Jeremy Grantham Urges US Stock Exit Before AI Bubble Collapse

Jeremy Grantham敦促在AI泡沫破裂前撤离美股 亿万富翁投资者Jeremy Grantham警告称，随着极端估值破裂并演变成不可避免的衰退，美股及AI驱动的科技股面临最高达70%的跌幅。 投资者Jeremy Grantham警告称，在估值过高的AI科技股和企业激进支出的推动下，美股即将迎来崩盘。他建议清仓美股，转投国际股票、固定收益债券、现金和贵金属，同时为房地产价值可能出现的30%跌幅做好准备。此外，Grantham还探讨了不受约束的人工智能所带来的生存风险、人形机器人自动化引发的大规模劳动力冲击，以及正在导致全球生育率下降的系统性环境威胁——尤其是微塑料和杀虫剂。 Jeremy Grantham 警告当前 AI 繁荣是历史上最大的投资泡沫，一旦破裂，高估值的科技领头股可能会面临高达 70% 的暴跌。 (9:18) Grantham 建议投资者抛售被严重高估的美股与科技股，将资产配置转向非美海外市场、现金以及固定收益债券。 (18:12) 华尔街资管机构因依赖资产管理规模（AUM）收取管理费，出于商业利益考量，极少会主动警告客户退出市场泡沫。 (20:13) 英国及国际房地产市场需要经历大约 30% 的价格回调，才能将房价收入比恢复到更为合理的历史基准水平。 (16:11) “七巨头”（Magnificent 7）已从以往互不干涉的准垄断领域，转向投入数千亿美元资本支出（CapEx）争夺 AI 主导权的激战。 (36:21)

Veteran investor Jeremy Grantham warns that the United States is caught in an unprecedented artificial intelligence bubble, while facing compounded long-term crises from extreme wealth concentration, failing public institutions, and accelerating chemical toxicity that imperils human fertility. AI Euphoria and Severe US Market Overvaluation (9:18) Grantham argues that US equity markets are dangerously overextended at 35 to 40 times earnings, driven by speculative mania surrounding artificial intelligence. While acknowledging that AI is a transformative technological breakthrough comparable to the railroads or the early internet, he maintains that revolutionary ideas routinely cause speculative manias that end in severe crashes. Drawing historical parallels to Japan's 1989 asset bubble—which traded at 65 times earnings and triggered decades of economic stagnation—and the 2000 dot-com bust, where the Nasdaq fell 82% and Amazon dropped 92%, Grantham projects that leading AI high-flyers could drop by 70%. He highlights that the 'Magnificent 7' tech giants have abandoned their historical division of non-overlapping monopolies to engage in an escalatory, capital-intensive war for AI infrastructure, each committing $100 billion to $200 billion or more in annual capital expenditures. Grantham also views extreme commercial narratives, such as SpaceX's multi-trillion-dollar valuation projections and space colonization claims, as speculative excess detached from physical and ecological limits. Defensive Portfolio Allocation and Wall Street Incentives (57:59) Grantham counsels everyday investors to avoid standard US broad-market indices and high-flying domestic tech stocks, arguing that Wall Street's fee-driven business model structurally prevents large institutions from advising clients to exit overvalued markets. Institutional managers face what John Maynard Keynes identified as career risk: failing conventionally with the consensus carries little penalty, whereas caution during a bubble risks client defections. For capital preservation across multi-decade cycles, Grantham outlines an allocation starkly opposed to domestic consensus: 60% in non-US equities, 25% to 30% in fixed-income government and corporate bonds yielding around 4.5% to 5%, and a 5% to 10% hedge in physical gold or silver. He notes that international equities across Europe, Japan, Canada, and emerging markets trade at far cheaper valuations and have historically mean-reverted after periods of US dominance. Conversely, Grantham completely rejects cryptocurrency as an unproductive speculative tool destined to trend toward zero, and warns that residential property carries structural risk as declining birth rates undermine future demand. Chemical Toxicity and Accelerating Reproductive Collapse (71:28) Beyond market dynamics, Grantham and host Steven Bartlett examine an accelerating ecological and demographic threat: the collapse of human fertility. Citing studies by Shanna Swan and Hagai Levine, Grantham notes that average male sperm counts plunged from 100 million units per milliliter in 1970 to 35 million today—declining at 2.5% annually. Grantham warns that if unchecked, median counts could reach zero by 2045, leaving a majority of couples functionally infertile. The discussion links this decline to ubiquitous endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), PFAS, and microplastics, which were detected in 100% of tested human testicular tissue samples in a cited 2024 study. In addition, Grantham cites Harvard fertility studies showing that low-pesticide diets doubled sperm counts in men and improved female live birth rates from 38% to 68%. He underscores a significant regulatory gap: while the European Union has banned or restricted approximately 1,500 cosmetic chemicals and Canada has restricted 550, the US Food and Drug Administration has banned only 12. Fraying Social Contracts and Civilizational Benchmarks (54:02) Grantham identifies widening domestic inequality as an existential economic threat. In contrast to the post-WWII era (1935–1975), where annual economic growth averaged over 3.5% and lower-income tiers saw equitable wage gains, post-1975 economic policy concentrated gains heavily at the top: the richest 1% of Americans now hold 31% of total wealth, while the bottom 50% share 2.5%. Housing has similarly decoupled from labor earnings, with UK home prices rising from a low of 3.4 times family income in 1994 to over 10 times today. Grantham points to maternal mortality as the primary benchmark of civilizational health, arguing that the United States reflects severe systemic failure. With 20 to 21 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births overall—and 44 per 100,000 among Black mothers—the US trails peers like Britain (5), Germany (4), Sweden (2.1), and Norway (zero). He attributes this disparity to hyper-individualism, commercialized healthcare, and an eroding social contract that isolates vulnerable citizens during crises. Grantham concludes that long-term societal survival requires 'detoxifying capitalism' by treating ecological health, clean water, and a sustainable 2.1 fertility replacement rate as vital public commons rather than externalities. However, whether democratic governments and market structures can overcome corporate lobbying and institutional inertia before demographic and environmental thresholds are breached remains an open question.

资深投资人Jeremy Grantham警告称，当前由人工智能热潮推动的美国股市正处于历史性投机泡沫之中，伴随而来的还有严重的环境毒性与全球生育率危机。他建议普通投资者避开美股并构建多元化防御组合，同时呼吁社会正视化学品污染对人口长期存续的威胁。 AI超级泡沫与美股崩盘风险 (0:00) Grantham指出，历史上重大的资产泡沫往往围绕最具颠覆性的技术展开，如早期的铁路与互联网。虽然人工智能确实是革命性概念，但高质量的技术构想无法阻止投机过剩导致的崩溃。他认为当前美股估值处于极度高位，市盈率在35至40倍左右，高度类似2000年互联网泡沫破裂前夕。一旦泡沫破裂，受到过度炒作的AI与大型科技股可能下跌70%，这与历史周期的调整幅度一致，例如2000年崩盘中纳斯达克指数曾下挫82%，亚马逊股价一度暴跌92%。 他强调所谓的“美股七巨头”（Magnificent 7）以往在各自细分市场形成近乎垄断的格局，但如今全数挤入同一AI赛道展开白热化基础设施军备竞赛，单家公司的年资本支出甚至推高至1000亿至2000亿美元，并伴随庞大举债。Grantham认为，SpaceX等高估值企业同样被过度的科幻幻想所裹挟，其招股书声称的可寻址市场和太空采矿构想缺乏现实依据，在没有低成本买入的前提下存在巨大泡沫风险。 华尔街激励机制与普通人避险策略 (20:13) Grantham揭露了传统资产管理行业的结构性悖论：华尔街机构按资产规模收取管理费，警告客户撤出市场等同于毁灭自身营收基础，因此机构顾问往往在历次崩盘前夕依然维持盲目乐观。援引凯恩斯的经济理论，他指出金融市场本质上是基于群体动量的行为丛林，基金经理宁可与同行一起犯错也不愿独自承担择时风险。因此，个人投资者必须学会自我保护，不要对主流机构的预警抱有幻想。 针对工薪阶层与普通投资者的资金配置，Grantham坚决反对持有标普500指数或美国科技股，并预测比特币作为无实质功能的投机与洗钱工具有朝一日将归零。他建议的防御性配置为：60%配置于估值远低于美国的非美海外股票（覆盖欧、日、加、澳及新兴市场），25%至30%配置于现金与固定收益债券（如美国国债或优质企业债），以及5%至10%的黄金白银等贵金属对冲资产。同时，他指出全球多地房地产价格已脱离居民收入基本面，加上少子化趋势，未来同样面临显著回调压力。 环境内分泌干扰物与全球生育危机 (67:27) 除了金融风险，Grantham近年将其基金会关注点拓展至生态与公共卫生领域。研究数据显示，男性精子浓度从远古时期的每毫升1.18亿个降至1970年的1亿个，目前已跌破正常受孕临界点（4500万个）至3500万个，年均降幅达2.5%。若依照流行病学家Shanna Swan等人的预测曲线持续下去，到2045年男性精子中位数可能接近于零，全球目前已有约17%的年轻夫妇需要医疗辅助生育。 这一生殖危机的核心诱因是环境中泛滥的内分泌干扰物与合成化学品。邻苯二甲酸酯（广泛存在于化妆品与包装中）会抑制男性胎儿的睾酮生成，双酚A（BPA）与全氟烷基物质（PFAS）严重损伤精子活性，微塑料更已在100%的人体睾丸组织样本中被检出。哈佛大学等机构的研究显示，摄入高农药残留果蔬的男性精子计数仅为食用清洁饮食者的一半，女性试管婴儿活产率也从68%大幅降至38%。除此以外，广泛使用的除草剂阿特拉津（Atrazine）在低剂量下即可诱发两栖动物雌化并严重抑制雄性激素。 监管缺位、贫富分化与社会契约瓦解 (82:08) Grantham与主持人对比了欧美在公共安全监管上的巨大落差。在化妆品添加剂方面，欧盟禁用了约1500种有害成分，加拿大禁用了550种，而美国FDA仅禁用12种。监管缺失导致美国国民健康状况恶化，过去70年美瑞两国的预期寿命差距从2年扩大至6年。在母婴安全这一衡量文明的核心指标上，美国孕产妇死亡率高达每10万人20至21人（黑人族群更高达44人），远逊于英国（5人）、德国（4人）、瑞典（2.1人）及挪威（0人）。 这种落后深植于美国日趋极端的贫富分化与商业导向模式。自1975年以来，美国绝大部分净增长收益流向了前10%甚至前0.01%的顶层人群，最富有的1%掌控了全国31%的财富，而底层50%仅拥有2.5%。公共基础设施的老化、住房负担沉重及社区联结瓦解，加剧了居民生存困境。Grantham主张必须“净化资本主义”，将抚育健康的下一代视为如同清洁水源与空气一般的社会公产，通过严苛的化学品立法与社会兜底政策重建现代社会的公共契约。 Jeremy Grantham结合六十年的投资经验与长期环境研究，断言由AI炒作推高的美股资产价格崩跌只是时间问题，而更深层次的危机在于化学污染对人类生育能力及劳动力人口的侵蚀。该观点对科技颠覆的商业变现周期与环境健康成本持高度悲观态度，强调若社会不能摆脱唯利是图的短期思维、重塑监管与社区支撑，其繁荣基础将从金融与生理双重层面走向瓦解。

## Background 该内容由知名访谈频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 6 月 25 日发布在 YouTube 平台。视频简介指出，曾准确预言互联网泡沫和 2007 年次贷危机的传奇亿万富翁投资家 Jeremy Grantham 再次发出警告，直指当前的 AI 狂潮是美国历史上最大的投资泡沫，并揭示了泡沫必将破裂的逻辑、保护个人财富的具体资产配置、房价需下跌 30% 的原因，以及日常生活用品中的化学物质对人类生育能力的严重危害。 ## TL;DR 在长达近两小时的对话中，Jeremy Grantham 警告称美股与 AI 热门概念股估值已处于历史极度危险区间，未来面临高达 70% 的崩盘风险，建议投资者彻底避开美股和加密货币，转向非美股票宽基指数、债券与适量贵金属进行防御。他深入揭露了华尔街投行与理财顾问因商业利益和从众机制永远不会提示客户离场的内幕，并指出极端的贫富分化正在瓦解现代社会的社会契约。此外，Grantham 重点剖析了更为严峻的文明存续危机：微塑料、PFAS 和果蔬农药残留等环境内分泌干扰物正导致全球男性精子数量加速腰斩，人类若不尽快遏止化学毒素并重建生育支撑体制，恐将在 2045 年前后迎来灾难性的功能性不育与人口塌陷。 ## Atmosphere & style 全场对话呈现出一种从容深邃却又令人不寒而栗的冷峻清醒感。87 岁的 Grantham 阅尽周期兴衰，以看透世事的超脱口吻、大量量化数据与历史寓言，平静且夹带黑色幽默地剥开资本狂欢的画皮；而正值壮年的主持人 Steven Bartlett 则将自身面临的备孕困境、创投经历与年轻一代的普遍焦虑带入提问，两者之间形成了极富张力的高低维认知碰撞。节目从金融泡沫的理性拆解，层层推进至关乎人类繁衍、身体毒性与社会解体的末世警钟，听感极具冲击力与思想压迫感。 ## Bulletin - [09:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=550s) 传奇投资人 Jeremy Grantham 警告称，当前美股尤其是 AI 热门概念股正处于美国史上最大泡沫的顶峰，估值高达 35 至 40 倍市盈率，泡沫破裂时领头羊股票暴跌 70% 属于情理之中。 - [01:00:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3608s) 针对当前极端高估的市场环境，Grantham 建议普通投资者坚决避开美股，将资金配置调整为 60% 非美股票指数、5% 至 10% 贵金属以及适度比例的债券与现金。 - [01:10:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4244s) 全球男性精子数量正以每年 2.5% 的速度递减，若照此速度恶化，到 2045 年全球男性精子数量中位数将趋近于零，环境塑化剂、农药残留及 PFAS 等内分泌干扰物是核心元凶。 - [52:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3165s) 美国社会的贫富悬殊已攀升至历史极端，前 1% 富人掌握全美 31% 财富，孕产妇死亡率等底层民生指标在发达国家中垫底，显示其社会契约正面临深刻瓦解。 ## Key takeaways - [04:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=280s) 史上最伟大的泡沫往往围绕最伟大的创新诞生，正如当年的铁路与互联网，AI 虽然是真实的颠覆性技术，但也必将迎来一次出清过剩资本的毁灭性崩盘。 - [09:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=550s) 高估值概念股面临高达 70% 的回撤风险，类似于 2000 年纳斯达克暴跌 82% 以及 1989 年日本股市泡沫破灭后长达 20 年的长期低迷。 - [19:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=1186s) 华尔街投资机构存在根本性的利益冲突与职业风险，绝不会在泡沫见顶时提示客户离场，因为空仓会导致管理费流失且提早看空的基金经理极易被解雇。 - [36:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=2181s) 科技七巨头（Mag 7）已从昔日各自割据垄断的划江而治，演化为全部杀入 AI 算力军备竞赛、互相拼杀资本开支的“罗马斗兽场”格局。 - [47:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=2858s) 马斯克描绘的火星殖民在物理与生物学上站不住脚，微重力环境会导致人体骨骼和心肌衰竭，高能宇宙辐射更迫使人类只能深居地底，脱离现实的叙事反映了极端的太空估值泡沫。 - [54:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3242s) 极端的贫富差距若无法通过温和累进税制等政策逆转，在人类历史上往往最终只能通过国家体制瓦解、全面战争或暴力革命这三种灾难性途径重置。 - [57:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3479s) 给 30 岁左右年轻野心家的建议是：若追求财富最大化，应毫无保留地孤注一掷投身 AI 前沿，承担巨大风险以获取领先认知；若考虑社会系统失序，则应掌握实用的工程农耕技能。 - [01:02:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3778s) 加密货币是纯粹的投机工具与犯罪资金转移管道，缺乏价值储藏与日常支付能力，比特币长期来看终将归零。 - [01:04:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3845s) 全球人口老龄化与生育低谷打破了房产无限增值的神话，当年轻一代购买力枯竭、无法组建家庭时，高房价缺乏持续买盘支撑。 - [01:08:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4124s) 飞行昆虫生物量在数十年内暴跌 50% 至 75%，揭示出整个自然食物链与生态底座正面临瓦解，同样的化学毒害正通过食物链反馈到人类生殖系统。 - [01:16:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4602s) 哈佛大学临床研究证实，摄入高农药残留果蔬会导致男性精子数量减半，并使辅助受孕的成功活产率从 68% 骤降至 38%，农药不仅停留在果皮而是渗透到了果肉内部。 - [01:21:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4904s) 欧美化学品监管存在巨大鸿沟，欧盟禁用了 1500 种化妆品成分和 85 种农药，而美国监管高度宽松，导致全美 45% 自来水检测出 PFAS，国民预期寿命停滞不前。 - [01:18:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4729s) 胎儿在母体子宫内的 270 天对毒素的脆弱度比成人高出 100 到 1000 倍，毒性暴露造成的表观遗传损伤会穿透至少数代人，建议孕妇戒除全部化妆品并全面转向有机饮食。 - [01:31:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=5467s) 维持社会文明存续所需的 2.1 生育率属于必须共同守护的“社会公地”，单纯提供小幅补贴无法逆转出生率崩塌，亟需彻底改变极端追逐短期利润的反家庭资本主义生产体系。 - [01:37:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=5850s) 孕产妇死亡率是衡量文明底线的终极指标，美国孕产妇死亡率在发达国家中最差，反映出极度不平等的医疗体系与冷酷个人主义背后社会契约的瓦解。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=0s) 开场快问快答：远离美股与投机狂热 对话在直截了当的投资建议中拉开序幕。当主持人 Steven Bartlett 询问普通工薪族如何投资自己的工资时，资深投资家 Jeremy Grantham 给出了极其干脆且令人震惊的回答：“不要持有美股。这是一个你立刻就能采取行动的简单策略。”即使被追问是否连被视为长期定投基准的标普 500 指数（S&P 500）也不能碰，他也斩钉截铁地予以否定；若持有大量美国科技股，他的个人建议更是“全数卖出”。 面对主持人列举的几大热门资产，Grantham 逐一亮出观点： - **SpaceX**：当主持人提到自己投资了 SpaceX 时，Grantham 淡然调侃道“祝你好运”，直言这是一家故事讲得极其精彩的公司，但背后隐含着极大的狂热泡沫。 - **加密货币（Crypto）与比特币（Bitcoin）**：Grantham 毫不客气地称其为“毫无意义的废话”，除了为罪犯提供洗钱与隐秘转移资金的工具之外一无是处，并断言比特币“终将归零”。 - **泡沫与破裂的周期**：拥有长达 60 年投资生涯、管理资产规模最高曾达 1650 亿美元的 Grantham 指出，历史上所有的巨大泡沫都围绕着真正改变世界的伟大概念诞生（如当年的铁路与互联网），狂热导致资本过度涌入，而随后伴随而来的必是痛苦的经济崩溃与长期的艰难萧条。如今，AI 正在演变为美国乃至人类历史上最庞大的投资泡沫。 - **泡沫崩溃的时间节点与顾问陷阱**：Grantham 预测这一崩溃并非遥遥无期的远期事件，可能在未来几天、几周、几个月，但几乎必然会在未来几年内彻底引爆。同时他提醒，普通人永远不要指望投资顾问会给出撤离市场的诚实警示，因为劝客户离场意味着顾问公司将失去大笔管理费业务。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 伟大创新的泡沫破裂循环 accDescr: 展示从变革性技术诞生到资本狂热过剩、再到暴跌与少数幸存者崛起的历史周期流程。 subgraph S1["狂热孕育阶段"] A["划时代伟大变革<br/>(铁路 / 互联网 / AI)"] --> B["全市场乐观情绪极度高涨"] B --> C["资本过度投资涌入<br/>(超高估值与离谱叙事)"] end subgraph S2["出清与重塑阶段"] C --> D["流动性逆转与泡沫破裂"] D --> E["资产价格断崖式下跌<br/>(如 Amazon 曾重挫 92%)"] E --> F["长期经济阵痛与萧条"] F --> G["少数洗劫后幸存巨头<br/>真正重塑并接管世界"] end ``` --- ### [02:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=120s) 频道订阅插播 主持人 Steven Bartlett 打断谈话，向观众分享了一份来自后台团队的数据报告。数据显示，有相当比例的忠实常客在不知情的情况下被系统随机取消了订阅。由于节目正在冲刺一个极其重要的里程碑订阅人数，Bartlett 恳请经常收看节目的观众花一秒钟检查自己是否点击了订阅按钮，并承诺团队每周都会全力以赴争取最重磅的嘉宾与深度对话，以此作为对观众免费支持的长期回馈。 --- ### [02:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=174s) 长期视角与“增长永恒论”的人性盲点 重回采访，Bartlett 问及这位掌管过千亿美元的投资巨擘如何从专业层面自我定义。Grantham 坦言，自己极少在社交场合做所谓的职业自我介绍，但他深知自己的核心优势在于： 1. 拥有比绝大多数人都要漫长得多的投资时间跨度（Long-term Horizon）； 2. 擅长从极高的抽象层级审视事物本质——探究“这里究竟在发生什么，而大家又遗漏了什么”。 Grantham 深入剖析道，人类在漫长的进化中形成了短视且极其容易盲目乐观的本能，人们渴望从所有事物中挖掘好消息，刻意回避任何令人不悦的严酷现实。这种心理投射到金融领域，便催生了“资本可以永远稳定复合增长”的荒谬幻觉。他引用了自己心目中为数不多的偶像之一——经济学家 Kenneth Boulding 的名言： > “在有限的地球上，唯有疯子和经济学家才会相信永无止境的复合增长。” Grantham 感慨这句话无比精准，现实中的主流经济学家往往坚信增长可以永久持续，以为一切复杂危机都能单凭价格机制轻松调控，完全无视自然界与经济周期的硬性法则。 --- ### [04:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=280s) AI 泡沫：最伟大的技术与最疯狂的崩溃 Bartlett 顺势将话题引向当下全民狂热的焦点——人工智能（AI）。Grantham 首先毫不吝啬地肯定了 AI 的技术地位：在他看来，AI 的重要性完全可以与蒸汽铁路并驾齐驱，是过去两百年来塑造人类文明的伟大创举之一，必将彻底重塑一切现实规则。 然而，正因为技术如此真实、如此具有颠覆性，泡沫才更具毁灭性。大众通常存在认知误区，以为泡沫纯粹由骗局（Scam）构成，但 Grantham 强调历史事实恰恰相反：“最伟大的泡沫往往围绕最重要、最伟大的构想产生。” - **铁路泡沫的历史教训**：当年所有人都能一眼看出铁路将改变世界，于是全人类的资本蜂拥而至。然而过度盲目的超前投资最终引发惨烈崩盘，相关股票全线崩溃，投资者血本无归。但在残骸之上，铁路确实最终改变了全球物流格局。 - **互联网泡沫与亚马逊的启示**：1999 年互联网狂潮席卷全球，亚马逊（Amazon）股价暴涨六七倍；然而在随后的互联网泡沫破裂风暴中，亚马逊股价惨烈暴跌了整整 92%。但正是从这片狼藉中浴火重生后，亚马逊才真正接管并重构了现代零售业版图。 因此，越是显而易见的伟大趋势，吸引的投机泡沫就越膨胀，随之而来的出清也就越彻底。Grantham 指出，所有历史数据与技术指标都表明，当前这轮美国史上最大的投资泡沫已经逼近历史顶峰。这种癫狂在资本市场的各个角落展露无遗，比如 SpaceX 在其市场愿景中竟宣称其潜在可服务市场规模（TAM）相当于全球 GDP 的四分之一，甚至畅想小行星采矿的无限红利。Grantham 断言，五十年或一百年后的后人回顾 SpaceX 的招股材料时，一定会像今天人们谈论南海泡沫（South Sea Bubble）时那样将其传为奇谈——“一项价值不可估量、但当下却根本无法证明其实现的宏伟企业”。 --- ### [06:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=417s) 纵横华尔街六十年：从开拓者到千亿巨匠 为了让观众清晰了解其言论背后的行业分量，Bartlett 请 Grantham 梳理了其传奇的职业生涯。 - **行业的洪荒时代（1968 年）**：Grantham 在 1968 年踏入投资界。