Capitalism, fundamentally, is a series of marketplaces.

資本主義是什麼？

You can have a marketplace for lemonade,

基本上，資本主義是一系列的市場。

a marketplace for lemons,

你可能有檸檬水的市場、

a marketplace for trucks that transport lemons,

檸檬的市場、

a marketplace that fuels those trucks,

運送檸檬之卡車的市場、

marketplaces that sell wood to build lemonade stands.

供應那些卡車燃料的市場、

However, capitalism of course, as we know,

販售木頭來建造檸檬水攤子的市場。

is this either celebrated term

然而，當然，如我們所知，

or condemned term.

資本主義這個詞若不是被讚揚，

It's either revered or it's reviled.

就是被譴責。

And I'm here to argue that this is because capitalism,

它若不是被尊敬，就是被謾罵。

in the modern iteration, is largely misunderstood.

我在這裡爭辯說，這是因為

In my view,

在現代迭代中的資本主義， 在很大程度上被誤解了。

capitalism should not be thought of as an ideology,

依我所見，

but instead should be thought of as an operating system.

資本主義不該被視為一種意識形態，

Think of your iPhone.

而應該被視為是一種作業系統。

Your iPhone merges hardware with software.

想想你的 iPhone。

Apps and hardware.

你的 iPhone 結合硬體和軟體，

Now think about all the hardware as the physical reality all around you,

結合應用程式和硬體。

and think of the apps as entrepreneurial activity,

現在，把所有硬體都想成 你周邊的實體現實環境，

creative energy.

把應用程式想成企業家的活動、

And in-between, you have an operating system.

創意能量。

As you have advances in hardware,

在兩者之間有個作業系統。

you have advances in software.

當你的硬體進步時，

And the operating system needs to keep up.

你的軟體也會進步。

It needs to be patched, it needs to be updated,

而作業系統得要跟上。

new releases have to happen.

它需要補丁、需要更新，

And all of these things have to happen symbiotically.

一定要推出新版本。

The operating system needs to keep getting more and more advanced

所有這些都是共生的。

to keep up with innovation.

作業系統需要不斷進步，

And this is why, fundamentally,

才能跟得上創新。

when you think about it as an operating system,

這就是為什麼，基本上，

it devolves the language of ideology

當你把它視為一種作業系統，

away from what traditional defenders of capitalism think.

它就會轉移意識形態的表達方式，

But even if you go to the constitution,

遠離資本主義的傳統辯護者的想法。

you'll notice, before the founders even got to the First Amendment --

但，就算你去查憲法，

with free speech, free religion, free press,

你會發現，在開國元老 著手憲法第一修正案之前──

they thought about patents and copyright.

保護言論自由、宗教自由、 媒體自由的修正案──

They talked about the government's role in promoting arts and sciences.

他們已想到專利和版權了。

It's the reason why I could not start a search engine tomorrow called Goggle.

他們談到政府在推動 藝術和科學時所扮演的角色。

(Laughter)

這就是為什麼我不能在明天 起造一個名叫 Goggle 的搜尋引擎。

Google doesn't own Gs,

（笑聲）

but I couldn't do it because there could be some confusion.

Google 並不擁有「G」，

So even property rights have ambiguity built into them.

但我不能這麼做，因為會造成混淆。

And on and on.

所以甚至連財產權 都預留著模糊空間。

And by 1900, you have other types of property that come into being.

諸如此類。

For instance, imagine that in 1900, you owned 100 acres of land

到 1900 年， 其他類型的資產出現了。

someplace in the Midwest.

比如，想像你在 1900 年 擁有 100 英畝的土地，

It's very easy to see where your fence ends,

位在中西部的某處。

your neighbor's property begins.

很容易看見你的籬笆止於哪裡、

Now let me ask you,

鄰居的產權從哪裡開始。

where in the sky does your property end?

讓我請教各位，

Does it end at 1,000 feet,

你的產權界線到天空的哪裡？

5,000 feet, 10,000 feet?

到 1000 英呎高為止嗎？

It makes no difference,

5000 英呎？10000 英呎？

because other than the novelty of a few hot-air balloons,

沒有差別，

man couldn't fly.

因為除了少數的熱氣球 新奇經驗之外，

But within three years, he could.

人是不能飛的。

Now all of a sudden, it was very much relevant

但在三年之內，人能飛了。

whether your land ends at 1,000 feet in the sky,

突然間，你的土地資產

5,000 feet, 10,000 feet.

