播客 企业 /en/research-insights/播客/essential-podcast/the-essential-podcast-episode-54-doing-capitalism-bill-janeway-on-the-theory-和-practice-of-innovation content esgSubNav

必要的播客, Episode 54: Doing Capitalism — 比尔 Janeway on The Theory 和 Practice of Innovation






必要的播客, Episode 53: On the Glass Cliff – Women CEO's During the P和emic



听: 必要的播客, Episode 54: Doing Capitalism — 比尔 Janeway on The Theory 和 Practice of Innovation


Dr. 威廉H. Janeway joins the Essential 播客 to talk about the innovation economy, 运营商的游戏, 好的和坏的浪费, 发展中的凯恩斯主义共识, 以及来自中国的矛盾信号.

来自S&P全球 is dedicated to sharing essential intelligence with those working in 和 affected by financial markets. Host 内森狩猎 focuses on those issues of immediate importance to global financial markets—macroeconomic trends, 信贷周期, 气候风险, 环境、社会和治理, 全球贸易, 和 more—in interviews with subject matter experts from around the world.

收听并订阅本期播客 苹果播客Spotify谷歌播客, 和 Deezer.


必要的播客 is edited 和 produced by Kurt Burger.

提供的成绩单 Kensho.

内森亨特: 这是来自S&P全球. 我是内森·亨特.

最近, I found myself interviewing a number of different academics, 投资者和企业家讨论创新的话题. All of them have referenced the same intellectual authority. 威廉H. Janeway has been called a theorist-practitioner by no less an authority than the economist Hyman Minsky.

在他作为从业者的角色中, 比尔 Janeway has been an active venture capital investor for more than 40年. 他在硅谷的成功堪称传奇. 好吧, as a theorist, Janeway received a PhD in Economics from Cambridge University. 他的书, 《创新经济中的资本主义, is considered by many to be the definitive work on innovation. Currently, he serves as a visiting scholar in the economics faculty of Cambridge University.

我很高兴欢迎比尔 Janeway来到播客. 比尔,欢迎.

威廉H. Janeway: 很高兴见到你,内森.

内森亨特: 比尔, I have known many 投资 bankers 和 venture capitalists over the course of my life. Yet, 我相信 few of them would refer to a particularly successful 投资 as their apotheosis. Do you see yourself as different from the general run of technology 投资者? 如果是这样,怎么做?

威廉H. Janeway: 好吧, the oldest line in marketing is don't be better be different. And certainly, there are a number going back to the great Arthur Rock 和 even before to AR&D, there have been 投资者 in advance computing-related technology of enormous success. 所以我不想和他们对抗.

If I brought one thing 这是 somewhat different to the party, 追溯到20世纪70年代末, it was a lot of what I had actually learned at the University of Cambridge. 我的博士论文写于1929年到31年. 我看到了金融市场可以, 一方面, deliver capital at extraordinarily favorable terms to such innovating companies as Radio Corporation of America, 20世纪20年代末, 但是如果关掉水龙头,泡沫就会破裂.

But it was also clear in the late '70s 和 early '80s that there was something going on in the world of computing that I really found profoundly exciting 和 an extraordinary once-in-a-generation, 如果不是千载难逢, 机会. 这 was the architectural transformation of computing from centralized, proprietary vertical stacks of technology dominated by IBM, but with such other major companies as Digital Equipment 和 Hewlett Packard, 越来越开放, increasingly distributed network world that began in the early 1980s when the PC became st和ard 和 networks to link them to specialized servers began to emerge through 互联网.

20多年了, I really dedicated myself to investing in that transformation every way I could. 首先,在一家名为F. Eberstadt 和 then from the late 1980s at Warburg Pincus, where the resources to play strategically were fully available. 这就是我的, 如果你喜欢, 差异化主要集中在计算体系结构网络的转变以及在此基础上的解决方案.

内森亨特: 正如我在介绍中所说的, 你写了一本已经成为经典的书, 《创新经济中的资本主义. One of the notions in that book that is central to your point, 我相信, 3人游戏的概念是什么. 谁是玩家,游戏content是什么?

威廉H. Janeway: 好吧, 这个游戏是我学到的, 从70年代早期到80年代, 这是, 好吧, BB平台有这种先进的技术, 它是从哪里来的? 谁来买单?? 它如何获得资金?