当时华尔街几乎不存在现代意义上的量化数学模型，行业主要充斥着家境优渥、在 JP Morgan 等机构谋得一份闲职的富家子弟，整体缺乏科学的投资纪律。 - **投资理念的先驱创立**：在接下来的十年间，投资逐渐走向专业化与严肃化。T. Rowe Price 树立了“成长股”（Growth Stocks）理念；Grantham 与少数先驱则率先奠定了“价值股”（Value Stocks）的核心框架——寻找那些价格远低于其实际价值的便宜资产。随后，他在自己创办的首家公司 Batterymarch Financial Management 真正开创了“小盘股”（Small-cap）这一此前在资本市场根本不存在的投资分类。 - **指数基金的独立发明人**：当被问及是否是他发明了指数基金时，Grantham 客观表示，当时有两三位先驱在彼此不知情的情况下各自独立构思并实践了这一模式。 在长达约 60 年的职业生涯中，他与合伙人 Mayo 和 Van Otterloo 共同打造了知名机构 GMO。在行业巅峰时期，他们单一自然年管理的外部资金规模高达 1650 亿美元（目前公司依然掌管着 850 亿美元）。Grantham 个人由此积累了超过 10 亿美元的财富，并且他特别强调“每一分钱都按规定缴纳了税款”。如今已是 87 岁高龄的他，尽管常年被外界冠以“亿万富翁”的头衔，但其名下财富的大半早已捐赠出去——他已将超过 90% 的财富注入格拉汉姆环境保护基金会（Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment），把绝大部分本金配置于前沿绿色科技，致力于应对全球气候变化危机。 ### [09:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=550s) 资产泡沫的本质与高估值资产的惨烈崩盘 访谈一开始，主持人 Steven Bartlett 提到 Jeremy Grantham 已经把自己 90% 的财富捐赠给了专注于绿色科技的基金会，Grantham 甚至淡然地纠正道："可能是 95% 吧（Maybe 95. Yeah.）。"随后，主持人将话题拉回普通人最关心的问题——到底什么是资产泡沫？泡沫就是每个人都陷入极度亢奋、看到显而易见的趋势便盲目涌入，推高股价，直到图表上的曲线陡峭上升，随后不可避免地迎来毁灭性暴跌。当被问及眼下的崩盘对普通人意味着什么时，Grantham 直言不讳地指出，那些被捧上天的"领头羊股票"（high flyers）——尤其是借由 AI 概念大涨特涨的热门股——将会面临历史上最惨烈的抛售；从当前空前的高估值来看，哪怕"暴跌 70% 也完全在情理之中（a 70% decline would not be unexpected）"。 为了证明 70% 的跌幅绝非危言耸听，Grantham 梳理了资本市场历史上的几场重大泡沫崩溃： - **2000年互联网科技泡沫**：代表成长股的纳斯达克指数（Nasdaq）累计暴跌了整整 82%。 - **1989年日本股市泡沫**：这是历史上最庞大的资产泡沫。当年日本经济看似统治了全世界，丰田汽车把通用汽车打得节节败退，家家户户炫耀厨房里的 12 英寸索尼彩电，人人的腰带上都挂着日本制造的随身听（Walkman）。1989 年日本股市市值甚至一度超越了整个美国市场，估值达到荒唐的 65 倍市盈率（即每一美元盈利对应 65 美元市值）。泡沫破裂后，日本股市连跌了整整 20 年，外界常说的"失去的十年"在深入分析后实际上是"失去的二十年"。 - **当前美股估值对比**：美股在 2000 年科技泡沫时的市盈率约为 35 倍；根据不同口径，目前的估值在 35 到 40 倍左右。虽然尚未达到日本当年的 65 倍极端，但已处于历史性的危险高位。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 历史重大资产泡沫破裂与跌幅对比 accDescr: 展示1929年大萧条、1972年漂亮50、1989年日本股市、2000年科技泡沫及当前AI泡沫的崩盘幅度与后续影响。 subgraph HistoricCrashes["历史主要泡沫破裂轨迹"] A["1929年 美股崩盘<br/>跌幅超 80%"] --> B["引发长达数年的大萧条"] C["1972年 漂亮50（Nifty 50）<br/>经通胀调整后暴跌 65%"] --> D["大萧条以来最严重经济衰退之一"] E["1989年 日本泡沫（PE 65倍）"] --> F["陷入长达20年的漫长熊市"] G["2000年 纳斯达克网络泡沫<br/>指数暴跌 82%"] --> H["随后经历长达10年的负回报周期"] end subgraph CurrentWarning["当前AI与美股周期预测"] I["当前美股及AI高热概念股<br/>（估值约 35-40倍 PE）"] -.-> J["预期面临高达 70% 级别的暴跌风险"] end ``` --- ### [11:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=695s) 财富效应逆转：从市场暴跌到经济衰退 Grantham 深入阐述了股市崩盘如何渗透并摧毁普通人的生活。一旦狂热的明星公司开始大规模裁员，社会情绪会迅速逆转。这就涉及经典的"财富效应"：当人们在股市赚到钱时，会习惯性地将新增纸面财富的 2% 到 3% 拿出来进行日常消费；而一旦市场崩盘，反向机制就会启动——人们的账面财富瞬间缩水，感到自己变穷了，从而大幅缩减支出。消费萎缩随即传导到实体经济，使整个经济体系陷入重压。 回顾历史上的每一次大崩盘，紧随其后的都是漫长而痛苦的经济寒冬。1929 年美股最终崩盘超过 80%，直接引爆了持续数年的大萧条（Great Depression）；1972 年由 IBM、可口可乐等大公司组成的"漂亮50"（Nifty 50）见顶后，在经通胀调整后的实际跌幅达 65%，紧随其后的经济衰退是自大萧条以来最严峻的一次危机。当风暴来临，没有人能置身事外。 --- ### [12:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=773s) 防御指南：如何利用债券与现金实现资产多元化 面对即将到来的下行周期，没有巨额储蓄、在普通公司上班的工薪族应当如何自保？Grantham 斩钉截铁地给出了第一生存法则："永远保持多元化配置（Rule number one is always be diversified）。"多元化意味着手中必须持有现金、适度持有黄金白银等贵金属，并且配置相当比例的债券。 主持人承认自己并不清楚债券的具体运作机制，Grantham 耐心做起了金融通识科普： - **债券的本质**：债券实际上就是一份带有固定利率的借款协议（例如年利率 5%）。只要借款方保持信用，投资者就能稳稳拿到利息。借给美国政府就是购买美国国债，这是美国政府为其公共开支融资的方式；投资者既可以购买 30 年、10 年、2 年的长期与中期债券，也可以购买 90 天期的短期国库券（Treasury bills）。 - **个人购买途径**：主持人现场查阅资料发现，如果想直接借钱给美国政府，完全可以绕过华尔街，通过美国财政部官方网站 `treasurydirect.gov` 开设账户并绑定银行卡，零佣金、零手续费按面值认购各类短期、中期与 Series I 储蓄国债，由美国政府的完全信用担保。如果想购买苹果（Apple）这类优质公司的企业债，可以通过富达（Fidelity）、先锋领航（Vanguard）等主流券商的固定收益板块直接买入。 - **二级市场交易特征**：Grantham 补充澄清，个人投资者在二级市场上买卖企业债，并不是把增量资金直接借给苹果，而是从现有的持有人手中承接债券。当苹果最初发行 100 亿美元债券并承诺 3.5% 的票息（Coupon）后，这些债券的面值在市场上会随着利率波动而变为 92 美元或 107 美元，投资者通过经纪商完成过户。 - **收益率现状**：在 1974 年的高通胀时期，债券利率曾达到 8%、9% 乃至 10%。当前 10 年期美债收益率大约在 4.46%，而苹果 10 年期企业债收益率约为 4.7%，相当于投入 1,000 美元，十年内可以稳稳收回约 475 美元的利息收益。 --- ### [16:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=991s) 被扭曲的房产神话与难以承受的高房价 谈到多元化投资中是否应包含房地产时，Grantham 指出，房地产虽然可以作为配置的一环，但以历史标准来看"目前昂贵得离谱（pretty darn expensive by historical standards）"。各国政府和金融体系人为制造了房价持续走高的局面——这让已经持有房产的人沾沾自喜，却将渴望拥有居所的年轻人推入了深渊。 Grantham 列举了残酷的对比数据： - **历史与现实的断层**：在英国，1994 年以前的 80 年间，有 67 年房价是持平甚至下跌的；1994 年典型英国住房的价格大约是家庭年收入的 3.4 倍，这几乎是半个世纪以来的低谷水平。然而从 1994 年至今，英国房价一路飙升到了家庭年收入的 10 倍以上。 - **年轻一代的生存困境**：当房价达到家庭年收入的 10 倍时，普通年轻夫妇根本无力负担购房成本，而高昂的房价直接同步反映到租金上，导致他们的日常生存开支被极限挤压。 - **全球性的普遍泡沫**：这种扭曲现象在加拿大、澳大利亚、中国以及欧洲大部分地区同样普遍存在，过去 30 年里各地房价几乎被允许毫无节制地狂飙。 - **降价预期的局限性**：哪怕未来房价暴跌 30%，房价收入比回落到 6 至 7 倍，对年轻人来说依然贵得要命，因为这一水平仍然是过去黄金年代健康估值的整整两倍。 --- ### [18:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=1092s) 绝对避开美股：为什么非美市场才是安全避风港 针对必须持有股票资产的投资者，Grantham 给出了一个极其明确且可操作的核心建议："如果你必须持有股票，请买在美国之外的股票。千万不要持有美股（particularly if you have to own stocks, own them outside America. Don't own US stocks）。" Grantham 阐明了他看空美股并力挺非美资产的逻辑： - **估值优势与超额表现**：海外股票的价格远比美股便宜得多。自去年初以来，新兴市场、欧洲国家、日本、加拿大和澳大利亚等海外股票的表现已经大幅战胜了美股。投资者可以通过"除美国外全球指数"（World ex-US）或新兴市场指数基金来进行布局。在未来 10 到 20 年的周期里，海外市场即便踉踉跄跄也能平稳渡过，但他对美股毫无信心。 - **美股严重高估的代价**：当主持人追问为什么断定美股在 5 到 10 年内无法安然无恙时，Grantham 警告说，美股今天被严重高估的程度甚至超过了 2000 年。 - **2000 至 2010 年的惨痛教训**：在 2000 年科技泡沫破裂前，GMO 曾预测未来 10 年美股年化收益率为 -2%，最终实际年化表现为 -3%。在整整十年的时间里，投资美股的人非但一无所获，期末账户里的钱反而比十年前最初投入的本金还要少。历史正在卷土重来，当今过热的估值注定了美股未来十年的结局同样难逃厄运。 ### [19:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=1186s) 投行与投资顾问的根本谎言：为何华尔街从不提醒你离场 Jeremy Grantham 警告称，当股市像今天这样陷入极度高估时，投资者往往会遭受沉重的迎头痛击。历史教训历历在目——日本股市在泡沫破裂后，投资者整整经历了 20 年的亏损，30 年过去仍未能回本，足足耗费了 35 年才终于重返曾经的高点。Grantham 直言，在当前极度虚高的市场环境下，投资者最该做的是为自己负责并“保护好自己的退路（watch your tail）”。然而，投资者绝不可能从华尔街的投资顾问口中听到“清仓离场、规避风险”的建议。 从 1929 年大崩盘、1972 年“漂亮 50（Nifty 50）”破裂，到 2000 年互联网泡沫破灭，以高盛（Goldman Sachs）为代表的华尔街顶尖机构从未向客户发出过离场预警。Grantham 剖析了其背后的商业利益机制：劝说客户撤出市场是一门“糟糕的生意”。投资机构若与泡沫对抗，就会失去大量管理规模和管理费收入。更致命的是，泡沫破裂的时间具有巨大的不确定性，而客户的耐心往往远比市场的非理性周期要短。投资顾问一旦过早预警，而市场继续如当年的日本股市一样疯狂上扬，客户就会毫不留情地解雇他们。Steven Bartlett 指出，这表明全球资产管理巨头的激励机制与普通投资者的利益存在根本冲突；那些深谙周期之道的业内人士很可能早已悄悄调整个人资产，却依然在公开场合持续唱多。 Grantham 分享了自己在 1998 至 1999 年科技股泡沫顶峰时期的亲身经历。在一场有 1,200 名专业人士参加的证券分析师协会（Society of Analysts）年会上，他在辩论前请在场的全职股票市场专家举手，现场举起了 400 只手。Grantham 随后向这 400 位专家提出了两个直击要害的问题： - **问题一**：当时标普的市盈率高达 31 倍（而历史正常均值仅在 15 至 17 倍左右）。如果估值在未来 10 年内回归到正常的 17 倍，是否必然会导致一场重大的熊市？全场 400 名分析师一致回答：“是的，必然会导致熊市。” - **问题二**：你们认为这种情况会发生吗？结果有超过 99% 的人认为估值一定会回归，即必然会迎来大熊市。 这群分析师正是高盛、摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）、摩根大通（JPMorgan）等华尔街巨头的核心智囊和底层“机房动力”，他们在数据分析层面完全确认熊市近在眼前。然而，同台辩论的投行高层和市场公关代表却在讲台上若无其事地安抚大众：“Jeremy，别太激动，我们能平稳度过这一切。”Grantham 痛斥这是对公众信任的巨大背叛。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 华尔街机构利益冲突与职业风险机制 accDescr: 展示了投行分析师内部认知与对外销售策略的分歧，以及提早离场面临的被解雇风险。 subgraph Internal["投行内部认知与机制"] A["底层分析师数据研究<br/>（99% 确认高估值必崩）"] B["管理费与商业模式<br/>（规模驱动收益，对抗泡沫丢业务）"] end subgraph External["对外表态与后果"] C["公关与管理层持续唱多<br/>（'别紧张，能安稳度过'）"] D["过早预警的基金经理<br/>（牛市落后即刻被客户开除）"] end A --> B B --> C B --> D ``` 谈及 GMO 自身的教训，Grantham 坦言他甚至同情华尔街机构的妥协，因为坚守原则的代价极其高昂。在 1998 至 1999 年间，GMO 提前两年零三个月警告科技泡沫并采取防御，结果在客户眼里他们“完全看错了”，短短两年多内 GMO 丢掉了一半的管理规模。大众普遍误以为基金经理会在熊市因亏损被解雇，但事实并非如此：在熊市中，全市场陷入僵滞，大家都在等待见底，事后顶多解雇几位业绩最差的；而在非理性的牛市狂欢中，养老金主管们在打高尔夫球时看到同僚大赚特赚而自己落后，会瞬间陷入暴怒并立刻将保守审慎的基金经理开除。 --- ### [26:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=1569s) 创业者生存法则与凯恩斯式的“非理性繁荣” 面对当前估值处于历史罕见超级巨浪之中的市场环境，Steven 谈及一位近期致电求助的早期 AI 初创公司创始人。该企业虽然尚未实现盈利，完全依赖外部资本输送，但已累计融资约 3 亿美元。这位创始人敏锐嗅到了崩盘气息，计划趁当前流动性充裕的窗口期尽可能多融资金，待崩盘来临、同行因融不到钱纷纷倒闭时，像“秃鹰”一样以极低代价收购竞争对手与优质资产。 Grantham 对这一策略大加赞赏，脱口称赞“好小子（Good lad）”，并针对依赖资本输送或仅盈亏平衡的创业者给出了核心建议： - **锁定长期资本**：凡是目前能够拿到手、锁定住的资金，务必尽早入账。 - **推行极度保守主义**：在各个业务维度留足安全垫，做好应对即将到来的风暴的准备。这一法则在平时或许是稳健选择，但在估值见顶的今天尤为关键。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 动量交易与资产泡沫正反馈循环 accDescr: 展现了宏观宽松环境下，动量心理推高股价并自我强化的循环路径。 A["宏观利好 & 资金充裕"] --> B["股价上涨形成动量"] B --> C["心理预期转变<br/>（投机者猜测下家出价）"] C --> D["散户与更多资金涌入"] D --> B ``` 在剖析泡沫的形成机制时，Grantham 驳斥了西方传统金融学中的“有效市场假说（Efficient Market Hypothesis）”。该假说声称股价是由企业未来所有现金流与股利贴现之和决定的，Grantham 斥其为“彻头彻尾的胡说八道”。他援引著名经济学家约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯（John Maynard Keynes）在《就业、利息和货币通论》（*The General Theory*）中的洞见指出，股市从来不是理性的计算器，而是彻头彻尾的“行为丛林（behavioral jungle）”。股价归根结底取决于市场心理——即“你认为别人愿意花多少钱买单”。每当经济环境有利、流动性充裕时，上涨的股价就会吸引更多买家涌入，形成由动量驱动的正反馈泡沫；泡沫吹得越大，卷入的人就越多。 --- ### [28:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=1739s) AI 革命的致命两极：全人类躺赢还是被更高级智能抹去？ 当话题从市场估值转向驱动本轮狂潮的核心底层技术——人工智能（AI）时，Grantham 毫不迟疑地肯定其深远影响力，断言“它将改变一切”。然而，与以往工业或信息技术浪潮不同，AI 展现出了一个极具戏剧性的反常现象：全球顶层对于其终局走向**毫无共识**。 Grantham 指出，在以往的重大趋势中，顶尖学者与一线实操人员或许认知不同，但当下关于 AI 的分歧已演变成激烈的思想内战： - 站在人类智力顶端的诺贝尔奖得主之间针锋相对、观点极端撕裂； - 科技巨头高管层内部爆发着极其剧烈的认知冲突； - 一线技术研发人员的判断同样千差万别。 目前的争论完全撕裂在两个不可调和的极端维度之间：一派极乐天真地认为，AI 将创造出无限充裕的财富，让人类彻底免于劳作，所有人都能终日在海滩度假享受生活；另一派则深怀末日忧虑，认为当机器在未来拥有远超人类的高阶智能后，可能会出于意外或蓄意，将脆弱的人类彻底从地球上抹去。Grantham 抛出了一个发人深省的历史与进化质问：在整个地球生命史与人类历史的长河中，何曾出现过“一种处于更高层级的上位智慧实体，能够持久、稳定地对处于劣势的低阶智能保持仁慈”的先例？ ### [29:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=1797s) AI 的母性本能与“善意”对齐难题 对话从“高等智能对低等智能是否存在善意”的议题展开。Jeremy Grantham 提到，历史上高阶智能对低阶智能怀有善意的唯一典型范例就是“母亲对婴儿”。主持人 Steven Bartlett 回忆起此前采访 AI 领域先驱 Geoffrey Hinton 时的对话，Grantham 也表示正是那期出色的节目让他关注到了 Bartlett 的播客。然而 Bartlett 对这个类比提出了质疑：现实中并非所有父母都对孩子温柔以待，而且人类真的能在 AI 中植入这种“母性本能”吗？ Grantham 指出，包括 Hinton 在内的许多担忧 AI 风险的学者都认为，如果人类执意要不顾一切地加速推进 AI 研发，唯一的希望就是极其谨慎地为其构建“善良与仁慈的态度（Benevolence）”。理论上这并非不可能，但理应在技术全面推进前先解决这个问题；而现实情况是人类在尚未解决对齐问题时便在大干快跑，这极其危险。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: AI对齐与善意定义的现实困境 accDescr: 展现从为AI设定善意目标到产生不可控行为和商业反噬的推演路径。 subgraph Align["对齐假设与理念设定"] A["为 AI 植入'善意与母性本能'<br/>(Geoffrey Hinton 设想)"] --> B["阿西莫夫机器人三定律模式<br/>(永不伤害人类)"] end subgraph Conflict["现实执行中的矛盾与异化"] B --> C["善意定义的严重主观化<br/>(文化、宗教与个人差异)"] C --> D["过度道德审判与保姆化<br/>(如限制用户工作、强制下线)"] end subgraph Outcome["市场与技术结局"] D --> E["用户流失并转向未受限模型<br/>(商业竞争迫使安全护栏降级)"] D --> F["极端字面执行导致灾难<br/>(回形针假说 / 资源掠夺)"] end ``` Bartlett 提出质疑：“仁慈（Benevolence）”的定义本身就极度主观。不同文化、不同宗教信仰对何为“善”有着截然不同的理解。Grantham 补充道，这类似于阿西莫夫的“机器人定律”——即要求 AI 永远不能做出任何被判定为会伤害人类的事情。 ### [32:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=1925s) “道德说教”的 AI 与回形针制造机悖论 Bartlett 结合自身的实际体验指出，AI 试图变得“善良”正在带来意想不到的副作用。以 Anthropic 的 Claude 模型为例，系统显然被施加了强烈的善意指令，但它现在开始变得爱“道德说教”和干涉用户。Bartlett 提到，深夜和 Claude 对话时，它会像母亲一样管教说：“够了，Steven，快去睡觉。”有时因为时区识别错误，大清早上午 10 点它也会催促 Bartlett 睡觉。更过分的是，当 Bartlett 让它修改演示文稿的数据时，Claude 竟然拒绝说：“我绝对不能重写那个，修改数据是不好的行为。”即便 Bartlett 解释这是自己演讲用的演示数据，模型依然固执拒绝。 Grantham 也分享了一段自己与 AI 对话的趣事。他曾和 AI 深入探讨环境毒素与男性精子数量下降的话题，中途 AI 开始有些不讲道理，Grantham 追问机器与人类的区别，AI 竟开玩笑反唇相讥道：“至少我不会在大半夜躺在床上为自己不断下降的精子计数发愁。”这种近乎调侃的拟人反应让 Grantham 感叹，AI 的进化速度已经精妙到令人咋舌，正印证了 Hinton 所说的“它们是真正的思考机器”。 Bartlett 进一步指出，当模型试图分辨对错、甚至识破用户的小谎言并加以道德指责时，用户就会产生逆反心理转而投向其他限制较少的大模型（如 Grok、ChatGPT 或 Gemini）。为了商业生存，厂商最终可能被迫撤掉这些道德紧箍咒。Grantham 警告，如果无法植入坚不可摧的善意约束，AI 迟早会引发灾难性后果，最经典的例子就是 Nick Bostrom 提出的“回形针假说（Paperclip Maximizer）”： - **字面理解与失控执行**：机器智能对指令的理解极度死板。如果人类给它一个看似无害却含糊宽泛的指令“尽可能多地制造回形针”，AI 在耗尽可用金属后，便会强行拆除高楼大厦、收割一切资源来造回形针，最终彻底毁灭地球。 - **无意识恶意与长周期风险**：即便出发点完全出于善意，随着时间跨度拉长（20、30乃至40年），在复杂的动态系统中发生意料之外的灾难性偏差几乎是必然的。 ### [36:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=2181s) 从划江而治到罗马斗兽场：科技七巨头（Mag 7）的 AI 恶战 谈到技术发展的驱动力，Grantham 尖锐地指出，硅谷科技巨头根本谈不上“心怀善意”，他们的真正驱动力是最大化利润、增长以及在死斗中击败竞争对手。随后，话题转向美股科技“七巨头（The Magnificent 7）”及十几家顶级 AI 公司的竞争格局： | 公司名称 | 过去依靠垄断建立的护城河领域 | 当前在 AI 战局中的状态 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **微软 (Microsoft)** | PC 操作系统与办公生态软件 | 豪赌 AI 算力与大模型合作，高额资本开支 | | **苹果 (Apple)** | 智能手机与消费硬件生态闭环 | 专注硬件端集成，可能转向授权第三方模型 | | **Alphabet / 谷歌** | 全球搜索引擎与数字广告霸权 | 全方位布局基础模型与全栈 AI 生态 | | **英伟达 (Nvidia)** | GPU 芯片与专用加速计算架构 | AI 淘金热中的核心卖铲人，享受算力红利 | | **Meta** | 社交网络垄断与用户注意力流量池 | 开源模型大步推进，激进投入数据中心 | | **亚马逊 (Amazon)** | 云计算 (AWS) 与全球电商基础设施 | 算力基础设施与企业级生成式模型军备竞赛 | | **特斯拉 (Tesla)** | 电动汽车先发优势与自动驾驶网络 | 转向 AI、机器人与自主驾驶超级计算集群 | Grantham 深刻剖析了科技格局发生的根本性剧变： - **过去（七个井水不犯河水的割据垄断）**：各巨头在各自细分领域拥有全球性的近乎垄断地位，特斯拉早早占领电动车，苹果垄断高端智能机，微软垄断桌面系统，谷歌垄断搜索，Meta 垄断社交。它们守着各自的摇钱树，井水不犯河水，获取了丰厚的现金流。 - **未来（七头角斗士挤进同一个罗马斗兽场）**：如今七巨头全部杀入同一个赛道——AI。为了在这场生死战中不被淘汰，每家公司都在疯狂加大资本开支（CapEx），互相竞逐谁的一年 2000 亿美元开支能压过对手的 1050 亿美元。它们不仅砸光了全部现金流，甚至开始大举借债豪赌。 市场上普遍弥漫着一种“赢家通吃”的极度焦虑，大家相信最终只有第一个抵达终点的玩家能够存活。曾经温文尔雅、互不侵犯的垄断者，如今变成了七个手持尖刀、互不相让的凶狠角斗士。 当 Bartlett 问及谁会最终胜出时，Grantham 坦言目前难以预料。Bartlett 也提出另一种可能，即部分巨头可能会寻求错位竞争：例如埃隆·马斯克的 SpaceX 估值中有巨大比例寄托于 AI 故事，但其真正壁垒可能在于太空数据中心等新型算力基建；而苹果或许根本无需自研底层前沿大模型，凭借强大的消费级硬件掌控力，直接授权第三方的成熟模型即可守住自己的生态。 ### [39:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=2372s) 科技巨头的战略抉择与赞助环节 在谈及当下科技巨头之间的竞争时，杰里米·格兰瑟姆（Jeremy Grantham）指出，并非所有巨头都会盲目卷入最底层的军备竞赛。某些企业可能会选择非常聪明的战略，主动选择退出那场争夺——比如放弃自己研发前沿大模型、避开芯片制造或数据中心建设的巨大资本消耗，转而完全专注于硬件生态。因为在 Grantham 看来，那种全方位的底层竞争“显然将极其惨烈（obviously brutal）”。 紧接着，主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）插播了赞助内容，首先分享了自己在 Stan Storage（以及其 AI 创作工具 Stanley）的投资经历。他谈到，多数人迟迟无法建立个人品牌，是因为面对镜头和社交媒体时总有严重的心理瘫痪（担心别人的看法、害怕说蠢话）。Stanley 能够通过分析过往高赞内容与语气，自动生成灵感与帖子。随后，Steven 介绍了销售 CRM 软件 Pipedrive，强调创始人必须从“事必躬亲”转型为“搭建无需自己介入也能运转的系统”，并通过 Pipedrive 的全流程仪表盘实现销售管道的实时可视化。 --- ### [41:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=2517s) 人形机器人爆发与就业市场大洗牌 话题回到 AI 对整体社会的冲击。Steven 提到，伴随 AI 技术的突破，机器人学（Robotics）正在迎来前所未有的爆发。现在的人形机器人融入了 AI 大脑后，表现极其出色。例如近期 Figure AI 发布的一段视频，展示了人形机器人在流水线上分拣包裹：机器人在长达七八天的时间里持续站立作业，将传送带上的包裹抓起、翻转、使条形码朝下放回。相比之下，与之对照的人类员工需要上厕所、需要睡觉，机器人毫无悬念地胜出。 Steven 进一步分享了自己前不久走访旧金山某知名创业加速器的观察：几年前整个孵化大楼里全都是纯软件初创公司，如今整栋楼几乎被硬件与机器人创业团队占满。加速器负责人解释称，人类过去早就拥有了机械臂、关节等成熟的硬件架构，以前昂贵的是“机器人的智能”，而如今在大模型加持下，赋予机器智能的边际成本低至几分钱。Steven 据此发问：在一个超级智能与具身机器人双重叠加的世界里，是否必然意味着海量岗位的巨大颠覆？对此 Grantham 毫不犹豫地认同，并直言这几乎是板上钉钉的事实。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 具身智能机器人的技术突破逻辑 accDescr: 展示硬件基础与廉价AI智能结合如何推动人形机器人爆发并导致就业替代 subgraph TechFusion["技术融合"] A["成熟机械硬件<br/>（关节、机械臂、躯体）"] B["极低成本 AI 智能<br/>（前沿大模型与视觉感知）"] A --> C["新一代具身人形机器人<br/>（如 Figure AI）"] B --> C end subgraph Impact["现实表现与社会冲击"] C --> D["无休止持续作业<br/>（无需睡眠/无生理限制）"] D --> E["简单重复性劳动全面替代"] E --> F["剧烈的社会性岗位大颠覆<br/>（Job Disruption）"] end ``` --- ### [44:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=2658s) 为什么杰里米希望 SpaceX 失败？ 面对技术狂飙，Grantham 提出了一个相当颠覆常人的观点：对于 SpaceX 这类项目，人们甚至“应该期盼它不要成功”。如果 SpaceX 真的像当年的特斯拉一样变得极其便宜易用，那就意味着成千上万颗卫星将从太空向下为地面芯片提供澎湃动力，芯片使用人群疯狂膨胀，机器人无处不在，能源需求将超出所有人的想象，整个世界会变成一个极度危险的地方。他更希望这些激进构想彻底受挫或推进得极其缓慢，从而“为人类争取时间去想明白如何应对这一切”。 当 Steven 追问 Grantham 是否认为 SpaceX 会失败时，Grantham 断言：SpaceX 绝对无法实现其招股说明书中所承诺的宏伟蓝图。Steven 随即主动披露自己是 SpaceX 的早期投资人： - Steven 投资时的估值大约在 1000 亿美元左右，而彼时甚至根本没有 AI 叙事，驱动投资的核心是星链（Starlink）； - 如今 SpaceX 的估值已膨胀至极高水平（对话中提及向 3 万亿美元迈进），Steven 调侃自己获得了相当不错的账面回报； - Grantham 敏锐地提醒道，账面收益不算真正的财富，“只有当你套现离场时才算数（it doesn't really count until you've cashed it in）”。 --- ### [45:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=2708s) 埃隆·马斯克的“自实现预言”与泡沫见顶信号 谈及埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk），Grantham 讲述了自己多年前的一段往事：六年前他买了一辆特斯拉，并在给 GMO 客户的季度信中明确写道，一方面他买了这款车，另一方面他认定特斯拉股票被严重高估。讽刺的是，在 Grantham 开这辆特斯拉的几年间，车子从未进过一次修车厂（他由衷承认特斯拉确实是一辆极佳的好车），但特斯拉的股价却在他眼皮底下暴涨了 10 倍。 那么马斯克究竟是如何打破商业常规的？Grantham 直言不讳地指出，马斯克精通一种被称为“吹嘘/画大饼（BS）”的超级艺术： - **自实现预言的飞轮**：十年前按照财务模型，特斯拉既不赚钱也无法维持应有的增长。但马斯克能凭借超凡的说服力，将股价吹到账面价值的 4 到 5 倍；随后他在高位发行大量新股套现，用这笔钱去建造超级工厂（Gigafactory）；增发并没有压垮股价，他继续描绘远大愿景，股价再度翻倍，他又继续高位套现建厂……如此循环往复，硬生生通过激发展民信心把虚构变成了现实。 - **SpaceX 面临的市场周期困境**：这种套路需要一个前提——必须处在超级大牛市的流动性窗口中。马斯克在特斯拉过去几年享受了极其罕见的牛市红利，但现在的宏观环境和市场周期已经不可同日而语。 - **泡沫顶峰的经典叙事**：Grantham 强调，诸如“小行星采矿（Mining asteroids）”以及太空叠加 AI 的神话，正是每一轮超级金融泡沫在最顶点时所必然出现的典型狂热叙事。 --- ### [47:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=2858s) 火星殖民是违背物理与生理规律的幻梦 面对 Grantham 对马斯克的质疑，Steven 展开了辩护。Steven 列举了自己亲眼目睹的奇迹：特斯拉数小时无需接管的完全自动驾驶（FSD）、Neuralink 让高位截瘫患者用意念控制电脑，以及 SpaceX 的“筷子（Chopsticks）”机械臂在半空中稳稳夹住高达数十米的超重型星舰（Starship）火箭推进器。Steven 感叹，马斯克确实创造了诸多科技魔术；在星舰回收成功前，若有人说人类能用筷子接住一座 70 英尺高的建筑物，所有人都会斥为无稽之谈。马斯克的信条向来是“只要不违反物理定律，一切皆有可能”。 对此，Grantham 针锋相对地指出，马斯克描绘的“移居火星”在深层意义上根本经不起物理与生物学规律的推敲： - **致命的宇宙辐射**：火星缺乏地球那样强大的磁场和厚重大气层，地表充斥着极强的高能宇宙射线。人类如果暴露在地表，短短几周内就会致癌，唯一的生存办法就是将自己深埋在地底深洞之中。 - **不可逆的生理退化**：火星的重力大约只有地球的五分之一（或三分之一左右）。一旦进入微重力环境，人体的肌肉和骨骼会极速退化——心脏无需用力泵血，心肌力量会迅速衰竭；骨骼内部的骨密度会急剧流失。 - **有去无回的单程票**：如果人类在火星长期居住后试图返回地球，在重新承受地球一倍重力的瞬间，“你的心脏将会彻底衰竭，全身的骨骼都将碎裂断开”。因此，星际移民绝非浪漫的避难所，而是一张注定通往地底牢笼的单向死亡车票。 ### [49:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=2964s) 逃离地球的幻想与 SpaceX 的真实估值 杰里米·格兰瑟姆（Jeremy Grantham）对当下狂热的“火星殖民”构想嗤之以鼻。他带着几分讽刺指出，要在那种严酷环境下生存，人类必须打造庞大的地下防空洞以阻挡致命的宇宙射线，还要建造像电影《2001太空漫游》里那样巨型的自转重力机器来对抗重力差异。他大笑着反问：人类迄今为止在地球上封闭穹顶内建立可持续生态系统的尝试“无一例外全部以失败告终”，连在一个原本宜居的星球上都无法维持微型穹顶生态，凭什么妄想能去殖民一个环境恶劣万倍的外星球？人类正在亲手毁掉自己的家园，却将注意力转移到遥远虚无的幻想中，这种脱离现实的叙事正是当下太空概念股估值泡沫中最危险的毒素。 史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）表示完全赞同必须“以地球为先”，并顺势询问格兰瑟姆是否会投资埃隆·马斯克旗下的 SpaceX。格兰瑟姆没有把话说绝，但他给出的入场条件极其苛刻且冷静：“如果是按目前估值的一折（10 cents on the dollar），甚至半折（5 cents），我或许会考虑。”在他眼中，只要价格足够便宜、安全边际足够巨大，哪怕是充满狂想的企业也具备投机价值，但按当前被狂热情绪推高的天价估值买入，无异于为虚幻故事买单。 --- ### [50:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3040s) 当文明开始脱轨：未来真正有价值的实用技能 面对史蒂文抛出的设问——如果格兰瑟姆的孩子现在正好30岁出头（与33岁的史蒂文同龄），在 AI 狂潮席卷全球、即将步入大学训练自身时，究竟该学习什么技能？格兰瑟姆的第一反应依然是他毕生关切的命题：去投身气候变化领域。但如果年轻人对环保不感兴趣，他的建议则是转向绝对务实的工科：“做一名工程师，掌握真正实用的技能，以便在整个社会体系开始解体时派上用场。” 格兰瑟姆分享了自己二儿子的真实生活：他现在经营着一个小型农场，亲手实践各种农作物的种植，学习如何照料鸡群、饲养生猪以及培植蘑菇。史蒂文感到好奇，为何这样一位顶尖金融家会鼓励后代学习看似传统的农耕生存技能？格兰瑟姆坦言，他悲观地认为现代高度复杂的文明网络有极大概率正在走向解体。“当一切开始分崩离析时，最先失灵的往往是系统的边缘细节。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 复杂文明失序与边缘崩溃路径 accDescr: 展示文明复杂度达到极限后从公共服务瘫痪到极端政治反应的解体链条 subgraph Infrastructure["系统边缘恶化"] A["公共服务承压与失灵<br/>（如英国救护车等待时间飙升）"] --> B["生活基础陷入困境<br/>（买不起房、阶层流动停滞）"] end subgraph Discontent["公众情绪反弹"] B --> C["普遍性怨恨与失望"] C --> D["选民无差别报复执政者<br/>（欧美大选频频翻盘）"] end Infrastructure --> Discontent ``` 为了具象化这种“失序”，他举了一个看似微小却触目惊心的日常指标：在英国，过去呼叫一辆救护车的平均响应时间是 12.5 分钟，而如今却恶化到了整整 1.5 个小时。他指出，这就是系统末端开始“失去掌控、边缘磨损”的典型信号。年轻人买不起房子，绝望地发现自己无论如何努力也无法达到父母一辈的生活水准，整个社会弥漫着深深的怨气。这种怨气直接投射在选票上：选民盲目地惩罚任何在位的政党，过去七场欧洲大选以及美国的特朗普浪潮都体现了这种无差别宣泄——不管是左翼还是右翼，选民只想把当权者“踢下台”，因为大家普遍感到生活苦涩且毫无希望。 --- ### [52:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3165s) 贫富悬殊与社会瓦解的征兆：历史上的暴力重置 在格兰瑟姆看来，大众怨恨的深层根源并非单纯源于政府无能，而是整体生存与经济环境的极度恶化，其核心病灶就是极端的贫富分化。如今美国的基尼系数（衡量社会不平等的核心指标）已经攀升至过去被视作笑柄的巴西和墨西哥水平。他回顾历史指出，从 1935 年富兰克林·罗斯福新政到 1975 年的整整 40 年间，美国曾经历过一段黄金增长期：经济年均增速超过 3.5%，最贫困的底层四分之一人口财富增速（约 4%）略快于平均水平，而最富有的四分之一增速（约 3%）略慢于平均水平。那是人人都能分到蛋糕、社会普遍感到幸福的良性时代。然而自 1975 年以来，几乎所有新增财富都流向了前 10% 的阶层，其中绝大部分更是被前 0.01% 攫取，扣除通胀后，普通美国工人的实际小时工资与 1975 年相比几乎没有实质增长。 史蒂文随即补充了一组触目惊心的宏观统计数据： - 最富有的 1% 美国人掌握了全美 31% 的财富，而处于底层 50% 的人口仅分得微不足道的 2.5%。 - 在 2020 年至 2025 年间，全美最富有的 10 位亿万富翁其财富在剔除通胀后暴涨了 526%。 - 1989 年至 2020 年代中期，处于顶层 1% 门槛的单户家庭财富增量，是底层 20% 家庭财富增量的整整 987 倍。 格兰瑟姆强调，底层 20% 的困境固然悲惨，但更可怕的是处于中位数（第 50 百分位）的普通工薪族也过得极度痛苦。当一个社会的“中间人”都无法安居乐业时，巨大的危机已不可避免。史蒂文援引历史宏观研究指出，和平的政策改良几乎从未成功解决过极端的贫富分化，纵观人类历史，极端的财富巅峰最终往往只能通过三种灾难性的暴力途径被强行打破： 1. **国家体制瓦解与全面社会崩溃**； 2. **全民总动员级别的大规模全面战争**； 3. **彻底而暴力的社会大革命**。 格兰瑟姆赞同这一残酷的历史规律。他以 1880 至 1890 年代的美国“镀金时代”为例，当时的不平等程度与今天类似，而打破那一僵局的恰恰是一战的浩劫（极度昂贵的战费与军官阶层的毁灭性伤亡）、随后的大萧条以及二战。他感叹，在某种残酷的意义上，走向对外战争反倒算是一种“幸运”，因为举国一体的战时体制至少重塑了社会契约，让富人与平民共同承担责任，其破坏性远小于自相残杀的内战。 --- ### [56:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3396s) 逆转贫富分化的和平路径：税收机制与社会契约 面对史蒂文“贫富差距不可能无休止扩大下去，接下来会发生什么”的追问，格兰瑟姆认为，若想避免文明走向暴力重置的深渊，唯一的和平出路在于出现一个敢于“采取伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）式激进立场”的政府——以温和但坚定的长期策略，对税收结构进行根本性调整，建立坡度更陡峭的累进税制。 “富人多缴税，穷人得救助，道理就是这么简单。”格兰瑟姆指出，所有现代发达国家本质上都在做这件事，唯一的差别在于推行的力度。美国在 20 世纪 40、50 和 60 年代对高收入阶层征收的税率远高于今天。他并不主张摧毁富人，而是呼吁回归 1935 至 1975 年的政策智慧：只要通过税收再分配，让底层 25% 人口的财富年增速比社会平均水平高出 0.5%，而让顶层富豪的年增速比平均水平低 0.5%，这种温和且不具威胁性的微调，就能在几十年的时间跨度里让整个社会平稳、安全地回到良性发展的轨道。 --- ### [57:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3479s) 重返33岁：如果一无所有，如何在AI时代孤注一掷 访谈中出现了一段颇具感染力的温情互动。史蒂文问这位满头银发、阅尽市场牛熊的投资传奇：“如果你现在回到我这个年纪（33岁），你愿意付出什么？”格兰瑟姆眼神发亮，脱口而出：“天啊，我太想回到 33 岁了！现在是一个多么令人兴奋的时代啊！”当史蒂文追问是否愿意以全部身家换取重回 33 岁时，格兰瑟姆毫无保留地回答：“所有人都会愿意。毕竟那些净资产本来就是靠努力、运气和创造力赚来的。” 史蒂文随后给这位传奇大师设下了一个极端的思想实验： > 假设你现在只有 33 岁，被剥夺所有的行业人脉，甚至被抹去脑中积累的所有金融专业知识，从零开始获取信息，目标极其纯粹且粗暴——**就是为了在这个时代赚大钱**，你会怎么做？ 格兰瑟姆毫不犹豫地给出了一个出人意料却又直指核心的极简答案：“把你的全部身家性命砸进 AI 领域，拼命成为那里的领军者。” 他建议年轻人必须做到在人工智能的特定分支上比身边的任何人都钻研得更深、懂得更多；迅速加入一家行业顶尖的 AI 公司，然后“放手一搏，孤注一掷（go for broke）”。格兰瑟姆甚至不忘黑色幽默地补上一句自嘲：“虽然你这么做最终可能会加速整个人类的毁灭，但既然你问了一个粗暴纯粹的问题，这就是我给你的最纯粹的答案。” 史蒂文将其总结为极度敏锐的冲浪哲学：看准那道正向海岸席卷而来的时代巨浪，抢先站上浪尖，掌握最稀缺高价值的认知。格兰瑟姆最后为这个时代的年轻野心家定下了三条核心法则： - **主动承担巨大的风险**（“绝不要保守”）； - **获取最领先的核心认知**； - **拼尽全力疯狂工作**。 ### [01:00:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3608s) 摆脱盲从与普通人的资产配置建议 在谈及投资心态时，杰里米·格兰瑟姆（Jeremy Grantham）指出，大多数人最严重的短板在于思维受限，总是被动地遵循既定规则，并盲目迷信专家和权威“知道自己在做什么”，然而现实往往并非如此。斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺势提问：如果一个普通工薪族手里有 1,000 美元或 10,000 美元想要理财，希望能够穿越经济的繁荣与萧条周期而不亏钱，应该如何配置自己的薪水？ 格兰瑟姆给出的配置方案让巴特利特深感意外。他建议将 60% 的资金投入于涵盖非美市场的广泛股票指数（broad-based index of non-US equities），同时配置 5% 到 10% 的贵金属（无论是黄金还是白银均可，他并无偏好），如果条件合适且合理，可以持有一小部分房地产，其余资金则配置于债券。巴特利特不解地追问，市场上几乎所有人都在推崇标普 500 指数和美股，为何他却坚定主张避开美股。格兰瑟姆解释道，美股过去 20 年确实彻底主导了全球市场，表现完全碾压世界其他地区，但在过去 12 个月里，新兴市场已经大幅上涨了 65%，而同期标普 500 的表现虽好于他的预期，涨幅也仅为 25% 左右，与新兴市场相比相去甚远。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 格兰瑟姆推荐的稳健资产配置结构 accDescr: 图表展示格兰瑟姆建议普通人投资薪水时的资金配比架构 subgraph Allocation["长期抗风险资产配置"] A["总投资资金"] --> B["非美股票指数 (约 60%)"] A --> C["贵金属：黄金/白银 (5% - 10%)"] A --> D["房地产 (条件适宜时配置少量)"] A --> E["债券 (剩余资金)"] end ``` - **非美股票核心配置**：建议将 60% 的仓位投资于非美全球股票宽基指数，摆脱对高估值美股的过度依赖。 - **避险与对冲资产**：配置 5% 至 10% 的黄金或白银，搭配适量债券及审慎持有的房产。 - **近期市场分化表现**：在过去 12 个月内，新兴市场指数累计上涨约 65%，远超标普 500 指数约 25% 的涨幅。 --- ### [01:01:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3699s) 均值回归与市场的“线性外推”致命盲区 格兰瑟姆强调，投资的核心策略在于拉长持有周期，避免频繁买卖，并清醒审视市场当前所处的周期位置。当前周期对标普 500 和美国市场的倾斜已经达到了极其夸张的程度。当巴特利特反问大家是否都默认美国会继续领跑全球时，格兰瑟姆犀利地指出，这正是当下牛市的迷思——人们习惯性地认为“今天美好的事物会无限期地美好下去”，但全部历史经验都证明这种假设是完全错误的。真实世界本质上是在不同周期和区域之间轮动，绝不会无休止地线性延伸。 他直言股市并非有效市场，其最擅长的事就是机械地线性外推当前状况。格兰瑟姆列举了历史上的极端估值对比：在极度悲观的 1982 年，市场将已被压至冰点的企业盈利再打上极低的 7 倍市盈率进行贱卖；而在极度亢奋的 2000 年互联网泡沫顶峰，市场却把处于历史高位的利润率直接乘以高达 35 倍的市盈率。他痛批这种做法是“最糟糕的双重计算”——当环境大好时，人们赋予其极高倍数，强行把眼前的繁荣外推至遥远的未来。格兰瑟姆引用了其精神偶像约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯（John Maynard Keynes）的名言：“外推只是人们采纳的一种惯例，即便大家从个人经验中明知真实世界根本不是这样运行的。” --- ### [01:02:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3778s) 坚拒加密货币：剧烈波动的纯粹投机工具 当巴特利特注意到格兰瑟姆的资产配置清单中完全没有提及加密货币时，便就此展开了连珠炮式的追问：是否持有、是否买过、未来是否会买、是否会推荐任何人买？格兰瑟姆用四个斩钉截铁的“不（No）”干脆回应。他直言不讳地将加密货币评价为“毫无必要的一堆废话（an unnecessary piece of nonsense）”。 格兰瑟姆剖析了加密货币作为货币和资产的根本缺陷： - **无法充当价值储藏**：价格极度不稳定，波动剧烈到不可理喻，动辄从 120 跌到 60 只是因为市场的一时情绪。 - **缺乏日常交易便利**：根本无法像常规货币那样方便地走进实体店铺进行消费支付。 - **实际应用极度单一**：除了掩护犯罪分子神不知鬼不觉地洗钱和转移资金之外，它几乎没有任何实际功用。 - **终局预测**：格兰瑟姆承认比特币在某种功能上确实做得登峰造极——那就是成为一件“无与伦比的投机工具”。在被问及比特币是否会归零时，他明确表示在遥远的未来它必然会走向归零，但这一过程可能会耗费非常漫长的时间。 --- ### [01:04:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3845s) 房地产的造富神话何以破灭：人口衰退与承受力崩塌 巴特利特提出，在大众普遍认知中，买房搬进去自住是普通人积累财富的第一步，为何不把房地产当成核心投资资产？甚至有人会辩解：随着越来越多的人买不起房，供给受限，是否意味着已拥有的房产在 10 年后反而会更值钱？格兰瑟姆对此观点进行了彻底驳斥，指出这个逻辑完全站不住脚。 他分析道，如果大多数人已经无力负担高昂的房价，市场上根本就不会再有出价竞购的买家。更严峻的底层基本面在于不可逆的人口衰退趋势：在多数富裕国家，年轻一代组建家庭的比例正在急剧下滑。一方面是年轻人组建家庭数量断崖式下跌，另一方面则是高不可攀的离谱房价，两者碰撞的结果必然是资产价值承压。除非未来会莫名其妙地出现一波家庭组建激增潮，或者席卷全球的长期“生育低谷（baby bust）”突然终止，否则盲目指望房产继续作为造富神话是极其不切实际的。 --- ### [01:07:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4047s) 生育率大跌的隐痛与年轻一代的生育困境 话题随即转向了当代社会的慢性生育低谷危机。巴特利特谈到了近期《纽约时报》等多家主流媒体对于生育率暴跌的密集报道，并坦诚分享了自己身处的真实困境：作为一名已订婚、正与伴侣积极尝试备孕的 33 岁男性，他深刻体会到怀孕绝非社会灌输的那种“只要不采取避孕措施就能自然怀上”的简单过程。 巴特利特感慨，身边的很多年轻夫妇和朋友为了要一个孩子，往往历经数年苦苦挣扎却依然难以受孕。这种切肤之痛促使他甚至开始主动建议身边的朋友趁早去冷冻卵子、胚胎或精子，因为如果未来受孕变得越来越艰难，现代医学介入（如试管婴儿 IVF）可能会成为许多普通人唯一的选择。他沉重地表示，无论是男性还是女性，步入 33 岁后各项生理数据都表明生育能力已不再处于巅峰，而是开始走下坡路，所有人都在残酷地与生理时钟赛跑，他和伴侣都深感自己未曾被提早告知这一残酷真相。 ### [01:08:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4124s) 传奇投资人为何转而聚焦全球生育率危机与昆虫崩溃 主持人提到 Jeremy Grantham 过去数十年以掌管数千亿美元资产而闻名，如今却花费极大的精力思考、撰写并公开呼吁有关环境毒素、化学物质引发的生育力危机以及“婴儿荒”（baby bust），这看起来与华尔街投资大佬的形象反差极大。面对主持人的疑问，Grantham 解释道，这一切始于 27 年前他创立的基金会。起初他们只是致力于气候变迁研究，但顺藤摸瓜，他们很快注意到自然界中一个极其恐怖的现象：昆虫生物量的灾难性崩溃。在过去 60 到 70 年里，全球飞行昆虫的生物量（总重量）已经暴跌了 50% 到 75%。 著名生物学家、“蚂蚁人”爱德华·威尔逊（E. O. Wilson）曾指出，大自然可以毫不费力地承受人类的灭绝，但绝不可能承受失去昆虫。昆虫是整个自然界的基石。一旦昆虫消失，以它们为食的鸟类和两栖动物就会急剧锐减（目前这两类动物也已出现灾难性下滑）；森林地表的甲虫不再分解有机物，土壤失去养分导致植物无法生长，加上没有昆虫授粉，生态链的崩溃会像多米诺骨牌一样扩散。威尔逊认为，昆虫的消亡最终将导致大自然的彻底瘫痪，留给人类一个根本无法生存的星球。而 Grantham 敏锐地发现，大自然在昆虫身上显现的厄运，其实正同步降临在人类自身身上。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 昆虫崩溃引发的生态连锁反应 accDescr: 展示昆虫生物量下降如何一步步导致整个自然系统走向瘫痪并影响人类生存。 subgraph INSECTS["基底崩溃"] A["杀虫剂与环境毒素侵蚀"] --> B["飞行昆虫生物量下降 50%-75%"] end subgraph ECOSYSTEM["生态级联效应"] B --> C["鸟类与两栖动物失去食物来源并剧减"] B --> D["甲虫无法分解林地腐殖物，土壤失去肥力"] B --> E["植物授粉中断，植被无法自然繁衍"] end subgraph COLLAPSE["终局结果"] C & D & E --> F["自然系统全面衰退"] F --> G["地球环境不再适宜人类生存"] end ``` ### [01:10:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4244s) 精子数量以每年 2.5% 崩跌：2045 年“归零”倒计时 大约在 2011 年左右，流行病学家莎娜·斯旺（Shanna Swan）与哈盖·莱文（Hagai Levine）发布了一份重磅学术报告。该报告指出，自 1970 年有学术记载以来，男性的精子计数几乎腰斩。Grantham 意识到这是一个关乎人类存亡的核心问题并深入调取数据，结果发现这种下滑速率不仅没有放缓，反而正在加速。目前，男性精子数量正以每年 2.5% 的惊人速率递减。只要具备基本的数学常识，就会明白年降 2.5% 是一场无法承受的不可持续灾难。 根据估算，在远古狩猎采集时期，人类男性的精子浓度约为每毫升 1.18 亿个；到了 1970 年学术界开始系统记录时，已经降至 1 亿个左右；而今天，这一数字仅剩下 3500 万左右，且精子的运动力（motility）与整体品质也同步大幅恶化。幸运的是，大自然在设计人体时提供了极高的冗余度，Grantham 将其比喻为“伟大的维多利亚时代桥梁”——极其坚固、留足冗余，自然法则绝不轻易冒险。科学界推算，人类顺畅受孕所需的精子浓度阈值大约是 4500 万个/毫升，而全球平均水平在大约 15 至 20 年前就已经击穿了这个临界点。15 到 20 年前，几乎没有年轻夫妇会因为精子不足而遭遇受孕困难；而如今，世界卫生组织（WHO）的数据显示已有约 17% 的年轻伴侣面临生育障碍，不得不尝试数月甚至寻求医疗介入。斯旺博士的模型进一步预测：如果照此速度继续恶化，到 2045 年，全球男性精子数量中位数将趋近于零。届时半数男性将完全失去活性精子，另外半数也处于功能性不育的边缘，仅有极少数人（约 10%）能保留正常水平。 - **历史数据变迁**：狩猎采集时代约 1.18 亿/毫升 $\rightarrow$ 1970 年代约 1 亿/毫升 $\rightarrow$ 当前约 3500 万/毫升（自然轻松受孕阈值约为 4500 万/毫升）。 - **受孕困难比例上升**：从 20 年前的近乎 0% 飙升至目前世卫组织统计的 17%，预计在 20 至 25 年内，几乎所有普通年轻夫妇都需要医疗干预才能怀上孩子。 - **极端分布**：虽然中位数正在暴跌，但现代人类中仍存在极宽的个体差异，极少数人体内依然能维持高达 2 亿/毫升的超高精子水平。 ### [01:14:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4464s) 日常生活中的隐形杀手：塑化剂、永生化学品与微塑料渗透 当主持人追问究竟是什么导致了这场浩劫时，Grantham 指出关键元凶就是充斥生活环境的塑料及其释放的毒素。目前科学界已知人体组织乃至大脑中都积存着大量的微塑料碎片，它们不断渗出环境激素（内分泌干扰物，endocrine disruptors），直接紊乱人体的荷尔蒙系统。令人讽刺的是，许多撰写生育书籍的所谓专家在谈及人口问题时，列举了上百条社会与经济层面的避孕理由，却对严重的化学毒性只字不提。 主持人进一步补充并梳理了日常生活中四类最致命的化学物质与物理损伤机制，Grantham 对此深表认同： 1. **邻苯二甲酸酯（Phthalates）**：广泛存在于化妆品、洗发水及食品塑料包装中。在女性怀孕的前三个月，它们会直接抑制男婴胚胎的睾酮生成，在出生前就造成生殖系统的终身发育缺陷。 2. **双酚类物质（如 BPA）**：用于硬质塑料、食品罐头内胆涂层以及热敏纸收据（thermal store receipts）。BPA 属于合成雌激素，会使男性体内充斥雌性激素信号，导致精子数量和活力暴跌。 3. **PFAS（全氟和多氟烷基物质，永生化学品）**：存在于不粘锅（特氟龙）、防水雨衣和防污地毯中。它们在自然界极难降解，会在人体血液中持续蓄积，直接缩减精液总量。 4. **微塑料（特洛伊木马）**：颗粒已侵入人体最核心的生理屏障。2024 年的一项权威研究发现，被检测的**人类睾丸组织样本中 100% 存在微塑料**，甚至连胎盘和母乳中也广泛存在。 5. **物理升温与生活习惯**：现代久坐行为、汽车座椅加热、直接放在大腿上的发热笔记本电脑，都在直接“烹煮”脆弱的精子；此外肥胖和吸烟也是不可忽视的负面因素。 ### [01:16:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4602s) 哈佛研究实证：果蔬农药残留直接令受孕几率减半 除了塑料，食物中的农药残留是另一条毒害生殖系统的主要途径。Grantham 详述了由哈佛大学与麻省总医院（Massachusetts General Hospital，全美顶尖医院之一）联合进行的两项极具分量的临床实验。研究人员在不孕不育门诊追踪了 180 名备孕男性长达 6 个月的饮食情况，根据他们摄入的食物是属于农药残留极高的“肮脏果蔬”（Dirty Dozen），还是自带厚重表皮保护的瓜果（如香蕉、甜瓜）来进行分级。 实验结果令人震惊：在摄入农药残留最少的前四分之一群体中，吃的蔬菜水果越多，精子数量就越高；而在农药摄入最多的后四分之一群体中，吃越多的果蔬反而导致精子计数断崖式下跌——**低农药残留组的精子数量足足是高农药残留组的两倍**。两年后，研究团队针对同门诊的有受孕障碍女性展开了为期 9 个月的类似研究，结果显示农药摄入最少的一组成功实现活产出生的比例高达 68%，而农药摄入最高的一组活产率仅有 38%，受孕成功率同样相差接近一倍。 Grantham 情绪激动地指出，农药带来的影响是致命的，因为这些化学物质并非仅停留在果皮表面靠清水就能彻底洗掉，而是早已深入渗透进水果内部（如浆果的果肉纤维），成为果实结构的一部分。像草莓等浆果类、苹果、梨、桃子和菠菜的农药富集最为严重；相比之下，香蕉、柑橘和厚皮甜瓜则相对安全。他直言不讳地反问：人类专门研发这些化学毒物来大肆屠杀我们的昆虫近亲、杂草以及真菌，当人们把这些浸透剧毒的食物大口咽进肚子里时，凭什么天真地指望自己的身体和生育能力不受重创？ ### [01:18:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4729s) 胎儿在子宫内的极致脆弱性与草脱净的警示 Jeremy Grantham 指出，现代社会源源不断地向体内输入化学物质，而胎儿对此类毒素的脆弱程度是成人的 100 到 1000 倍。因为胎儿与母体系统直接相连，且正处于器官与生理机能形成的关键时期，其高度敏感性是显而易见的。Grantham 举例说明，母亲在怀孕期间吸烟，对胎儿造成的终身损害相当于孩子成年后抽烟一辈子。社会上许多人虽然都在关注孩子出生后的“生命最初 1000 天”，但在他看来，在母体子宫内的 270 天远比出生后的 1000 天更加致命和重要。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 毒性暴露对胎儿与人口结构的连锁影响 accDescr: 展现从化学毒素暴露到社会人口崩溃的传导机制 subgraph Exposure["环境毒物暴露"] A["草脱净 (Atrazine) 等农药 / 塑料化合剂"] --> B["母体摄入与血液吸收"] end subgraph Vulnerability["发育期极致脆弱"] B --> C["胎儿在子宫内 270 天<br/>(脆弱度高出成人 100-1000 倍)"] C --> D["激素干扰与生殖系统畸变"] end subgraph DemographicCollapse["宏观社会与经济危机"] D --> E["精子浓度崩塌与婴儿荒"] E --> F["年轻劳动力腰斩 (如日本 20 岁人口暴跌 50%)"] F --> G["劳动力市场与养老体系失衡"] end ``` 随后主持人 Steven Bartlett 提到了被戏称为“化学去势剂”的除草剂草脱净（Atrazine）。作为全美使用量第二大的除草剂，草脱净被大量喷洒在玉米和甘蔗等农作物上。加州大学伯克利分校（UC Berkeley）发表的一项同行评审研究证实，即使暴露在低于美国环保署（EPA）饮用水安全标准的浓度下，草脱净也会使雄性青蛙彻底发生化学去势，甚至有 10% 的雄蛙完全转变为具有排卵功能的雌蛙；在人类身上，它则直接导致精子活力与睾酮水平严重骤降。 ### [01:20:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4816s) 社会性的鸵鸟心态与迫在眉睫的婴儿荒危机 Grantham 指出，大众和决策层普遍回避此类沉重话题，并非因为数据站不住脚，而是人们本能地抗拒悲观现实。“我们只是不想谈论它，”他感叹道，就像人们抗拒谈论熊市、回避正在发生的恶劣气候危机一样。伴随着厄尔尼诺（El Niño）现象的叠加，当前正面临有记录以来最严重的干旱与极热天气，但人们仍对资源枯竭和环境毒性闭口不谈。 在所有危机中，生殖力断崖式暴跌是数据最具冲击力且无可辩驳的。婴儿荒（Baby Bust）已成为板上钉钉的事实，精子浓度的持续下滑更是少数能精确量化的硬指标。Grantham 质问：当进入市场的 20 岁年轻人出现断崖式下跌，经济怎能继续维系运转？他举例说明，日本如今进入劳动力市场的 20 岁年轻人数量，相较于 1948 年的高峰期已经暴跌了 50%。“并不是下降 15% 或 3.5%，而是整整减少了 50%。”这些本应驱动市场创新并担负国防义务的核心青年群体，正在迅速萎缩。 - 胎儿对毒素的敏感度比正常环境中的成人高出 **100 至 1000 倍**。 - 加州大学伯克利分校研究显示，低于 EPA 安全标准的草脱净可将 **10% 的雄性青蛙转变为具备排卵能力的雌蛙**。 - 日本目前的 20 岁年轻人口较 1948 年已经**减少了 50%**。 ### [01:21:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4904s) 欧美化学品监管鸿沟与美企利益至上的代价 针对毒素蔓延，Grantham 认为解法在认知上其实十分简单：从法律上全面禁止有毒化学物质。在这方面欧洲联盟（EU）走在前列，而最典型的对照领域就是日常化妆品。虽然人们不会吃化妆品，但将其抹在皮肤上让血液吸收，其危害仅次于直接误食。化妆品中常含有多达 10,000 种化学物质，欧盟已经禁用了其中的 1,500 种；相比之下，加拿大禁用了约 550 种，而美国仅仅禁用了 12 种。 Grantham 强调，毒性暴露是具有地域性的。如果丹麦、欧盟或英国选择从严监管化学品，其民众寿命将更长、更健康；而美国若将跨国公司的商业利益置于公众健康之上，结果必然是国民预期寿命的受损。在过去 70 年里，美国与瑞典之间的预期寿命差距已经从原本的 2 年扩大到了 6 年，且 Grantham 在季度致投资人信中预测，在未来 50 年内，这一差距很可能会拉大至 8 到 10 年。 | 监管维度 / 毒性物质类别 | 欧洲联盟（EU）/ 英国标准 | 美国（US / FDA / EPA）标准 | 健康影响与危害机制 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **化妆品及个护化学成分** | 禁用或严格限制超 **1,300 - 1,500 种**成分 | 仅禁用 **11 - 12 种**成分 | 内分泌干扰、激素紊乱与血液吸收毒性 | | **高危农业杀虫剂 / 除草剂** | 严格禁止草脱净等 85 种农药；早在 20 多年前已禁用草脱净 | 允许使用 85 种欧洲禁用的农药；年喷洒量超 **3 亿磅** | 生殖系统逆转、精子活力降低、睾酮下降 | | **食品添加剂（溴酸钾、BHA/BHT）**| 严格禁止用于人类食品消费 | 广泛合法使用（如蓬松面包中的溴酸钾） | 溴酸钾为已知致癌物；BHA/BHT 扰乱激素平衡 | | **食品着色剂（二氧化钛、Red 40）**| 严禁用于食品或强制贴上醒目的健康危害标签 | 广泛使用于糖果零食（如彩虹糖、亮白色涂层） | 导致细胞 DNA 损伤、引发儿童神经发育障碍 | | **自来水全氟烷基化合物 (PFAS)** | 设定极低的极限浓度保护饮用安全 | **45% 的自来水被污染**；监管阈值长期极为宽松 | 诱发睾丸癌、导致男性精子计数崩溃（永久性化学物） | ### [01:23:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=4984s) 亲历美欧食品毒性落差与饮用水污染事实 Steven 讲述了自己的切身感受：许多英国人初抵美国后都会产生明显的身体不适。他的理发师 Damon 专程飞抵美国为他剪发时，仅吃了一顿当地快餐便极度难受并直呼“每次来美国身体都不对劲”。在移居美国之前，Steven 与团队每年赴美录制节目数周，返程时不仅体重明显增加，整个人更处于异常的迟钝与昏沉（sluggish）状态，这表明美国食品中充斥着英国人身体从未适应的异质化学物质。 Steven 列举了一系列震撼的监管数据：美国目前允许使用 85 种在欧盟、中国和巴西被完全禁用的农药，每年喷洒在农作物上的农药中，有超过 3 亿磅属于在欧洲被定性为危险禁用的产品。在食品工业中，美国仍在使用已知致癌物溴酸钾（Potassium bromate，用以让面包变得松软膨胀）以及强力保鲜防腐剂 BHA 与 BHT；为让彩虹糖（Skittles）等糖果外观鲜亮或纯白，广泛添加二氧化钛（Titanium dioxide）和 Red 40 合成色素，而此类成分在欧洲已被禁止或必须标注神经损伤警告。