特別節目·中文精讀

雷·達里奧:原則、經濟機器、人工智慧與人生軌跡

Ray Dalio: Principles, the Economic Machine, Artificial Intelligence & the Arc of Life

橋水創始人講述人生與決策原則、經濟執行的機制,以及人工智慧對投資與生活的潛在影響。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

1982年8月,墨西哥政府宣佈還不上外債了。雷·達里奧(Ray Dalio)在此之前已經算過一筆賬:美國銀行借給拉美國家的錢,遠遠超過這些國家有能力償還的數目,一場債務危機躲不掉,美國經濟會跟著塌下去。

事情按他算的方向發生了。墨西哥違約,別的國家排隊跟上。他去國會作證,上電視,寫報告,公開押注美國經濟崩潰。

結果那是美股那一輪熊市的精確底部。美聯儲放鬆貨幣政策,市場掉頭向上,一路走了十八年。

他錯得極其公開。客戶的錢賠光了,自己公司的員工全部遣散,最後只剩他一個人。手頭緊到要向父親借4000美元,用來付家庭賬單。

快四十年後,他在播客裡談這件事,用的詞是"可能是我人生中發生過的最好的事"。

真相和新事物並不對立

萊克斯·弗裡德曼(Lex Fridman)開場問了一個聽起來有點繞的問題:你要做一件別人沒做過的事,怎麼判斷什麼是真相?

達里奧先糾正了問題裡的預設。這個問法暗示"真相"和"新事物"是兩回事,甚至彼此衝突。他不這麼看。

他說的真相,指的是現實怎麼運轉。你要做一件從沒做過的事,唯一可行的路徑就是實驗:先把你依賴的前提擺出來,然後去壓力測試它。

幾乎唯一能讓你明白真相的方式,就是實驗。你走出去做實驗,就會對真相瞭解得多得多。(雷·達里奧)

他還順手拆掉了另一個更常見的依賴:主流共識。人們習慣拿"大家都這麼認為"當作真相的替代品,可主流認定的事情經常是錯的。它會有風潮,會往這邊走幾年,再往那邊走幾年。

他把這件事拆成了一個五步流程:

  1. 追求你的目標
  2. 找出擋在目標和現狀之間的那些問題
  3. 診斷這些問題,挖到根本原因
  4. 針對根本原因設計一套繞過去的方案
  5. 照著方案執行到底

這個流程聽起來平平無奇,有意思的是他接下來說的話。大多數人卡住的位置,是動手之前就試圖判斷自己會不會成功。他們沒有能力走完這個流程,於是退回到"先算一算機率"。

那些真能把事情做成的人,根本不這麼想。

塑造者:從最大的圖景看到最小的按鈕

達里奧給這類人起了個名字,叫"塑造者"(shaper)。定義很直白:能把一個大膽的圖景從想象變成現實,並且在這個過程中改變世界的人。

他給這類人做過人格測評,包括埃隆·馬斯克(Elon Musk)和比爾·蓋茨(Bill Gates)。他說這些人熟悉那個五步流程,不是從書上學的,是從身體裡長出來的。他們知道怎麼從一個大膽的目標出發,同時保持極其務實的姿態,邊走邊學,學得極快。

他舉了幾個不同領域的例子:Salesforce 的馬克·貝尼奧夫(Marc Benioff)、TED 的克里斯·安德森(Chris Anderson)、做小額貸款和公益企業的穆罕默德·尤努斯(Muhammad Yunus)、創辦哈萊姆兒童特區(Harlem Children's Zone)的傑弗裡·卡納達(Geoffrey Canada)。每個領域都有自己的塑造者。

這些人的共同點,他列了幾條。

一條是對新事物的興奮感,那種"冒險的召喚"。你沒法說清這裡面有多少是基因、多少是環境,但很早就出現了。創造本身讓人興奮,人就會養成習慣:我怎麼做?我怎麼學?我怎麼把想象變成實驗?做得越多,做得越好。

一條是"直升機能力"。他們能在最大的圖景和最小的細節之間自由升降。馬斯克賣掉 PayPal 拿到錢,問的問題是"為什麼沒人去火星"、"如果這個星球完蛋了我們怎麼辦",那時候他對火箭幾乎一無所知,然後開始讀書、學習,決定把一半的錢投進去。同一場對話裡,他帶達里奧看自己早期那輛特斯拉,指著車裡一個按鈕講它怎麼用。

宏觀和微觀同時線上。達里奧說這就是"直升機式"的視角切換,能上去,也能下來。

一條是對人的標準極高。史蒂夫·喬布斯那句關於 A 級玩家的話,達里奧是認同的:你放進來 B 級的人,很快就會有 C 級的人。塑造者不會讓任何人擋住使命。

這一條和第四條看起來是打架的。第四條是"關心他人"這項得分極高。尤努斯幾乎是他認識的人裡這項得分最高的,生活方式近乎清貧,把錢都投進幫助別人的事情裡。傑弗裡·卡納達關心哈萊姆的孩子,不只是關心學業,是關心他們的一生。

怎麼把"對人要求極高"和"關心他人"放在同一個人身上?達里奧的解釋是,關心他人不等於對人客氣。它的意思是,你能看出這個人是不是在完成使命所必需的那個水平上表現,同時幫助他看清自己和自己的處境,讓他在這段經歷裡獲得極好的個人成長。

還有一條,他認為最被低估:知道怎麼和自己的"不知道"相處。

他說,真正極其成功的人跟一般人的想象相反,他們不認為自己的成功來自自己懂多少。他們能有效從別人身上學習,能調動那些看事情角度跟自己完全不同的人,是個出色的統籌者。

自信和準確,幾乎負相關

萊克斯追了一句:極度的自信,極度的開放,這兩件事之間是不是有一種張力?

達里奧的回答是,我們從小被教育這兩者對立,這個教育本身就是錯的。

自信和準確,幾乎是負相關的。很多人極其自信,同時經常是錯的。(雷·達里奧)

他說的解法是讓這兩件事重新接上:我懂不少,但我憑什麼認為自己沒錯?我能不能把當下能拿到的最好的想法都拿過來,從而提高自己正確的機率?

他描述這些人的狀態:他們自己想事情,同時像吸塵器一樣吸收別人的想法,拿自己的判斷去跟別人做壓力測試,再評估反饋回來的東西。他們清楚自己哪一塊不行,也清楚誰在那一塊行,然後想辦法把那個人弄進來。

一個人的腦袋裡裝不下足夠多的知識。

橋水能做成,靠的就是這個機制,他管它叫"創意擇優"(idea meritocracy):一個能把市面上最好的想法提取出來,並讓一群人協同把它實現的流程。

萊克斯接著問了一個更尖銳的問題。在起步階段,一個人是不是需要某種自我欺騙?那些講英雄旅程的書裡,主角總要穿過"深淵",沒有一點自我催眠,怎麼過得去?

達里奧不接受這個詞。

你所謂的自我欺騙,其實是給"不確定"起了個壞名字。(雷·達里奧)

他的邏輯是:你在出發的時候不可能判斷自己會不會成功,因為你還不知道自己會在路上學到什麼。那個判斷本身是空的。這算不上自我欺騙,只是不知道。

把這兩件事混為一談是有害的。自我欺騙幫不了你,它只會讓你不去面對現實;承認"我不知道,但我會透過實驗搞清楚",反而能幫上忙。

他補了一句更狠的:人過度看重"預先知道結果"這件事了。把這件事丟掉,把大膽的目標留下,同時保持對現實的好奇,把自己當成一個學習機器和一個實驗者,路上學到的東西會不斷修正你的判斷。

1982:一次公開的錯誤如何重寫了方法論

達里奧在播客裡完整講了那次崩塌。

1981到1982年,他算出來拉美國家的負債遠超償還能力,債務危機躲不掉,美國經濟會跟著滾下去。這個判斷當時極其非主流。然後事情真的開始發生,1982年8月墨西哥違約。

他以為接下來是經濟崩潰,因為還有一串國家會跟著倒。一切按他想象的劇本在演。

然後他錯得不能再錯。那恰好是股市的精確底部。美聯儲放水,市場反轉。他在公開場合錯得徹底,自己的錢賠了,客戶的錢也賠了。公司小,可都是親近的人,他必須把人一個個送走。最後只剩他自己。他向父親借了4000美元付賬單。

他說那非常痛苦。緊接著他說,那件事也是發生在他身上最好的事,因為它改變了他做決策的方式。

具體改變了什麼?

他開始不斷問自己:我怎麼知道我是對的?我怎麼知道我沒錯?

這個問題沒有摧毀他的大膽,因為他沒有退路。把領帶系回去、重新上華爾街打工,他做不到。他被逼在一個岔路口上:怎麼處理自己的風險,怎麼處理自己的不確定。

從這個岔路口長出來幾樣東西。頭一樣,去找他能找到的最聰明的、跟他意見相反的人,然後進行高質量的爭論。他管這叫"深思熟慮的分歧"(thoughtful disagreement)的藝術。第二樣是學會做分散化。第三樣,一步一步搭出了創意擇優。

他僱人,一個一個地僱,標準是:最聰明的獨立思想家,願意彼此不同意,也願意不同意他。因為要做那些大膽的事,你必須能獨立於共識思考,也必須能獨立於彼此思考,然後一起把答案磨出來。

他說他現在70歲了,把這些講出來,因為這是一條通往成功的魔法路徑,而且它帶來的是高質量的人際關係,不只是業績。

怎麼處理一個跟你不一樣的觀點

萊克斯問得很具體:你在推特上、在公共討論裡、在政治裡,看到大量的人卡在自己那套想法裡。當一個人面對一個跟自己不同的觀點,腦子裡該跑什麼流程?

達里奧先插了一句題外話,這句話值得單獨拎出來:

常見的東西,只能產生常見的結果。(雷·達里奧)

所以不要用"這件事流不流行"來判斷它好不好。想要獨特的結果,就得有獨特的做法。

他描述的實際流程是這樣的。

先看對方在這件事上的專業程度,相對於自己是什麼水平。如果對方明顯更內行,他就多問問題。想學東西的人在問問題,不在爭辯。聽的時候同時評估:這講得通嗎?我是不是被點醒了?

如果兩個人都還算內行,還是談不攏,他會把第三個聰明能幹的人拉進來,一起做三角測量:到底什麼才是真的?我們怎麼一起把這件事探到底?

整個過程要求同時具備兩種狀態:開放和堅持。開放是你真的把對方的東西吸進來,帶著好奇;堅持是你也真的會說"這講不通,為什麼會是這樣",然後來回推。

他自己形容這個過程是"同時把兩件事放在腦子裡":我覺得這有道理,同時我不確定它有道理,然後去追問它為什麼有道理。

經濟機器:五十萬億和Three 萬億

話題轉到經濟。達里奧有個30分鐘的影片叫《經濟機器是怎樣執行的》(How the Economic Machine Works),萊克斯說這是他個人在網際網路上見過的最好的教育影片之一。

它的厲害之處跟每個零件是否新穎關係不大。讓人開竅的是零件拆開之後的清晰度,看完會有幾個燈泡亮起來的瞬間。

達里奧的框架是三股力量:

  • 生產率增長:人創造出有價值的東西,長期看這條線向上
  • 短期債務週期:通常五到八年
  • 長期債務週期:通常七十五到一百年

後兩者本質上是一件事:人向未來的自己借錢,希望更快地創造出那些有價值的東西。

然後是那個讓萊克斯坐直的數字。達里奧說,大多數人以為的"錢",其實是信貸。美國的信貸總額大約50萬億美元,貨幣總額大約3萬億。

差了將近十七倍。

信貸是好東西還是壞東西?達里奧的回答很乾脆:信貸很好,雖然人們經常用過頭。

機制是這樣的:有人賺到了錢,把它借給另一個有更好想法的人,雙方達成一筆交易,後者承諾還錢。這一套如果運轉良好,資源就流向最能用好它的人。創業者需要資本,自己又沒有資本,得有人把錢或者信貸給到他們手上。

麻煩在於這一套總是管理不善。他在《債務危機》(Principles for Navigating Big Debt Crises)裡專門講這件事,PDF 放在網上免費下載。書裡講的是:幾乎每件事都以同樣的原因反覆發生。債務危機一次又一次出現,原因一模一樣;書裡教你怎麼判斷是不是用過頭了,用過頭之後怎麼調整,有哪些槓桿可以用。

信貸裡還藏著一個更微妙的東西。你手裡握著一張 IOU,上面寫著到期給你多少美元、日元或者歐元。你能拿到嗎?拿到的時候值多少?這背後站著一個政府,政府自己也欠著錢,而政府手裡有印鈔機。

持有債權的人,實際上在賭兩件事:發行人會不會還,以及還的時候購買力還剩多少。

錢是什麼:沉在海底的巨石

萊克斯把視角拉遠:從外星人的角度看,人類文明發明瞭一樣東西,它之所以有效,只因為大家都同意它有價值。這東西的過去和未來是什麼?