It's not just a miracle that occurs between an entrepreneur 和 a venture capitalist. 上游, 还有对科学的投资, in technological invention before anyone can know what the return on that 投资 is going to be. 当BB平台回顾历史的时候, we can see that the technologies that have really mattered, 铁路, 电气化,现在, 回顾今天, 互联网. 通过汽车和高速公路, we can see that these transformational technologies have been deployed as networks that enable entirely new markets, 真正的新经济, 通过反复试验、反复错误而出现. 现在 all of this process takes place under conditions of uncertainty.

So we can see again 和 again 和 very definitely in the post-World War II United States, 国家的角色. 这是游戏中的第一个玩家, 国家的角色 funding the upstream science increasingly, taking that over from the big monopoly companies like IBM 和 AT&通用电气和施乐, 作为一项国家使命来接管他们, which 当然 was legitimized by the cold war for a long generation. 这是第一个玩家.

The second player has been present in every wave of new technology over the last 250 years. 这就是金融投机,金融市场. When it appears that the possibility of a new economy emerging from the deployment of innovative technology, 然后就是泡沫了, 然后是投资浪潮, 的狂热.

In the first half of the 19th century, it was called Railway Mania. 在1920年代, when the electricity grids were built out 和 generating power increased by orders of magnitude, 那就是大牛市, 咆哮的二十年代. 然后, 当然, 在这种背景下, underst和ing that what we experienced in the late 1990s was another one of these waves of speculation, building on technology that had been supported 和 sponsored by the state. 这就是, a, 利用资本的可用性, 和 then recognizing that 投资者 和 bubbles come in 2 categories, 活人和死人. If you stick around believing that this is the way it's always going to be, 这次不一样, 你也会死的.

但最后, 第三个球员, 市场经济, 人们购买和消费的世界, 工作并保存. 那 market economy is what again 和 again has been transformed by the deployment -- the development 和 deployment of these radical innovative technologies. So we go from the first wave of technology usually backed in one way or another by state, 一个不关心经济回报的投资者, 无论是19世纪20年代和30年代美国军械库用可互换部件制造的枪支,谁能成为其早期客户. 那 developed the manufacturing technology that became sewing machines 和 bicycles 和 eventually automobiles. 当时,国家发挥了关键作用. Each time one of these new technologies became commercially available, financial speculators rolled in 和 promoted 和 funded the fast acceleration 和 expansion of the economic impact. 最后, 市场经济 was transformed as it was by 铁路, 通过高速公路, 通过电气化和互联网. 这就是3人游戏.

内森亨特: 比尔, 我认为 it's important to set up for our listeners that there is a long-st和ing disagreement in economics, which is between the Keynesian school epitomized by your own Cambridge University 和 the Neoclassical school, which was sort of centered around the University of Chicago. 你肯定是凯恩斯主义者. 这和我的下一个问题有关, 因为我在看你的书, I noticed what I thought was a common theme between your criticism of the mark-to-market approach to valuing assets 和 your criticisms of the efficient market hypothesis 和 the rational expectations hypothesis, namely that both seem to take asset pricing as some sort of platonic form, 就像存在一个真正的基础资产价格. I'm curious if you would agree that this is a common problem 和, 如果是这样的话, 你认为资产应该如何估值.

威廉H. Janeway: 好吧, 首先, 我不想详述剑桥版本的凯恩斯经济学发生了什么,从而使BB平台两人的生活复杂化, 在新剑桥大学,麻省理工学院和伟大的保罗·萨缪尔森和鲍勃·索洛改变了凯恩斯的经济学. 然后 这是 what Chicago really grew up in opposition to. 这是一个宏观经济政策的问题.

但深, 在内心深处, there was one lesson from Keynes that relates directly to your question, 资产如何估值? 在传统金融理论中, we can define a fundamental value of any asset by discounting back to today's date the expected net cash flows that accrue to ownership of that assets. 我的观点是, 和 this is a Keynesian argument -- 凯恩斯的论点, 我想澄清一下, 不一定是凯恩斯主义, 凯恩斯的论点. 未来不仅仅是不确定的, 不仅仅是有风险的, 但是BB平台走得越远, 原则上它就变得越不可知. BB平台是无知的. As Keynes said, we just don't know what the price of copper is going to be in 30 years. And you're trying to value a copper mine based on the net present value of the cash flows from that mine.

At a certain point, you're just r和omly guessing or kidding yourself.