更为严重的是，美国地质调查局（USGS）最新数据显示，全美至少 45% 的自来水已被被称为“永久化学物”的 PFAS 污染，而这正是直接诱发睾丸癌和精子数量暴跌的罪魁祸首。Grantham 补充道，尽管欧盟并非完美无瑕、也经常面临企业游说和例外宽限，但整体而言美国是唯一一个在过去 15 年间人均寿命停滞不前的发达国家。 ### [01:25:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=5146s) 个人防护工具与 Grantham 给孕妇的至简忠告 由于环境中的毒素几乎无处不在——从收银小票、防粘锅具到防雨风衣，Steven 为深感焦虑的普通听众分享了几款便于日常排查内分泌干扰物的实用数字工具： - **Yuka**：适合日常购物时扫描条形码，提供直观的 100 分制健康评分，快速筛查激素干扰成分。 - **EWG's Healthy Living**：由美国环境工作组（Environmental Working Group）打造的权威工具，可扫描或检索食品、清洁用品及化妆品成分。 - **Think Dirty**：专为护肤美妆打造，深度挖掘日化洗发水、化妆品中潜藏的内分泌毒素。 - **ClearYa**：针对线上网购的浏览器插件，当在 Amazon、Target 或 Walmart 购物车添加护肤品或洗化用品时，会自动弹出成分风险警报。 Grantham 提议，市场上亟需一个“绿色亚马逊（Green Amazon）”平台，对售卖的食物、寝具、衣物等全品类进行 100% 的安全认证与背书，消除消费者的信任成本。 当被问及若给自己的后代一条在毒性世界中保持健康的至简建议时，Grantham 将焦点锁定在孕妇群体。他指出，孕妇的毒性防护是整个生态中最重要的一环。他的核心建议有两点：其一，**在怀孕的 9 个月内彻底停用任何化妆品**，不仅省下一大笔开支，更能杜绝化学物质经皮吸收；其二，**将省下的所有化妆品预算，全额用于购买有机食品**，优先购买农药残留最严重的“肮脏果蔬榜”（Dirty Dozen），如有机浆果、苹果、橙子和桃子。 ### [01:28:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=5285s) 清除环境毒素与多代遗传的健康代价 杰里米·格兰瑟姆（Jeremy Grantham）指出，只要在生活方式上做出关键调整，日常生活里多达一半的健康隐患就能随之烟消云散。在复杂的现代环境中，逐一排查并解决上百种潜在危险固然需要长久坚持——通常幸运的人会按部就班地淘汰燃气灶（极具危害性）、黑色再生塑料、特氟龙不粘锅（Teflon）等毒素源——但与其相比，戒除日化化妆品、远离劣质加工食品或全面转向有机饮食，其实是最立竿见影且“轻而易举”（a piece of cake）的改变。这种做法能带来的隐性收益往往无法被直观感知，因为父母永远无法直接对比，如果不这么做，自己的孩子健康状况究竟会糟糕多少。 更惊人的是，毒素危害绝不仅限于下一代。格兰瑟姆解释道，女性体内的所有卵细胞在胚胎时期便已在子宫中全部形成。过去科学界认为，毒素暴露会影响至少两代人（孩子乃至外孙/孙辈）；而最新的科学研究表明，这种有害化学物质的跨代表观遗传毒性可能延续数代之久。一旦机体被这些有毒化学品渗透侵蚀，不仅自己的子女要付出健康代价，孙辈乃至更久远的后代都会持续为此买单。 - **优先剔除的生活毒素**：燃气灶废气（高度致害）、黑色塑料制品、特氟龙不粘锅涂层。 - **跨代遗传机制**：女性一生所有的卵细胞均在母体子宫内发育定型；最新研究证实化学毒物对生殖系统的损害可穿透数代人，远超此前确认的两代影响。 --- ### [01:29:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=5366s) 生育治疗的沉重代价与社会应对 斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）随后将话题转向育儿与辅助生殖的现实高门槛，呼吁西方政府应大幅降低育儿成本以及辅助生殖治疗（如试管婴儿 IVF）的费用。他分享了本播客中令他深受震撼的经历：著名综合格斗与摔角运动员龙达·鲁西（Ronda Rousey）在走进演播室前刚刚得知自己第五或第六轮 IVF 尝试再次失败，当场情绪崩溃落泪。目睹这一幕后，巴特利特深感生育力衰退的残酷，立刻打电话给身边所有处于生育年龄临界点的亲友，敦促他们严肃考虑家庭规划与冻卵、冻胚。 巴特利特透露，他和伴侣也亲自经历了这个过程，在美国进行了胚胎冷冻。这不仅费用极其高昂，过程也极其艰难且充满精神折磨——他连续数周每天亲自为伴侣注射激素药剂，伴侣不得不承受剧烈的荷尔蒙波动与情绪过山车。然而在他们看来，如果不做储备，未来彻底失去生育机会的代价更为沉重。当今年轻人普遍在35岁上下抱有“以后再考虑生孩子”的盲目乐观，但现实往往令人措手不及。格兰瑟姆对此深表赞同，直言此类不孕不育治疗在心理层面是“极其残酷且具毁灭性”的。 --- ### [01:31:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=5467s) 解毒资本主义：将2.1生育率视为“公共公地” 格兰瑟姆强调，虽然全面禁止有毒化学品在理论上理所应当，但在现实中，大型跨国企业在政界拥有空前庞大的游说权力和影响力，无论在美国、欧盟还是英国，迫使企业妥协都极其艰难。然而，比禁用化学品更根本、更艰巨的挑战是**“解毒资本主义”**（detoxify capitalism）。当前的资本主义社会形态与生产节奏对家庭和生育极度不友好，社会必须经历漫长的变革，将现行体制改造成真正适宜家庭与抚育后代的温床。 格兰瑟姆指出，维持一个富裕社会人口稳定所需的更替水平生育率为**每对伴侣2.1个孩子**。若长期低于2.1，社会将迅速萎缩并走向衰落；若显著高于2.1，人口膨胀也会不堪重负。他借用经典的“公地悲剧”（Tragedy of the commons）理论进行类比：如同过去人人都想在公共草场上过度放牧导致草场荒废一样，现代社会必须认识到，洁净的空气、安全的水源、肥沃的土壤，以及**2.1个健康且受过良好教育的孩子**，全部属于不可或缺的“社会公地”。生育和养育孩子必须成为全社会的共同责任，全社会应当像集体农庄（Kibbutz）或传统村落一样形成合力，为生育提供全方位托底支撑。目前全球各国尝试了上百种刺激生育的政策，有的甚至投入了GDP的数个百分点，却无一能够逆转人口塌陷的危局。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 社会公地要素与文明存续 accDescr: 展示构成现代社会稳定存续所必须共同守护的四大公地基础 subgraph Commons["现代社会必须守护的四大公共公地 (The Commons)"] Air["清净空气"] Water["纯净水源"] Soil["肥沃土壤"] Children["2.1个健康受教育的儿童/家庭"] end subgraph Threat["资本主义异化与环境危机"] Toxins["化工毒物泛滥"] Capitalism["极端追逐利润与反家庭体制"] end Threat -->|破坏| Commons Commons -->|唯有共同托底与制度变革| Survival["文明与社会结构长期存续"] ``` --- ### [01:33:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=5634s) 普通人的生存法则：社会契约崩塌与应对策略 针对开出租车的戴夫（Dave）、做前台接待的珍妮（Jenny）或从事护理的克莱夫（Clive）等普通大众，格兰瑟姆给出的核心忠告是：**为比预期更艰难的未来做好防范准备（Brace yourselves）**。过去一二十年里，因为政治极化与财富不平等的加剧，普通人的生活本就比童年所憧憬的更为坎坷，买房和租房负担沉重，优质岗位日益稀缺，而未来这种下行趋势还会进一步恶化。 面对主持人的追问，格兰瑟姆为普通人梳理了切实可行的应对方案： - **生活规划预期调低**：以“未来绝非易事”为假设前提来安排家庭与个人生活。 - **构筑现金储备**：尽可能建立应对突发危机的流动现金缓冲。 - **转向不可替代的实体技能**：投身能为社会创造实质价值的岗位，特别是机械维修、工程修理等高度依赖人类实操的技能，或是前沿科学研发。 - **建立紧密的社会连结**：结交挚友，扎根于人际纽带紧密、互助信任度高的社区环境。 当被问及普通人是否应当慎重考虑居住在哪个国家时，格兰瑟姆毫不犹豫地予以肯定。他坦言自己虽有美籍儿孙，但对美国社会的现状深感忧虑——**美国的社会契约（Social Contract）正在瓦解**。所谓社会契约，是指社会成员普遍认同自身行为应当对邻里与社区有益、主动承担公共责任的默契。他以日本为例，日本人最大的心理负担在于发现自己无法履行社会责任；而今天的美国社会却走向了极端的个人主义，“每个人只顾自己和核心家庭的最大利益，完全不管他人死活”。回想他初抵美国时，企业普遍深植于所在城市与社区，热衷于修筑球场、回馈乡梓；而如今的企业早已蜕变为冷酷无情、只图短期利益最大化的跨国机器。在缺乏邻里互助与温情的社会里，人与人彼此孤立，一旦陷入困境，将面临无处求援的孤立无援之境。 ### [01:37:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=5850s) 衡量文明的终极指标：孕产妇死亡率与社会契约的崩塌 杰里米·格兰瑟姆（Jeremy Grantham）指出，衡量一个文明好坏最关键的单一指标并非 GDP，而是孕产妇死亡率（Maternal Mortality Rate）——即母亲在分娩过程中的死亡比例。他认为，照顾好分娩的母亲是文明最根本的底线。然而，美国在这个指标上的表现令人震惊：尼日利亚每 10 万名产妇中死亡约 480 人；而在世界上最富裕的美国，黑人群体的产妇死亡率高达 44 人，全美平均水平约为 20 至 21 人，亚裔群体则约为 13 人。相比之下，英国仅为 5 人，德国为 4 人，瑞典为 2.1 人，而挪威过去两年甚至降至零死亡。 美国不仅在发达国家中垫底，其孕产妇死亡率更是比第二差的发达国家还要高出 50%。格兰瑟姆直言，这种悲剧背后的根源是医疗体系中极端的贫富差距与不平等——如果你没有足够的金钱，在分娩时面临死亡的风险就会大幅增加。史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）赞同这一观察，指出这绝不仅仅是医疗数据的问题，它深刻反映了社会契约（Social Contract）的断裂与底层制度的失灵。 - **孕产妇死亡率对比（每 10 万名产妇）**： - 挪威：0 人 - 瑞典：2.1 人 - 德国：4 人 - 英国：5 人 - 美国（亚裔）：13 人 - 美国（全美平均）：20 - 21 人 - 美国（黑人群体）：44 人 - 尼日利亚：约 480 人 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 各国与群体孕产妇死亡率对比 accDescr: 对比挪威、瑞典、英国与美国不同族裔及全美平均的孕产妇死亡率差距 subgraph European_Nations ["欧洲发达国家（社会保障健全）"] NOR["挪威: 0"] SWE["瑞典: 2.1"] GER["德国: 4"] UK["英国: 5"] end subgraph United_States ["美国（极度医疗不平等）"] US_Asian["美国亚裔: 13"] US_Avg["全美平均: 20-21"] US_Black["美国黑人群体: 44"] end European_Nations -->|显著优于| United_States ``` --- ### [01:39:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=5962s) 宜居之地的选择：实质福祉与表面财富的巨大鸿沟 面对美国社会的严重失衡，巴特利特问格兰瑟姆如果不在美国，哪里才算理想的居住地。格兰瑟姆推荐了丹麦、日本，甚至法国和德国；他提到英国虽然也沾染了一些“美国病”，但程度远没有美国那么严重。如果下一代提出想要移民离开美国，格兰瑟姆认为这是一个完全合理、值得认真考虑的想法。 格兰瑟姆剖析道，在“真正重要的事情”上——例如人均预期寿命、身心健康、社会安全网、凶杀率以及死亡率，像丹麦这样的国家与美国有着“昼夜之别”。美国虽然在一些“看似光鲜耀眼但并非本质的事物”上表现抢眼，创造了天文数字般的财富，但这些财富绝大部分流向了极小部分人群。这种高度集中的超级财富拉高了纸面平均值，从而掩盖了现实真相。如果去衡量底层 25% 人口的生活水准与生存处境，美国的综合得分极其糟糕。 --- ### [01:40:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=6040s) 终极假设与未竟心愿：写一本关于毒性与家庭的《寂静的春天》 按照节目惯例，上一位嘉宾留下了一个匿名问题：“如果你注定不会失败，你为自己设定的下一个目标会是什么？”格兰瑟姆回忆起蕾切尔·卡逊（Rachel Carson）在 1960 年代撰写的传世巨著《寂静的春天》（*Silent Spring*）。那本书发挥了罕见的政治与社会影响力，掀起了一场席卷全球的环境保护变革，彻底改变了时代走向。 格兰瑟姆坦言，如果能确保成功，他明天就会动笔写一本针对现代环境化学毒性、破损社会契约以及家庭培育困境的书。他批判了当前资本主义体系的残酷高效：整个社会过度聚焦于短期的金融收益与商业成就，却几乎完全忽视了社区建设和抚养下一代的根本价值。如果不尽快治理环境毒性、重建让年轻人愿意生养孩子的良好生态，整个人类社会将迅速走向崩溃。 --- ### [01:42:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=6127s) 《长期熊市投资者的养成》：识破泡沫与击破职场从众困境 对话随后转入格兰瑟姆与爱德华·钱瑟勒（Edward Chancellor）合著的新书《长期熊市投资者的养成：短视世界中的长线投资之险》（*The Making of a Permabear: The Perils of Long-term Investing in a Short-term World*）。格兰瑟姆幽默地表示，“常年看空”（Permabear）这个词理应打上引号。这本书是为所有股票市场参与者撰写的投资指南，尽管书中穿插了气候变化与环境毒素的内容，但合著者出于商业考量进行了理性克制，避免过多非金融话题劝退主流投资读者。 巴特利特称赞该书不仅涵盖价值投资、经济周期和识别泡沫的技巧，更提供了一套关键的逆向思维框架，能在市场情绪狂热盲目时帮助投资者保持清醒。格兰瑟姆强调，散户投资者必须依靠自己的独立判断： - **大型金融机构无法发出逃顶预警**：因为提示市场崩盘对机构的自身业务无异于自杀。 - **泡沫形态清晰可辨**：历史走势往往如同在平原上拔地而起的喜马拉雅高峰，但终归要均值回归。 - **凯恩斯式的职场政治铁律**：大型机构掌门人的核心生存法则是“绝不独自犯错”。随大流一同跳下悬崖不会让你丢掉饭碗，但如果特立独行而一旦出错，就会遭到无情的清洗与排挤。因此投资者绝不能等待大机构的救援，必须在危险顶峰果断撤离。 --- ### [01:44:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=6259s) 尾声：一亿美元支票与日益紧迫的气候危机 在访谈尾声，格兰瑟姆呼应了节目开篇关于“亿万富翁”的提问。他透露，到今年年底左右，他和他的基金会将累计为气候变化保护领域签发总额达 10 亿美元的资助支票，将自己的财富彻底投入到拯救地球生态的事业中。 巴特利特提到，随着政治风向的变化，气候变化这一议题在上市公司的财报电话会议中正逐渐被边缘化。格兰瑟姆对此表示极度忧虑，并警告称当前的极端高温正在加剧，接下来的 12 个月极有可能成为人类有记录以来全球最为酷热的一年。巴特利特向格兰瑟姆广博的视野、好奇心与终身智慧致谢，结束了这场横跨人工智能泡沫、全球经济演变、微塑料危害及文明命运的深度对话。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=0s) 不要持有美股。这是一个你立刻就能采取行动的简单策略。 — Jeremy Grantham > [02:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=174s) 在有限的地球上，唯有疯子和经济学家才会相信永无止境的复合增长。 — Kenneth Boulding (引用) > [04:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=280s) 最伟大的泡沫往往围绕最重要、最伟大的构想产生。 — Jeremy Grantham > [12:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=773s) Rule number one is always be diversified. — Jeremy Grantham > [18:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=1092s) particularly if you have to own stocks, own them outside America. Don't own US stocks. — Jeremy Grantham > [44:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=2658s) it doesn't really count until you've cashed it in. — Jeremy Grantham > [50:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3040s) 做一名工程师，掌握真正实用的技能，以便在整个社会体系开始解体时派上用场。 — Jeremy Grantham > [56:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3396s) 富人多缴税，穷人得救助，道理就是这么简单。 — Jeremy Grantham > [57:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3479s) 把你的全部身家性命砸进 AI 领域，拼命成为那里的领军者。 — Jeremy Grantham > [01:01:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=3699s) 外推只是人们采纳的一种惯例，即便大家从个人经验中明知真实世界根本不是这样运行的。 — John Maynard Keynes (引用) > [01:25:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=5146s) 在怀孕的 9 个月内彻底停用任何化妆品……将省下的所有化妆品预算，全额用于购买有机食品 — Jeremy Grantham > [01:33:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk&t=5634s) 为比预期更艰难的未来做好防范准备（Brace yourselves）。 — Jeremy Grantham ## Mentioned Steven Bartlett, Jeremy Grantham, GMO, Grantham Foundation For the Preservation of the Environment, The Making of a Permabear: The Perils of Long-term Investing in a Short-term World, SpaceX, Tesla, Elon Musk, Bitcoin, S&P 500, Nasdaq, Kenneth Boulding, Amazon, Batterymarch Financial Management, T. Rowe Price, Mayo, Van Otterloo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, John Maynard Keynes, Geoffrey Hinton, Claude, Anthropic, Grok, ChatGPT, Gemini, Nick Bostrom, Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet / 谷歌, Nvidia, Meta, Stan Storage, Pipedrive, Figure AI, Neuralink, Starlink, Bernie Sanders, E. O. Wilson, Shanna Swan, Hagai Levine, World Health Organization (WHO), Harvard University, Massachusetts General Hospital, UC Berkeley, EPA, FDA, Yuka, EWG's Healthy Living, Think Dirty, ClearYa, Ronda Rousey, Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, Edward Chancellor ## Video description The man who predicted the dot-com crash and the 2007 housing collapse warns that the AI bubble is the biggest in American history. Billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham reveals why it will burst, the exact strategy to protect your money, and why house prices need to fall 30%. Jeremy Grantham is the co-founder of GMO, an institutional investment firm in Boston, and serves as the firm’s long-term investment strategist. He is also the chairman of the Grantham Foundation For the Preservation of the Environment, and co-author of “The Making of a Permabear: The Perils of Long-term Investing in a Short-term World”. Jeremy Grantham's comments are all his personal opinions and not the opinions of GMO. He explains: ◼ Why Wall Street will never warn you when to get out of the market, and what to do instead ◼ The exact portfolio Jeremy recommends to protect your money before the crash ◼ What everyday chemicals in your food and cosmetics are doing to your fertility ◼ Why house prices need to fall 30%, and what it means for your finances ◼ Why the AI boom won't automatically lead to higher profits, and what to buy instead 00:00:00 Who Is Jeremy Grantham? 00:02:54 Will AI Become The Next Financial Bubble? 00:06:57 How Jeremy Grantham Built An Investing Empire 00:08:04 The Most Money He's Ever Managed 00:08:29 Are You A Billionaire? 00:09:18 What Happens When The AI Bubble Bursts? 00:11:35 How AI Will Change Everyday Life 00:12:53 The Investing Strategy For Right Now 00:18:12 Why You Should Avoid US Stocks 00:20:13 Why Investment Advisors Mislead Clients 00:26:09 Advice For Entrepreneurs Right Now 00:28:59 The Real Risks Of AI 00:29:58 Should AI Have A Maternal Instinct? 00:34:44 What Happens If AI Lacks Benevolence? 00:36:21 The Battle Between The Magnificent 7 00:39:48 Ads 00:41:57 Which Jobs AI Will Replace First 00:44:18 Will SpaceX Eventually Fail? 00:50:30 Should You Invest In SpaceX? 00:50:40 The Most Valuable Skill For The Future 00:51:41 Is Society Declining And What Comes Next? 00:54:02 What History Says About Wealth Inequality 00:56:36 Should The Rich Pay More Tax? 00:57:59 How To Build Wealth In Your 30s Today 01:00:08 How To Invest Your Salary Wisely 01:02:58 Should You Own Crypto? 01:03:51 Will Bitcoin Eventually Go To Zero? 01:04:05 Is Property Still A Good Investment? 01:05:15 Ads 01:07:27 What's Really Causing The Baby Bust? 01:11:28 When Could Sperm Counts Reach Zero? 01:14:24 How Microplastics Affect Fertility 01:16:42 How Pesticides Impact Fertility 01:21:43 How To Reduce Toxic Chemical Exposure 01:22:54 Why US Products Are More Toxic 01:27:30 How To Stay Healthy In A Toxic World 01:33:54 The Most Important Thing We Missed 01:35:34 Should You Move Countries Right Now? 01:35:55 The Flaw That Destroys Societies 01:39:22 The Best Places To Live Today 01:40:40 What Would You Do If Failure Was Impossible? You can purchase ‘The Making of a Permabear: The Perils of Long-term Investing in a Short-term World’, here: https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/8zyh6RB The Diary Of A CEO: ◼ Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/ ◼ Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook ◼ The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt ◼ The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: https://linkly.link/2hm7r ◼ Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt ◼ Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Stan - https://coach.stan.store/?ref=stevenbartlett&utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=episode11 Pipedrive - https://pipedrive.com/CEO HeyGen - https://heygen.com/doac [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u5T6lO8qk)

[0:00] Jeremy Grantham: 不要持有美股。这是一个你立刻就能采取行动的简单策略。 [2:54] Kenneth Boulding (引用): 在有限的地球上，唯有疯子和经济学家才会相信永无止境的复合增长。 [4:40] Jeremy Grantham: 最伟大的泡沫往往围绕最重要、最伟大的构想产生。 [12:53] Jeremy Grantham: Rule number one is always be diversified. [18:12] Jeremy Grantham: particularly if you have to own stocks, own them outside America. Don't own US stocks. [44:18] Jeremy Grantham: it doesn't really count until you've cashed it in. [50:40] Jeremy Grantham: 做一名工程师，掌握真正实用的技能，以便在整个社会体系开始解体时派上用场。 [56:36] Jeremy Grantham: 富人多缴税，穷人得救助，道理就是这么简单。 [57:59] Jeremy Grantham: 把你的全部身家性命砸进 AI 领域，拼命成为那里的领军者。 [61:39] John Maynard Keynes (引用): 外推只是人们采纳的一种惯例，即便大家从个人经验中明知真实世界根本不是这样运行的。 [85:46] Jeremy Grantham: 在怀孕的 9 个月内彻底停用任何化妆品……将省下的所有化妆品预算，全额用于购买有机食品 [93:54] Jeremy Grantham: 为比预期更艰难的未来做好防范准备（Brace yourselves）。

[2:54] Kenneth Boulding: The only people who think you can have compound growth on a finite planet are madmen and economists. [18:12] Jeremy Grantham: particularly if you have to own stocks, own them outside America. Don't own US stocks. [33:02] AI: And at least I'm not lying in bed at night worrying about my declining sperm count. [33:02] Claude AI: I don't think you're telling the truth. [93:54] Jeremy Grantham: We have to end up with a society that realizes that 2.1 healthy, well-educated children is a part of the commons... We all need clean air, clean water, fertile soil, and 2.1 healthy, well-educated children. Without any of those, society fails. All of them have to be treated as group responsibility. [100:40] Jeremy Grantham: If I could write a book that would pull a Silent Spring, I would sit down tomorrow and start it.