達里奧先給了功能定義。錢有兩個用途:交換媒介,和財富儲藏。它還能用來償還債務,你把錢給出去,債就清了。

然後他講了一個故事。他在太平洋的一個島上見過當地歷史上的貨幣:巨大的石輪。人們划船把這種大石頭從一個島運到另一個島,有一次船沉了,石頭掉進海里。即便如此,那塊躺在海底的石頭仍然被認為有價值,仍然可以被用來交易,賬照樣記在它頭上。

他在別的地方見過貝殼、珠子,都被當成過交換媒介。

達里奧的結論是:貨幣的本質是共識,是一種感知。大家都認,它就成立。

歷史上貨幣只有兩種形態。一種是對某種有價值之物的索取權,比如掛鉤黃金;另一種是它本身就是錢,背後沒有任何東西。

現在這套是第二種,法幣體系。

它能不能活下去,取決於它能不能保住價值。當央行欠了很多錢,又手握印鈔機,它可以印。歷史上所有貨幣,或者終結,或者貶值,區別只在時間長短。這裡說的不是今天,是把尺度拉到很長。

人對交換媒介的需求永遠在,對財富儲藏的需求也永遠在。所以"錢是什麼"這個答案,會一直變。

比特幣、穩定幣和黃金的位置

那數字貨幣呢?

達里奧對比特幣的判斷很具體,也很少被這麼直白地說出來:它作為交換媒介不夠好用,你很難拿它直接買東西;它作為財富儲藏也不夠好,因為它的波動來自投機。

他拿它跟 Facebook 那類穩定幣做對比。一個真正穩定、掛鉤一籃子東西的數字貨幣,可以同時是有效的交換媒介和有效的財富儲藏。這種設計在功能上成立。

所以在他看來,數字貨幣能不能成,取決於它能不能同時幹好這兩件事,以及一個更硬的前提:

政府得允許它發生。而它在某種程度上是對政府權力的威脅,這是個問題。(雷·達里奧)

他也說,他真心相信存在一種不由央行控制、更好的貨幣形式是可能的。那件事還沒發生,路很長,可能永遠走不到。要讓一套新貨幣建立信心,你得讓人相信自己能安全持有它、不會出問題。

至於各國央行自己會往哪兒走:如果一個國家的央行擔心美元濫發,它要換的東西不會是數字貨幣,會換成黃金,或者另一種貨幣。黃金有幾千年的記錄,跨國通用,可以搬動,可以埋進地裡。

萊克斯問:有沒有可能有一天央行都不需要了?達里奧說,那是非常遙遠的可能性。

信用卡這件事本身就夠神奇

聊到這裡,萊克斯問了一個更感性一點的問題:你把這些交易、短週期、長週期、生產率講得這麼清楚,你自己會不會覺得不可思議?幾十億人,一人一筆交易,它就這麼運轉起來了。

達里奧說他確實會。他經常在兩種狀態之間來回切換:一邊在裡面做事,一邊突然停下來想,信用卡這件事怎麼可能成立?一個陌生人不認識我,就把東西給我了,這套東西真的安全嗎?然後它清算、結算,一切照常發生。

讓他驚歎的是人類心智創造抽象概念的能力。你造出一層抽象,驗證它成立,再在上面造第二層,再驗證,再造第三層。所有這些奇蹟最後變得平淡無奇。

他舉了自己身上的例子:坐飛機的時候,在非洲或者南極洲的某個地方收到訊號的時候,看著 iPad 螢幕上另一個地方的孫輩的臉的時候,他會停下來想,哇。

那這套東西穩不穩?是穩固的結構,還是我們運氣好?

達里奧的回答分兩層。他的專長是經濟與市場,在這個範圍裡他能像看飛機結構一樣,判斷出這套機制大體是穩固的,因為他把力學搞清楚了。但系統會被別的東西傷到,比如把所有數字記錄抹掉這種事,可以讓錢一夜之間變成廢紙。這些不在他的能力範圍裡。

他還講了一個觀察,說這是他人生最重要的一課之一。他遇到過很多讓他極度意外的事,事後回看,幾乎所有意外的共同點是:那是第一次發生在他身上,並非第一次發生。

他去查歷史,發現在別的地方、在別人的生命週期裡,早就發生過。1971年美元與黃金脫鉤,他第一次經歷貨幣貶值,當時覺得天塌了。第一次石油危機、第二次石油危機,都是這樣。

它們都發生過,只是沒發生在你身上。(雷·達里奧)

這就是他開始認真研究歷史、研究別的國家和別人的生命週期裡發生過什麼的原因。他要的是能穿越時間和空間的原則。

AI:如果未來和過去不同,而你沒有深刻理解

橋水管理大約1600億美元。萊克斯問:在這種資料密集、影響巨大的領域,AI 會扮演什麼角色?

達里奧說,過去25年,他們一直把自己的思考寫成演算法。計算機拿著這些標準去處理資料,作為一個獨立的決策者,和人的決策並行工作。

他形容這個過程像下棋:那邊擺著一盤機器的棋,這邊擺著一盤他的棋,然後他問,這兩步棋哪個更好。

接著他給了一條規則,這句話可以貼在每個做 AI 決策系統的人桌上:

如果未來可能和過去不同,而你對此沒有深刻的理解,那你就不該依賴 AI。(雷·達里奧)

他接著解釋這個判斷為什麼成立。達里奧把演算法分成兩種來源。

一種是把你的思考用演算法表達出來。你知道自己在賭什麼,為什麼這麼賭,因果關係是什麼,只是把它寫成了公式。

另一種是把資料喂進去,問機器:演算法是什麼。這是機器學習。機器會給你一個方程,這個方程經常是看不懂的。你想讓它描述一下它到底在說什麼,非常困難。

它可以逃脫理解。(雷·達里奧)

所以他的結論有邊界:一件事會反覆發生,樣本足夠多,機器學習完全夠用。他舉了手術的例子。讓所有醫生做手術的過程被拍下來,轉成演算法,接到機器人身上,讓機器人做同樣的手術。哪怕你不懂那個演算法,只要同類手術的處理方式一樣,就沒問題。

可如果未來和過去不一樣,而你又沒有深刻理解,那你就會出事。

由此他推出一條分工:大腦應該用來發明和創造,計算機應該用來處理。

理由很實際。計算機處理資訊更快、更多、更準,而且不帶情緒。任何本質上是"處理型思考"的事,都該交給計算機。任何"這事兒講不講得通"的判斷,交給大腦。

萊克斯追問:那在原則這件事上呢?比如"我該怎麼教育孩子"、"我該跟誰結婚",AI 什麼時候能給出夠好的判斷?

達里奧說,如果只是把資料丟進去做機器學習,這些問題的答案它找不到。如果你把你自己在這些問題上的標準抽出來,寫成演算法,你的處境會比用機器學習去做這些事好得多。

這裡出現了一個反轉。萊克斯抓住了它:你剛才不是說計算機沒法教育孩子嗎,現在這套說法好像把話收回去了。

達里奧說沒有矛盾,說的是同一件事的兩個階段。

第一個階段那個"我該怎麼教育孩子"的原則,從哪兒來?得由人來想出來。這是大腦的工作。他還說,人對自己能表達出多少東西,會感到震驚。你以為無法言說的東西,一旦逼著自己一句一句寫下來,會發現大部分都能說清楚。

他給的實操建議極其具體:在你做決策的那一刻,或者剛做完決策之後,花時間把你的判斷標準用文字寫下來。孩子幾歲該上什麼學校,你憑什麼這麼選,寫下來。

他做了個 app,就叫 Principles,先上 iPhone,安卓幾個月後跟上。裡面有一個功能就是幫人寫下自己的原則。寫下來之後有幾個好處:下一次遇到同類問題,你可以直接調出來;你可以拿給別人看,讓別人幫你檢驗這套原則對不對;你在寫的過程中會得到一種用語言表達出來的清晰度,這個價值非常大。

然後再往下走一步:怎麼把它變成資料?你會發現你能做到。你會寫出一個方程,找出那幾個變數之間的關係,然後把這一個小零件放進計算機,再放下一個。不知不覺,你就有了一個能做決策的系統。

第二個階段是很多人一起把一套原則開發出來,然後自動化。到那時候,處理資訊和權衡變數這些事,計算機做得比人強得多。

從記錄系統到智慧

達里奧把這件事放大到了整個資訊產業的走向。

現在的狀態是:我們開啟裝置獲取資訊,然後獲取一點指引,比如 GPS。這些都還停在"記錄系統"(systems of record)這一層,資訊被整理好了擺在那兒。

他判斷下一步的大遷移是從記錄系統到智慧。資料被還原成原則,原則被轉成演算法,演算法給出判斷。

他舉的例子都很私人:我這個人強項和弱項是什麼?我跟誰在什麼情況下合作得好?這些是個性化智慧。

他拿醫療做對比:你去社群診所,醫生很趕時間,你問他的看法,他可能不是最好的醫生。以後你去看的那個東西,會自動把這些資訊輸進去,然後告訴你該怎麼做,效果可能比社群醫生好得多。

還有一點他特別強調:集體決策的收益。現在每個人憑自己腦子裡那點東西做決定,用的是很無知的判斷標準,本來可以更好。原則被寫下來、被轉成演算法之後,你基本是照著指令走,得到的結果會更好。

他把這些都歸到同一個動機上:我七十歲了,想把這段時間裡攢下來的工具都放出來。

兩個我:潛意識的我和講邏輯的我

談到這裡,萊克斯問了一個更軟的問題。如果未來社會真的把生活的很多細節都還原成原則、進一步自動化,那人的情緒和非理性行為怎麼辦?

達里奧沒有迴避。他說人身上有兩個"我"。一個是潛意識層面的,說不清為什麼就是想要;另一個是意識層面的,講邏輯。這兩個經常打架。

他不認為情緒本身是問題。情緒是靈感的來源,是對愛的需求,是想產生影響的那種衝動。這些都是好東西。

麻煩出在這兩者沒有對齊。他給的辦法是雙檢:先讓潛意識那個"我"把想要的東西浮上來,然後拿它去跟邏輯那個"我"對一遍,兩邊都點頭,再去做。

他特別提了冥想。他說冥想對達成這種對齊非常有效,是他自己長期在做的事。

他還不滿足於只在腦子裡對齊。他往外走一步:拿給別人看,問這事兒講不講得通。他說的 triangulation 就是這個意思,把不同人的視角拉進來一起校準。

萊克斯接了一句:所以理性當然重要,可理性的目標本身是由那些非理性的東西定義的。

達里奧同意,並且把它推到了原則的邊界上:你永遠站在自己那套原則的邊緣,永遠在做新的事。那個邊緣上需要的正是智識。至於為什麼要去那個邊緣,靠的是靈感、好奇和飢餓感。

塑造者的驅動力裡有沒有魔鬼

萊克斯試著當一回弗洛伊德:潛意識裡到底是什麼在驅動人?