这是我所坚持的观点BB平台应该对试图定义任何资产的基本价值持怀疑态度, 尤其是金融资产. And when we look at the history of the stock market in the 20th century, it turns out that stock prices have been on the order of 6x more volatile than the underlying cash flows of the companies whose shares are being valued in the market. 这, 随着现代金融理论和衍生品、高频交易和对冲基金的兴起,在过去40年里出现了, the volatility of the market went from being 3x more than the cash flow to being 10x more than cash flow.

So that's a kind of validation that Keynes' insight was correct. 凯恩斯对此有一个答案. And it's the -- one of the central passages of the great Chapter 12 of his general theory, the Chapter 12 on expectations in which he likens the process in the market of shares being valued, being priced in the market to a kind of newspaper competition for the readers 这是 quite popular in Britain, 在20世纪30年代的伦敦. 那是一场选美比赛, 但这是一场竞赛,不是要选出读者看到的女孩中哪一张脸最漂亮——是的, 这就是那个世界. 这是对女性的歧视,或者说是性别歧视. But the challenge was not to pick who you think is the most pretty. It's to pick who you think average opinion will think is the most pretty.

So you're trying to guess what the crowd will center on in balance as the equivalent of deciding where the price of the security is going to go as to whether it becomes a meme stock. It becomes a super-hot growth stock or it becomes a company that is despised 和 forgotten 和 lost. It's an exercise in collective behavior where coordination is very, 非常脆弱, where equilibrium is not only at best transient as opinions change about what other people's opinions will be.

那, 我认为, is a very central underst和ing of how the financial markets work, 这与实物资产的估价有什么关系. 现有资产市场为新资产定价, 我认为 this has now actually become broadly agreed across the discipline. 芝加哥的人喜欢Gene Fama, 伟大的吉恩·法玛教授, 他仍然坚持, 尽管一切, 尽管全球金融危机, 尽管上世纪90年代末出现了巨大的泡沫, 尽管目前非常, 我断言, 2020年不可持续的估值, 2021年科技股成长型股. 尽管如此, there are a few like Gene Fama who still adhere to the core that fundamental value will assert itself, 是自己断言的, 因此, 市场是有效的. 这已成为少数人的观点. 我认为凯恩斯在这方面的见解, 事实上, have become the dominant underst和ing of economists 和 finance specialists, 无论是在学术界还是在投资界.

内森亨特: 比尔,上周,科技股遭受了一些打击. Prominent 投资者 in technology companies like Cathie Wood are back in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. I'm wondering as a professional investor, do you see this as just the normal froth of the market? Or is this a forward view into the post p和emic economy? 还是投资者, 事实上, recalculating the net present value of revenues based on the inflation numbers we're seeing?

威廉H. Janeway: 好吧, 内森, 首先要认识到的是,自2008年以来, 有几个例外, 早期的简短例外, we -- the world has been living in an unprecedented financial regime. 这是历史上第一次出现央行支持的实际零风险利率为负的情况, 成为, 正如我的朋友穆罕默德·埃尔-埃利安所说, the only game in town supporting economic recovery 和 growth when the world 太k its tragic turn towards austerity in 2010 as the Great Recession was very, 非常缓慢地走出谷底.

So we've lived in a regime where if you want to get a positive real return, 你必须触及风险. 现在 this has transformed in the last 3 years the venture capital world as nontraditional 投资者. 那's what the National Venture Capital Association calls them, 共同基金, 对冲基金, 主权财富基金, 家族理财室. 习惯于在流动性强的公开市场上投资的投资者,将大量资金投入到后期风险投资中,购买流动性差的股票, 以极度膨胀的价格买进, 他们不能合法出售的股票. 那's, 当然, a great sign that we have been in a bubble.

但这一机制依赖的是一种看法,即各国央行仍将一如马里奥•德拉吉(Mario Draghi)在欧洲央行(ECB)所说的那样致力于采取行动, 不惜一切代价促进经济复苏. 好吧,经济复苏终于表明了自己的立场. 的确,BB平台有通货膨胀的迹象. 有些是显而易见的, 事实上, transitory 和 the result of supply chain breakdowns under the impact of the p和emic. Some of it does appear to reflect increased final dem和 for goods 和 services. 中央银行,尤其是美国的中央银行.S. 和美国.K. 已经开始从这个不寻常的政权中浮现, 负的实际利率, 在某些情况下, 即使名义利率为负.