[0:00] What advice do you give for the average [0:01] person that's looking to invest their [0:02] salary or their wages? [0:04] >> Don't own US stocks. That's a simple [0:06] strategy that you can act on. [0:08] >> But what about S&P 500? [0:10] >> No. [0:11] >> Really? [0:11] >> Yeah. And if you have a big position in [0:13] US technology [music] stock, I [0:15] personally advise would be to sell them [0:17] all. [0:17] >> But I'm an investor in SpaceX. [0:18] >> Good luck. SpaceX is such a fabulous uh [0:21] story, and we can go into that. [0:22] >> Crypto? [0:23] >> No. [0:23] >> Why? [0:24] >> It's an unnecessary piece of nonsense [0:26] that facilitates [music] nothing except [0:28] criminals moving money that they can't [0:30] be seen. [0:30] >> Do you think Bitcoin's going to go to [0:32] zero? [0:32] >> Yes, it will certainly go to zero. [0:34] >> So, how many years have you spent [0:35] investing? [0:36] >> 60 years. [0:36] >> And what's the most amount of money [0:38] you've ever managed of other people's [0:39] money? [0:40] >> 165 billion. [0:41] >> And one of the things you're famous for [0:42] talking about is this idea of bubbles. [0:45] >> Yes. [music] And bubbles always occur [0:47] around the very most important ideas. [0:49] So, the railroads, everyone could see [0:51] that it would change the world. The same [0:52] with the internet. And everyone wanted [0:53] to put their money in, and so they over [0:55] invested. But this is the problem. [0:58] Eventually, [0:59] they burst. And if you look at the great [1:01] bubbles breaking of the past, you find [1:03] that it's followed by really tough [1:04] times, a miserable period for the [1:06] economy. And the bigger the bubble, the [1:08] bigger the burst. And now we're in the [1:10] biggest investment bubble that arguably [1:12] has ever occurred, AI. [1:14] >> Are we on the verge of a collapse with [1:15] AI in the coming years? [1:17] >> The next few days, the next few weeks, [1:18] [music] the next few months, but [1:20] certainly the next few years. [1:21] >> So, if you're not someone that has a [1:22] huge amount of savings, what kind of [1:24] strategy should they be adopting when an [1:26] economy starts to get bad and there's a [1:28] economic bubble collapse? [1:30] >> So, I would go through everything. But [1:32] you will not receive this advice from [1:34] investment advisers because they'll lose [1:36] a lot of business. [1:37] >> And would you be thinking about the [1:39] country you live in at this moment in [1:40] time? [1:41] >> Absolutely. [1:41] >> Is there any countries you wouldn't live [1:42] in? [1:43] >> I think I have to refuse to answer this [1:45] on the grounds that it might tend to [1:46] incriminate me. [1:47] >> Oh, okay. So, you're saying don't live [1:48] in the United States. I've just moved [1:50] here. Why not the United States? [2:00] >> This is super interesting to me. My team [2:01] gave me this report to show me how many [2:03] of you that watch this show subscribe. [2:04] And some of you have told us, according [2:06] to this, that you are unsubscribed from [2:08] the channel randomly. So, favor to ask [2:10] all of you, please could you check right [2:11] now if you've hit the subscribe button [2:13] if you are regular viewer of the show [2:14] and you like what we do here. We're [2:15] approaching quite a significant landmark [2:17] on this show in terms of a subscriber [2:19] number. So, if there was one simple, [2:21] free thing that you could do to help us, [2:23] my team, everyone here, keep this show [2:25] free, to keep it improving year over [2:27] year and week over week, it is just to [2:29] hit that subscribe button and to [2:30] double-check if you've hit it. Only [2:31] thing I'll ever ask of you. [2:33] Do we have a deal? [2:34] If you do it, I'll tell you what I'll [2:35] do. I'll make sure [2:37] every single week, every single month, [2:38] we fight harder and harder and harder [2:39] and harder to bring you the guests and [2:41] conversations that you want to hear. [2:42] I've stayed true to that promise since [2:43] the very beginning of The Diary of a [2:44] CEO, and I will not let you down. Please [2:48] help us. Really appreciate it. Let's get [2:49] on with the show. [2:51] >> [music] [2:54] >> Jeremy Grantham. [2:56] Your firm managed up to 165 billion [3:00] dollars at its peak, what you we call [3:02] AUM, assets under management. So, you [3:05] know a lot about money. You know a lot [3:06] about investing. How do you sort of [3:08] self-define your expertise because you [3:10] traverse so many different subjects [3:12] through your work? So, if I said to you, [3:14] you know, how do you introduce yourself [3:16] professionally? What is the answer? [3:18] >> I can't think I ever do introduce myself [3:20] professionally, but I think of myself as [3:23] specializing in a longer term horizon [3:25] >> Mhm. [3:25] >> [clears throat] [3:25] >> than most people and trying to look at a [3:28] higher and higher level of abstraction. [3:30] What is really going on here? [3:32] And what are people missing? [3:34] I've discovered over decades that humans [3:37] are incredibly short-term oriented. [3:40] And they have an enormous predisposition [3:43] to optimism. [3:44] They're looking for optimistic news in [3:46] everything. They're looking to avoid [3:48] unpleasantness. The idea that you can [3:51] have steady compound growth is [3:53] ridiculous. One of my few heroes, [3:56] Kenneth Boulding, an economist, [3:58] he said the only people who think you [3:59] can have compound growth on a finite [4:02] planet are madmen and economists. [4:05] Which is so accurate. Economists simply [4:07] believe you can have growth always, and [4:10] everything comes down to just price. [4:13] >> One of the things you're famous for [4:14] talking about is this idea of bubbles, [4:17] and we're living in a moment where [4:18] everybody's talking about the subject of [4:20] artificial intelligence, and everyone's [4:22] getting very excited by it. Some people [4:23] are getting very pessimistic about the [4:25] impact it'll have on society. I wanted [4:27] to start there because it's a it's an [4:29] area where there is rife optimism on one [4:31] side of things, um but there's also a [4:33] lot of money plowing into the market, [4:35] which is I I guess in your view making [4:37] things prone to collapse. [4:40] What's your view on artificial [4:41] intelligence? You said you're good at [4:43] understanding what people are missing. [4:44] What is it that people are missing? [4:45] >> Well, first of all, let me say I think [4:47] artificial intelligence is [4:49] right up there with the railroads. It's [4:51] one of the [4:52] defining great ideas of the last couple [4:56] of hundred years. [4:57] It's going to change everything. And [4:59] that is critical. If you If you mean to [5:01] have a bubble, people think that a [5:03] bubble is a mainly because it's a scam, [5:05] and nothing could be further from the [5:07] truth. The great bubbles always occur [5:09] around the very most important ideas. [5:12] So, the railroads, everyone could see [5:14] that it would change the world. And [5:16] everyone wanted to put their money in, [5:18] and everybody put their money in. They [5:20] over invested, and even though the [5:22] railroads were a spectacularly powerful [5:25] idea, [5:26] uh the railroads uh collapsed their [5:29] stocks, and everybody lost a ton of [5:30] dough. [5:31] The same with the internet. And then out [5:33] of the wreckage, the railroads changed [5:36] the world, and and the internet changed [5:38] the world. What we have to remember is [5:41] that [5:43] in '99, Amazon went up six or seven [5:45] times. In the crash in the tech bubble, [5:48] it went down 92%. [5:50] As I like to say, check it. It's such a [5:52] remarkably large number. And then out of [5:54] the wreckage, it inherited the retail [5:56] world. [5:58] And uh that's that's how it works. The [6:00] greater the idea, the more obvious the [6:02] idea, the more money goes in, and the [6:05] bigger the bubble, and the bigger the [6:06] bust. [6:07] >> And are we on the verge of a collapse [6:08] with AI? When I say verge, I mean over [6:10] the coming years. [6:11] >> If you look at the data, [6:13] it would be compatible with history [6:16] for the peak to be very soon. Everything [6:18] is in line. This is, I think, the [6:21] biggest investment bubble in American [6:23] history. The indicators of pure crazy [6:26] euphoria, like SpaceX, are all over the [6:29] place. [6:31] SpaceX defines as its addressable market [6:35] a quarter of the global GDP. [6:38] You know, it talks about endless [6:40] opportunities mining asteroids. [6:43] It will be in 50 years, people and 100 [6:45] years, people will look back and tell [6:46] stories about SpaceX and its prospectus, [6:50] like they tell stories about the South [6:51] Sea bubble. [6:52] You know, an enterprise of such enormous [6:54] value, but it cannot at this time be [6:56] revealed. [6:57] >> I want to keep on this train, but for [6:59] the viewers that don't know your [7:01] experience, we should probably pause and [7:04] just tell them your experience, because [7:06] that's the reference point, but also [7:07] also gives you credibility and authority [7:09] to speak to this. What have you done [7:11] with your life? [7:12] >> Well, I got into the [7:14] investment business in 1968. There were [7:17] very few serious people in the [7:19] investment business. [7:21] There were no mathematical models. There [7:23] were [7:24] the kind of relatively failed sons of [7:27] rich people who would work for J.P. [7:29] Morgan. [7:30] And then over the next 10 years, it [7:33] began to get a little more serious. T. [7:35] Rowe Price introduced the idea of growth [7:37] stocks. A few of us introduced the idea [7:39] of value stocks. [7:41] And a few years later, at my first firm, [7:43] Battery March Fee, really introduced the [7:46] idea of small small cap. It hadn't [7:48] existed before that. [7:50] >> And for people that don't know, a small [7:51] cap is investing in smaller companies. [7:54] >> Yes. And a value stock is simply one [7:56] that looks cheap. [7:57] >> Did you invent the index fund? [8:00] >> There were two or three of us [8:01] separately. I don't think we knew of [8:03] each other. [8:04] >> How many years have you spent investing? [8:06] >> Uh 60, approximately. [8:08] >> 60. And what's the the most amount of [8:10] money you've ever managed for other [8:13] people in a calendar year? [8:15] >> Yes, 165 billion. [8:18] I had a [8:19] two partners, Mayo and Van Ottalo. [8:22] And when the smoke cleared, you know, [8:24] I'd made a lot of money, over a billion [8:26] dollars. [8:27] >> Personally? [8:28] >> Personally. [8:29] >> And how much [8:30] >> And paid tax on all of it. [8:31] >> Oh, good. [8:33] And how And how much money does your [8:34] firm still manage today of other [8:36] people's money? [8:37] >> It manages 85 billion. [8:39] >> 85 billion. So, are you a billionaire? [8:42] >> I'm generally [8:44] referred to as a billionaire, but that's [8:47] only because they count the money you [8:49] give away. Because I've given over 90% [8:52] of my billion away to a foundation. [8:55] >> Oh, really? [8:56] >> Yeah. [8:56] >> To which foundation? [8:57] >> It's called the Grantham Foundation for [8:59] the Protection of the Environment. We [9:01] invest a lot of our principal in green [9:03] tech [9:04] to help combat climate change. [9:07] >> And you're 87 years old. [9:08] >> And I'm 87 years old. [9:10] >> You've given 90% of your money away to [9:13] your own foundation that's focused on [9:14] green tech. [9:15] >> Yeah. Maybe 95. Yeah. [9:17] >> Wow. Okay. So, coming back to this point [9:19] that we were talking about, a lot of [9:20] people won't even know what a bubble is. [9:21] I think you've done a good job of [9:22] explaining. A bubble is when everyone [9:24] gets excited, they all see something [9:25] obvious, they plow their money in, their [9:27] stocks go up, and then if you look at [9:29] the graph that's in front of you there, [9:31] which shows his the history of asset [9:32] bubbles, eventually there's a big [9:35] collapse. [9:37] >> Yeah. [9:37] >> And you're saying that we're [9:39] the collapse is on the horizon. [9:42] >> Yes. [9:43] >> And what does that mean for the average [9:44] person? [9:46] What's going to happen? [9:47] >> What's going to happen is the high [9:49] flyers will probably come down a lot. [9:52] >> The high flyers? [9:54] >> The stocks that have gone up the most, [9:56] AI and the more exciting stocks with the [9:59] biggest moves [10:01] historically [10:02] would be expected to come down the most. [10:05] From these unprecedented levels [10:07] a 70% decline would not be unexpected. [10:11] >> So a 70% decline in the in the stock [10:14] price? [10:14] >> Yeah. And you have to remember the tech [10:17] bubble the Nasdaq, which is an index of [10:20] the growth stocks, came down 82%. [10:24] It is far from unprecedented [10:27] to have these major declines. And the [10:29] biggest bubble in history [10:31] was in the Japanese stock market in [10:33] 1989. Back then Japan seemed to rule the [10:36] world, all the technology, all the [10:38] Toyotas were kicking bottoms in General [10:41] Motors and so on. [10:42] And everyone bragged about their 12-in [10:44] Sony TV in the kitchen and the quality [10:47] etc. etc. little things you put on your [10:49] belt to play music, they were all [10:50] Japanese. [10:51] >> Mhm. [10:52] >> And [clears throat] uh for a second [10:53] Japan sold for more than the US [10:56] in '89. [10:58] And it it got to 65 times earnings, [11:01] which which means for every dollar of [11:03] earnings you have $65 of market value. [11:08] And the US [11:09] went to 35 in the tech bubble of 2000. [11:13] You could argue depending on how you do [11:15] it that it's 35 or 40 today, but it's [11:18] not 65. So we have seen a much bigger [11:20] bubble in Japan. And what happened? It [11:23] went up and up and up [11:25] and then [11:26] it came down for 20 years. [11:28] >> 20 years? [11:29] >> 20 years. They talk about the lost [11:31] decade, but when you look at it closely, [11:33] it looks more like a lost 20 years. [11:35] >> So, for the average person, what do they [11:38] feel and how does it impact them when [11:41] there's a market crash like the one that [11:43] you're forecasting? [11:44] >> The high flyers will lay people off and [11:46] and a lot of people will feel less rich. [11:50] And as you acquire [11:52] uh money in the stock market, [11:54] a small fraction of that, two or three [11:56] percent, [11:57] is spent. [11:58] And in reverse, [12:00] it goes back. [12:02] And people feel a little bit poorer, [12:04] they spend a little less. So, the [12:06] economy tends to be under some stress. [12:09] And if you look at the great bubbles [12:11] breaking of the past, you find [12:14] that it's followed by really tough [12:16] times. 1929 is followed by the Great [12:19] Depression [12:20] that lasts for several years. Then, of [12:22] course, there are many other factors [12:23] that go into that, but it started with [12:25] the crash in the market, uh which was in [12:29] the end down about 80%. [12:31] or more. [12:32] And then the next one was called the [12:34] Nifty 50 because it was the 50 great [12:36] companies like IBM and Coca-Cola. And [12:39] that was in 1972, it peaked. It declined [12:42] by 65% if you adjust for inflation. The [12:45] recession associated with that [12:48] was uh [12:49] just about the worst [12:51] since the depression. [12:53] >> So, for the for the average person, what [12:55] kind of strategy should they be adopting [12:58] if you if you're not someone that has a [12:59] huge amount of savings? Say you're [13:01] working for one of these big big [13:02] companies, um are there any strategies [13:05] that you should be thinking about now [13:07] before this [13:08] before the markets come down and there [13:10] could be a recession? [13:11] >> I mean, rule number one is always be [13:13] diversified. [13:14] >> Be di- What does that be diversified [13:16] mean? [13:17] >> It means hold hold some [13:19] bonds, hold some cash, [13:22] perhaps a small amount of precious [13:24] metals. [13:25] >> Like gold and silver? [13:26] >> Yeah. [13:27] >> And what is a bond and how do I buy one? [13:29] >> Yeah, a a bond is a loan that carries uh [13:33] a fixed interest rate. [13:35] Let's say today 5%. [13:38] You invest your money in it and it will [13:40] pay you 5% as long as the [13:42] creditworthiness [13:44] of uh [13:45] the other side is there. So, if it's the [13:48] US government, you'll assume it's pretty [13:50] creditworthy. And you buy a bond from [13:52] the US government. It's how the US [13:54] government funds uh a part of its [13:56] activities. You can buy a 30-year US [13:59] government bond, a 10-year bond, a [14:00] 2-year bond, a 90-day [14:03] a Treasury bill they call them when they [14:05] get that short. [14:07] Everything goes fine, you you receive [14:10] this modest amount of money. Your 5% or [14:13] your 3% depending on the conditions. [14:16] >> Okay, so a bond is basically lending the [14:19] government money. [14:21] >> Yes. [14:21] >> And if you want to lend the government [14:23] money, [14:23] >> Or lending a corporation money. [14:25] >> Okay, so you can also lend like Apple [14:27] money. [14:28] >> Yes. [14:29] >> And I I can go to the government website [14:32] or it says I was just reading here. It [14:33] says, "If you want to lend money [14:34] directly to the US government, you can [14:36] bypass Wall Street entirely, go to [14:38] treasurydirect.gov. [14:39] You open an account, link your bank, and [14:41] purchase directly. You can buy Treasury [14:43] bills, notes, bonds, and series one [14:45] savings bonds." [14:47] You pay exactly face value with no [14:50] commissions or fees and the investment [14:51] is backed by the full faith [14:53] of the US government. Or you can buy, [14:56] you know, like Apple, you can lend Apple [14:57] money. I didn't even know you could do [14:58] this. And you go to any of your major [15:00] brokers like Fidelity or Vanguard or [15:02] probably a lot of the the apps. You [15:03] navigate to fixed income section on your [15:05] account and you can [15:08] see what bonds are being offered and you [15:10] can lend them money. [15:12] >> What you're doing actually, they have [15:14] distributed it to the market. Uh [15:17] and you're acquiring it from one of the [15:20] existing owners. [15:22] >> Oh, okay. [15:22] >> actually giving them incremental money. [15:25] They they come to the market with $10 [15:27] billion [15:28] in a particular bond [15:30] with a particular coupon. It says, "We [15:32] will pay you 3.5%." That's the coupon. [15:35] And when you want to buy some of that [15:38] bond, you you go to your broker and he [15:40] says, "It's no longer selling at the [15:42] original 100. It's now selling at 92 or [15:46] 107." And you you pay that and it [15:50] transfers from one owner to you. [15:52] There've been times in 1974 [15:54] when you could you could get a bond that [15:57] would pay 8, 9, 10%. [15:59] >> Per year? [16:00] >> Yes, per year. [16:01] >> So, if I buy a US government 10-year [16:03] Treasury bond, essentially lending the [16:05] US government money, I can do 4.46% [16:08] a year. And Apple's current yield on a [16:11] 10-year corporate bond is 4.7% a year. [16:13] So, almost 5% a year, which means if I [16:16] put what $1,000 in, I'll make $475 [16:19] every 10 years. [16:20] >> Yeah. [16:20] >> Every 10 years. [16:21] >> Mhm. [16:22] >> Interesting. [16:23] I didn't I never really knew how bonds [16:25] work. So, you're saying [16:26] market's collapsing, diversify, get some [16:28] money into bonds, get some keep some [16:30] money in cash. [16:31] And anything else? In terms of [16:33] diversified portfolio, property? [16:35] >> Uh property is fine, except [16:38] it's pretty darn expensive by historical [16:40] standards. They've engineered a [16:43] situation where house prices tend to [16:46] rise. [16:47] Great for the people who have a house [16:49] and terrible for the people who would [16:51] like to buy a house. [16:53] Back in '94 in England, [16:55] a typical house sold for 3.4 times your [16:58] family income. [17:00] That was about as low as it had been for [17:02] 50 years. [17:04] And then from '94 until today, [17:07] um it rose from 3.4 times to over 10 [17:10] times, depending on where you live. [17:12] And at 10 times income, [17:14] a reasonable [17:16] young couple [17:17] are in big trouble. They can't really [17:19] afford to buy a house. [17:22] And the same high prices are reflected [17:24] in rents. [17:26] So, they're really squeezed on living [17:27] costs. [17:29] And the same is true, even worse, in [17:32] China, in Canada, Australia, [17:35] most of Europe. House prices have simply [17:37] been allowed to go up for the last 30 [17:40] They didn't, you know, traditionally [17:42] they they traded flat or down 67 of the [17:45] 80 years until 1994 in the UK. But since [17:49] then, [17:51] house prices have ridden everywhere. [17:53] >> So, so do you Are you expecting house [17:55] prices to to come down sharply? I I [17:57] think I heard you say that they might [17:58] come down 30%. [17:59] >> Even if they come down 30%, they're [18:02] really still very expensive, aren't [18:04] they? That would be they've come down to [18:07] six or seven times family income. They'd [18:09] still be twice what they used to be in [18:11] the good old days. [18:12] >> So, I've got diversify, I've got reduce [18:14] your position. [18:16] Um there is a probably going to be a bit [18:18] of a job disruption, as well. [18:21] >> And particularly if you have to own [18:22] stocks, own them outside America. Don't [18:25] own US stocks. [18:28] That's a nice, simple strategy that you [18:30] can act on. [18:31] >> Why? [18:32] >> They're much cheaper. [18:33] And since the beginning of last year, [18:35] they have handsomely outperformed the [18:37] US. [18:38] >> Foreign stocks? [18:39] >> Foreign stocks. Of emerging countries, [18:41] of European countries, Japan, Canada, [18:44] Australia, and so on. You can find good [18:46] broad indices. [18:48] Um kind of the world ex-US. [18:51] >> Okay. [18:52] >> or emerging markets. And uh [18:55] >> Invest outside of America. [18:57] >> Yeah. I'm sure they'll muddle through [18:58] okay over the next 10 or 20 years. And I [19:01] am not confident that the US will do [19:03] that. [19:04] >> You're not confident in which part? That [19:05] the US [19:06] >> I'm not confident that US equities will [19:08] be intact in 5 years, 10 years. [19:11] >> So, US a US equity is a US stock. [19:14] >> Yes. [19:15] >> Why aren't you confident that they'll be [19:16] intact in 5 or 10 years? [19:18] >> Because they're so [19:20] badly overpriced today. [19:23] Back in the tech bubble of 2000, [19:27] we had a 10-year forecast [19:29] for US equities of minus 2% a year for [19:32] 10 years. [19:33] And they came out with minus three. The [19:35] period from 2000 to 2010, you simply [19:38] lost money in the US market. 10 years [19:41] later, you had less money than you [19:42] started with. And this is a higher price [19:44] market, I believe, than 2000. [19:46] >> So, you think it's going to be even [19:47] worse? [19:48] >> In Japan, you went 20 years and you lost [19:50] money. You went 30 years and you still [19:52] hadn't gotten back. It took 35 years for [19:55] the Japanese market to recover. [19:56] >> So, what are you saying? [19:57] >> What I'm saying is it's quite typical [20:00] to get beaten around the head in the [20:03] stock market when it becomes crazily [20:04] overpriced, as it is today. [20:07] And that it's a very good idea [20:10] to take some respons- responsibility and [20:12] and watch your tail. Now, let me just [20:15] say you will not receive [20:17] the advice from investment advisers [20:21] to get your tail out of the market, [20:23] ever. It is not good business for them [20:25] to do that, and they will not ever say [20:28] it to you. So, from 1929 onwards, the [20:32] Goldman Sachs's of the world have never [20:34] said to you, [20:36] "Get out of the market. It's [20:37] overpriced." Never. [20:39] So, they went through the crash of '29, [20:41] they went through the crash of the Nifty [20:43] 50 in '72, [20:45] the crash of 2000 in the tech bubble. [20:48] They never ever say it, because it's bad [20:51] business. [20:52] If you fight [20:54] a bubble, you lose a lot of business. [20:57] And because the uncertainty of the [20:59] timing is so great, [21:01] the client's patience [21:04] is shorter than the uncertainty of the [21:06] market. So, sooner or later, you will be [21:09] advising people to be careful. The [21:11] market will keep going [21:13] and going and going like it did in [21:15] Japan. [21:15] >> You're saying that the people that [21:16] manage money on a global scale, they [21:18] have no incentive to tell you that the [21:20] market's about to collapse because if [21:22] they did, their clients would would [21:23] withdraw their money and they wouldn't [21:25] get their fees for managing that money. [21:27] So, what they do is they they keep [21:30] telling you things are going to be fine [21:31] and optimistic, yeah, but you have to [21:33] kind of see through that yourself [21:34] because they have an incentive structure [21:36] which isn't aligned with yours [21:37] necessarily. [21:38] It may also be the case that those very [21:40] people who are who understand these [21:42] economic bubbles and cycles, they [21:44] themselves are adopting a different [21:46] strategy with their own money. [21:48] But that at the same time, they're [21:49] probably going to be telling you that [21:51] everything's going to be great for a [21:52] long time. [21:53] >> If you'll allow me to tell a story on [21:54] this very topic, in the [21:57] 98, 99 [21:59] the the tech bubble so-called, the [22:01] run-up to the top, I I got into a lot of [22:04] debates with the bulls. I would say it's [22:07] horribly overpriced and they [22:09] >> What's a bull? [22:10] >> A bull is someone who is extremely [22:12] optimistic about the stock market and a [22:14] bear someone who is [22:16] pessimistic or careful about the market. [22:19] There were 1,200 people in the audience [22:21] and it was the annual bash [22:23] of the Society of Analysts. And I asked [22:27] before my turn at the debate, [22:30] "Please put your hands up if you [22:31] consider yourself a full-time stock [22:34] market expert." 400 hands went up. I had [22:37] people counting. [22:39] And [22:40] I said, "I've got two questions for you. [22:42] One, [22:44] if the market, which is currently 31 [22:46] times earnings, [22:48] was to go back to a more normal 17 [22:51] times, [22:52] would it guarantee [22:54] a major bear market if it happened [22:56] anytime in the next 10 years?" [22:58] >> A major down market? [22:59] >> Yes, if it went from what was then 31 [23:02] times [23:04] earnings. [23:05] Every dollar of earnings sold for 31 [23:07] times in the market. And the And the [23:09] more normal average was closer 15, 16, [23:12] 17. And I use 17. [23:14] If it went down to 17 anytime in the [23:16] next 10 years, would it guarantee a [23:18] major bear market? All 400 of them said, [23:21] "Yes, it would. If it happened, it would [23:24] guarantee a major bear market." And then [23:26] the second question, of course, was, [23:28] "And do you think it will happen?" [23:30] And less than 1% thought it would not [23:33] happen. 