達里奧說不能一概而論,不同的人由不同的東西驅動。他見過的那批塑造者,組合大致是興奮感、好奇心,還有韌性。至於黑暗的東西,他在這批人身上沒怎麼見到魔鬼,也沒怎麼見到恐懼。他看到的是那種"如果我能做成這件事,那將是最極致的夢想"的想象,以及創造行為本身帶來的快感。

他承認裡面一定有情感成分,同時也一定有智力成分。還有共情,還有"我能不能產生影響"的渴望,那是一種情感上的興奮。再往後走,會看到某種精神性的東西,他說的精神性指的是跟整體相連的那種感覺。

萊克斯把話挑明:有一種說法是,這些塑造者走在瘋狂和天才之間的那條線上。瘋狂在這裡面有位置嗎?

達里奧沒有否認。天才經常在邊緣上,某些型別的想象性天才就在瘋狂的邊緣。他打了個比方:像一臺收音機,調準了就播出好節目,稍微過頭一點,就沒了。

他提到凱·傑米森(Kay Jamison)關於雙相情感障礙的研究,說那些研究確實印證了這一點。創造時需要走出去、去到很遠的地方,那種狀態有時候離邊緣很近,也不必總是如此。

自動化的衝擊該當成緊急狀態處理

萊克斯把話題拉到公共討論裡最熱的那一塊:自動化對經濟的影響,短期和長期。有人很擔心,有人覺得被誇大了。

達里奧的立場是:沒被誇大,這是件極其大的事,會非常猛烈地砸過來,我們現在正站在加速的起點上。它已經產生了很大影響,未來會更大。

他把這件事看成一把雙刃劍。

好的那一面:人類一直在往上爬。最早是體力勞動,後來是拖拉機這類機械替掉了體力,一層一層往上,一直爬到心智這一層。現在,凡是跟"處理"有關的腦力活,計算機大概都能做得更好。除了最頂尖的發明創造,人已經站在機器做得更好的那條線上了。這個程序還在加速。

壞的那一面:它在就業上把人擠出去,在財富分配上製造裂口。

他給這件事定了個性質:必須被當成國家級的緊急狀態來處理。財富差距、收入差距、機會差距,這些力量正在製造今天我們看到的大量問題:極化、被剝奪感、教育上離平等差得很遠。這些問題的很大一部分,源頭就在這條線上。

它對社會整體是好的,對平均數是好的,可它對每個人並不都好,而且它在製造極化。所以必須處理。

全民基本收入:一千美元會流到哪裡

萊克斯問到全民基本收入(UBI),還提到當時正在競選總統的楊安澤(Andrew Yang)。給每個人一千美元,作為一種緩衝、一種讓人敢於冒一次險、敢於響應"冒險的召喚"的自由。

達里奧先劃了一條線。在談 UBI 之前,得先說清楚什麼最重要:機會、教育、發展,讓"機會平等"這件事成立,是最要緊的。然後才是錢從哪兒出、怎麼給、怎麼把公立教育系統做好、怎麼把師資搞好。把這套方案填滿血肉,是當下最緊迫的事。

這件事有個時間刻度:越早越好。

他說的是從出生到成年獨立這一段。早期兒童發展裡,照護質量的影響是天壤之別。一對好父母,努力給孩子一個穩定的、沒有創傷的環境,這些東西的價值無法估量。父母給的指引,和受教育的質量,是一個人發展裡最重要的兩件事。

他給了一個很經濟的論證。你看那些完成高中學業和沒完成高中學業的孩子,結果差異有多大,再看這些差異意味著什麼:不只是他們自己的成本,還有監禁成本、犯罪成本。讓這些孩子拿到那些東西,對整個社會在經濟上也更划算,而且更公平。

然後才進入 UBI。

他沒有

他沒有正面回答"該不該發",先問了一串更具體的問題:這一千美元會發生什麼?它是不是從別的專案裡挪出來的?是不是從早期兒童發展專案裡挪出來的?你發給誰?他們拿這一千美元做什麼?

他的態度其實是正面的:每個人都有點餘地是好事。每個人都希望自己賬上有一千美元的喘息空間,這很棒。

但他有個前提條件:不能把這些錢從那些真正在做基礎工作的預算裡抽走。

還有一層,他說得很直接:一筆錢交到負責任、懂得為孩子做正確選擇的父母手上,那太好了。交到一個酗酒或吸毒、本來就沒在為孩子做選擇的父母手上,那一千美元可能被用在有害的地方,結果弊大於利。

同樣的錢,不同的手,流向相反。

錢到底買到了什麼

萊克斯問:你是世界上最富有的人之一,錢能買到幸福嗎?

達里奧說不能,這一點已經有研究證明。越過某個基本收入線之後,只要你付得起醫療這類基本開銷,一個人的幸福水平和財富水平之間就沒有相關性。

相關性最高的是什麼?與他人的高質量關係,以及社群感。跨所有調查、跨所有社會,答案都是這個。你可以去很貧窮的原住民部落看,也可以去各種不同的社群看,這一點都一樣。

他說他很幸運,從一個什麼都沒有的狀態起步,所以他有完整的量程可以對比。他父親是爵士樂手,家裡不富裕,但他有兩件東西:兩個愛他、把他照顧得很好的父母,一所不錯的公立學校。他說基本上一個人需要的就這些,這就是"機會平等"那件事。

那錢到底買到了什麼?他的答案是選擇的能力。

不需要很多,但需要足夠:夠照顧自己和家人,夠去學習,夠維持關係,夠有基本醫療,夠覆蓋那些基本盤,也許再加一點安全感,但不要太多。

再往上,錢開始做的事是幫你的夢想發生。到了他這個年紀,夢想不完全是自己的了,還包括對別人的影響。把原則傳下去,去做一次冒險,去開一家公司,去以別的方式自我實現。

他還補了一個觀察:很多非常富有的人仍然覺得自己錢不夠。比爾·蓋茨相對於他透過蓋茨基金會想做成的事,會覺得自己幾乎是破產的,他手上沒有足夠的錢做成他想要的事。

至於那些把錢花在身份象徵上的人,達里奧說那大概不太健康。但他不該評判別人:如果有人真心愛一幅極美的畫,願意為它花很多錢,那是他排序裡的選擇。這裡面有點複雜。

萊克斯還追問了一句:錢會不會妨礙建立那些深度的關係?

達里奧承認會,而且方式很多。他說這就是它的兩面性,錢本身是中性的,它是一個交換媒介和一個儲藏手段,你要問的是:你打算用它買什麼。

工作和熱愛,最好是一件事

萊克斯引了艾倫·瓦茨(Alan Watts)的一段話:人生的秘訣是完全投入你此刻正在做的事,別把工作叫工作,認出它是玩。

達里奧說他的原則是:讓你的工作和你的熱愛變成同一件事。

他不想把這話說得太理想化。人是要養家的,錢在某個點上是這件事裡很重要的組成部分。越過那條線之後,才輪到問:錢要買到什麼,你到底想成就什麼。

越過之後,最要緊的是有意義的工作和有意義的關係。你在一個使命裡,你對那個使命感到興奮,而且你是跟一群你有深度關係的人一起做。這兩樣同時拿到,對大多數人來說就是極好的狀態。

那為什麼大多數人沒做到?為什麼"工作生活平衡"這個詞會存在?

達里奧從人生弧線講起。

人生從零開始,到八十歲左右結束,可以分成三段。

第一段是學習,你依賴別人。

第二段是工作,別人依賴你,你要努力成功。

第三段是別人在沒有你的情況下成功。

人生裡幸福水平最低的一段,是45到55歲。原因很實在:第二段的這個位置,你要同時在工作上成功、在育兒上成功、在各種角色上成功,每一樣都在要你的時間。工作生活平衡的困境就出現在這裡。

他承認這種壓力是真實的,它會帶來壞結果,它是人生幸福水平的低谷。

然後他說了那個資料:人生的幸福水平在70到80歲之間達到最高。

因為第三段的自由。孩子在做他們從第一段到第二段的過渡,你要的是他們在沒有你的情況下成功;你的父母已經走了;你重新拿到了自由。你有老友,有對人生的視角。有調查問"你覺得自己看起來怎麼樣、感覺怎麼樣",這個年齡段的人打分最高。他們看起來顯然不是最好的,感覺也不是最好的,三十五歲才是身體狀態最好的時候,可他們的自我評價最高。

那那個"平衡"的解法在哪?

達里奧說,真正的解法是學會怎麼從一小時裡榨出更多東西。人們以為必須在A和B之間做選擇,這個選擇是真存在的;可他們沒意識到,如果你練出了從一小時裡榨出更多價值的能力,那等於你的人生憑空多出了很多小時。

他在《原則》裡專門寫了這一塊。

萊克斯請他再展開一點:把人生的起落講得更完整些。

達里奧說這個模式幾乎是通用的。童年一路往上,都是很開心的時期。十六歲開始拿到一些自由,可以考駕照了。大學通常幸福度很高,因為自由,因為友誼。二十出頭是一個峰值,有自由,可以約會、出去闖,然後遇到那個人,開始組建家庭。

接下來責任越來越多,工作生活平衡的挑戰開始出現,就到了中間那一段最難的時候。很有可能你會在這段裡撞牆,你會有一連串的失敗。那就是走進深淵的地方。你從裡面學到東西,你發生蛻變,你走出來,你變了,希望變得更好,承擔更多責任。

再往後,進入第三段。你要的是別人在沒有你的情況下成功,孩子在做第一段到第二段的過渡,你要他們行。父母走了。自由又回來了,而這時候你有的是朋友、是對人生的視角,是那些年輕時沒有的東西。

他自己現在正走在這條弧線上。他說這話的時候七十歲,正在第三段裡,前面那些段落他都親身走過一遍,包括那個撞牆的段落。

一個五步流程之外的東西

回頭看整場對話,有一條線一直沒斷。

五步流程講的是怎麼把事情做成。創意擇優講的是怎麼把一群人的判斷疊起來。演算法和原則講的是怎麼把判斷固化下來,讓它可複用。人生弧線講的是這些能力在什麼時間點上會遇到什麼壓力。

這幾塊拼在一起,指向同一個動作:把腦子裡那些說不清的東西,逼成能說清的東西,然後拿給現實去檢驗。

1982年那次,他把一個判斷押了上去,然後被現實按在地上。多數人到這裡就結束了,或者找個理由說服自己不是自己的錯。他做的事是坐下來問:我憑什麼認為自己是對的?我漏掉了什麼?下一次怎麼才能不漏?

這個問題問了四十年,問出了一家公司,一本書,一套演算法,和一個 app。

他在對話裡反覆說的一句話是:我七十歲了,我想把這些東西傳下去。這句話他講了好幾遍,語氣不太像成功人士的總結陳詞,更像一個人算過自己的時間餘額之後做的決定。

進化和那件小事

播客最後,萊克斯把問題推到了最遠處:你已經取得了很多成就,當你去思考自己的必死性,你覺得這一切的意義是什麼?我們這些短暫存在的人類,存在的意義是什麼?