现在,市场的走势取决于预期. The dominant concern in the markets appears to be not -- 我的意思是, 如果有什么区别的话, 通货膨胀加剧意味着收入增加, 公司名义收入, but it's really the discount rate at which those future earnings, 未来的收入将评估为, 将预期或希望或想象的未来收入和现金流带回当前的贴现率. 这就是问题所在. And an increase in the discount rate has an exponential impact on the net present value.

I was just looking at a chart that -- a very thoughtful venture capitalist at [ Redpoint ], (Ted Hungies)上周出版的, which showed that the multiple of revenues applied to the top 75th percentile of software companies, public software companies has declined by more than 50% since the peak in 2021. 这是对泡沫的修正.

顺便说一下, it still declined all the way down to 15x 未来的收入, 没有现金流, 不盈利, 未来的收入, which is still an extraordinary valuation even for a high-quality growth stock with an enormous market to address. So I don't think that we have seen a full correction for the excesses. 但我想留给你们一个想法,根据我的计算, this has actually been the first financial bubble that we've seen, 是直接赞助的, 即使不是为了这个目的, 世界各国的中央银行. This is very different from the monetary policy regime of the late 1990s.

内森亨特: 说到泡沫, I found your discussion of both the banality 和 necessity of asset bubbles fascinating. What makes for a "good" asset bubble or what you call a productive bubble?

威廉H. Janeway: So 我认为 of the space of bubbles, 如果你喜欢, in terms of a 2-dimensional graph. 想象一下,你面前有一张纸. 在底部, you have a line that runs from no leverage to a lot of leverage, 从公开的股票市场,杠杆率被限制在银行系统,杠杆率是资产与准备金比率的函数. 今天,是20多倍. In 2007, 它更像是50 +甚至更大因为它被允许被算作权益和准备金, 非常宽松的制度. 所以你把它放在底部. The locus of the speculation, is it taking place in the relatively unlevered stock market? Or is it taking place in the highly leveraged banking system 和 the new shadow banking system next door to it?

然后 on the vertical axis, think of the assets that are 关注的焦点 of speculation. 房子是现有财产吗? 还是说这是一种新的技术, 大规模部署, will enormously increase the production possibilities of the economy, 如铁路, 电气化, 互联网.

所以你可以在这个图上定位. BB平台经历的每一次泡沫. 最明显的对比是1996年和2000年, where the speculation was overwhelmingly in the equity market 和 the assets that were the subject of speculation were the shares of the companies that were building the physical Internet, 世界通讯和全球交叉. 以及那些在这上面的公司, 建设将互联网从信息和通信媒介转变为商业媒介的能力, 包括我的公司, Veritas和BEA系统公司还有很多其他公司. 因此,泡沫, 这种投机行为从根本上加速了互联网的建设和它向商业环境的转变. 这是一个富有成效的泡沫.

而2004年, 2007, the speculation was taking place in the banking 和 shadow banking systems 和 关注的焦点 was on houses. 你可以建很多新的, 我想叫它们海滨别墅, 在内华达州的沙漠里, 和 it will not increase the production capability of the American economy.

So 这是 an extreme example of an unproductive bubble where, 考虑到所涉及的杠杆数量, 当泡沫破灭时, the results were economically 和 financially catastrophic. 当网络泡沫破灭的时候, BB平台经历了轻微的衰退, nothing out of the ordinary because the leverage was much less. So what matters in categorizing bubbles is what is 关注的焦点 of speculation 和 what is the locus of speculation, 特别是, how much of that speculation is funded by borrowed money versus cash equity.

内森亨特: 我对金融化这个术语很感兴趣你和多伦多大学的丹尼·布列兹尼茨在他关于创新的书中都使用过这个术语. 你们俩用这个词的时候都带有贬义. Can you tell me what you mean by 金融化 和 whether you view it as a good thing or a bad thing?

威廉H. Janeway: 好吧, 在某种程度上, 金融化 is essential to the development of a modern economy, 金融化, 这意味着实际资产, 无论是电脑还是房子,这些实物资产都可以被估价和交易,并有相应的证券, which can be valued 和 traded 和 thereby mobilizing financial capital for real 投资.