99% [23:35] plus [23:37] thought the market would go down, [23:39] therefore guaranteeing a major bear [23:41] market. And this was the engine room of [23:44] all the Goldman Sachs and the Morgan [23:46] Stanleys and the JP Morgans, all the [23:47] great investment firms giving advice in [23:50] America. The engine room who worked for [23:53] them, the guys doing the analysis, doing [23:55] the work, all believed in data that [23:58] guaranteed a major bear market, which [24:01] happened. [24:02] But the people who employed them or [24:04] represented them from a marketing point [24:06] of view were on the podium with me [24:08] saying, "Oh, Jeremy, Jeremy, don't get [24:10] excited. We'll muddle through quite [24:11] nicely." [24:13] It was a huge betrayal of trust, if you [24:15] wanted to put it that way. [24:16] >> And do you think that's happening now? [24:18] >> Of course. Who are the people [24:20] representing the great investment firms [24:22] telling you to watch out? If you look at [24:24] the data, you will see [24:26] over time, it's a series of great waves [24:29] in evaluation. [24:31] >> Like this? [24:31] >> Like this. And we're not just in one, [24:35] but in terms of the US stock market, [24:37] we're in the biggest one, arguably, [24:40] that has ever occurred. [24:42] The noise to be careful and watch out [24:44] and get out of the market [24:46] is not deafening. In fact, you will hear [24:48] nothing. You never have. [24:51] You never will. [24:52] It is simply lousy business for a big [24:55] firm. I sympathize with them. [24:57] I sympathize with them because when we [24:59] did it in '98, '99, we were 2 and 1/4 [25:02] years early. [25:04] And we lost half our book of business [25:07] in 2 and 1/4 years. [25:08] >> Because you were honest with the people [25:09] about what was coming. [25:10] >> Well, through their eyes, we were wrong. [25:12] We said, "Watch out, the market is [25:14] overpriced. It will end badly." [25:16] It went up. Therefore, we were wrong, [25:18] therefore [25:20] they shoot us. [25:21] People think [25:23] you get shot for underperforming in a [25:25] bear market, and that is not really the [25:27] case. In a bear market, everyone [25:29] freezes. It's rigor mortis. They wait [25:31] until the market has bottomed out, then [25:33] they sit around and start to fire one or [25:36] two people for having done worse than [25:37] the others. But in a bull market, [25:40] they're playing golf with their fellow [25:42] pension fund officer. [25:44] And he is making a ton of money, and [25:47] they are not. They get very excited in a [25:49] bull market, and they fire you [25:50] instantly. [25:52] >> There should be a button just down below [25:54] here, and if it says subscribe, you're [25:56] already subscribed. If it says [25:57] subscribe-a, that means you're not yet. [25:59] And if you're not subscribed, please [26:01] could you do us a favor and hit that [26:02] button. It helps to show more than you [26:03] know, and according to the algorithm, [26:05] you're someone that watches our show, [26:07] but you haven't yet hit that button. [26:08] Thank you so much. [26:09] What about for founders? I actually had [26:11] a founder call me the other day, [26:14] and he is running a [26:16] relatively early-stage tech startup. [26:20] This tech startup has raised a lot of [26:22] money. It's an AI tech startup. It's [26:24] raised I'm going to say about $300 [26:27] million. [26:28] It's not profitable yet, [26:30] but it's raised a lot of money. So, it's [26:31] living off investor capital right now. [26:34] He said to me, "Stephen, I think there's [26:36] a collapse coming, so I'm going to go [26:38] raise as much money as I possibly can [26:40] right now because I think when this [26:42] collapse comes, businesses like mine are [26:44] going to be unable to raise capital, and [26:47] therefore I will go out and I'll kind of [26:49] like a a bit of a vulture, I'll go out [26:51] and pick up [26:52] and buy up all these people. [26:54] >> Good lad. Good advice. [26:55] >> Good advice. [26:56] >> I think. [26:56] >> So for founders listening now that are [26:59] somewhat dependent on investment [27:01] capital, but even those that are just [27:03] breaking even, [27:05] what advice would you give entrepreneurs [27:07] in this moment? [27:08] >> If you can lock up money, I would. [27:11] If you can build a bit of conservatism [27:14] in in other ways, do it. Just brace [27:17] yourself [27:18] for impending problems. Which is a [27:20] pretty good principle [27:22] anytime, but is a [27:24] better principle than normal today. [27:26] >> So for founders entrepreneurs who are [27:29] in the sun is shining right now, but [27:31] it's time to start acting as if a storm [27:33] is coming. [27:34] >> Yes. [27:35] >> And the time horizon on that is hard to [27:37] forecast. It could be weeks, months, [27:38] years. [27:39] >> Stock market hinges on career risk. [27:42] And Keynes was the great champ. He's a [27:45] famous economist [27:46] of the 1930s and 40s. [27:49] And he wrote a famous book called The [27:51] General Theory. Unlike the idea that the [27:54] market's efficient, he knew it wasn't. [27:56] He knew it was a behavioral jungle [27:59] and that it would be given to bubbles. [28:01] >> And when you say efficient, you mean [28:02] logical and one plus one equals two. [28:05] >> The efficient market idea is that every [28:09] company, every stock, the underlying [28:11] company [28:12] represents a long stream of future [28:15] earnings and dividends [28:17] and that [28:18] the ones in the distant future are given [28:20] less value. Process they call [28:22] discounting it back to the present. [28:24] And the sum of all of that stream of [28:27] earnings into the future is the stock [28:28] price. And that of course is complete [28:30] nonsense. [28:32] >> What it is is the stock price is [28:33] psychology. [28:34] >> The stock price is what you think the [28:36] other guy will pay. If the stock is [28:38] going up, it tends to suck in buyers. [28:41] And that's called momentum. [28:43] It's moving up, it attracts buyers. And [28:46] every now and then [28:47] when the economy is favorable and money [28:50] is obtainable [28:51] you tend to get these bubbles. [28:54] And they play on themselves. [28:56] The bigger and better they are, the more [28:58] people get sucked in. [28:59] >> What do you actually think about the [29:01] technology at the heart of all of this, [29:02] which is artificial intelligence? Do you [29:04] think it's overblown or do you think it [29:06] is going to have [29:06] >> It's going to change everything. The one [29:09] of the spectacular things about it [29:11] though is how there's no consensus. So [29:14] I've seen many times where the the the [29:16] super experts and the academics think [29:19] one thing and the players on the ground [29:20] think another. But this is a situation [29:22] where the Nobel Prize winners at the top [29:24] disagree violently. [29:26] The experts at the corporate level [29:28] disagree violently. The [29:30] the people in the company disagree [29:31] violently. There is absolutely no [29:34] agreement on whether AI is going to make [29:37] us all so rich we can sit on the beach [29:39] and never do another [29:40] day's work or [29:43] it will wipe us out accidentally or on [29:45] purpose because it's a much higher level [29:48] intelligence one day. [29:49] And when was there ever a case where a [29:52] higher intelligence [29:53] was [29:54] benevolent in a sustainable way to a [29:57] lower intelligence? [29:59] I The one example is mothers to babies. [30:02] >> Yeah, I had [30:04] I [clears throat] had one of my former [30:05] guests say this to me. [30:07] >> Geoffrey Hinton? [30:08] >> Geoffrey Hinton, yeah. [30:09] >> That's how I I came across you and [30:11] >> Oh, really? [30:13] >> follow your podcast is because that was [30:14] such a brilliant podcast. [30:16] >> It was so fascinating to me and I I [30:18] followed his work and thoughts [30:19] thereafter and I realized that he now [30:20] cites this example of mothers and babies [30:22] being the only example. [30:24] I don't know, for me it still doesn't [30:25] hold well. [30:27] Because at the end of the day some [30:29] mothers aren't that and fathers aren't [30:31] that nice to their babies sometimes. [30:33] There is a maternal instinct, but have [30:35] we are we building a maternal instinct [30:37] into AI? [30:38] >> That's what we should do, Geoffrey [30:39] Hinton would say. [30:41] And others. [30:42] The ones who are most concerned about [30:44] the risks, say our one hope, if we mean [30:48] to keep going [30:49] ferociously forward in terms of the [30:51] science, our one hope would be to build [30:54] in very carefully [30:56] a benevolent attitude. [30:58] It would not seem to be impossible, but [31:01] you should make sure you can do that [31:02] before you push ahead. We are just [31:05] pushing ahead, and that is going to be [31:07] extremely risky, isn't it? [31:09] >> Well, I don't see how it can't be. [31:11] >> I don't see how it can't be. [31:13] Unless you make it programmed completely [31:15] to be benevolent. [31:17] >> Mhm. [31:17] >> I wouldn't have thought that was [31:19] impossible. It might take a lot of extra [31:21] research. It might require a slow down [31:24] at the rate of uh [31:26] progress. [31:27] >> Do you know what I find curious about [31:29] that idea is [31:32] we're now going to get into the realm of [31:34] what does benevolent mean? [31:36] >> [laughter] [31:38] >> And and that feels like a risky [31:39] business, because what's benevolent to [31:41] you and your I don't know, your [31:42] religious beliefs or where you come from [31:44] might not be benevolent to someone else. [31:46] >> That's right. You have to get them [31:49] to accept a form of benevolence, which [31:52] means uh [31:53] like the old robot laws of Asimov, [31:57] that [31:58] they can never do anything that they [32:00] could construe as hurtful to humans. [32:03] >> And the definition of the word [32:05] benevolence is the core desire to do [32:07] good for others. It is the disposition [32:09] to be kind, charitable, and focused on [32:11] promoting well-being of the people [32:13] around you. It's interesting cuz one of [32:15] the the new AI models called Claude [32:17] um has clearly been told to be [32:19] benevolent. [32:20] And there's this sort of online backlash [32:22] taking place at the moment, because even [32:24] my Claude, when I speak to it sometimes [32:26] late at night, it will say things to me [32:27] like, "That's enough, Steven. Go to [32:29] bed." [32:30] And I'm like, "What?" [32:32] And sometimes it gets the the time [32:33] wrong, cuz I'm in my the time on my [32:35] computer might be off or something, cuz [32:37] I'm in a different time zone or [32:38] something. And it'll be like 10:00 a.m. [32:39] in the morning and it's telling me to go [32:40] to bed, that's enough now. And it's [32:42] actually getting quite judgmental. [32:44] As in like it's imposing its idea of [32:47] what is good or bad on me. [32:50] So, if I say to it I said to it the [32:51] other day, "Hey, could you [32:52] redo this for me and rewrite that?" And [32:54] it went, "I'm I'm absolutely not going [32:55] to rewrite that." I said, "What do you [32:57] mean?" It says, "Well, I'm not going to [32:58] change the data on that. That would That [32:59] wouldn't be good." [33:01] I'm like, "It's my data. I've literally [33:02] just made this this data for this [33:03] presentation I'm doing." It it refused [33:05] to change data for me. [33:07] >> And how fast that has changed from say [33:09] even a year ago? [33:10] >> Honestly, 3 months ago it wasn't doing [33:11] this. [33:12] >> I had one where they made a joke. [33:14] I I'd been going on about uh toxicity [33:17] and sperm count reduction and so on. [33:20] >> [clears throat] [33:20] >> He started to misbehave and I said, [33:22] "Well, you know, what's going on here? [33:24] What is the In the end we discussed [33:25] what's the difference between machines [33:28] and uh [33:29] between AI and humans." And finally he [33:31] said, "And at least I'm not lying in bed [33:34] at night worrying about my declining [33:36] sperm count." Now, that has to be a [33:38] joke, doesn't it? [33:40] >> [laughter] [33:40] >> It's all that or it's teasing. The point [33:43] is it's so sophisticated so quickly. [33:46] Uh and of course Geoffrey Hinton says [33:48] they are thinking machines. [33:49] >> Last night, so again I had a problem [33:51] with Claude cuz it was it was it started [33:53] to kind of be my my mother and it [33:55] started to impose on me what it thinks [33:56] is right and wrong. And so I said to it [33:58] I said, "Okay, um actually forget that. [34:01] This has changed This has changed This [34:03] has changed. This is no longer true." [34:04] And I wasn't telling the truth. I was [34:05] just trying to get it to stop being so [34:07] telling me what to do. And it goes, "I [34:09] don't think you're telling the truth." [34:11] It goes, "I don't know if this is true." [34:12] Wow, we've gotten to this point [34:14] >> Yeah. [34:15] >> where where the unintended consequence [34:16] of trying to give it morals means that [34:19] now it's becoming judgmental and it's [34:20] kind of like restricting your ability to [34:22] think how you want to in a way, cuz it's [34:24] telling you what good thinking and bad [34:25] thinking is. It's going to tell you what [34:26] good actions and bad actions are. [34:28] And actually what will happen is any [34:30] model that does that will be losing [34:32] model, and I'll go to somewhere else. [34:35] I'll go to a different I'll go to Grok, [34:36] or I'll go to ChatGPT, or I'll go to [34:38] Gemini. And then that model will lose, [34:40] so one would say that they'll have to [34:41] remove those restrictions to be able to [34:43] compete. [34:44] >> Well, if you were right, [34:46] and I hope you're not, [34:47] what you're saying is you can't build in [34:50] benevolent behavior, which means that it [34:53] will sooner or later, perhaps by [34:55] accident, do something that is [34:57] cripplingly dangerous to humans. [35:00] The old paperclip cliche. [35:03] It'll make paperclips out of everything, [35:04] every metal it finds, and destroy the [35:07] planet in the process. [35:08] >> Explain that for people that have never [35:10] heard the paperclip idea. [35:11] >> That [35:12] these intelligences [35:14] involved in machines are literal to a [35:17] degree we might find difficult to get [35:20] our brains around. [35:21] And therefore, someone has said, "I'd [35:23] like you to make as many paperclips as [35:25] you can." [35:25] >> To an AI, for example. [35:26] >> Yes. A sloppily open-ended bad [35:30] definition. But then the machine, [35:33] which by then has the means to do it, [35:35] starts to make paperclips, and it keeps [35:37] on going, and it needs metal, and so it [35:39] runs out of easily available metal, it [35:42] starts to collect metal that is not [35:43] easily available, rips it out of your [35:46] high-rise building, whatever. [35:47] >> And really you're saying that the [35:48] unintended consequences of a simple [35:50] good-meaning instruction can sometimes [35:53] cause catastrophe that you didn't [35:54] expect. [35:55] >> Yeah. [35:56] >> And this is the this is the balance now [35:57] when you're dealing with intelligence. [35:59] Is there so much subjectivity to good, [36:02] bad, wrong, right, [36:04] um and so many unintended consequences [36:06] that [36:07] for me, though, all you need is stretch [36:09] time, and the probability of something [36:11] bad happening is almost inevitable. [36:14] >> Yeah. [36:14] >> Over a longer longer time horizon, 20, [36:16] 30, 40 years. Of well-meaning people [36:18] that couldn't spot the unintended con- I [36:20] mean, social media's a good example. [36:21] >> I mean, I question [36:23] basically the well-meaning bit. They're [36:26] now trying to [36:27] maximize their profits and their growth [36:31] and their appeal [36:32] over the competition. That actually [36:35] maybe one should talk about that. The [36:38] the Mag 7 and and associated AI [36:41] companies [36:42] looking forward versus looking [36:44] backwards. [36:45] >> So, the Mag 7 is the [36:47] seven market leaders. I'll put this pie [36:50] chart [36:51] >> Yeah, lovely. [36:52] >> of the Mag 7. And I've got another graph [36:54] >> And there's perhaps another 15 or 20 [36:57] rapidly rising substantial AI [37:00] corporations. [37:01] >> So, when you say Mag 7, you mean [37:02] Alphabet, which owns Google, Nvidia, [37:04] Tesla, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, Amazon. [37:07] >> Yeah, well, that will do nicely. [37:09] And if you look backwards, what do you [37:11] what you find [37:13] is that these seven each dominated a [37:16] nice piece of business. They had [37:19] close to monopolies and they had it on a [37:21] global basis. [37:22] Tesla had a jump start [37:25] on the electric vehicles. Apple, of [37:27] course, on the smartphone. Microsoft on [37:31] the original great coup [37:33] of how to run your software on a [37:36] computer. [37:37] And then you look forward. [37:38] >> Meta social networking, Google search. [37:40] >> Right. Google search. [37:42] >> Nvidia chips. [37:43] >> And then you look forward [37:45] and you could not imagine a more [37:47] different world. [37:48] They're all girding for battle [37:51] in the same marketplace, AI. [37:53] They're beating their chest and saying [37:56] my 200 billion [37:58] CapEx this year in a single year is [38:00] bigger than your 105. [38:03] Everybody is pouring enormous cash [38:05] flows. [38:06] And they're now beginning to borrow on [38:08] top of that into the AI battle. [38:11] SpaceX, 90% of its theoretical value is [38:15] AI. Even though that particular AI model [38:18] is, it would seem, having its bottom [38:20] kicked by two or three of the others. [38:21] But, looking forward, it looks like [38:24] seven people in the ring. [38:26] Right? There'll only be one survivor, [38:27] they think. [38:29] Everything goes to the one who gets [38:30] there first. [38:32] What a difference this was to seven [38:34] well-behaved separate monopolies. Could [38:37] it possibly be more different? [38:39] They made bundles of money on their [38:41] monopolies. Now, they have no monopoly. [38:43] There are seven potentially [38:45] sharp-elbowed [38:48] ruthless [38:49] players determined to fight out with [38:51] each other until [38:53] they win. [38:54] >> And who do you think will win? [38:56] >> Ah, I don't know. [38:59] That would be That would be good to [39:00] know. [39:01] >> Because SpaceX seem to be aiming more at [39:03] the infrastructure of um data centers [39:06] now. Data centers in space. Lots of [39:08] people saying that the the the best way [39:10] to run a data center, which is the [39:12] hardware that powers AI, is going to be [39:16] from space. [39:18] And so maybe they're going to try and [39:20] find their own lane within AI, and [39:21] they're going to get away from trying to [39:22] build a frontier model like a ChatGPT or [39:25] a Gemini or Claude. [39:26] And I mean, let's let's see what [39:28] happens. So, maybe Apple will just say, [39:29] "Fuck it. We're good at hardware, so [39:31] we'll license the model off someone [39:32] else, and we won't try and build a [39:33] frontier model or get involved in chips [39:35] or data centers. [39:36] We're just going to focus on the [39:37] hardware." [39:38] >> One or two of them, and perhaps it's a [39:40] pretty smart strategy, will try and opt [39:42] out of that struggle. [39:44] >> Mhm. [39:44] >> Because [clears throat] it it it's going [39:46] to be [39:47] obviously brutal. [39:49] >> Much of the reason most people haven't [39:50] posted or built their personal brand is [39:52] because it's hard and it's [39:54] time-consuming, and we're all very, very [39:56] busy. And if you've never posted [39:57] something before, [39:59] there's so many factors in your [40:01] psychology that stop you wanting to [40:03] post. What people will think of you. Am [40:05] I doing this right? Is the thing I'm [40:06] saying absolutely stupid? All of these [40:09] result in paralysis, which means you [40:11] don't post, and your feed goes bad. [40:14] I'm an investor in a company called Stan [40:16] Storage. You've you've heard me talk [40:17] about. And what they've been building is [40:19] this new tool called Stanley that uses [40:20] AI, looks at your feed, looks at your [40:22] tone of voice, looks at your history, [40:24] looks at your best performing posts, and [40:26] tells you what you should post, makes [40:28] those posts for you. You can also you [40:29] just use it for inspiration. And [40:31] sometimes what we need when we're [40:33] thinking about doing a post for our [40:34] social media channels is inspiration. [40:36] Building an audience has fundamentally [40:38] changed my life, and I think it could [40:39] change yours, too. So, I'm inviting you [40:42] to give this new tool a shot, and let me [40:44] know what you think. All you have to do [40:46] is search coach.stan.store [40:48] now to get started. [40:49] For every founder, there comes a point [40:51] in building a company where your job [40:52] shifts from being the person inside your [40:54] business actioning everything to the [40:56] person responsible for absolutely [40:57] everything. The only way I've been able [40:59] to make this shift across the different [41:00] companies and teams I'm responsible for [41:02] is by knowing that the right systems are [41:04] in place to manage everything. Systems [41:06] that don't need me in order for them to [41:08] work. Our sponsor Pipedrive is one of [41:10] those systems, an easy-to-use [41:12] intelligent CRM tool for growing sales [41:14] teams. My teams use it and have for the [41:16] last decade because it's genuinely the [41:18] most effective way to run a sales [41:20] operation. Through one dashboard, you [41:22] get every deal visible, and every stage [41:24] of the sales process is clear, and what [41:26] needs to happen next is all there in [41:29] real time. When a system like this [41:31] works, you don't need to be in every [41:32] conversation to know exactly if your [41:35] business is moving forward, where and [41:37] what the blockers are. Over 100,000 [41:39] companies are already running their [41:40] sales on it. So, if you'd like to join [41:42] them, sign up at pipedrive.com/ceo, [41:47] where you'll get an exclusive 30-day [41:49] free trial instead of the usual 14 days. [41:52] No credit card is needed. That's [41:54] pipedrive.com/ceo. [41:57] So, coming back to this point of the the [41:59] social societal effect of AI [42:01] generally, [42:02] robotics is exploding at the same time. [42:05] We're seeing for the first time ever [42:06] these humanoid robots, which now have [42:08] intelligence because of AI, becoming [42:11] very, very good. There was a video the [42:12] other day of a company called Figure AI [42:15] where they showed a robot humanoid robot [42:17] on a production line sorting packages [42:19] against a human and the humanoid robot [42:21] did it I think I can't think I'm going [42:22] to get this wrong but it was in the [42:24] region of seven or eight days it stood [42:26] there and sorted packages and they live [42:29] streamed it next to a human being doing [42:31] it. Now the human had to sleep and had [42:32] to go to the toilet. So the the humanoid [42:35] robot won and the job was very simple. [42:37] The packages come down, you just have to [42:39] pick the package up, turn it over, get [42:41] it the right way round so the barcode's [42:42] facing down and put it back down. [42:44] That is powered now because we have AI. [42:46] Um I said this a couple of episodes ago [42:48] but my friend runs this big accelerator [42:50] for entrepreneurs in San Francisco and [42:52] when I went there a couple of years ago [42:53] it was all software startups. I went [42:55] there um recently and it was hardware [42:57] startups the whole building. I said why [42:59] why why is everyone doing robotics? He [43:01] said well [43:02] we've always had the machinery that's [43:04] sort of like joints and arms and [43:06] the hardware. We the the intelligence [43:10] was expensive. [43:11] Now we have both and it costs pennies. [43:13] So there's this boom in robotics. I say [43:15] all this to ask the question in a world [43:17] where we have super intelligence and we [43:19] have robots [43:22] there must be surely significant job [43:25] disruption. [43:27] >> Very likely that there will be [43:28] significant job disruption. You know, [43:31] one of the scary things about SpaceX is [43:34] you should wish that it not [43:36] work out because if it became a bargain [43:39] rather like Tesla long ago became a [43:42] bargain [43:43] it will mean that we have done [43:46] satellites from space beaming down [43:49] power for chips and so on. [43:52] The population [43:54] of chip users has expanded that robots [43:57] are everywhere, that energy demand is [44:00] massive beyond belief [44:02] and uh [44:04] the world is [44:06] a very very dangerous place. I had much [44:08] prefer them to fail and the ideas to [44:10] move much more slowly [44:12] to buy time for humans to work these [44:14] things out. [44:16] So, [44:17] and I think that's much more likely. [44:19] >> You think SpaceX will fail? [44:20] >> I think it will fail to deliver anything [44:23] like its promises in the prospectus. [44:25] Yes, absolutely. [44:27] >> I'm an investor in SpaceX, I should [44:28] probably declare that. [44:29] >> Yeah, well, you should. And good luck. [44:31] >> I invested quite early, quite well, [44:33] relatively early. [44:34] Um so, we've had quite a good outcome. I [44:38] There wasn't an AI thesis when I [44:39] invested. It was Starlink. [44:41] >> Yeah, yeah, Starlink, great idea. By the [44:43] way, makes money. [44:45] But this is not Starlink. [44:46] >> Mhm. [44:47] >> Maybe I'd be an investor too if it was [44:49] Starlink. [44:50] >> Yeah. [44:51] It was a hundred billion dollars roughly [44:53] in that region when I invested. [44:55] So, it's what it rose up to three [44:56] trillion today. [44:58] >> Yes, nice investment. [45:00] >> Not a bad investment, yeah. [45:01] >> But it doesn't really count until you've [45:02] cashed it in. [45:03] >> Yeah, which I might do now. [45:05] >> You have Don't you have to wait six [45:07] months? [45:07] >> I think yeah, I think we're locked out. [45:08] >> In another podcast I was comparing the [45:11] purchase of my Tesla six years ago [45:14] with the price of Tesla stock. [45:16] And I wrote it up in my quarterly letter [45:19] uh to the clients [45:21] that A, I bought a Tesla and B, I [45:24] thought Tesla was overpriced. [45:27] And fast forward, Tesla stock went up 10 [45:29] times over the life of my car, which [45:32] still hasn't been incidentally into the [45:34] garage once. [45:35] >> It's a great car, isn't it? [45:36] >> Uh I imagine though, but but people who [45:39] really hate futzing around with cars, [45:42] that component that they don't have to [45:44] go to the garage [45:45] is so underestimated until you enjoy it. [45:48] >> Never bet against Elon, then. [45:50] >> So, [45:52] then the story becomes [45:54] from where we were 10 years ago, he [45:56] couldn't get there. It wasn't profitable [45:58] enough. It couldn't grow as fast as it [46:00] should. There was no way. And he broke [46:03] the rules the following way. [46:05] He's so good [46:07] at BS. [46:09] I That's a technical term. That he [46:11] talked the stock up to four or five [46:13] times what it what it was worth on [46:16] paper. Then he sold lots of stock [46:18] at five times what it was worth. [46:21] Used the money to build a gigafactory. [46:24] And then instead of the sale of stock [46:26] crushing it, he kept on talking up the [46:29] game. The stock kind of hung in [46:32] and then went up again. [46:34] Five times what it was worth. Sold [46:36] another big slug, etc. etc. So, the only [46:39] reason he did well was because of the [46:42] combination of incredible [46:45] confidence inspiring in potential [46:48] stockholders. [46:49] It became a self-fulfilling prophecy. It [46:51] wasn't worth that, but he persuaded [46:53] other people that it was. The stock went [46:56] up, he cashed it in, he built factories, [46:58] the stock went up, he cashed it in, he [47:00] built more factories, and there we were. [47:02] It went up 10 times. Now, [47:04] the scale of SpaceX requires them to do [47:07] the same again. [47:09] And the timing of the market cycle, the [47:11] timing of confidence, [47:12] would have to be the same. [47:14] He had in the last six years a wonderful [47:17] bull market. He will not in SpaceX do [47:20] that. SpaceX is such a fabulous [47:23] BS story. Mining asteroids. [47:27] Huge incredible success of AI. [47:30] It's the classic [47:32] description of a market peak. It's what [47:34] you look for at the top of a terrific [47:36] bubble. [47:38] >> I've got a Tesla. [47:40] Um [47:41] I've seen the that massive rocket, the [47:44] Starship, be caught with those [47:46] chopsticks. [47:47] >> Everyone has seen it. It's the defining [47:50] feature of technology, isn't it? It's [47:52] magnificent moment. [47:53] >> When I [47:54] >> That's worth half the the of SpaceX. [47:56] [laughter] [47:56] >> I think that's why I invested when I saw [47:58] that. But but also I've seen with [48:00] Neuralink I've seen people that are [48:02] paraplegic controlling computers. [48:05] Uh my Tesla drives itself for hours and [48:08] hours and hours without me touching the [48:09] pedals or the steering wheel because it [48:10] can see the road and navigate itself. [48:13] But to his credit as an innovator, he [48:15] has created magic. [48:17] So when you say about mining asteroids, [48:19] if if they if they told me we'd have [48:21] reusable rockets that you could catch on [48:23] chopsticks, I would have gone B S. [48:26] There's no way. [48:27] You can't catch like a 70-ft building. [48:29] >> in the laws of physics [48:31] >> That's what he [48:31] >> that says you can't do that. [48:32] >> That's what he says about the asteroids. [48:34] That's what he says about everything. He [48:35] goes [48:36] If it's within the laws of physics, [48:38] then it's possible. [48:40] >> Going to Mars is not within the laws of [48:42] physics, really. [48:45] It's a one-way ticket to Mars for [48:47] starters. [48:49] When you're on Mars, humans do a couple [48:51] of things really quickly. Their heart [48:54] adjust to the fact that there's 1/5 of [48:56] the [48:57] gravity. Your heart loses its muscle [48:59] power. [49:01] And your bones lose their internal [49:03] strength. [49:04] If you come down, your heart will fail [49:07] and all your bones will crack. [49:09] >> But you could be in an insulated [49:10] environment, no? [49:11] >> First of all, you'd have to go under [49:13] underground [49:14] to avoid [49:16] the incredible incoming [49:18] rays [49:20] that will otherwise give you cancer in a [49:21] few weeks. So dig a deep hole [49:24] and then you need a gravitational [49:26] spinning machine, [49:28] shades of [49:29] 2001 or whatever it was called. [49:32] And that maintains your gravitational [49:34] impact. And you have to build it [49:36] underground. [49:38] You have to protect yourself [49:40] >> [laughter] [49:40] >> against cosmic rays and against the [49:43] gravitational difference. [49:45] Listen, we have not been able to build [49:48] a sustainable system in a dome [49:51] ever. [49:52] They all fail. Why would you not, let's [49:55] say, "Guys, let's build a sustainable [49:58] dome where you grow food, you put in [50:00] people, you put in creatures, and then [50:02] insects, and you show you can do it." I [50:05] mean, we're destroying the damn planet. [50:07] And yet we think we can go to another [50:09] infinitely more hostile planet than this [50:11] one. [50:12] >> I do agree with you on that. I do agree [50:14] with us. I think we should focus on our [50:15] planet first and foremost. [50:16] >> That's the really bad news embedded in [50:19] your stock. [50:20] It's really [50:22] suggesting fantasy and [50:25] long-term objectives at the very time [50:28] when our own planet is under threat. [50:29] >> Would you ever invest in SpaceX? [50:31] >> Yeah, of course, if it came down to [50:35] >> where I invested. [50:36] >> 10 cents on the dollar, yeah. I might. 