達里奧的回答一以貫之。

我認為進化是宇宙間最偉大的力量,我們所有人都是這個進化過程裡的一小塊。我們身上都深深嵌著一種傾向,就是要進化,並且為進化做出貢獻。(雷·達里奧)

所以意義就是兩件事:讓自己進化,並且為進化做貢獻。

萊克斯說他早就猜到會聽到這個答案。

訪談的結尾,節目組放了一段達里奧的收尾建議,一句話:

痛苦加上反思,等於進步。(雷·達里奧)

這句話幾乎能串起前面所有內容。1982年那次崩塌之所以成為他人生中最好的事,因為它痛苦不是一個原因,因為他在痛苦之後坐下來,把自己的決策方式重新拆了一遍才是。痛苦本身什麼也生不出來。

他會碰到痛苦,會碰到失敗,絕大多數人也會。差別落在後面那個加法上。

給你的幾條可執行的事

  • 找一個你手上正在推進的重要目標,用五步流程過一遍:目標是什麼、擋路的問題是哪幾個、每一個的根本原因是什麼、針對根本原因設計的方案是什麼、下一步具體動作是什麼。哪怕只是寫在紙上,也比在腦子裡想強很多。
  • 回憶過去一年讓你最意外的一件事,先別急著解釋它。去找歷史上、別的國家、別人的生命週期裡同樣的事,看看它發生過幾次。把"第一次發生在我身上"當成一個提示,去查它是不是"第一次發生"。
  • 下次你不同意某個人,先判斷一件事:在這件具體的事上,誰更內行。如果對方更內行,就多問問題,別爭辯。如果雙方都還算內行、還是談不攏,把第三個能幹的人拉進來,一起做三角測量。
  • 在你下一次做重要決定的時候,或者剛做完之後,花十分鐘把判斷標準用文字寫下來。孩子上學的事、招人的事、投資的事,都可以。寫下來之後拿給別人看,讓別人幫你檢驗這套原則本身對不對。
  • 如果你想做 AI 輔助決策,先問一個問題:這件事的未來會不會和過去不同?如果會,而你對背後的因果關係沒有深刻理解,那就別依賴模型輸出的結論。反覆發生的事交給機器學習,需要判斷"這事兒講不講得通"的事交給人。
  • 如果你正卡在45到55歲那一段,別把問題理解成"必須犧牲一頭"。去練"從一小時裡榨出更多"這件事:哪些決定根本不該由你來做、哪些關係可以合併、哪些工作可以直接寫成規則。時間總量不會變,單位時間的產出密度可以變。
  • 找一件你判斷上押了重注、結果證明你錯了的事,別急著翻篇。把當時的推理過程寫下來,標出你到底在哪一步漏了什麼,然後寫一條以後能用的規則。痛苦你已經有過了,別浪費它。
文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
[00:00:00] The following is a conversation with Ray D'Alessio. He's the founder, co-chairman and chief investment officer of Bridgewater Associates, one of the world's largest and most successful investment firms that is famous for the principles of radical truth and transparency that underlies culture. Ray is one of the wealthiest people in the world with ideas that extend far beyond the specifics of how you made that. Wealth has ideas that are applicable to everyone are brilliantly summarized in his book Principles. There are also even further condensed on several of the platforms, including YouTube, where, for example, the 30 minute video titled How the Economic Machine Works, is one of the best educational videos I personally have ever seen on YouTube. [00:00:46] Once again, you may have noticed that the people I've been speaking with are not just computer scientists, but philosophers, mathematicians, writers, psychologists, physicists, economists, investors and soon much more to me as much bigger than deep learning, bigger than computing. [00:01:04] It is our civilization's journey into understanding the human mind and creating echoes of it in the machine. That journey includes the mechanisms of our economy, of our politics and the leaders that shape the future of both. This is the Artificial Intelligence podcast, if you enjoy it. Subscribe on YouTube. Good. Five stars, an Apple podcast, support and patron or simply connect with me on Twitter. Allex Friedman spelled F.R. Idi Amin. This show is presented by Kashyap, the number one finance app in the App Store. [00:01:38] I personally use cash out to send money to friends, but you can also use it to buy, sell and deposit Bitcoin. Most Bitcoin exchanges take days for bank transfer to become investable through cash. It takes seconds. Cash Up also has a new investing feature. You can buy fractions of a stock, which to me is a really interesting concept. So you can buy one dollar's worth no matter what the stock prices. Brokerage services are provided by cash up investing subsidiary of Square and member SIPC. [00:02:09] I'm excited to be working with cash out to support one of my favorite organizations that many of you may know and have benefited from called first best known for their first robotics and Lego competitions. They educate and inspire hundreds of thousands of students in over one hundred and ten countries and have a perfect rating. And Charity Navigator, which means that donated money is used to maximum effectiveness. When you get cash out from the App Store or Google Play and use code like podcast, you get ten dollars in cash. [00:02:42] I will also donate ten dollars. The first, which again is an organization that I've personally seen, inspire girls and boys to dream of engineering a better world. And now here's my conversation with Ray Dalio. Truth or more precisely, an accurate understanding of reality is the essential foundation of any good outcome. [00:03:20] I believe you've said that. Let me ask an absurd sounding question at the philosophical level. [00:03:27] So what is truth when you're trying to do something different than everybody else is doing and perhaps something that has not been done before? How do you actually analyze the situation? How do you actually discover the truth, the nature of things? [00:03:44] Almost the way you're asking? The question implies that truth and newness have nothing or almost at odds. And I just want to say that I don't think that that's true. Right. So what I mean by truth and truth is, you know what the reality how does the reality work? And so if you're doing something new that has never been done before, which is exciting and I like to do the way that you would start with that is experimenting on what are the realities and the premises that you're using on that and how to stress test those types of things. [00:04:18] I think what you're talking about is instead the fact of how do you deal with something that's never been done before and deal with the associated probabilities. And so I think in that don't let something that's never been done before stand in the way of you doing that particular thing you have, because almost the only way that you understand what true this is through experimentation. And so when you go out and experiment, you're going to learn a lot more about what truth is. [00:04:49] But the essence of what I'm saying is that when you take a look at that, use truth to find out what the realities are as a foundation, do the independent thinking, do the experimentation to find out what's true and change and keep going after that. So I think that the way that when you're thinking about it, the way you're thinking about it, that almost implies that you're you're letting people almost say that they're reliant on what's been discovered before. [00:05:21] To find out what's true and what's been discovered before is often not true. Right. Conventional view of what what is true is very often wrong. It'll go in ups and downs. And, you know, I mean, there are fads and OK, this thing, it goes this way in that way. And so definitions of truths that are conventional are not the thing to go by. [00:05:45] How do you know the thing that has been done before that it might succeed? [00:05:50] It's to do whatever homework that you have in order to try to get a foundation and then to go into worlds of not knowing. And you go into the world of not knowing, but not stupidly, not naively. You know, you go into that world of not knowing. And then you do experimenting and you learn what truth is and what's possible through that process. I describe it as a five step process. The first step as you go after your goals, the second step is you identify the problems that stand in the way of you getting to your goals. [00:06:24] The third step is you diagnose those to get at the root cause of those. Then the fourth step is then now that you know the exact root cause you get you design a way to get around those and then you follow through and do the designs you set out to do. And it's the experimentation. I think that what happens to people mostly is that they try to decide whether they're going to be successful or not ahead of doing it. And they don't know how to do the process. [00:06:52] Well, because the nature of your questions are along those lines, like, how do you know or well, you don't know. But a practical person who is also used to making dreams happen knows how to do that process. I've given personality tests to shapers. So the person what I mean by a shaper is a person who can take something from visual visualization. They have an audacious goal and then they go from visualization to actualisation, building it out. [00:07:23] That includes Elon Musk. I gave him the personality test. I've given it to Bill Gates and then give it to many, many such shapers. And they know that process that I'm talking about. They experience it, which is a process essentially of knowing how to go from an audacious goal, but not in a ridiculous way, not a dream. And then to do that, learning along the way, that allows them in a very practical way to learn very rapidly as they're moving toward that goal. [00:07:55] So the the call to adventure, the adventure starts not trying to analyze the probabilities of the situation, but using what instinct? How do you dive in? [00:08:06] So let's talk about it. Is it is being a it's simultaneously being a dreamer and a realist. It's to know how to do that. Well, the pull comes from a pull to adventure for whatever reason. I can't tell you how much that's genetics and how much it's environment, but there's an early on. It's exciting. That notion is exciting. Being creative is exciting. And so one feels that then one gets in the habit of doing that. OK, how do I know? [00:08:38] How do I learn? Very well. And then how do I imagine and then how do I experiment to go from that imagination. So it's that process, that one and then one. The more one does it, the more the better one becomes. [00:08:55] That you mentioned shapers, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, what who are the shapers you find yourself thinking about when you're constructing these ideas, the ones that define the archetype of a shape of you? [00:09:11] Well, as I say, the shape of me is somebody who. Comes up with a great visualization, usually a really unique visualization, and then actually builds it out and makes the world different, changes the world in that kind of a way. So when I look at it, Marc Benioff with Salesforce, Chris Anderson with Ted Mohammed Yunus with social enterprise and philanthropy, Geoffrey Canada and Harlem Children's Zone, there are all domains have shapers who have the ability to visualize and make extraordinary things happen. [00:09:49] What are the commonalities in some of them? The commonalities are, first of all, the excitement of something new that call to adventure and and again, that practicality, the capacity to learn the capacity. Then they're able to be in many ways, full range. That means they're able to go from the big, big picture down to the detail. So let's say, for example, Elon Musk, he describes the gets a lot of money from selling PayPal, his interest in PayPal. [00:10:26] He said, why isn't anybody going to Mars or outer space? What are we going to do if the planet goes to hell? And how do I how are we going to get that? Nobody's paying attention to that. He doesn't know much about it. He then reads and learns and so on, says, I'm going to take OK half of my money and I'm going to put it in there and I'm going to do this thing. And he learns about and he's got creative, OK, that's one dimension. [00:10:51] So he gave me the keys to his car was one just early days and Tesla. And he then points out the details. OK, if you push this button here, it's this the detail that so he's simultaneously talking about the big the big, big, big picture. OK, when does humanity going to about it? But he will then be able to take it down into the details so he can go let's call it helicoptering. He can go up, he can go down and see things that those types of perspective. [00:11:26] And then you see that with the other shape. [00:11:28] And that's a common thing that they can do that another important difference that they have in mind is how they deal with people. I mean, beaning there's nothing more important than achieving the mission. And so what they have in common is that there's a test that I give these personality tests because they're very helpful for understanding people. And so I gave it to all these shapers. And one of the things in workplace inventory test is this test, and it has a category called concern for others. [00:12:02] What they're all having concern for others. This includes Muhammad Yunus, who invented microfinance. Social enterprise, impact investing is Muhammad Yunus received the Nobel Peace Prize for this Congressional Medal of Honor, one of the fortune determined, one of the ten greatest entrepreneurs of our time. He's built all sorts of businesses to give back money and social enterprise. A remarkable man. He has nobody that I know practically can have more concern for others. He lives a life of a saint. [00:12:39] I mean, very modest lifestyle. And he puts all his money into trying to help others. And he tests lo on what's called concern for others, because what it really shows, the questions out there that are questions about conflict to get at the mission. So they all Geoffrey Canada change Harlem Children's Zone and all of that to take children in Harlem and get them well taken care of, not only just in their education, but their whole lives horribly and also concern for others. [00:13:06] What they mean is that they can see whether those individuals are performing at a level that an extremely high level that's necessary to make those dreams happen. So when you think of, let's say Steve Jobs was famous for being, you know, difficult with people and so on, and I didn't know Steve Jobs, so I can't speak personally to that. But his comments on the other players and if you have a players, if you put in B players, pretty soon you have C players and so on, that is a common element of them holding people to high standards and not letting anybody stand in the way of the the mission. [00:13:45] What do you think about that? Kind of I decided to pause on that for a second that the A, B and C players and the importance of so when you have a mission to really only have eight players and be sort of aggressively filtering for that. Yes. [00:14:02] But I think that they're all different ways of being a players. And I think and what a great a great team. You have to appreciate all the differences in ways of being a players. Yes, that's the first thing, and then you always have to be super excellent, in my opinion, you always have to be really excellent with people to help them understand each other themselves and get in sync with them about what's true about them and their circumstances and how they're doing so that they're having a fabulous personal development experience at the same time as you're dealing with them. [00:14:41] So when I say that they're all different ways, this is one of the than qualities you asked me, what are the qualities? [00:14:49] So one of the third qualities that I would say is to know how to deal well with your not knowing and to be able to get the best expertise so that you're a great orchestrator of different ways, so that the people who are really, really successful, unlike most people, believe that they're successful because of what they know, they're even more successful by being able to effectively learn from others and tapping into the skills of people who see things different from them. [00:15:25] Brilliant. So how do you when they're that personality being, first of all, open to the fact that there's other people see things differently than you and at the same time have supreme confidence in your vision? [00:15:39] Is there just the psychology of that? Do you see a tension there between the confidence and the open mindedness? [00:15:45] And it's funny because I think we grow up thinking that there's a tension there, right. That there's a confidence. And the more confidence that you have, there's a tension with the open mindedness and not being sure, OK, confident and accurate are almost negatively correlated. Many people, they're extremely confident and they're often inaccurate. And so I think one of the greatest tragedies of people is not realizing how those things to go together, because instead it's really that by saying I know a lot and how do I know I'm still not wrong and how do I take that the best thinking of available to me and then raise my probability of learning all these people think for themselves, OK, I mean, meaning they're smart, but they take in like vacuum cleaners, they take in ideas of others, they stress test their ideas with others. [00:16:45] They assess what comes back to them in the form of other thinking. And they also know what they're not good at and what other people who are good at the things