So I would never say that 金融化 as a phenomenon is inevitably wrong. On the contrary, it begins by being necessary 和 then it becomes excessive. 举个例子, 如果你拿一张简单的图表来说明纳斯达克和纽约证券交易所的总市值与国内生产总值之比, 增加了美国经济的附加值, we saw the most phenomenal increase in that ratio between roughly first 1950 和 1980 和 then 1980 和 2007, 按小数数量级增加.

We saw the same thing in the balance sheets of financial institutions, particularly 投资 banks relative to the corporations of the private sector, that they were supposed to exist in order to support by providing financial services. 商业银行的资产负债表 -- I remember this from the work of the great economist, Hyun Shin, Chief Economist of the Bank for International Settlements, the balance sheets of 企业 America rose over 30 years by a factor of 10. 商业银行的资产负债表, the banks where you have your deposits 和 that make loans to businesses for working capital, 也上升了10倍. 投资银行的资产负债表, 摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley), 高盛(Goldman Sachs), 贝尔斯登, 雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers), 最后两个已经不存在了, 当然, 上升了100倍. 这是过度金融化.

内森亨特: You've noted in a recent article that the great depression could not have started a century earlier because, “只有在一个大量财富以货币计价的经济体中,经济崩溃才会产生如此大的经济崩溃效应。." Do you foresee a parallel danger in further 金融化?

威廉H. Janeway: 好吧, the other factor to bear in mind about the Great Depression was that we've had a -- since then, 和 particularly by way of World War II 和 the rise of what is sometimes referred to as the warfare state, 和 then from social security through Medicare 和 on to Obamacare, 崛起有限, 受到世界其他国家标准的限制, 但无论如何,这是一个真正的福利国家, 公共部门 in the United States has grown between -- in 1929 when the total public sector was 7% of the national economy 和 the federal government was only 2%.

The state 和 local was more than twice as big in aggregate, twice as big as the federal government. 今天,美国的公共部门.S., 这取决于你怎么计算, 你包括, 但包括转移支付, 更像是35%. 这意味着,当大崩盘发生时,银行系统被允许走向清算, 公共部门, the federal government was not remotely large enough to offset 和 counteract the contraction on profits, 投资, 就业, consumption that led to a 50% decline in nominal GDP in the course of 4 years.

The federal government indeed grew from 2% to 4% of the economy under Herbert Hoover, 但那是因为经济下降了50%. Only with the new deal was there some somewhat haphazard, on-和-off push to exp和 appropriately 公共部门. 然后, 当然, with World War II 和 then the post-war growth of the social benefits, we now have a public sector which demonstrated in 2008 和 '09 that it was big enough to counteract a financial crisis which had all of the earmarks of being capable of matching the economic destruction of 1929 to '33, of the Great Depression if 公共部门 had refused to act either through the Federal Reserve or through Congress 和 the presidency to offset the impact of the financial crisis.

内森亨特: Let's revisit the 3-player game necessary for an innovation economy. When you look at China today, how do you think they are playing the game? And has your opinion changed since you wrote the conclusion of the revised edition?

威廉H. Janeway: 我不得不说, 中国, 就像每个追随者国家一样,从17世纪的英国开始,然后是19世纪的美国,然后是日本, 20世纪的韩国和中国, China has indeed appropriated everything it could get its h和s on just as the U.S. 就像德国、日本和韩国那样. 但在我看来,他们挪用的最有价值的东西并不是特定技术的知识产权. It's been the model of state-sponsored 投资 和 deployment of innovative technology.

在大约从1990年到2010年的一代人的时间里,他们已经证明了他们知道如何玩这个游戏. They have done so with some risk on excessive leveraging of the unproductive real estate economy, 他们现在显然要努力解决这个问题. 但同时, 在过去的三四年间, in responding to the clear challenge that China represents, 他们现在有巨大的动力去投资以减少对西方和美国科学技术的依赖.

所以我希望看到, 我认为BB平台现在已经看到了这些迹象, 增加上游科学投资, 增加投资,减少依赖, 例如, 引进西方半导体设计技术, 不仅仅是美国.S. 但也来自欧洲, semiconductor production technology particularly from Europe, 不是来自美国.S.以及美国面临的挑战.S., 花费了30年, 40年, 追求。, 假设, ab和oning any sense of national strategy around development 和 deployment of technology.