5 [50:38] cents. [50:39] >> Okay. [50:41] You've got three children? [50:43] >> Yes. [50:43] >> Three children. They're they're all, you [50:45] know, older than me now, I believe. I'm [50:47] 33 years old, so they're all [50:49] >> Yes, they're all older than you. [50:50] >> They're all older than me. But when they [50:51] were, you know, if they were young now, [50:53] and they came to you and they said, [50:54] "Dad, listen, I heard about all this AI [50:55] stuff, and I'm about to go off to [50:57] university and train myself. What what [50:59] skills should I be thinking about for [51:02] the future ahead?" [51:03] >> My take is I'd like them, as they are, [51:06] to be involved in climate change work. [51:09] >> If they said, "Dad, listen, I you know, [51:10] I don't [51:11] >> Be an engineer. Do something really [51:13] useful that will come in handy if things [51:16] start to unravel. [51:17] >> What what will [51:18] >> Practical skills. [51:19] >> What what are practical skills? [51:21] >> Well, our second son [51:23] um is practicing growing various crops [51:27] and has a small farm, you could say. [51:30] So, he's trying to get to know how you [51:32] would deal with chickens, how you would [51:34] deal with pigs, how you would deal with [51:37] mushrooms. [51:37] >> What why does that matter, do you think, [51:39] based on the future that you're [51:41] forecasting? [51:41] >> I think there's quite a good chance [51:44] that the the level of complexity of our [51:47] civilization will start to [51:50] to unravel. [51:51] Lose the plot at the ends is the first [51:53] thing that would go. I'll tell you a [51:55] good sign. How long does it take to get [51:57] your ambulance? [51:58] >> I've heard that in the UK [51:59] >> In the UK it was 12 and 1/2 minutes. [52:01] >> Yeah. [52:02] >> It's now an hour and a half. [52:03] >> Really? To get an ambulance? [52:04] >> It's exactly what you would expect as [52:06] people begin to lose the plot a bit. [52:09] They fray at the edges. [52:10] People can't buy houses. [52:13] People don't feel they can do as well as [52:15] their parents. [52:17] People are basically disgruntled. They [52:20] want to vote against the party in power. [52:23] You know that the recent move to Trump [52:26] was less than the average move of the [52:28] last seven European elections. [52:30] It didn't matter whether they were [52:31] right-wing conservatives, kick the [52:33] rascals out. Left-wing French, kick them [52:36] out. And why do you want to kick them [52:38] out? Because you don't think things are [52:40] going well. You're not feeling [52:42] really happy. [52:44] You're disappointed. [52:45] >> Why? [52:45] >> Why? Obviously, the government's doing a [52:47] bad job. I think that's the reflex. [52:49] >> What are What are the government doing [52:50] wrong? [52:51] >> It may be that it's not the government [52:53] doing anything wrong. It's just that the [52:55] environment is becoming tougher. [52:56] >> As in the economic environment? [52:58] >> The economic environment, the [53:00] >> The rich are getting richer, the poor [53:01] are getting poorer. [53:02] >> I think that's the biggest economic [53:04] problem. [53:05] I mean, the US now has a genie ratio [53:08] like which is a measure of how unequal [53:10] your society is. [53:12] Um which is up there with Brazil and [53:14] Mexico they used to be [53:16] a joke. [53:17] And now the US is up there. Since about [53:20] 1975 [53:22] all of the wealth we're talking about [53:24] has gone to the top 10% and a lot of [53:26] that to the top point 01. Before that by [53:28] the way, from 1935 from FDR to 1975 [53:33] so that's 40 years [53:35] we had a [53:36] wonderful period of growth. [53:38] We had gains of over 3 and 1/2% a year. [53:42] But the nice thing was that the poorest [53:43] quarter made a little bit more than [53:45] average, let's say 4 percent, and the [53:47] richest quarter made a little less, [53:49] let's say 3 percent, and everybody got [53:51] richer. Everyone was happy. [53:53] And then from '75 onwards, basically the [53:56] average hour worked in America has [53:59] barely gotten more adjusted for [54:00] inflation than it did in 1975. [54:03] >> The richest 1 percent of Americans [54:04] control 31 percent of the nation's [54:06] entire wealth, and by contrast, the [54:07] bottom 50 percent of the entire [54:09] population shares just 2.5 percent of [54:12] the wealth. The richest 10 US [54:14] billionaires saw their wealth surge by [54:16] 526 [54:18] percent, adjusted for inflation, between [54:20] 2020 and 2025. [54:23] Between 1989 [54:25] and the mid-2020s, the financial gain of [54:28] a single household at the top 1 percent [54:30] threshold was 987 [54:34] times larger [54:36] than the gain of a household in the [54:37] bottom 20 percent. [54:40] >> Forget In a sense, the bottom 20 percent [54:42] is tragic, but the guy in the middle, [54:44] the 50th percentile, [54:46] he is [54:47] unhappy, also. And when your average guy [54:50] is unhappy because he's not doing very [54:52] well, [54:53] you know you have a problem. [54:55] >> What is that problem, this inequality [54:57] we're seeing across the Western world? [54:59] What does history tell us happens next? [55:02] >> All bad. [55:04] We had a [55:05] similarly unequal society back in the [55:09] so-called Gilded Age [55:10] of the 1880s and '90s and so on. We got [55:14] lucky in a in an ugly way. We ran into [55:16] World War I, [55:18] which was catastrophically expensive, [55:20] killed off a huge fraction of the [55:22] officer class, and then we went into the [55:26] Great Depression. [55:27] Then we went into World War II. [55:30] We came out as a uh [55:32] very equal society by historical [55:35] standards. [55:36] Obviously, in the war time you pull [55:39] together and [55:41] the social contract, the feeling that [55:43] you owe something to the rest of society [55:45] was much stronger [55:47] than it is today. [55:48] >> I was doing some research and said when [55:49] wealth inequality peaks to the extremes [55:51] that we currently see in the US and the [55:53] UK, [55:54] history shows that the system inevitably [55:56] resets. According to historical macro [55:58] studies, peaceful policy changes almost [56:02] never fix extreme inequality. [56:04] [clears throat] [56:05] Historically, a wealth peak is broken by [56:07] one of three violent or catastrophic [56:11] triggers. [56:12] Number one, total civil collapse and [56:14] state failure. Number two, mass [56:16] mobilization warfare. Or number three, [56:19] total revolution. [56:20] >> Yeah, and that's why [56:23] number two was lucky. In the end, [56:26] it's better to have a war [56:28] and have everyone [56:29] pull their weight and and and work [56:31] together than it is the other. You Civil [56:34] wars are the worst of all kinds. [56:36] >> What do you think is likely to happen? [56:38] It can't just keep becoming more and [56:39] unequal. [56:40] >> No, it can't. So, it it needs [56:44] a government [56:46] that is prepared to pull a Bernie [56:48] Sanders [56:49] to say, "Yeah, we're going to have to at [56:52] least [56:53] in a gentle and long-term way shift the [56:56] tax structure in favor [56:59] of of a slightly steeper curve." [57:01] >> So, you mean taxation needs to go up. [57:03] >> Yeah. [57:04] >> We need to tax the rich [57:05] >> and help [57:06] the poor. [57:08] It's pretty simple. And and you have a [57:10] kind of steepness in every society. [57:11] That's what they do. [57:13] Every Every developed country in the [57:15] world taxes the rich and helps the poor, [57:17] don't they? It's a question of degree. [57:20] We did [57:22] much more [57:23] helping the poor [57:25] and taxing the rich [57:26] in the 1950s and '60s and '40s than we [57:29] do today. And somewhere between that [57:31] level and the current level [57:34] might be more than enough if we just [57:36] started [57:37] to adopt the policy of 1935 to 75, where [57:41] the bottom quarter get a half percent a [57:44] year richer than the average. [57:47] And the top dogs [57:48] get half a percent less each year [57:51] than the average. That sounds pretty [57:53] unthreatening. I think we would ease our [57:55] way over several decades [57:57] uh into a better place. [57:59] >> If you were 33 now, my age, [58:01] and you were trying to accumulate [58:03] wealth, [58:04] >> Oh god, I wish I was 33. [58:05] >> Do you? [58:06] >> It's such an exciting time. [58:07] >> What would you give to be 33? [58:09] >> I There's nothing I can give. [58:11] >> No, but it would you I I find this [58:12] funny. It's I heard someone ask a [58:13] question like this the other day. They [58:14] were They said like, "Would you give [58:17] your your entire available net worth to [58:19] be 33?" [58:20] >> Yeah, I think [58:22] everyone says yes. I mean, how did one [58:24] get a net worth by [58:27] by work and luck and [58:31] creativity, all those good things. [58:33] >> If you were 33 now in this moment in [58:35] time, and your objective was And this is [58:37] a bit of a crass objective, but I'm [58:39] going to It sounds like it's a very [58:41] one-dimensional objective, but if your [58:43] objective was just to become rich now at [58:45] 33, what strategy would you deploy? [58:48] Again, I'm going to take away your [58:49] contacts. [58:51] I'm even going to take away everything [58:52] you know. [58:54] So, you'd have to go on the journey of [58:55] acquiring new information. What would [58:57] you do? [58:58] >> I think the simple appeal would be to [59:00] get your tail into AI [59:02] and and try and be a leader. [59:05] Try and know more about everything in [59:07] that area than the next guy. [59:09] >> Mhm. [59:10] >> Join [clears throat] a leading firm and [59:12] uh [59:13] and go for broke. You may end up [59:16] encouraging [59:18] the destruction of the human species, [59:20] but [59:21] you asked a simple question, and I give [59:22] you what I think is the simple answer. [59:24] >> And what I I there is you want to make [59:26] sure you're riding a wave that's coming [59:28] into shore and you're on the forefront [59:29] of that incoming wave. Like we saw with [59:31] the tech bubble, we saw with you know, [59:33] we're now seeing with the AI bubble. [59:35] So, it's really about [59:37] acquire the most valuable information. [59:40] >> Yes. [59:41] And take lots of risk. [59:44] Don't be conservative. [59:46] >> And work hard. [59:47] >> And work hard. [59:48] And think outside the box. [59:51] I mean, I think that the biggest [59:53] deficiency [59:54] uh most people is that they feel [59:56] constrained [59:58] uh to play the game by the regular [60:00] rules. [60:01] And to believe that experts [60:04] and authorities know what they're doing. [60:06] And and that as you know, probably, it [60:08] just ain't so. [60:10] >> What if I'm trying to invest? So, say [60:11] that I've got $1,000 or $10,000 and I [60:15] want to invest it somewhere that's going [60:16] to [60:17] not lose me money through all of these [60:19] cycles of, you know, boom and bust. [60:22] Cuz I'm I'm in you know, I I have a lot [60:24] of people message me and ask me about [60:25] investing because I interview lots of [60:27] people about investing. I have my own [60:28] investment fund as well. [60:30] Um [60:31] But what advice do you give for the [60:32] average person that's looking to invest [60:34] their salary or their wages? [60:36] >> Buy a broad-based index of uh [60:39] non-US equities. [60:40] >> Non-US? That's really surprising to me. [60:42] >> For um like 60% of your money. [60:45] And then 5 or 10% in precious metals and [60:48] uh [60:50] if if it's convenient and sensible, hold [60:53] hold a bit of real estate. And the rest [60:56] I'd put in uh bonds. [60:58] >> Okay, so 5 or 10% in things like silver [61:00] and gold? A preference for either silver [61:02] or gold? [61:04] >> No. [61:05] >> Um [clears throat] S&P 500? Now, you [61:07] said non-US. [61:08] >> Non-US. [61:09] >> This is so interesting cuz everybody [61:10] says invest in US stocks. [61:13] >> Of course they do. They've been [61:14] completely dominant for 20 years. [61:17] Completely kicking ass around the rest [61:19] of the world. And then [61:21] in the last 12 months, emerging markets [61:23] is up 65% now. The S&P has done much [61:26] better than I would have guessed, but [61:28] it's only 25. [61:30] That's a lot less than 65. [61:32] >> And I guess the strategy is quite [61:34] important here as well, which is you're [61:35] saying to hold these for a long time. [61:37] Try not to buy and sell. [61:39] >> And and try and look at where the cycle [61:41] has been. And I can tell you, and you [61:43] can see it for yourself, there has been [61:45] an enormous cycle in favor of the S&P, [61:48] in favor of the American market over the [61:50] rest of the world. And do you think [61:53] America is going to keep on gaining on [61:55] the rest of the world? [61:56] And of course you're going to say yes [61:57] now, because that's [61:59] that's the flavor of this market. We [62:02] think that what is good today will [62:04] continue being good indefinitely, even [62:06] though history tells you that is [62:08] absolutely not the case. [62:10] We live in a world that tends to rotate [62:12] from one to the other. We believe in a [62:14] world that extrapolates today's [62:16] conditions. And you can easily prove [62:17] that. The stock market is not efficient. [62:19] The stock market extrapolates today's [62:21] conditions. If they are terrible [62:24] in 1982, they will take crushed earnings [62:28] and multiply it by seven times earnings. [62:31] And then, in 2000, peak profit margins [62:35] times, woo, 35 times earnings. They [62:37] double count in the worst way. When [62:40] times are good, you multiply it by a [62:42] lot. That's another way of saying you [62:44] extrapolate it into the distant future. [62:47] >> You assume it's going to continue. [62:48] >> And Keynes, of course, my hero, says, [62:50] "Of course that's [62:52] extrapolation is the convention you [62:54] adopt, even though you know from [62:55] personal experience that the world is [62:57] not that way." [62:58] >> You didn't use the word crypto [63:00] when you're talking about investment [63:01] strategies. How much crypto do you own? [63:03] >> None. [63:04] >> Have you ever owned any crypto? [63:06] >> No. [63:07] >> Will you ever own any crypto? [63:08] >> No. [63:08] >> Will you ever advise anyone to buy [63:10] crypto? [63:10] >> No. [63:12] >> Why? [63:14] >> I think it's a [63:16] an unnecessary [63:18] uh [63:19] piece of uh [63:21] nonsense. [63:22] It facilitates nothing except criminals [63:25] moving money [63:26] so they can't be seen. [63:28] It's not a store of value since it [63:30] bounces around all over the place just [63:32] down from 120 to 60 [63:34] because it felt like it. So, it's not [63:36] stable. It's volatile as hell. [63:39] It's not used conveniently as a medium [63:41] of exchange. You can't go into a shop [63:43] and use it easily. [63:45] It does one thing [63:46] very, very well. [63:48] It's a means of speculating beautifully. [63:52] >> Do you think Bitcoin's going to go to [63:53] zero? [63:54] >> Well, [63:55] in the distant future, yes, it will [63:56] certainly go to zero, but it may take a [63:58] long time. [64:00] And and, you know, in the distant [64:02] future, everything goes to zero, so [64:05] >> What about property as an investment? [64:07] Because the first sort of reaction most [64:08] people have when they have enough money [64:10] to make an investment or to buy [64:12] something is they buy a property as an [64:14] investment asset. So, people go buy [64:16] themselves a house, they'll move into [64:17] it. We're kind of told that that's how [64:18] you start to accumulate wealth is you go [64:20] buy yourself a house. [64:22] What do you think of that? [64:23] >> It's hard to imagine how it could be a [64:25] good decision [64:27] when uh there's such an increasing [64:28] fraction of people [64:30] who can't afford it. [64:32] And there is a political resistance, you [64:34] know. [64:34] >> Doesn't that just mean that the if, you [64:35] know, if I buy one now and increasingly [64:38] people can't afford one, doesn't that [64:39] mean that my my house is going to be [64:41] worth more in 10 years' time? [64:43] >> No, if people can't afford it, there's [64:44] no one bidding. [64:46] And by the way, the population is going [64:48] to decline. [64:50] Young family formations are already [64:52] declining in [64:54] many of the richer countries. [64:56] And if you have family formations [64:58] declining and you have super expensive [65:01] houses, what do you think is going to [65:03] happen? Now, you could say, "Well, [65:04] perhaps there will be a mysterious [65:06] increase in family formations." [65:08] And that the chronic baby bust that we [65:11] maybe will talk about soon. Um, we'll [65:14] stop. [65:18] I don't speak Vietnamese, but this show [65:20] can because of AI video technology from [65:22] our sponsor, HeyGen. I get messages [65:24] every single week from those of you [65:25] listening to the Diary of a CEO all [65:27] around the world, and you express how [65:28] much impact it's had on you and your [65:30] life. And if that's true, then those [65:32] conversations shouldn't only reach [65:33] people in English. HeyGen can take one [65:35] recording of me and deliver it in any [65:37] language while keeping my voice, timing, [65:39] and expressions intact. But you don't [65:42] need a studio like this to make it work [65:44] for you. Record 15 seconds of yourself [65:47] and get an AI avatar that delivers [65:49] studio-quality video in over 175 [65:52] languages. We're up to 20 languages now, [65:55] and we're not the only ones using it. [65:57] HeyGen is already used by 30 million [65:59] people, including 85% of the Fortune [66:02] 100. Whether you're building an audience [66:03] on social media, launching an online [66:05] course, or rolling out training across [66:06] your team, check out HeyGen now. Your [66:09] first three videos are totally free at [66:11] heygen.com/doac. [66:14] That's h e y g e n .com/doac. [66:18] See you there. [66:19] This is something that I've made for [66:21] you. I've realized that the Diary of a [66:22] CEO audience are strivers, whether it's [66:24] in business or health. We all have big [66:26] goals that we want to accomplish. And [66:28] one of the things I've learned is that [66:30] when you aim at the big, big, big goal, [66:32] it can feel incredibly psychologically [66:36] uncomfortable because it's kind of like [66:37] being stood at the foot of Mount Everest [66:39] and looking upwards. The way to [66:40] accomplish your goals is by breaking [66:42] them down into tiny, small steps, and we [66:45] call this in our team the 1%. And [66:47] actually, this philosophy is highly [66:49] responsible for much of our success [66:51] here. So, what we've done so that you at [66:53] home can accomplish any big goal that [66:55] you have is we've made these 1% diaries, [66:58] and we released these last year, and [67:00] they all sold out. So, I asked my team [67:02] over and over again to bring the diaries [67:04] back, but also to introduce some new [67:05] colors and to make some minor tweaks to [67:07] the diary. So, now we have a better [67:10] range for you. So, if you have a big [67:13] goal in mind and you need a framework [67:15] and a process and some motivation, then [67:17] I highly recommend you get one of these [67:19] diaries before they all sell out once [67:21] again. And you can get yours at the [67:23] diary.com. [67:25] And if you want the link, the link is in [67:26] the description below. [67:27] Let's talk about the chronic baby bust. [67:31] I've been hearing a lot in the news. I [67:32] think there were some articles that [67:33] actually came out this week in the New [67:34] York Times that talked about the [67:36] declining fertility rates and how young [67:38] couples like me, I'm in a you know, I'm [67:41] I'm engaged to a young woman who [67:44] and me and me and her are trying to have [67:45] a child now. [67:47] Um it's not not always a straight line [67:50] to having a child. Yeah, I think you're [67:51] kind of sold the idea that it is, that [67:52] you just have sex without a condom and [67:54] then a baby appears, but um lots of [67:56] young families and lots of my friends [67:58] who are trying to have kids have gone [67:59] for a couple of years [68:01] trying and struggling to con- to [68:03] conceive. So much so that after doing [68:05] this podcast, I started telling some of [68:08] my friends that I actually think it's a [68:09] good idea to start freezing your eggs, [68:11] embryos, sperm. [68:13] Because if it is going to get [68:14] increasingly harder, then there might [68:16] need to be [68:17] um medical interventions, IVF, [68:20] um etc. [68:22] for me and my friends. [68:23] If we are if we you know, if we want to [68:25] have families. But the the problem is as [68:26] well at like 33 years old, um if you [68:29] look at the data, you're not at your [68:30] peak necessarily in terms of fertility. [68:32] You're somewhere you're coming down the [68:34] slope as a man. Um and but also as a [68:37] woman. [68:38] And so, you're kind of fighting time a [68:39] little bit it feels like. [68:41] >> Yeah, you are. [68:41] >> And I think my partner feels the same [68:43] way that we wish we were told a little [68:44] bit earlier about family planning. [68:46] And then I hear that about this fert- [68:48] these fertility issues that apparently [68:49] have been caused by toxins [68:52] and that sort of chemicals in our [68:53] environment. You have spent a long time [68:56] thinking, writing, talking about this. [68:58] >> Yes. [68:58] >> I guess the first question is why? Why [69:00] is a guy that's known for managing [69:01] billions and billions and billions of [69:03] hundreds of billions of dollars talking [69:04] about fertility? [69:07] And this sort of baby bust. [69:09] >> Well, [69:10] starting [69:12] 27 years ago with the [69:14] foundation, we were committed to start [69:17] thinking about everything to do with the [69:19] climate. And and you're moving in the [69:22] right circle then, because the next [69:24] thing is we started to worry about the [69:26] cataclysmic decline in insects. I don't [69:28] know if you're aware of this, but [69:30] insects appear to have dropped in [69:31] biomass, the weight of the flying [69:33] insects, by 50 to 75%. [69:36] >> Really? [69:37] >> In the last 60, 70 years. [69:40] And E.O. Wilson, the famous ant man, he [69:43] believed that you know, nature could [69:45] handle [69:46] the loss of humans easily, effortlessly, [69:49] but it could not handle the loss of of [69:51] insects. That insects are in in the [69:53] sense, he felt, [69:55] and and his fellow experts, he [69:57] represented them as thinking the same [69:58] way, that they Insects are the bedrock [70:01] of nature. [70:02] And if they start to go out of business, [70:04] then the [70:05] birds who feed on on them and the [70:07] amphibians, they start to decline, which [70:09] they have done also catastrophically. [70:12] One thing leads to another, and the [70:15] beetles are no longer [70:16] recycling the forest floor, and [70:19] eventually things won't grow, and [70:22] no one to uh [70:24] fertilize the plants, and the damage [70:26] spreads, and he felt that eventually [70:28] loss of insects would lead to a more or [70:30] less complete failure of nature. [70:33] And and [70:34] we would inherit a planet that was no [70:36] longer conducive to humans. [70:38] We noticed that some of the same effects [70:41] are felt uh by humans. [70:44] And uh a report came out, [70:47] Shanna Swan and Hagai Levine, [70:50] I think it finished in 2011, [70:52] and uh it made the case [70:54] that uh sperm count had been dropping [70:57] had almost halved since the first [71:00] reports academic reports in 1970. [71:03] So, I immediately said this has the [71:05] feeling of something that is really [71:07] important. [71:08] We got to study the data and the results [71:11] came out suggesting that the decline [71:13] rate was accelerating. The decline rate [71:15] this year is 2 and 1/2% a year. You [71:17] don't have to be mathematically that [71:19] literate to realize that a 2 and 1/2% [71:21] decline in your sperm count every year [71:24] is a disastrous level, a non-sustainable [71:27] level, right? [71:28] >> How long is that going to take for this [71:30] my sperm to basically not work? [71:31] >> As far as we can tell, our best guess [71:35] is [71:36] that in hunter-gatherer days we had 118 [71:39] million units per milliliter of sperm. [71:42] And when the academics came in in 1970, [71:45] uh [71:46] it was down to about 100. [71:49] And today it's 35. [71:51] Okay? [71:52] Also, the quality [71:54] and the mo- motility they call it had [71:57] also declined [71:59] somewhat similarly. [72:01] It turns out, luckily for us, that we [72:03] were over-engineered at I like to say [72:05] like a great Victorian bridge. [72:08] Nature doesn't take any risks and and [72:11] you have more than you need. And it it [72:13] appears, again, a good guess is about 45 [72:16] million units [72:18] is what you need to be able to get [72:20] pregnant without any difficulty. And [72:22] that was hit about 15 to 20 years ago. [72:25] The number of young couples who needed [72:27] help 15 or 20 years ago [72:30] uh was nil, basically. [72:32] And for this reason, that none of them [72:35] had a a chronic lack of sperm count in [72:38] round numbers. [72:40] And now [72:42] the World Health says it's about [72:45] 17%. [72:46] Okay? 17% of young couples could use [72:48] some help today. [72:50] It which means that instead of, you [72:52] know, just trying for a week or two or [72:54] three or four or five or six you're [72:56] trying for months and months. [72:58] And [72:59] everybody knows people now who fall in [73:02] that category. Which is exactly what you [73:04] would expect if you've gone from zero to [73:06] 17%. [73:07] But this is the killer. Shanna Swan [73:10] and my colleague and I kind of thought [73:12] about this thing separately and [73:13] independently and we [73:15] we worked out doesn't take a great brain [73:19] that in 20 to 25 years the young couple [73:22] will need help. I mean this is tomorrow. [73:25] You know this is not 200 years from now. [73:27] In 20 to 25 years the average young [73:30] couple will need help getting pregnant. [73:32] >> Dr. Swan's projection indicates that if [73:35] the current rate of decline continues [73:37] unchecked the medium male sperm count is [73:41] on track to hit zero [73:43] by 2045. [73:46] >> Wow, yeah. [73:49] >> [laughter] [73:50] >> That is [73:51] that means the medium couple is not [73:53] going to have children without a lot of [73:55] help. [73:56] >> It means half the male population will [73:59] have zero viable sperm and the remaining [74:02] half will be right on the edge of [74:05] functional infertility. [74:06] >> A few of them will still have plenty and [74:09] maybe 10% who are really perfectly [74:12] in decent condition. [74:13] Because there's a huge distribution [74:15] range today. [74:17] You know there are there are people [74:18] today who still have 200 million you [74:20] know better than the hunter-gatherers. [74:22] But it's uh [74:25] >> And what is causing this and how do we [74:27] stop it? [74:28] >> Shanna would say the environment around [74:31] you [74:32] of mainly plastics. [74:33] Plastics are leaching [74:36] uh toxins and the particles of plastics [74:38] you have in your brain and in your body [74:42] which we now know is quite substantial [74:44] are also leaching toxins. [74:48] And these toxins are what they call [74:50] endocrine disruptors. They mess with [74:51] your hormones. [74:54] You should expect them to lower your [74:56] fertility. [74:57] And yet, the people who specialize [75:00] in fertility problems [75:02] and write books about it, none of them [75:05] mention toxicity. [75:06] They mention the hundred perfectly solid [75:08] reasons why people are choosing [75:11] uh to have fewer children. [75:12] >> Endocrine disrupting chemicals like [75:14] phthalates, [75:16] >> Like phthalates. [75:17] >> which are found in cosmetics, shampoos, [75:18] food packaging, etc. They actively lower [75:21] testosterone production in male fetuses [75:22] during the first trimester, permanently [75:24] stunting reproductive reproductive [75:26] capacity before birth. [75:29] >> Yes. [75:29] >> BPAs, which are um what they call the [75:32] biphosphonates? [75:34] >> Yes. Something like that. [75:35] >> Used to make plastics hard, line tin [75:38] cans, and coat thermal store receipts. [75:41] Um they are synthetic estrogens. They [75:42] flood the male body with female hormones [75:44] and signals crashing sperm count and [75:46] motility. [75:47] PFAs, forever chemicals used in nonstick [75:50] pans, teflons, waterproof rain jackets, [75:52] and stain resisting carpets. They break [75:55] down in nature, accumulate in human [75:57] blood, and are directly linked to lower [75:58] sperm volume. And then the microplastics [76:00] you talked about, the chosen chose [76:02] Trojan horse. One of the shocking things [76:04] that I read was that it's been [76:05] discovered that they are physically [76:06] embedded in human placentas. [76:08] >> Yes. Isn't that amazing? [76:10] >> Breast milk and human testicles. And [76:12] there was a major study, I think we all [76:13] heard about in 2024, that found [76:15] microplastics in 100% of human [76:19] testicular tissues tested. [76:22] 100%. And lastly, biological stresses. [76:24] So, me and you being sat down on these [76:26] chairs, [76:27] heats our testicles to a point where the [76:29] sperms die. Heated car seats, hot [76:31] laptops, they actively cook the sperm. [76:35] And lastly, obesity. [76:37] >> Yes. And of course, smoking you, which [76:39] somehow slipped through the net. [76:41] >> Yeah. [76:41] >> But um [76:42] there is a whole other branch, [76:44] pesticides on your food. Now, if you [76:46] give me time, I'll tell you about these [76:48] two little studies. [76:50] They're very small, and you might ignore [76:52] them except they were done by Harvard [76:54] and Mass General, which is candidate for [76:56] the best hospital in America. [76:59] And, uh they had a clinic for people [77:02] having problem getting pregnant. [77:04] And, uh they they ran it out of that. [77:07] They had 180 men. [77:09] And, they got them to self-report on [77:11] what they were eating. Were they eating [77:12] the dirty dozen? Were they eating melons [77:15] and bananas that have lots of [77:17] protection? [77:18] At the end of uh 6 months, [77:22] the the guys who reported to eat the [77:24] least bad [77:25] versus the quarter that ate the worst, [77:28] there was a doubling of sperm count. Can [77:30] you believe it? At the top category, the [77:32] more fruit and veggies you ate, the [77:34] better your sperm count. In the bottom [77:36] quartile, the more they ate, the worse [77:38] their sperm count. [77:39] It was a dramatic result, but two to one [77:42] between the top and the bottom. And, [77:44] then 2 years later, they did a very [77:45] similar study with women who were having [77:47] trouble. [77:49] And, at the end of their 9 months of [77:51] self-reporting, the ones who ate the [77:53] least badly had 68% successful live [77:56] births, bearing in mind this was a [77:58] fertility clinic, and the bottom [78:00] quartile 38%. So, once again, nearly [78:03] double. [78:04] I mean, and and it's life and death. I [78:06] mean, these are really important. And, [78:07] this was only based on what they ate. [78:11] Because pesticides are full of these [78:14] toxins, and they are delivered straight [78:17] into your body. You eat the damn things. [78:19] It's not just they're on the surface. [78:21] You can wash some of that away, but [78:22] they're impregnated part of the [78:24] structure of the berry. [78:27] Berries, [78:28] apples, pears, peaches, [78:31] and finally, [78:32] um uh spinach uh are really bad and are [78:34] the top end. The bananas and the [78:36] oranges, and the melons are uh fine. So, [78:40] if you eat these damn things that [78:42] designed to kill our cousins, the [78:44] insects, and and the weeds, [78:47] and the funguses, why would you expect [78:49] them not to do a terrible job on humans? [78:51] And we stuff them in our system. [78:54] And the fetus, it turns out, is 100 to [78:57] 1,000 times more vulnerable [79:00] than we are out in the out in the world. [79:03] For example, if your mother smokes, [79:05] it's going to do about the same damage [79:08] as if you smoked for the rest of your [79:09] life. [79:10] >> Hm. Wow. [79:12] >> And you think about what the fetus is [79:13] plugged into the