that they're not good at, they know how to get those people and be successful all around because nobody has enough knowledge in their heads. And that, I think, is one of the great differences. The reason my company has been successful in terms of this is because of an idea Meritocratic Decision-Making, a process by which you can get the best ideas. [00:17:17] You know, what's an idea? A meritocracy, an idea. Meritocracy is to get the best ideas that are available out there and to work together with other people in the team to achieve that. [00:17:27] That's an incredible process. They describe in several places to arrive at the truth. [00:17:32] But I apologize if I'm romanticizing the notion of blaming linger on it or just having enough self belief. [00:17:41] You don't think there's a self-delusion there that's necessary, especially in the beginning. You talk about in the journey, maybe the trials or the abyss. Do you think there is value to deluding yourself? [00:17:58] I think what you're calling delusion is a bad word for uncertainty. OK, so, I mean, in other words, because we keep coming back to the question, how would you know and all of these things? No, I think that delusion is not going to help you that you have to find out truth, OK, to deal with uncertainty, not saying, OK, listen, I have this dream and I don't know how I'm going to get that dream. [00:18:25] I mentioned in my book Principles and describe the process in a more complete way that we're going to be able to go here. But what happens is I say you form your dreams first and you can't judge whether you're going to achieve those dreams because you haven't learned the things that you're going to learn on the way toward those dreams. OK, so that isn't delusion. [00:18:50] I wouldn't use delusion. I think you're overemphasizing the importance of knowing whether you're going to succeed or not. [00:18:58] Get rid of that, OK? If you can get rid of that and say, OK, no, I can have that dream, but I'm so realistic in the notion of finding out. I'm curious. I'm a great learner. I'm a great experimenter. Along the way. You'll do those. Agreements which will teach you more truths and more learning about the realities so that you can get your dreams, because if you still live in that world of delusion, OK, and you think your delusions helpful nor the delusion isn't. [00:19:29] Don't confuse delusion with not knowing. [00:19:31] Yes, but nevertheless. So if we look at the abyss, we can look at your own. That you describe is difficult psychologically for people. [00:19:41] So many people quit. Many people choose a path that is more comfortable than that. The the heartbreak of that, you know, breaks people. [00:19:51] So if you have the dream and there's this cycle of learning, setting a goal and so on, what's your value for the psychology of just being broken by these difficult moments? [00:20:02] Well, that's that's classically the defining moment. It's almost like evolution taking care of OK, now you're you crash, you're in the abyss. Oh, my God, that's bad. And then the question is, what do you do? And it sorts people, OK? And that's what some people get off the field and they say, oh, I don't like this and so on. And some people learn and they have to and they have a metamorphosis and it changes their approach to learning that no one thing it should give them is uncertainty. [00:20:36] You should take an audacious, dreamier guy who wants to change the world. [00:20:43] Crash, OK, and then come out of that crashing and saying, OK, I can be audacious and scared that I'm going to be wrong at the same time. And then how do I do that? Because that's the key. When you don't lose your audaciousness and you keep going after your big goal and at the same time you say, hey, I'm worried that I'm going to be wrong, you gain your radical open mindedness that allows you to take in the things that allows you to go to the next level of being successful. [00:21:16] So your own process, I mean, you've talked about it before, but it would be great if you can describe it, because our darkest moments are perhaps the most interesting your own and with the prediction of the of the depression and economic depression has apologized. Economic depression. [00:21:34] Can you talk to what you were feeling, thinking, planning and strategizing at those moments? [00:21:41] Yeah, that was that was my biggest moment. OK, building my little company. This is in 1981, 82. I had calculated that American banks had given a lot more money to lend a lot more money to Latin American countries than those countries are going to pay back and that they would have a debt crisis and that this would send the economy tumbling. And that was an extremely controversial point of view. Then it started to happen and it happened to Mexico, defaulted in August 1982. [00:22:15] I thought that there was going to be an economic collapse that was going to follow because there was a series of the other countries. It was just playing out it, as I had imagined, and that it couldn't have been more wrong. That was the exact bottom in the stock market because central banks eased monetary policy, blah, blah, blah. And I couldn't have been more wrong. And I was very publicly wrong and and all of that. And I lost money for me and I lost money for my clients. [00:22:41] And I was I only had a small company then, but I had these close people. I had to let them go. I was down to me as a last person. I didn't have I was so broke I had to borrow 4000 dollars from my dad to help to pay for my family bills. Very painful. And at the same time, I would say it definitely was one of the best things that ever happened to me. Maybe the best thing for him happened to me because it changed my approach to decision making. [00:23:11] It's what I'm saying. In other words, I kept saying, OK, how do I know whether I'm right? How do I know I'm not wrong? It gave me that. And and it didn't give up by audaciousness because it was in a position. What am I going to do? Am I going to go down back, put on a tie, go to Wall Street and be and just do those things? Now, I can't bring myself to do that. [00:23:35] So I'm in a juncture. How do I deal with my risk and how do I deal with that? And it tells me how to deal with my uncertainties. And that taught me, for example, number of techniques. First, to find the smartest people I could find who disagreed with me and to have quality disagreement. I learned the art of thoughtful disagreement. I learned how to produce diversification. I learned how to do a number of things. That is what led me to create an idea meritocracy. [00:24:03] In other words, person by person. I hired them and I wanted the smartest people who would be independent thinkers who would disagree with each other and me well, so that we could be independent thinkers to. Go off to produce those audacious dreams, because you have to be an independent thinker to do that and to do that independently of the consensus, independently of each other, and then work ourselves through that because, you know, whether you're going to have the right answer. [00:24:28] And by doing that, then that was the key to our success and the things that I want to pass along to people. The reason I'm doing this podcast with you is, you know, I'm 70 years old and that is a magical way of achieving success. If you can create an idea meritocracy, it's it's so much better in terms of achieving success and also quality relationships with people. But that's what that experience gave me. [00:24:55] So if we can linger on a little bit longer, the idea of an idea meritocracy, it's fascinating, but especially because it seems to be rare not just in companies, but in society. So there is a lot of people on Twitter and public discourse and politics and so on that are really stuck in certain sets of ideas, whatever they are. [00:25:16] So when you're confronted with with an idea that that's different than your own about a particular topic, what kind of process do you go through mentally? [00:25:29] Are you arguing through the idea with the person sort of present isms like a debate, or do you sit down and consider the world sort of empathetically? [00:25:39] If this is true, then what is that world look like? [00:25:44] Does that world make sense? And so on. So what's the process of considering those conflicting ideas for you? [00:25:49] I'm going to answer that question after saying first, almost implicit in your question is it's not common, OK? What's common produces only common results. OK, so don't judge. Yes. [00:26:05] Anything that is good based on whether it's common because you it's only going to give you a common results. If you want unique, you have a unique approach. OK, and so that sort of thoughtful disagreement is the is the capacity to hold two things in your mind at the same time, the G. I think this makes sense. And then saying I'm not sure it makes sense and then try to say, why does it make sense? And then to triangulate with others. [00:26:37] So if I'm having a discussion like that and I work myself through and I'm not sure, then I have to do that in a good way. So I always give attention. For example, let's start off, what does the other person know relative to what I know? So if a person has a higher expertise are things I'm much more inclined to ask questions. I'm always asking questions. If you want to learn, you're asking questions. You're not arguing, OK, you're taking in. [00:27:06] You're assessing when it comes into you. Does that make sense or you're learning something or are you getting epiphanies and so on. And I try to then do that if the conversation as we're trying to decide what is true and we're trying to do that together and we see truth different, then I might even call in another really smart, capable person and try to say what is true and how do we explore that together? [00:27:32] And you go through that same thing. So I would I said I describe it as having open mindedness and assertiveness at the same time that you can simultaneously be open minded and take in with that curiosity and then also be assertive and say, but that doesn't make sense. Why would this be the case? And you do that back and forth. [00:27:55] And when you're doing that kind of back and forth on the topic like the economy, which you have, to me, perhaps I'm naive, but it seems both incredible and incredibly complex. [00:28:08] The economy, the trading, the transactions that these transactions between two individuals somehow add up to this giant mechanism. [00:28:17] You've put out a 30 minute video. You have a lot of incredible videos online that people should definitely watch on YouTube. But you've put out this 30 minute video titled How the Economic Machine Works. [00:28:31] That is probably one of the best, if not the best video I've seen on the Internet in terms of educational videos. [00:28:39] So people should definitely watch it, especially because it's not that the individual components of the video are somehow revolutionary, but the simplicity and the clarity of the different components just makes you there's a few light bulb moments there about what how the economy works as a machine. So as you describe, there's three main forces that drive the economy productivity growth, short term debt cycle, long term debt cycle. [00:29:05] The the former productivity growth is how valuable things how much value people create, valuable things people create. [00:29:14] The latter is people borrowing from their future selves to hopefully create those valuable things faster. So this is an incredible system to me. Maybe we can linger in a little bit. But you've also said, will most people think about as money is actually credit? Total amount of credit in the US is 50 trillion dollars. Total amount of money is three trillion dollars. That's just crazy to me. Maybe maybe I'm studying. Maybe you can educate me, but that seems crazy. [00:29:47] It gives me just pause that human civilization has been able to create a system that has so much credit. So that's a long way to ask. Do you think credit is good or bad for society, that system of that so fundamentally based on credit? [00:30:06] I think credit is great, even though people often overdo it. Credit is that somebody has earned money. Yeah. And, you know, and what happens is they lend it to somebody else who's got better ideas and they cut a deal and then that person with the better ideas is going to pay it back. And if it works well, it helps resource allocations go well, providing people like the entrepreneurs and all of those, they need capital. They don't have capital themselves. [00:30:39] And so somebody is going to give them capital and they'll give them credit along those lines. Then what happens is it's not managed well in a variety of ways. So I did another book on principles, principles, a big debt crisis is that go into that and it's free, by the way, I put it free online on as a PDF. So if you go online and you look principles for big debt crisis is under my name, you can download it in a PDF or you can buy a print book of it and it goes through that particular process. [00:31:12] And so you always have it overdone and always the same way. Everything, by the way, almost everything happens over and over again for the same reasons. OK, so these debt crisis is all happened over and over again for the same reasons they get it overdone in the book. It explains how you identify whether it's overdone or not. They get it overdone. And then you go through the process of making the adjustments according to that. And then and it explains how they can use the levers and so on. [00:31:42] If you didn't have credit, then you would be sort of everybody sort of be stuck. So credit is a good thing, but it can easily be overdone. So now we get into the what is money? What is credit, OK, you get into money and credit. So if you're holding credit and you think that's worthwhile, keep in mind that the central bank, let's say it can print the money. What is that problem? You have an IOU and the IOU says you're going to get a certain number of dollars, let's say, or yen or euros, and that is what the IOU is. [00:32:19] And so the question is, will you get that money and and what will it be worth? And then also, you have a government which is a participant in that process because they want they are on the hook, they owe money. [00:32:33] And then will they print the money to make it easy for everybody to pay? So you have to pay attention to those, too. I would suggest, like you recommend other people just take that 30 minutes and it and it comes across pretty clearly. But my conclusion is that, of course, you want it. And even if you understand it and the cycles well, you can benefit from those cycles rather than to be hurt by those cycles because I don't know the way the cycle works. [00:33:05] If somebody gets overindebted, they have to sell an asset. OK, then I don't know. That's when assets become cheaper. How do you acquire the asset? It's a whole process. [00:33:16] So, again, maybe another dumb question, but there are no such things as dumb questions. There you go. But what is money? So you've mentioned, you know, credit and money. [00:33:29] It's another thing that if I just zoom out from an alien perspective and look at human civilization, it's incredible that we've created a thing that's not that only works because currency because we all agree it has value. [00:33:48] So I guess my question is, how do you think about money as the emergent phenomenon? What do you think is the future of money? You've commented on Bitcoin, other forms. What do you think is its history and future? How do you think about money? [00:34:08] There are two things that money is for. It's a medium of exchange. And it's a store hold of wealth. Yes, that's that that some money, you know, so you could say something, a medium of exchange, and then you could say, is it a store hold of wealth? OK, so those and money is that vehicle that is those things and can be used to pay off your debt. So when you have a debt and you provide it, it pays off your debt. [00:34:43] So that that's that