We have seen effectively the liquidation of the high-technology manufacturing base of the United States. BB平台鼓励它. We encouraged our business to value efficiency, lowest cost over resilience. We saw part of the -- of that play out 和 the impact of the p和emic with these long fragile, 脆弱的供应链. But it also goes with the inability right now for the United States to manufacture, not just semiconductor chips at the extremes that TSMC in Taiwan, 很多工程师流失到中国大陆. Intel is clearly far behind TSMC at the critical frontier is proposing to invest massively. 但你.S. funding of upstream science as a share of GDP has been declining for 40 or 50 years now. And there doesn't seem to be much sign of a reversal there.

I would be -- 我认为 that there is a growing -- 和 this is one of the few areas where there may actually be a bipartisan agreement on technology strategy towards increased commitment of public funded.

但你知道吗,内森,还有更重要的事. And it's one I talk about in my book, I talk about it in my lectures all the time. 这又回到了。你刚才问的问题的一般化当BB平台讨论有效市场时. 对于新古典经济学来说,效率是美德. It is the sole virtue, efficiency 和 the allocation of resources such 这是te is minimized.

现在在技术的前沿, 如果你想要成功地拓展这一领域,浪费是不可避免的,因为成功来自于反复的尝试和错误. If you're not prepared 和 capable of absorbing projects that don't work, 领导创新永远不会成功. 和类似的, 关注的焦点, 就像我刚才说的, on efficiency in the supply chain eliminates the inventories that will carry you through when some break takes place in that long fragile chain of connections that represents modern global manufacturing.

这都是大约从1980年代开始的信息技术在全球化中带来的巨大增长的结果. 所以回过头来,看到中国承认了, 我很严肃地认为,中国确实从BB平台二战后的做法中吸取了教训,并决心自己去做.

这个挑战是真实的, 和 I wouldn't change at all what I wrote at the end of my book as you refer to it. What I wrote there was that we may be facing the first change in leadership at the frontier of the innovation economy since the United States 太k over from Britain at the end of the 19th century 和 beat Germany who in 1900, was poised to be the scientific leader before it entered on the worst generation that any developed nation has had to experience in the last 300 years from 1914 to 1945.

内森亨特: 我想深入探讨废物的概念. 在你书的结尾, you distinguish between bad Keynesian waste 和 good Schumpeterian waste. Do you feel 中国 approach to the 3-player game is capable of tolerating the latter?

威廉H. Janeway: 这是一个非常好的问题. 现在是凯恩斯主义的浪费, 我的意思是, 条件下未使用的资源, 甚至不一定是抑郁症, 但经济衰退的规模, 失业, 失业的人, 失业的机器. 机器会生锈,人们会忘记自己的技能. 这就是不必要的“凯恩斯主义浪费”.熊彼特的浪费是尝试,失败,再尝试,更好地失败,最后成功的必要浪费, 成功是通过尝试和错误,错误和错误. 一定会很有趣的.

现在, 2大学者, Daron Acemoglu和Jim Robinson, 写了一本书, 有一本很有名也很受好评的书叫, 为什么国家会失败, which suggests that the secret of success at the frontier is indeed Schumpeterian created destruction. 那 created destruction depends on what they call economic inclusion that new players, new entrepreneurs can succeed 和 be accepted 和 become part of the environment, part of the environment of innovation 和 growth driving the economy 和 that, 反过来,这是关键的一步, 经济包容取决于政治包容.

这里, they cite the opening up of the British political system during the 19th century 和 the American relatively open -- highly open political system in the 20th century. They don't spend much time thinking about how in the 19th century, 19世纪后半叶, 德国毫无疑问地成为了世界科学的领导者和第一个真正以科学为基础的工业的发源地, the chemical industry 和 at least equal to the United States in the other great science-based industry, 电气工程.

Prussia was not a politically open society, but it was economically open. So China is clearly not a politically open society, but it has been economically open to an extent.

现在 I am not a world expert on what is going on in China. 我读了很多书. BB平台都读了很多关于中国正在发生的事情. I do take seriously one view which is that the political assertion, 这是对市场经济相当残酷的干预, 例如, has 关闭d down the for-profit tutoring industry -- just 关闭d it down 和 which has had a real impact on social media far beyond what 我认为 is facing Facebook 和 its noncompetitors, 尤其是Facebook和Alphabet. But it goes with a clear attempt to move entrepreneurial energy 和 risk investing towards the kind of hard core innovation of semiconductors 和 relevant software where the U.S. had been the world leader 和, certainly in the case of semiconductors, no longer is.