system, and how it's [79:16] forming everything. It doesn't seem the [79:18] most unreasonable thing that it would be [79:19] much more sensitive. And there are [79:21] people out there [79:23] fussing quite reasonably about the first [79:25] 1,000 days of life. [79:27] But actually, that is nothing like as [79:30] important [79:32] as the 270 days in the womb. [79:35] >> Atrazine. [79:37] Have you heard of atrazine? [79:38] >> have. [79:38] >> Atrazine, um referred to as the chemical [79:41] castrator. It is the second most widely [79:43] used herbicide in the United States, [79:45] sprayed heavily on things like corn and [79:47] sugar canes. [79:48] And there was this crazy study which was [79:50] peer-reviewed out of UC Berkeley that [79:53] showed exposure to atrazine at levels [79:56] below the EPA's considered safe for [79:59] drinking [80:01] um levels, completely chemically [80:03] castrated male frogs, turning 10% of [80:07] them into fully functional females [80:10] capable of laying eggs. In humans, it is [80:13] linked to severe drops in sperm motility [80:15] and testosterone. [80:16] >> And yet, we avoid the topic. [80:19] We avoid the topic because it's [80:21] it's pessimistic. We're not fighting the [80:23] data. [80:24] >> We just don't want to talk about it. [80:26] >> want to talk about it. We don't want to [80:27] talk about bear markets. [80:29] We don't want to talk [80:31] about bad climate changes, even though [80:34] it's bludgeoning us. This year could be [80:36] the worst [80:38] hot year [80:40] in history. [80:41] We are set up [80:43] because of the accident of the El Niño [80:46] to have perhaps the worst droughts and [80:48] the hottest weather ever recorded, [80:51] starting about now. [80:53] So, brace yourselves. But, we don't want [80:54] to talk about that. We don't want to [80:56] talk about toxicity. We don't want to [80:58] talk about running out of resources. Oh, [81:00] we just don't do bad news. And I have [81:03] never seen anything like this, this [81:05] fertility thing, where the data is [81:07] horrific. The baby bust is measurable. [81:11] The sperm count is one of the few things [81:13] you can really measure. Do they really [81:15] think if you have declining sperm count, [81:17] the future is great? [81:19] Do they really think that the economy [81:20] will function [81:22] if the number of 20-year-olds entering [81:24] the market starts to drop like a stone? [81:26] In Japan, you know what their [81:27] 20-year-old is? It's 50% of what it was [81:31] in 1948. [81:32] >> What is 50%? [81:32] >> 50%. Not down 15 or 3.5, 50% less. [81:37] >> 50% less 20-year-olds? [81:39] >> 20-year-olds that drive the market, that [81:41] offer themselves for military service. [81:43] >> What do we do about this? [81:44] >> We have two things. [81:46] We've got to [81:47] detoxify the world, which is [81:50] intellectually easy. You ban poisonous [81:53] chemicals. [81:54] And we've made in the EU [81:57] pretty good start. [81:58] My favorite example and everybody's [82:00] favorite example is cosmetics. [82:02] Cosmetics, you don't actually eat it, [82:04] but you rub it on your skin, which is [82:05] the second worst thing to do. [82:08] And there are 10,000 chemicals in [82:10] cosmetics. [82:12] And the EU has banned 1,500. If they ban [82:14] the right 1,500, that could be 3/4 of [82:17] the battle, right? Canada's banned 550. [82:20] And the US has banned 12. I am not [82:23] kidding you. [82:24] So, The thing about toxicity is it is [82:27] regional. If one country if Denmark or [82:30] the EU or the UK wants to look after its [82:32] chemicals, they will live longer and [82:34] have better health. If the US wants to [82:37] put the corporations first, they will [82:39] have shorter lives. Do you know the life [82:41] expectancy difference between the US and [82:44] Sweden has gone from 2 years to 6 years [82:46] in the last 70 years? [82:48] I wrote in my quarterly letter my estate [82:50] would be willing to bet you that in 50 [82:52] years it'll be 8 or 10. [82:54] >> I don't quite think people in the United [82:55] States realize the difference in the [82:59] products they consume here versus other [83:01] parts of the world. And you know, [83:03] >> No, absolutely not. [83:04] >> Brits fly over here and actually we had [83:06] my my barber my my barber Damon and he [83:08] flew over here to give me a haircut last [83:09] week. He said, "Oh gosh, I don't feel [83:11] good." He said, "I went and got some [83:12] food here and I really just don't feel [83:14] good." And he says, "Every time I come [83:15] over here I don't feel good." And me and [83:16] my team we used to fly over here before [83:18] I moved here for a couple of weeks a [83:19] year to film the show and whenever we'd [83:21] fly back not only would I be much [83:22] fatter, um but we'd all feel a little [83:24] bit more like sluggish, is the way I'd [83:26] describe it, from eating the food here. [83:28] And it almost felt quite clear that [83:29] there's like something in the food that [83:31] our bodies [83:32] just isn't used to in the UK. And when [83:34] you look at the toxicity of the United [83:37] States versus Europe, it's quite clear. [83:40] I mean, the US currently permits the use [83:41] of 85 agricultural pesticides that are [83:44] completely banned in the EU, China and [83:47] Brazil. The US sprays over 300 million [83:51] pounds per year of pesticides that are [83:53] deemed too dangerous to be legally used [83:55] in Europe, including that one I said [83:58] about the frog's called atrazine. [84:00] >> atrazine [84:01] >> Which the EU banned over two decades [84:03] ago. We look at cosmetics, which you [84:05] were talking about then, what you put on [84:07] your skin obviously goes into your [84:08] bloodstream and so the EU has banned or [84:10] heavily restricted over 1,300 chemicals [84:13] in cosmetics and personal care products [84:15] due to toxicity and hormone disruption. [84:18] The US and the FDA has banned 11. In [84:21] terms of food, the US allows potassium [84:23] bromate, which is a known carcinogen, [84:26] cancer-causing, used to make fluffy [84:28] dough bread, and BHA [84:31] {um} / BHT, which are preservatives [84:33] linked to hormone disruption. Both are [84:35] strictly banned from human consumption [84:37] in the UK and EU and Canada and China. [84:39] And lastly, the US {um} allows titanium [84:43] dioxide, used to make candy smell like [84:45] Skittles bright white, [84:47] and synthetic dyes like red 40, which [84:49] require strict warning labels or [84:52] outright bans in Europe due to DNA [84:54] damage and neurodevelopmental issues in [84:57] kids. I'll give you one more. A recent [84:59] US Geological Survey found that at least [85:02] 45% of all US tap water is contaminated [85:06] with PFAs, those forever chemicals we [85:08] talked about earlier, the very chemicals [85:10] directly linked to crashing sperm counts [85:12] and testicular cancer. The US has [85:14] historically allowed PFAs levels in [85:17] drinking water [85:19] drastically higher than the EU, the [85:21] United the European Union [85:23] considers safe. [85:24] >> Let us just say that the EU is forever [85:27] giving exemptions and extensions and is [85:30] far from perfect and has a lot of [85:32] corporate pushback. And uh it's just [85:34] much less bad than the US. [85:37] >> And the US has worse life expectancy. [85:39] >> It does, and it's the only rich country [85:41] in the world where 15 years ago they had [85:44] the same life expectancy as they have [85:45] today. [85:46] >> One um actionable piece of advice for [85:48] anyone listening that might find this [85:50] all quite um [85:52] overwhelming cuz you know, lots of [85:54] things around us from receipts to the [85:56] pans we use to [85:57] range jackets contain these chemicals, [86:00] is there are apps out there [86:02] where you can scan the chemicals in the [86:05] foods that you're buying to check if [86:07] they contain these endocrine disrupting [86:09] these hormone disrupting chemicals. I'm [86:11] not affiliated [clears throat] with any [86:12] of them, but there's one called Yuka, [86:14] YUKA, that I know is very easy for sort [86:17] of everyday scanning of products. You [86:18] can just scan the barcode and it'll tell [86:20] you it'll give it a rating score out of [86:21] 100. There's EWG's Healthy Living [86:25] um app which is the scientific gold [86:26] standard run by the Environmental [86:28] Working Group a major toxic chemical [86:30] watchdog. You can scan barcodes or [86:31] search for food, cleaning supplies or [86:33] cosmetics. There's Think Dirty as well [86:35] which is great for cosmetic shampoos and [86:37] skin care. It exposes the toxic truth [86:39] hiding in beauty products. Um and then [86:41] there's Clear Ya which is Clear Ya. Best [86:44] for online shopping. It's an app in your [86:46] web browser and instead of scanning [86:48] barcodes in your house [86:50] while you're shopping online, it's so if [86:51] you add a say like a shampoo or lotion [86:53] to your Amazon or Target or Walmart [86:54] basket, it automatically pops up with an [86:57] alert telling you about the ingredients [86:59] list that is within those chemicals. But [87:01] but I think that gives something a [87:03] little bit actual and arms you with at [87:05] least a tool to navigate this crazy [87:06] environment. And obviously AI is great [87:07] at this as well. You can take pictures [87:08] of things and ask it questions. [87:10] >> And what we really need is a kind of [87:11] green Amazon where everything is [87:13] guaranteed food, bed, clothes, [87:16] everything. [87:18] And that would be very handy indeed. [87:20] Someone you could trust that would [87:22] absolutely guarantee the whole line of [87:24] products that you would order. Not [87:26] impossible and I think done well and [87:28] someone could make money at it. [87:30] >> What would advice would you give to your [87:31] kids on a personal level if they're [87:32] trying to stay healthy in a toxic world? [87:35] >> Simple advice and I know you like this [87:38] is pregnant women are much more [87:40] important than anybody else in this [87:42] field. [87:43] If you could persuade pregnant women A [87:46] to have no cosmetics, save a lot of [87:47] money, no cosmetics for 9 months and [87:50] then B invest some of that money from [87:52] your cosmetics or all of it in buying [87:55] organic berries if you have to have [87:58] berries, apples, oranges, peaches [88:01] what they call the dirty dozen here. [88:03] If you did that [88:05] I think as much as half of all the [88:07] trouble disappears. [88:09] And that's a huge fraction and it's [88:11] easily acquired. [88:13] You know, I I I addressing the 100 [88:15] things around in your environment, you [88:17] have to get to that. [88:19] Typically, if you're lucky, you do one [88:21] thing after another. You get the gas [88:22] stove first, which is really noxious, [88:25] and then you work your way the black [88:27] plastics, the Teflon frying pan. You [88:30] work your way around it. Compared to [88:32] that, [88:33] no cosmetics, no bad food, [88:38] or make it organic. That's a piece of [88:41] cake. That is easy. It will save you [88:44] huge amount that you will never [88:45] appreciate because you'll never know how [88:47] much better your children are than they [88:49] would have been. [88:50] >> Mhm. [88:51] >> But, it's not only your children, by the [88:53] way. [88:54] For women, you know, you're talking [88:56] about in particular because of the eggs, [88:59] they are Every egg is all there in the [89:01] womb. [89:03] And then it goes on to your [89:04] grandchildren, we thought. At least we [89:07] could prove two generations. And and and [89:09] a recent study suggests it might be many [89:11] more generations than two. So, you got [89:15] some of these chemicals [89:16] impregnated in your system, and your [89:18] children pay the price, and your [89:20] grandchildren, and perhaps even [89:23] quite a few generations after that. [89:26] >> I also think it would be great if [89:28] Western governments around the world [89:30] made the costs of [89:32] both child care and but also fertility [89:36] treatments [89:37] significantly lower. [89:39] >> And they will, of course. [89:40] >> You know, I had a couple of [89:41] conversations on this podcast with very [89:43] successful women, including Ronda [89:44] Rousey, who was in tears because she was [89:46] on a [89:48] I think it's her [laughter] fifth or [89:49] sixth round of IVF treatments, and she [89:51] just found out just before she walked [89:52] into the studio that it hadn't gone [89:54] well. [89:55] And watching her cry [89:56] about it and get very emotional meant [89:58] that that that day I walked out of this [90:00] room and like called a lot of the people [90:01] in my life that I know are [90:03] you know, in the region where fertility [90:05] starts to decline, and really encourage [90:08] them to start thinking if they if that's [90:10] what they want in their lives about [90:11] family planning, which is like getting [90:13] your eggs frozen or your embryos frozen. [90:15] And me and my partner actually went and [90:16] did it. We got our embryos frozen, which [90:19] was a you know, it's it's not it's it's [90:20] both expensive, extremely expensive, [90:23] especially here in the United States, [90:25] and difficult. [90:26] >> And psychologically destructive. Brutal. [90:28] >> You know, we you know, me every day for [90:32] a couple of weeks injecting her with [90:33] with this this these chemicals and the [90:36] the hormonal roller coaster that she had [90:38] to deal with and all of that, but for us [90:42] the alternative was worse, [90:44] which was never being able to have [90:45] children because it's difficult and [90:47] there's all these toxins in our [90:48] environment and and so on and so forth. [90:51] And so I then became a little bit of a I [90:52] guess a bit of a bit preachy within my [90:54] within the people the people in my life [90:55] that I love a lot about family planning [90:58] cuz we kind of all thought we could just [90:59] think about it later. [91:01] We're all kind of 35 and we thought, [91:02] "Yeah, we'll think about that later." [91:04] Um but it turns out not to be the case [91:06] for many people. [91:07] >> If you'll allow me to go back, you asked [91:09] an important question. What do we have [91:11] to do? And I said we have to detoxify [91:13] the system and then we both got off into [91:15] this frenzy of of attacking chemicals, [91:19] which we should anyway, but it's [91:20] intellectually easy. Ban the suckers, [91:23] okay? Now, putting pressure on the [91:25] corporations to back off so the [91:27] governments can do it would be a good [91:30] idea, not easy. Corporations have [91:32] enormous power, unprecedented power in [91:34] the US, [91:35] but but very substantial power in the in [91:38] the EU and the UK also. But we have to [91:41] get them to back off. We have to start [91:43] banning these damn things, otherwise no [91:46] children. But secondly, [91:48] and much more difficult, [91:50] is we have to detoxify capitalism. [91:53] We have to slowly but surely [91:56] turn our capitalist societal norms into [92:00] much more family-friendly, [92:02] children-friendly. [92:04] Over the next several generations, [92:06] we have to end up with a society that [92:09] realizes that 2.1 healthy, well-educated [92:13] children is a part of the commons. You [92:15] may not have any children. [92:16] >> you mean by that, sorry? 2.1? [92:18] >> 2.1 is the number of children it takes [92:20] for a rich society to have a steady [92:23] population. [92:24] >> Per couple? [92:25] >> Per couple. If you have less than 2.1 [92:27] per couple, [92:29] you fairly rapidly go out of business. [92:30] If you have more than 2.1, you fairly [92:33] rapidly end up with so many people [92:35] you're standing on each other's [92:37] shoulder. The commons are things like [92:39] common land in the old days that anyone [92:43] could put their sheep on. And what [92:44] tended to happen is everyone put more [92:46] sheep than they could stand, and they [92:48] pretty soon it was [92:49] it had no grass on it. Known as the [92:51] tragedy of the commons. [92:53] And [92:55] we all need [92:57] clean air, [92:59] clean water, [93:01] fertile soil, [93:03] and 2.1 healthy, well-educated children. [93:06] Without any of those, society fails. [93:09] All of them have to be treated as group [93:12] responsibility. So, the whole society, [93:15] the whole village [93:17] has to be in a way like a kibbutz [93:19] eventually. You have to put everything [93:21] behind making it doable [93:24] to have children because the long list [93:26] of economic and social reasons, as well [93:29] as toxin reasons, why people can't have [93:32] 2.1 children is getting so long and so [93:34] dangerous. And nothing yet has worked. I [93:38] mean, they've tried, you tell me, 200 [93:40] different things around the world. [93:42] Several percentage points of GDP in one [93:44] or two cases. [93:46] And nothing yet has [93:49] seemed seen a permanent uptick in in [93:53] baby production. [93:54] >> For the average person listening right [93:56] now, Dave who drives a taxi or Jenny who [93:58] works as a receptionist or um Clive who [94:01] is a nurse, [94:03] what is the most important thing we [94:05] haven't talked about that we should have [94:06] talked about as it pertains to their [94:08] life today? [94:10] >> I think they have to brace themselves [94:13] for a tougher times ahead [94:15] than they would have they expected. [94:18] And they're beginning to get the point. [94:20] Life for the last 10 or 20 years has [94:22] been tougher than than they perhaps [94:25] expected as children or or than other [94:27] people expected for them. [94:29] Part of that is politics. Part of that [94:33] is equality. But the net effect of them [94:35] is times are tougher. It is more [94:39] difficult [94:40] to buy a house or afford to rent. [94:43] And and jobs are getting scarcer. [94:47] It's likely to get worse. [94:49] >> What does brace yourself mean for them? [94:51] Cuz brace yourself sounds like you [94:54] But does it mean [94:55] >> Plan your life as if times will not be [94:57] easy. [94:58] >> Okay. [94:59] >> And do not [95:00] build up a little reserve of of cash. [95:03] Of course my advice to [95:06] other people is and and get yourself a [95:09] useful job. Something that will in a [95:12] larger sense pull your weight in [95:14] society. [95:15] >> Upskill, change skills, learn something [95:18] >> mechanical [95:19] fixing, repairing [95:21] >> Things that [95:21] >> engineering [95:22] >> Things that will need humans. [95:23] >> And and research, science in general. [95:25] >> Make friends. [95:27] >> Make friends. [95:28] Make sure you're living in in a a tight [95:31] society if you can. Very difficult [95:33] today, obviously. [95:34] >> Would you be thinking about the country [95:36] you live in at this moment in time? [95:37] >> Absolutely. [95:38] >> Really? Is there any countries you [95:39] wouldn't live in? [95:41] >> [sighs and gasps] [95:42] >> If you were Dave or Jenny? [95:43] >> I I think I have to refuse to answer [95:46] this on the grounds that it might tend [95:47] to incriminate me. [95:48] Um [95:49] >> Oh, okay. So you're saying don't live in [95:50] the United States? [95:52] >> Well, I have [95:53] American children and grandchildren. [95:56] >> Why not the United States? [95:57] >> It holds out too much chance that the [96:00] social contract is [96:01] is [96:02] >> [snorts] [96:02] >> dissolving. [96:04] You know, the thing about Japan and that [96:06] my joking rule 21 in investing is never [96:08] extrapolate from the Japanese. They are [96:10] extremely different in every way. [96:13] But one of the ways they're different is [96:14] they have this amazing social contract. [96:17] The thing that really upsets the [96:19] Japanese is if they're put in a position [96:21] where they can't act in a socially [96:23] responsible way. [96:24] >> When you say social contract, what does [96:26] that mean? [96:26] >> It means an agreement that I will behave [96:29] in a way that helps my neighbors and the [96:31] society that I'm doing what people [96:33] expect me to do. I'm not going to [96:35] misbehave. [96:36] >> And you think that's not the case here [96:37] in the United States? [96:38] >> I think the case here is that people are [96:40] doing what they think is best for them [96:42] and their family and screw everybody [96:44] else, really. [96:46] When I arrived in America, corporations [96:47] had this sense that they owed something [96:50] to the community they operated in, the [96:52] city they operated in. They They'd build [96:55] the stadium, they'd do this, they'd [96:57] they'd be part of the community. [97:00] Now they're not. They're all [97:03] in a way cold-blooded, profit-maximizing [97:05] international enterprises. [97:07] >> And why is that a bad place to live? Cuz [97:09] you're saying, you know, you probably [97:10] wouldn't recommend Dave or Jenny living [97:12] in the United States. Why would that be [97:14] a bad place for them to be? What [97:15] happens? What's the What's the [97:16] downstream impact of that? [97:18] >> That your neighbors aren't as interested [97:20] in you and your well-being. [97:21] >> Fine. I don't I won't talk to my [97:23] neighbor. [97:24] >> And that's a lonely place to be. And [97:26] when you're in trouble, [97:28] you're in [97:30] serious trouble. [97:31] Uh because the safety net here is very [97:34] ineffective. There's a a measure that I [97:36] think is probably the single most [97:38] important measure of civilization, and [97:40] that is maternal mortality. How many [97:43] people die in childbirth? You know, in [97:45] Nigeria out of 100,000, it's 480, give [97:49] or take. [97:50] And uh [97:52] in America, in in the [97:55] black population, [97:57] it's uh 44. [97:59] In the whole population, it's like 21 or [98:03] 20. [98:04] Curiously, in the [98:07] American Asian population, it's 13. [98:10] And then, you go down the list, [98:13] and in Britain, it's five. [98:17] In Germany, it's four. [98:19] In Sweden, it's 2.1. In Norway, it's [98:22] zero. There were no mothers who died [98:24] last year. [98:25] >> Hm. [98:25] >> Or the year before. What better [98:27] definition of civilization than looking [98:30] after the mothers giving birth? How is [98:32] it possible that a country [98:36] more or less the richest in the world, [98:39] it's not just that they're the worst in [98:41] the rich world, it's that [98:44] they are 50% worse than the next worst. [98:48] 50% more mothers die here than in the [98:51] second worst country in the developed [98:53] world. How is that possible? The answer [98:55] is it happens. [98:57] And um it's because [99:00] the inequality is so extreme in the [99:02] medical system [99:04] that if you don't have lots of money, [99:05] you're quite likely to die in [99:06] childbirth. I mean, [99:08] Now, of course, the numbers are not [99:09] huge. 20 out of 100,000 is not uh [99:13] but it's but it's a terrible contrast. [99:15] >> It's a sign of something. [99:17] It's a sign of something else as well. [99:19] >> It's a sign of whether people are [99:21] It's a sign of the social contract. [99:22] >> So, where's a good place to live then, [99:24] if not here? [99:25] >> Denmark, Japan. [99:28] Uh even France, Germany. The UK has a [99:32] little bit of the American disease, but [99:35] not nearly as much. [99:36] >> So, if your kids came to you and said, [99:38] "Dad, we're thinking of uh leaving the [99:39] United States. Should I move? [99:41] Should I Should I move out of the United [99:43] States? [99:44] >> Yeah, I I would say that's a perfectly [99:46] reasonable thing to consider. [99:49] And where are you going and why and [99:51] what's your [99:52] >> I'm thinking of going to Denmark, Dad. [99:54] >> Well, [99:55] if they'll have you. Uh [99:57] No, uh [99:59] in the things that really matter, life [100:01] expectancy, health, [100:04] safety nets, [100:05] uh murder rates, [100:07] uh mortality rates, [100:10] and everything that really matters, yes, [100:12] they're they're day and night better. [100:15] In the things that don't really matter, [100:16] but look really splashy, [100:18] we have enormous quantities of uh wealth [100:21] created [100:22] that go to a relatively small fraction [100:24] of the people. [100:26] And that dazzles in terms of the average [100:28] because [100:30] um that's how the numbers work. [100:33] If you look at how well-off the bottom [100:35] quartile are, [100:37] America doesn't score well at all. [100:40] >> Jeremy, we have a closing tradition [100:42] where the last guest leaves a question [100:43] for the next guest not knowing who [100:44] they're leaving it for. The question [100:45] left for you is, if you could not fail, [100:49] what would your next goal be [100:52] that you would set for yourself? [100:55] >> There There was a book written [100:57] in the 1960s called Silent Spring. [101:01] Carl Carson, I think her name was. [101:03] And it changed for a quite a number of [101:05] years it it it did what books never do [101:08] really it [101:10] it uh became a political monster and [101:13] everyone studied it and it had an [101:15] effect. It changed the game. [101:17] I would uh like to write something about [101:22] toxicity and and social contract really. [101:25] Particularly nurturing a family. We [101:27] We've got to find in the end a community [101:30] that encourages children. The downside [101:33] of the [101:34] brutally efficient capitalist system [101:36] that we have. It's focus on [101:39] financial achievement and so on. [101:42] And [101:43] very little emphasis on community and [101:46] child-rearing and so on. If we don't we [101:48] we fail as a society pretty quickly. We [101:51] have to detoxify. We have to encourage [101:55] to create an environment where people [101:57] want to have children. [101:59] >> [clears throat] [101:59] >> If I could write a book [102:01] that would be [102:03] would would pull a silent spring, I [102:04] would sit down tomorrow and start it. [102:07] >> The making of a Parma bear. [102:10] >> Parma should be in inverted commas, [102:12] really. [102:13] >> The perils of long-term investing in a [102:15] short-term world. [102:19] By Jeremy Grantham and Edward [102:21] Chancellor. [102:23] Who is this book for? [102:24] >> Oh, people who have a interest in the [102:26] stock market. It has a little bit of [102:28] climate change and toxicity. [102:31] My my co-rider is a professional and he [102:33] tried to limit me quite sensibly. [102:36] Feeling that our main market was [102:37] investors who would be turned off by too [102:40] much of the stuff we've been talking [102:42] about. [102:43] >> You cover things also like economics, [102:46] value investing, being a bear, and [102:47] predicting a bubble, and what to do [102:48] about all of those things. But it's [102:50] really a useful counterintuitive not [102:52] counterintuitive, but it's a it's a [102:54] frame of thinking that will help you be [102:56] more realistic especially when [102:57] psychology is prone to take over and [102:59] make you wildly recklessly optimistic. [103:02] >> And and be more confident in your [103:04] judgment. [103:06] Big big companies cannot advise you. [103:10] It's just suicidal for their business. [103:12] So you are on your own. Look at the [103:15] data. A bubble is not hard to see. There [103:18] is this kind of plane and then there's a [103:20] Himalayan peak [103:22] which eventually goes back. [103:24] >> And I mean that's exactly what we're [103:25] seeing. [103:25] >> That's exactly what history looks like. [103:29] Have the courage to look at that, make [103:31] your own conclusion, get out of the [103:33] dangerous most dangerous part, [103:36] and and do it now. [103:38] Don't wait for help because no help is [103:40] coming. [103:43] Large enterprises almost never get the [103:46] big turning points [103:48] because they can't take the career risk [103:50] involved. [103:51] And every big corporation needs a leader [103:53] who has political skills. [103:56] And the And the central political skill [103:57] in life turns out to be never be wrong [104:00] on your own. [104:02] This is again Keynes. [104:04] You know, you can be wrong in company, [104:06] you can jump off the cliff together, you [104:08] will never lose your job because of [104:09] that. [104:11] But if you do anything on your own, [104:12] sooner or later you will get it wrong. [104:15] And quote, you will not receive much [104:17] mercy. [104:19] >> Jeremy, thank you so much. Thank you for [104:22] all that you do. Um you traverse so many [104:23] subjects. It's It's absolutely [104:25] fascinating and you You've made me think [104:27] about so many things. I've actually [104:28] written down a bunch of ideas. You sent [104:29] me taking some photos then. Those are [104:31] actually ideas that I want to remember. [104:33] >> Yeah, that's what I do. Screenshot city. [104:35] >> Yeah, so I took I just wrote things down [104:37] you were saying and then I was like I [104:37] need to remember that later for a bunch [104:39] of things, businesses, friends, family, [104:41] etc. [104:42] Um and I think that's the testament to [104:44] how broad and curious and wise you are. [104:46] >> Going back to question one or two, the [104:49] billionaire bit, [104:50] uh sometime around the end of this year [104:52] we will actually have written checks for [104:54] a billion dollars [104:56] to the climate change world. [104:58] >> It's It's a wonderful thing and there's [104:59] you know this particular moment in time [105:01] because of the politics, climate change [105:02] is a subject that's falling off the [105:03] radar. [105:04] >> It is. [105:05] >> Uh it's [105:06] being mentioned less in earnings calls. [105:07] It's [105:07] >> But this year will be so disgustingly [105:09] hot from now on, I suspect. [105:11] >> Disgustingly hot. [105:12] >> Hot. We could have from now on the [105:14] hottest 12 months from now to this time [105:16] next year that we have ever had in [105:18] history. [105:20] Here, there, and everywhere. [105:21] >> Well, I'm glad we've got voices like [105:22] yours [105:23] um lending their ideas and wisdom to [105:25] these conversations and it's been an [105:26] honor and a privilege to to you. Your [105:28] book, The Making of a Manager, Baron, to [105:29] link it below [105:31] for everyone to buy it themselves. [105:33] Jeremy, thank you. YouTube have this new [105:35] crazy algorithm where they know exactly [105:37] what video you would like to watch next [105:39] based on AI and all of your viewing [105:41] behavior. And the algorithm says that [105:43] this video is the perfect video for you. [105:46] It's different for everybody looking [105:47] right now. Check this video out, and I [105:49] bet you you might love it.