process. [00:34:45] And I apologize to interrupt, but it only can be a medium of exchange or so wealth. Everybody recognizes it to be a value. That's right. [00:34:55] And so you see in the history and around the world and you go to places I was in an island in the Pacific in which they had as money these big stones. And literally they were taking a boat this big carved stone and they were taking it from one of the islands the other. And it sank the the the piece of this big stone piece of money that they had. And it went to the bottom and they still perceived it as having value so that it was even though in the bottom and it's this big hunk of rock, the fact that somebody owned it, they would say, oh, all alone it for this and that. [00:35:38] I've seen beads in different places, shells converted to this and mediums of exchange. And when we look at what we've got, you're exactly right. It is the notion that if I give it to you, I can then take it and I can buy something with it. And that's so it's a matter of perception. OK, and then we go through then the history of money and the vulnerabilities of money. And what we have is there's through history, there's been two types of money, those that are claims on something of value, like the connection of to gold or something that would be and or they just are money without any connection. [00:36:24] And then we have a system now, which is a fiat monetary system. So that's what money is. Then it will last as long as it's kept a value and it works that way. So let's say central banks, when they get in the position of like they owe a lot of money like we have in the case, it's increasingly the case. And they also in our bind and they have the printing press to print the money and get out of that. [00:36:53] And you have a lot of people might be in that position. Then you can print it and then it could be devalued in there. And so history has shown. Forget about today. History has shown that no currency has left. Every currency has either ended as being a currency been or devalued as a currency over a period of time, long periods of time. So it evolves and it changes. But everybody needs that medium of exchange and everybody needs that store hold of wealth. [00:37:25] So it keeps changing what is money over a period of time. [00:37:29] But so much is being digitized today. And there's this idea is based in the blog chain of Bitcoin and so on. So if all currencies, like all empires, come to an end, what do you think will do you think something like Bitcoin might emerge as as a common store value store of wealth and a medium of exchange? [00:37:54] The problem with Bitcoin is that it's not an effective medium exchange. Like it's not easy for me to go in there and buy things with it. And then it's not an effective store hold of value because it has a volatility that's based on speculation and the like. So, yeah, it's not a very effective saving that's very different from Facebook's of a stable value currency, which would be effective as both a medium of exchange and a store hold of wealth. Because if you were to hold it and the way it's linked to a number of things that it's linked to would mean that it could be a very effective store hold of wealth. [00:38:37] Then you have a digital currency that could be a very effective medium exchange and store hold of wealth. So in my opinion, some digital currencies are likely to succeed more or less based on that ability to do it. Then the question is what happens? OK, what happens is two central banks allow that to happen. [00:38:59] I really do believe it's possible to get a better form of money that central banks don't control, OK, a better force of money that central banks don't control. But then that's not yet happened. And we also have to. And so they've got to go through that evolutionary process in order to go through that evolutionary process. [00:39:22] First of all, governments have got to allow that to happen, which is to some extent a threat to them in terms of their power. And that's an issue. And then you have to also build the confidence in all of the components of it to say, OK, that's going to be effective because I won't get in, I won't have problems owning it. So I think that digital currencies have a have some element of potential, but there's a lot of hurdles that are going to have to be gotten over. [00:39:56] I think that it'll be a very long time, possibly never. But anyway, a very long time before we have that, let's say, get into a position that would be in an effective means relative to gold. Let's say if you were, think of that because gold has a track record, you know, thousands of years you have all across countries and it has its mobility. It has the ability to put it down. It has certain abilities. [00:40:24] It's got disadvantages relative to digital currencies. But but central banks will hold it like their central banks that worry about others. You know, other countries, central banks might worry about whether the U.S. dollar is going to print that. And so the thing they're going to go to is not going to be the digital currency thing. They're going to go to is is gold or something else, some other currency. They've got to pick it. And so I think it's a long way to go. [00:40:52] But you think it's possible that one day we don't even have a central bank because of the currency? That doesn't that's cannot be controlled by the central bank. Is the primary currency or is that seems very unlikely. [00:41:09] It would be a very remote possibility for very long in the future. Got it. [00:41:18] Again, maybe a dumb question, but romanticisation when you sit back and you look you describe these transactions between individuals somehow creating short term debt cycles, long term debt cycles. Is productivity growth. [00:41:34] Does it amaze you? This whole thing works that that there's however many millions, hundreds of millions of people in the United States globally, over seven billion people, that this thing between individual transactions, it just it works. Yeah, it amazes me. [00:41:55] Like, I go I go back and forth between being in it. [00:42:00] And then I think, like, how did a credit card. Is that really possible? I'm still used. I look up credit card, I put it on. The guy doesn't know me. Yeah, it's OK. We're making the digital. Is that really secure enough and that that kind of thing. And then it goes back and it goes this and it clears and it all happens. And it what I marvel at that and those types of things is because of the the capacity of the human mind to create abstractions that are true, you know, it's imagination and then the ability to go from one level. [00:42:40] And then if these things are true, then you go to the next level. And if those things are true, then you go to the next level and all those miracles that we almost become common. It's like when I'm flying in a plane or when I'm looking at all of the things that happen when I get communications in the middle of, I don't know, Africa or Antarctica. [00:43:01] And we're communicating in the ways where I see the face on my iPad of somebody, my grandkid in someplace else. And I look at this and I say, wow, yes, it all amazes me. [00:43:15] So while being amazing, do you have a sense, the principles you describe, that the whole thing is stable somehow also? Or is this are we just lucky? [00:43:26] So the principles that you describe are those describing a system that is stable, robust and will remain so, or is it a lucky accident of our early history? [00:43:39] My area of expertise is economics and market, so I get down to it like a real nitty gritty. [00:43:45] Yes, I can tell you whether the plane is going to fall out of the sky because of its particular fundamentals. I don't know enough about that, but it happens over and over again and so on. It gives me faith. OK, so without me knowing it in the markets and the economy, I know those things well enough in a sense to say that by and large, that structure is right. What we're seeing is right now, whether there are disruptions and it has effects that can come, not because that structure is right. [00:44:20] I believe that's right. But whether it can be hurt by, let's say, connectivity or journal entries they could take from all the money away from you through your digital entries. There's all sorts of things that can happen in various ways. That means that that money is worthless or the system falls. But from what I see in terms of its basic structure and those complexities that still take my breath away, I would say knowing enough about the mechanics of them, that doesn't worry me. [00:44:51] Have you seen disruptions in your lifetime that really surprised you? Most of the time? [00:44:56] This is one of the great lessons of my life, is that. Many times I've seen things that I was very surprised about and that I realized almost all of those I was surprised about because they just they were just the first time it happened to me that didn't happen in my lifetime before. [00:45:19] But when I researched them, they happened in other places or other people lifetimes. So, for example, I remember 1971, the dollar, there was no such thing as a devaluation of a currency, didn't experience it, and the dollar was connected to gold. And I was watching events happen. And then you get on an end. That definition of money all of a sudden went out the window because it was not tied to gold. And then you have this devaluation at so and then or the first oil shock or the second oil shock or so many of these things and whatnot. [00:45:58] But almost always I realized that they when I looked in history, they happened before. [00:46:07] They just happened in other people's lifetimes, which led me to realize that I needed to study history and what happened in other people's lifetimes and what happened in other countries and places so that I would have timeless and universal principles for dealing with that thing. So I oh, yeah, I've been, you know, the implausible happening, but it's like a one in a hundred year storm, OK. Or it or they've happened before. Yeah, they happen. [00:46:40] Just not to you. [00:46:41] Let me talk about if we could but I a little bit. [00:46:45] So if Bridgewater Associates manage about one hundred and sixty billion dollars in assets and artificial intelligence systems, algorithms are pretty good with data. [00:47:00] What role in the future do you see? I play in analysis and decision making in this kind of data rich and impactful area of investment. [00:47:14] I'm going to answer that not only in investment, but I give them more all encompassing. Rule for EHI, as I think you know, for the last 25 years, we have taken our thinking and put them in algorithms and so we make decisions that the computer takes those criteria algorithms and they put them and they're in there and that takes data and they operate as an independent decision maker in parallel with our decision making. So for me, it's like there's a chess game playing and I'm a person with my chess game. [00:47:55] And I'm saying it made that move and I'm making the move. And how do I compare those two moves? So we've done a lot. But let me give you a rule. [00:48:02] If the future can be different from the past and you don't have deep understanding, you should not rely on A.I.. [00:48:17] OK, those two things, deep understanding of the cause effect relationships that are leading you to place that bet in anything. [00:48:27] OK, anything important, let's say if it was do surgeries and you would say how do I do surgeries? I think it's totally fine to watch all the doctors do the surgeries. You can put it on. I take a a digital camera and do that, convert that into A.I. algorithms that go to robots and have them do surgeries. And I'd be comfortable with that because if it'll do if it keeps doing the same thing over and over again and you have enough of that, that would be fine. [00:49:00] Even though you may not understand the algorithms, because you're if the things happening over and over again and you're not asking the future would be the same, that appendicitis or whatever it is will be handled the same way the surgery, that's fine. However, what happens with A.I. is for the most part is it takes a lot of data and it with a high enough sample size and then it puts together its own algorithms. OK, there are two ways you can come up with algorithms. [00:49:33] You can either take your thinking and express them in algorithms, or you can say put the data in and say, what is the algorithm when you that's machine learning. And when you have machine learning, it'll give you equations which quite often are not understandable. You would try to say, OK, now describe what it's telling you. It's very difficult to describe and so they can escape understanding. And so it's very good for doing those things that could be done over and over again if you're watching and you're not taking that. [00:50:06] But if the future is different from the past and you have that, then you're the future is different from the past and you don't have deep understanding you're going to get in trouble. And so that's the main thing as far as A.I. is concerned, A.I. and let's say computer applications of thinking very wise. I think it's particularly good for processing. [00:50:30] But but the the notion of what you want to do is better most of the time, determined by the human mind. [00:50:40] What are the principles like? OK, how should I raise my children? It's going to be a long time before A.I. You're going to say it has a good enough judgment to do that. Who should I marry? All of those things. Maybe you can get the computer to help you, but if you just took data and you machine learning, it's not going to find it. If you were to then take one of my criteria for any of those questions and then say put them into an algorithm and you'd be a lot better off than if you took a AI to do it. [00:51:10] But by and large, the mind should be do used for inventing and those creative things. And then the computers should be used for processing because it could process a lot more information a lot faster, a lot more accurately and a lot less emotionally. So any notion of thinking in the form of processing type thinking should be done by a computer. And anything that is in the notion of doing that other type of thinking should be operating with with the brain operating in a way where, you know, you can say, oh, that makes sense. [00:51:49] You know, the process of reducing your understanding down to principles is kind of like the process. [00:51:55] The the first one you mentioned type of A.I. algorithm where you encoding your expertise. [00:52:02] You're trying to program. Right. A program, the humans trying to write a program. [00:52:07] How do you think that's attainable, the process of reducing principles to a computer program or when you. [00:52:19] When you say when you write about when you think about principles, is there still a human element that's not reducible to an algorithm? [00:52:29] My experience has been that almost all things, including those things that I thought were pretty much impossible to express, I've been able to express in algorithms. But that doesn't constitute all things. So you can you can who you can express far more than you can imagine you'll be able to express. So I use the example of, OK, it's not how do you raise your children? OK, you will be able to take it one piece by piece. OK, how at what age, what school and the way to do that. [00:53:10] That was my experience, is to take that. And when you're in the moment of making a decision or just past making a decision to take the time and to write down your criteria for making that decision in words, OK, that's not where you'll get your your principles down on paper. I created an app online called It's Right Now just on the iPhone. [00:53:39] It'll be on and getting an Android and it'll be on Android. It'll be in a few months. It'll be on Android. Awesome. But it has an app in there that helps people write down their own principles because this is very powerful. So when you're in that moment where you've just you're