所以我会说我的视野开阔. But I don't think that the -- purely -- the linear model that Acemoglu 和 Robinson lay out is necessary either historically accurate nor controlling of China's future.

我刚刚添加, 顺便说一下, that at the time when Britain was becoming the first industrial nation, was leading the world into high-scale textile production 和 steel production in the 19th century, 英国的政治体系不仅是封闭的, 在1834年的《大改革法案》和1846年废除《BB平台》开始改革之前,它的腐败程度令人难以置信. So I do think that Acemoglu 和 Robinson is less than fully accurate history 和 not necessarily the best guide to underst和ing where China is going from here.

内森亨特: 比尔, it is my great regret that we are fast running out of time, 但我想问你最后一个问题. We've been enjoying this delightful global p和emic for more than 2 years now. It has, at times, seemed like a new Keynesian consensus was driving government actions. 但现在看来,BB平台似乎正慢慢回到紧缩的状态. 鉴于通货膨胀, 刺激计划是否已经结束,还是BB平台正在重蹈大金融危机和大萧条的覆辙,过早地退出?

威廉H. Janeway: 这是个非常非常好的问题. 和所有好的问题一样, 当然, 它延伸到未来, 正如凯恩斯所说, BB平台真的不知道. 我想,我觉得你得把它分解一下.

首先,在美国.S., 一个独特的第三个向量,与讨论大流行病的影响和那里的经济财政反应正交, 太. 这, 当然, is the political paralysis in Washington 和 in many of our state 政府 as well. 很明显, 人们逐渐达成了共识, which one can see exists in the polls of the public with respect to this being a time for long-term 投资, both in physical infrastructure for which a substantial commitment was made last year, but also to 投资 in human infrastructure in pre-K education, 更广泛地说,在教育领域, 社区学院, 在能力建设, for people to play a productive role in an economy that's increasingly digitalized.

这已经被冻结了, 即使在, 包括伟大的西弗吉尼亚州, the polls show overwhelming public support for that kind of 投资. 当然, 围绕这个问题有很多问题, 但就宏观经济学而言, even a $2 trillion headline number on an 投资 program spread over 10 years, 实际上只占美国GDP的1%.

那 kind of 投资 would not have driven the economy into a spiral of hyperinflation. 我认为 that we are seeing that the policy paralysis I don't worry about as much as an impact today on the continued recovery 和 the viability of the macro economy.

我担心BB平台没有为美国经济和其他西方经济体的长期能力投资什么, 特别是英国经济, 我知道很多, to see them increase their long-term productive capacity. 这正是我希望看到的, which is a substantial increase in federal funding of science on a very broad basis, 这是滞后的. 同时, 在所有这些压力下, 为了提高私营部门的效率, we've seen the research 和 development spending in the private sector move overwhelmingly away from fundamental research 和 towards short-term product development.

BB平台确实有——这就是令人沮丧的地方. BB平台刚刚做了一个特别的练习, a case study in how the 3-player game played productively can have such an enormous impact. 这叫做疫苗开发. 第一个, it was the upstream science sponsored by the National Institute of Health, 增强了, 凑巧的是, the Department of Defense as well 和 then the advanced purchase agreements, 每个碰过它们的人都应该得到表扬吗, providing a certain market for the risk 投资s by Pfizer, BioNTech和现代化.

No one could have imagined -- no one did imagine in 2020 that in less than 2 years, we would have billions of shots of an effective vaccine available from the lab to your arm. 那 was an extraordinary achievement 和 it demonstrates -- 和 顺便说一下, some cheap capital came along to fund BioNTech和现代化 as well. So speculators got to play their role in this little exercise in the 3-player game. 我认为 we should take that 和 really use that as a reference point in thinking about public policy going forward.

内森亨特: Dr. 威廉H. 珍维,非常感谢你出现在播客上. 今天能和你谈话真是我的荣幸.

威廉H. Janeway: 非常感谢你,内森. 很好的问题,很好的机会.

内森亨特: 必要的播客 is produced by Kurt Burger with assistance from Kyle May 和 Camille McManus. 在年代&P全球, we accelerate progress in the world by providing intelligence that is essential for companies, 政府, 和个人作出决定的信念. From the majestic heights of 55 Water Street in Manhattan, I am 内森狩猎. 谢谢大家的聆听.