the dilution of individual cultures and the destruction and death of individual cultures, which I think is terrible for the future. Well, I think we are at an inflection point.

我们不应让文化消失。目前，根据当前的出生率以及所谓的多元文化主义和全球化，我们实际上看到的是各个文化的稀释以及个别文化的消亡。我认为这是对未来非常不利的。我认为我们正处于一个关键的转折点。

So we, I would recommend. You know, radical change in Europe. That encourages a much higher birth rate. I think this may require some very dramatic incentives. I think Europe needs to have a sensible immigration policy. You know, that where people are properly vetted before coming to Europe and if they commit crimes, they are deported. Otherwise you will have the destruction of Europe.

因此，我建议在欧洲进行彻底的变革，鼓励更高的出生率。我认为这可能需要一些非常激励性的措施。我还认为，欧洲需要制定合理的移民政策，确保在入境前对移民进行适当的审查，如果他们在欧洲犯罪，应该被驱逐出境。否则，欧洲就可能面临严重的危机。

Also, you have to have a significant, a significant effort in deregulation. And basically removal of laws and regulations. So that you do not get hardening of the arteries until basically everything. It's illegal to do anything in Europe, which is what's basically happening now. So I'd recommend immediate and dramatic action for deregulation, freedom of speech, sensible immigration and improving the birth rate.

你还需要在放松管制方面做出重大努力，基本上就是取消法律法规。这样才能避免出现 "动脉硬化" 的现象，也就是到处都无法做事的情况。目前，欧洲基本上就是这样的局面。因此，我建议立即采取果断措施推动放松管制、言论自由、合理的移民政策，并提高出生率。

If those things happen, Europe will have a good future. And if they do not, Europe will fail.

如果这些事情发生，欧洲将有一个美好的未来。如果不发生，欧洲将会失败。