thinking about it and you're thinking your criteria for, you know, choosing the school for your child or whatever that might be, and you write down your criteria or whatever they are, those principles you write down and you do that will at that moment make you articulate your principles in a very valuable way. [00:54:19] And if you have the way that we operate, that you have easy access. So then the next time that comes along, you can go to that or you can show those principles to others to see if they're the right principles. You will get a clarity of that principle that's really invaluable in words. And that'll help you a lot then. But then you start to think, how do I express that in data? And it'll shock you about how you can do that. [00:54:46] You'll form an equation that will show the relationship between these particular parts and then the essentially the variables that are going to go into that particular equation. And you will be able to do that. And you take that little piece and you put it into the computer and then take the next little piece and you put that into the computer. And before you know it, you will have a decision making system that's of the sort that I'm describing. [00:55:15] So you're almost making an argument against an earlier statement you've made. You're convincing me. At first he said there's no way a computer could raise a child, essentially. [00:55:26] But now you describe making me think of it. If you have that kind of idea, meritocracy, you have this rigorous approach to what it takes an investment and applied to raising a child. [00:55:38] It feels like the process you just described. [00:55:41] We could, as a society, arrive at a set of principles for raising a child and encode it into computer. That originality will not come from machine learning the first time you do so that the original. [00:55:58] Yes, that's what I'm referring to. But eventually, as we together develop it and then we can automate it. [00:56:04] That's why I'm saying the process saying yes can be done by the computer. So we're saying the same thing. We're not inconsistent. We're saying the same thing that the processing of that information in those algorithms can be done by the computer in a very, very effective way. You don't need to sit there and process and try to weigh all those things in the equation and all those things. [00:56:25] But that notion of, OK, how do I get at that principle? [00:56:30] And you're saying you'd be surprised. Yes. You how much you can express. That's right. [00:56:36] You can do that. So this is where I think you're going to see the future. And right now we, you know, go to our devices and we get information to a large extent and then we get some guidance. We have our GPS in the like, in my opinion, principals, principals, principals, principals. [00:57:00] I want to emphasize that you write them down. You've got those principals. They will be converted into algorithms for decision making. [00:57:09] And they're going to also have the benefit of collective decision making, because right now, individuals based on what's stuck in their heads are making their decisions in very ignorant ways. They're not the best decision makers. They're not the best criteria. And they're operating. When those principles are written down and converted into algorithms, it's almost like you'll look at that and follow the instructions and it'll give you better results that medicine will be much more like this. You can go to your local doctor and you could ask his point of view and whatever, and he's rushed and he may not be the best doctor around. [00:57:48] And you're going to go to this thing and get that same information or just automatically have it input in that. And it's going to tell you, OK, here's what you should go do and it's going to be much better than your local doctor and that that the converting of information into intelligence intelligence is the thing we're coming out with. Again, I'm seventy and I want to pass all these. Things along, so all these tools that I've found need to develop over these periods of time, all those things, I want to make them available and what's going to happen as they're they're going to see this. [00:58:27] They're going to see these tools operating much more that way. The idea of converting data into intelligence, intelligence, for example, on what they are like. Right. Are what are your strengths and weaknesses, intelligence on who do I work well with, under what circumstances? Personalized intelligence. We're going to go from what are called systems of record, which are a lot of OK information organized in the right way to intelligence. And we're going to that. [00:58:59] That'll be the next big move, in my opinion. [00:59:03] And so you will get intelligence back and that that intelligence comes from reducing things down to principals into that's how it happens. [00:59:12] So what's your intuition? [00:59:14] If you look at future societies, do you think we'll be able to reduce a lot of the. [00:59:22] The details of our lives down to principles that would be further and further automated, I think the real question hinges on people's emotional emotions and irrational behaviors. I think that there's subliminal things that we want, OK, and then there's cerebral, you know, conscious logic and the two often are at odds. So there's almost like to use and you. Right. And so let's say, what do you want your mind to answer one thing, your emotions, a lance or something else? [01:00:01] So when I think about it, I think emotions are I want inspiration. I want love is a good thing being able to have a good impact, but it is in the reconciliation of your subliminal wants and your intellectual wants so that you really say they're aligned. Yes. And so to do that in a way to get what you want. So irrationality is a bad thing if if it means that it doesn't make sense in getting you what you want, but you better decide which you you're satisfying is at the lower level, you emotional subliminal one or is it the other. [01:00:41] But if you can align them. So what I find is that by going from my you experience the decision, do this thing subliminally and that's the thing I want. It comes to the surface. I find that if I can align that with what my logical me wants and does, do the double double check between them and I get the same sort of thing that that helps me a lot. I find, for example, meditation is one of the things that helps to achieve that alignment. [01:01:12] It's fantastic for achieving that alignment. And often then I also want to not just do it in my head. I want to say, does that make sense? Help. And so I do it with other people and I say, OK, well, let's say I want this thing and whatever it does, that makes sense. And when you do that kind of triangulation, you're to use and you do that with also the other way, then you certainly want to be rational. [01:01:37] Right. But rationality has to be defined by those things. [01:01:42] And then you discover sort of new ideas that that drive your car just so it's always you're always at the edge of the set of principles you develop. You're doing new things always. That's where the intellect is needed. [01:01:55] Well, and the inspiration the inspiration is needed to do that. Right. [01:02:00] Like what are you doing it for? The excitement. What is the curiosity? The hunger. [01:02:06] What if you can be Freud for a second? What's in that subconscious? [01:02:11] What's the thing that drives us that I think you can't generalize of us? I think different people are driven by different things. There's not a common one. Right. So like, if you would take the shapers, I think it is a combination of. Subliminally, it's a combination of excitement, curiosity, is there a dark element there is there is there are demons. [01:02:38] There's there fears. [01:02:39] Is there, in your sense amongst the ones that most of the ones that I'm dealing with, I have not seen that I see the one I really see is who if I can do that, that would be the most dream and then the act of creativity. [01:02:57] And you say, oh, so excitement is one of the things. Curiosity, yes. Is a big pull and tenacity, you know, OK at that to do those things. But definitely emotions are entering into it. Then there's an intellectual component of it too. [01:03:15] OK, it may be empathy. It may. Can I have an impact? Can I have an impact? The desire to have an impact, that's an emotional thrill. And but it also has empathy. And then you start to see spirituality. But our spirituality, I mean the connectedness to the whole you start to see people operate those things. Those tend to be the things that you see the most up. [01:03:39] And I think you're going to shut down this idea completely. But there's a notion that some of these shapers really walk the line between sort of madness and genius. Do you think madness has a role in any of this, or do you still see Steve Jobs in your mosque as fundamentally irrational? [01:03:59] Yeah, there's a continuum there. And what comes to my mind is that genius is that at often at the edge, in some cases, imaginary genius is at the edge of insanity. And it's almost like a radio that I think, OK, if I can tune it just right, it's playing right. [01:04:23] But if I go a little bit too far, it goes off. Yeah, OK. And so you can you can see this. Kay Jamison was studying bipolar. What it shows is that that's definitely the case because when you're going out there, that imagination, whatever it is that the can be near the edge sometimes doesn't have to always be. [01:04:48] So let me ask you about automation. That's been a part of public discourse recently. [01:04:55] What's your view on the impact of automation, of whether we're talking about I am more basic forms of automation on the economy in the short term and the long term? They have concerns about it, as some do. [01:05:09] Or do you think it's overblown? It's not overblown and it's a it's a giant thing, it'll come at us in a very big way in the future, we're right at the edge of even really accelerating it. It's had a big impact and it will have a big impact. And it's a two edged sword because it'll have tremendous benefits. And at the same time, it has profound benefits and employment and distributions of wealth. Because the way I think think about it is there are certain things human beings can do. [01:05:44] And over time, we've evolved to go to almost higher and higher levels. And now we're almost like we're at this level. You know, what used to be your labor and you would then do your labor and OK, we can get past the labor. We got tractors and things. And you go up, up, up, up, up. And we're up, over and up to the point in our minds where, OK, anything related to mental processing, the computer can probably do better and we can find that. [01:06:15] And so other than almost inventing, you're at a point where the machines and the automation will probably do it better. And that's accelerating. And that's a force and that's a force for the good. And at the same time, it what it does is it displaces people in terms of employment and changes and it produces wealth gaps and all of that. So I think the real issue is that that has to be viewed as a national emergency. In other words, I think the well, the wealth gap, the the income gap, the opportunity gap, all of those things, that force is creating the problems that we're having today. [01:07:00] A lot of the problems, the the great polarity, the disenfranchised, just not equal, not anything approaching equality of education, all of these problems, a lot of problems are coming as a result of that. And so there needs to be viewed really as an emergency situation in which there's a good work, good plan worked out for how to deal with that effectively so that it's dealt with effectively. So because it's it's you know, it's good for the average, it's good for the impact, but it's not good for everyone in the crate's that polarity. [01:07:42] So it's got to be dealt with. [01:07:44] Yeah. And you've talked about the American dream and that that's something that all people should have an opportunity for and that we need to reform capitalism to give that opportunity for everyone. Then ask and one of the ideas in terms of safety nets that support that kind of opportunity, there's been a lot of discussion of universal basic income amongst people. So there's Andrew Yang, who is running on that as a political candidate running for president. On the idea of the universal basic income. [01:08:17] What do you think about that? Giving a thousand dollars or some amount of money to everybody as a way to give them the padding, the freedom to sort of take leaps, to take the call for adventure, to take the crazy pursuit? [01:08:33] Before I get right into my thoughts on universal basic income, I want to start with the notion that opportunity, education, development, creating equality so that people say there's equal opportunity and is the most important thing. And then to find out what is the amount, how are you going to provide that? Where what how does that how do you get the money into a public school system? How do you get the teaching? How do you what do the fleshing out that plan to create equal opportunity in all of its various forms is the most pressing thing to do. [01:09:19] And so, you know, that is that the opportunity, the most important one you're kind of implying is the earlier the better sort of like opportunity to education. So in the early development of a human being is when you should have the equal opportunities. [01:09:37] That's the most important right in the first phase of your life, which goes from birth until you're on your own and you're an adult and you're now out there and you deal with early childhood development, OK? And you take the brain and you say, what's important, the child care, OK, like it makes a world of difference. For example, if you have good parents who are trying to think about instilling the stability in a non traumatic environment to provide them. [01:10:09] So I would say the good guidance that normally comes from. Parents and the good education that they're receiving are the most important things in that person's development, the ability to be able to be prepared to go out there and then to go into a market that's an equal opportunity job market, to be able to then go into that kind of market is a system that creates not only fairness. Anything else is not fair. And then in addition to that, it also is a more effective economic system because the consequences of not doing that to a society are devastating. [01:10:52] If you look at what the difference in outcomes for somebody who completes high school or doesn't complete high school or does each one of those state changes, and you look at what that means in terms of their costs to society, not only themselves, but their cost and incarceration costs and then crimes and all of those things. It's economically better for the society and it's fairer if they can can if they can get those particular things. Once they have those things, then you move on to other things. [01:11:26] But yes, from birth all the way through that process, anything less than that is bad is a tragedy and so on. So that's what that's yeah. Those are the things that I'm estimating. And so my mind, what I would want above all else is to provide that. So with that in mind now, we'll talk about universal basic income. [01:11:47] Start with that. Now we can talk about. Well, right. [01:11:50] Because you have to have that. Now, the question is, what's the best way to provide that? [01:11:55] OK, so when I look at UBI, I really think is what is going to happen with that thousand dollars, OK? And will that thousand dollars come from another program? Does that come from an early childhood developmental program? Who are you giving the thousand dollars to and what will they do for that thousand dollars? I mean, like my reaction would be, I think it's a great thing that everybody should have almost a thousand dollars in their bank and so on. [01:12:24] But when do they get to make decisions or who's the parent? A lot of times you can give a thousand dollars to somebody and it could have a negative result. It can have you know, they can use that money detrimentally, not just productively. And if that money's coming away from some of those other things that are going to produce the things I want and you're shifted to, let's say to come in and give a check doesn't mean its outcomes are going to be good. [01:12:49] And providing those things that I think are so fundamental, important, if it was just everybody can have a thousand dollars and use it. [01:12:56] So when the time is well and use it, well, that would be really, really good because it's almost like everybody you'd wish everybody could have a thousand dollars worth of wiggle room in their lives, OK? [01:13:08] And I think that would be great. I love that. But I want to make sure that these other things that are taken care of. So if it comes out of that budget and, you know, I don't want it to come out of that budget, that's going to be doing those things. And, you know, so you have to figure it out. [01:13:25] And you have a certain skepticism that human nature will use, may not always, in fact, frequently may not use that thousand dollars for the optimal to support the optimal should have something on someone. [01:13:40] One of the big advantages of universal basic income is that if you put it in the hands, let's say parents who know how to do the right things and make the right choices for their children because they're responsible and you say I'm going to give them a thousand dollars wiggle room to use for the benefit of their children. Wow, that sounds great. [01:14:00] If you put it in the hands of, let's say, an alcoholic or drug addicted parent who is not making those choices well for their children. And what they do is they take that thousand dollars and they don't use it, well, then that's going to produce more harm than good. [01:14:17] Well, put your if I may say so, one of the richest people in the world. So you're a good person to ask, does money buy happiness? No, it's been shown that Betawi, once you get over a basic level of income so that you can take care of the pain, you know, you can health and whatever, there's no correlation between the level of happiness that one has and the level of money that one has. That thing that has the highest correlation is quality relationships with others community. [01:14:56] If you look at surveys of these things across all surveys and all societies, it's a sense of community and interpersonal relationships that is not in any way correlated with money. You can go down to native tribes in very poor places or you can go in all different communities. And so they have the opportunity to have that. I'm very lucky in that I started with nothing. So I have the full range. I can tell you I'm not having money by and then having quite a lot of money. [01:15:30] And, you know, I did that in the right order. [01:15:32] So you start from nothing in Long Island, you know, and my dad was a jazz musician, but I but I had all really that I needed because I had two parents who loved me and took good care of me. And I went to a public school that was a good public school. And basically, you know, that you don't need much more than that in order to that's the equal opportunity part. Anyway, what I'm saying is, no, I experienced the range and and there are many studies on the answer to your question. [01:16:01] No, money does not bring happiness. [01:16:04] Bring money gives you an ability to make choices. Does it get in the way in any way of forming those deep, meaningful relationships? [01:16:17] It can. There are lots of ways that it makes negative. That's one of them. It could stand in the way of that. Yes, OK. But I could almost list the ways that it could stand. It could be a problem. Yeah. [01:16:30] What does it buy? So if you can elaborate, you mention a bit of freedom at the most fundamental level. It doesn't take a whole lot, but it takes enough that you can take care of your yourself and your family to be able to. Learn, do the basics of have the relationships, have health care, the basics of those types of things, you know, you can cover the patients and then to have maybe enough security, but maybe not too much security. [01:17:09] The say that that you essentially are OK. OK, that is that's really good. And you don't that's what that's what money will get you and everything else is go either way. [01:17:23] Well there's more. [01:17:24] There's more. OK then beyond that, what it then starts to do, that's the most important thing is. But beyond that, what it stands to do is to help to make your dreams happen in various ways. [01:17:39] OK, so for example, now, you know, like in my case. It's those dreams might not be just my own dreams, they're their impact on others dreams. OK, so my own dreams might be, I don't know, I can pass along these at my stage in life. I could pass along these principles to you. And I can give those they or I could do whatever. I can go on an adventure, I can start a business, I can do those other things, be productive. [01:18:14] I can self actualize in ways that might be not possible otherwise. [01:18:21] And that's that's my own belief. And then in a I can also help others. I mean, this is, you know, to the extent when you get older and with time and whatever very you start to feel connected. Spiritual spirituality is of referring to you can start to have an effect on others that's beneficial and so on. Gives you the ability. I could tell you that people who are very wealthy, who have that a feel that they don't have enough money, Bill Gates will feel almost broke because relative to the things he'd like to accomplish through the Gates Foundation and things like that, you know, oh, my God, he doesn't have enough money to accomplish the things he wishes for. [01:19:03] But those things are not you know, they're not the most fundamental things. So I think that people sometimes think money has value, money doesn't have value. The money is, like you say, just a medium of exchange in a store, all the well. And so what you have to say is what is it that you're going to buy? [01:19:24] Now, there are other people who get their gratification in ways that are different from me. But I think in many cases that let's say somebody who used money to have a status symbol, I what would I say? Or that's probably unhealthy. But then I don't know somebody who says I love a great, gorgeous painting and it's going to cost lots of money in my priorities. I can't I can't get there, but. [01:19:52] But that doesn't mean I don't. Who am I to judge others in terms of, let's say, their element of the freedom to do those things? So it's a little bit complicated, but by and large, that, you know, that's my view on money and wealth. [01:20:05] So let me ask you, in terms of the idea of so much of your passions in life has been through something you might be able to call work on. Alan Watts has this quote. [01:20:18] He said that the the real key to life, secret of life is to be completely engaged with what you're doing in the here and now. [01:20:27] And instead of calling your work, realise it is play. So I'd like to ask, what is the role of work in your life's journey or in a life's journey? [01:20:38] And what do you think about this modern idea of kind of separating work and work life balance? [01:20:45] I have a principle that I believe in is make your work and your passion the same thing. OK, OK, so that's similar to this. In other words, if you can make your work and your passion is just going to work out great. And then of course people have different purposes of work and I don't want to be theoretical about that. People have to take care of their families. So money at a certain point is the base is an important component of that work. [01:21:14] So you look beyond that. What what is money going to get you and what are you trying to achieve? But the most important thing I agree is meaningful work and meaningful relationships. Like if you can get into the thing that you're at, your mission that you're on and you are excited about that mission that you're on, and then you can do that with people who you have the meaningful relationships with. You have meaningful work and meaningful relationships. I mean, that is fabulous for most people. [01:21:47] And it seems that many people struggle to get they're not out of that necessarily because they're constrained by the fact that they have the financial constraints of having to provide for their family and so on. [01:22:02] But it's I mean, you know, this idea is out there that there needs to be a work life balance, which means that most people, when they say we're going to return to the same things most doesn't mean optimal. [01:22:14] But most people seem to not be doing their life's passion, not be not unifying work and passion. [01:22:21] Why do you think that is as well? The work life balance? There's a life arc that you go through, starts at zero and ends somewhere in the vicinity of 80. And there was a phase and there's a and you could look at the different degrees of happiness that happened in those phases. I can go through that, if that was interesting. But we don't have time probably for it. But you get. In the part of the life, that part of the life which has the lowest level of happiness, is age 45 to 55. [01:22:55] And and and because as you move into this second phase of your life and the first phase of your life is when you're learning dependent on others. Second phase of your life is you when you're working and others are dependent on you and you're trying to be successful. And in that phase of one's life, you encounter the work life balance challenge because you're trying to be successful at work and successful at parenting and successful and successful and all those things that take your demand. [01:23:26] And they get into that. And I understand that problem in the work life balance, the issue is primarily to know how to approach that. OK, so I understand it's stressful. It produces stress and it produces bad results and it produces the lowest level of happiness in one's life. It's interesting, as you get later in life, the levels of happiness rise in the highest level of happiness is between ages 70 and 80, which is interesting for other reasons. [01:23:56] But in that spot and that and the key to work life balance is to realize and to learn how to get more out of an hour of life, OK, because an hour of work, what people are thinking is that they have to make a choice between one thing and another. And of course, they they do. But they don't realize that if they develop the skill to get a lot more out of an hour, it's the equivalent of having many more hours in your life. [01:24:31] And so that's why in the book Principles, I try to go into, OK, now how can you get a lot more out of out of an hour that allows you to get more life into your life and it reduces the work life balance and that's the primary struggle in that 35 to 45, if you could linger on that. [01:24:52] So what are the ups and downs of life in terms of happiness in general and perhaps in your own life? [01:24:59] When you look back at the moments, the peaks, it's pretty pretty much the same pattern really in one's life is tends to be a very happy period all the way up. And 16 is like a really great happy you know, I think like myself, you start to get elements of freedom, you get your driver's license, whatever. But 16 is their junior year in high school quite often could be a stressful period to try to get thinking about the high school you go into. [01:25:31] College tends to be very high happiness, generally speaking, freedom and then freedom and friendships. All of that freedom is a big thing. And then you and then 20, 23 is a peak point kind of in and happiness that freedom then sequentially one has a great time. They date, they go out and so on. You find the love of your life, you begin to develop a family. And then with that, as time happens, you have more of your work life balance challenges that come and your responsibilities. [01:26:07] And then as you get there in that mid part of your life, that is the most that is the biggest struggle. Chances are you will crash in that period of time. You know, you'll have you'll have your series of failures. That's that. That's that. That's when you go into the abyss. You learn you hopefully learn from those mistakes. You have a metamorphosis. You come out, you change, you hopefully become better and you take more responsibilities and so on. [01:26:34] And then when you get to the later part, as you are starting to approach the transition and that late part of the second phase of your life before you go into the third phase of your life, second phase is you're working, trying to be successful. Third phase of your life is you want people to be successful without you, OK? Yes. You want your kids to be successful without you, because when you're at that phase, they're making their transition from the first face to the second phase and they're trying to be successful. [01:27:08] You want them to be successful without you and you have and your parents are gone and then you have freedom and then you have freedom again. And that with that freedom and then you have these history as shown with this, you have friendships, you have perspective on life, you have different things. And that's one of the reasons that that later part of the life can be real. It on average, actually, it's the highest. Very interesting thing. [01:27:34] If they they there are surveys and say how good do you look and how good do you feel? And that's the highest survey. [01:27:44] The. Now they're not looking the best. Yeah, and they're not feeling the best, right, maybe it's 35 that they're actually looking the best film the best, but they rank the highest at that point. Survey results are being the highest so far that 70 to 80 period of time because it has to do with an attitude on life. Then you start to have grandkids or grandkids or great and you start to experience that transition well. So that's what the arc of life pretty much looks like. [01:28:14] And and I'm experiencing it. [01:28:17] You know, that's even that when you meditate, we're all human or I'm mortal. When you meditate on your own mortality, having achieved a lot of success and whatever dimension, what do you think is the meaning of it all, the meaning of our short existence on Earth as human beings? [01:28:39] I think that evolution is the greatest force of the universe and that we're all tiny bits of an evolutionary type of process where it's just matter and machines that go through time and that we all have a deeply. [01:28:58] Embedded inclination to evolve and contribute to evolution, so I think it's. To personally evolve and contribute to evolution, I could have predicted you would answer that way. It's brilliant and exactly right. And I think we've said it before, but I'll say it again, you have a lot of incredible videos out there that people should definitely watch. [01:29:24] I don't say this often. I mean, it's literally the best spend of time. And in terms of reading principles and reading, basically anything you write on LinkedIn and so on is a really good use of time. It's a lot of light bulb moments, a lot of transformative ideas in there. So. Right. Thank you so much. It's been an honor and I really appreciate it. [01:29:43] It's been a pleasure for me, too. I'm happy to hear it's used to you and others. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Ray Dalio and thank you to our presenting sponsor cash app Download Use Code Leks podcast, you'll get ten dollars and ten dollars will go to First, a STEM education nonprofit that inspires hundreds of thousands of young minds to learn and to dream of engineering our future. If you enjoy this podcast, subscribe on YouTube. Get Five Stars, an Apple podcast, support on Patrón or connect with me on Twitter. [01:30:17] Finally, closing words of advice from Ray D'Alessio. Pain plus reflection equals progress. [01:30:25] Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

本集資源與出處