是止於 1000 、5000 或 10000 英呎的高空，

And you have to have someone arbitrate that.

就變得很重要了。

And indeed, that's exactly what happened.

你需要有人仲裁。

And five or ten years from now,

的確，事情的進展正是這樣。

when Amazon wants to deliver a package over your house to your neighbor

再過五或十年後，

from that UPS truck,

當亞馬遜想要越過你家上空，

we're going to have to decide: Does you property end at five feet,

把 USP 貨車上的包裹 遞送給你鄰居時，

10 feet, 50 feet, 100 feet?

我們就得要判定：你的產權止於

Where does it end?

5、10、50 還是 100 英呎高呢？

And there is no ideology

到多高呢？

that will tell you where your property ends.

沒有任何意識形態

It's an operating system.

能告訴你你的產權界線。

And similarly,

作業系統能。

we're going to see this with automobiles.

我們用汽車來看類似的情況。

A few years after the Wright brothers figured out flight,

萊特兄弟想出如何飛行之後幾年，

human beings started using more and more cars.

人類使用汽車更頻繁了。

And all of a sudden,

突然間，

the regulatory system -- the operating system --

監管制度──即作業系統──

had to be patched to all of a sudden address the safety of consumers.

突然需要被修補， 以處理消費者的安全問題。

That the consumers of vehicles were presenting danger to horses,

使用汽車的人會危害到馬、

other pedestrians, trolleys, what have you.

其他行人、電車等等。

And all of a sudden,

突然間，

the drivers of these automobiles had to have driver's licenses, eye exams,

汽車駕駛就需要考駕照、 通過視力檢驗，

registered motor vehicles, speed limits,

車輛需要登記，路上設有速限，

rules of the road,

要遵守交通規則，

so that horses, pedestrians, could coexist with cars.

這麼一來，馬和行人 才能和汽車共存。

It had to be backwards compatible.

它得要和過去的事物相容，

So a new invention had to basically fit advances from the past.

新發明必須基本上符合過去的發展。

Similarly, five or ten years from now,

同樣地，五到十年後，

we're going to see the same thing with self-driving cars --

自駕車也會面臨同樣的狀況──

coexisting with human-driven cars.

要和人類駕駛的汽車共存。

The reason why this is important, is in 10 years,

這之所以很重要是因為，十年內，

another thing is going to happen beyond drones and self-driving cars,

還會有別的東西出現， 超越無人機和自駕車，

but you're going to see the most valuable economy in the world --

但你將會見到世上 市值最高的經濟體──

the largest economy in the world --

世上最大的經濟體──

is going to be a country run by communists.

會是共產統治的國家。

The Chinese seem to be very good at capitalism.

中國人似乎對資本主義很在行。

And this is going to have fundamental problems

這將會有很根本的問題，

and present an identity crisis for the United States.

會讓美國產生認同危機。

Because for a long time,

因為，長期以來，

free markets coincided with liberties such as free speech, free press,

自由市場與言論自由、新聞自由，

free religion.

宗教自由等自由，正好相吻合。

And all of a sudden, this equation is going to be decoupled.

突然間，這等式將會被解離。

And when it gets decoupled,

當它解離時，

we might find that democracy, the multitude of voices,

我們可能會發現， 民主，大眾的聲音，

actually impedes capitalism

其實會妨礙資本主義。

because a state that does not have any pretense of limited government

因為一個連「假裝限制政府權利」 都免了的國家，

can very quickly mandate a regulatory framework for drones,

能很快地制定監管的架構，

for electric cars, for self-driving cars,

來監管無人機、電動車、自駕車，

for any new innovation

和任何他們認為

where they feel that they can leapfrog Western societies.

能快速超越西方社會的創新。

And this is a very unique thing in the American experience.

這在美國經驗中是非常獨特的。

And this is why it's very important to think of American capitalism

這就是為什麼 視美國資本主義為作業系統，

as an operating system and not as an ideology.

而非意識形態，極為重要。

Because when you think about it as an ideology,

因為如果你把它視為意識形態，

you can have good politics make for very, very bad policy.

好的政治也可能會導致 非常非常不好的政策。

That market outcomes and democratic voices

市場表現和民主聲音，

and battles for votes

以及選票之爭，

can end up stifling progress.

最後可能會扼殺了進步。

So over the next few years,

所以，在接下來幾年，

as this political cycle plays out,

隨著這政治循環的發展，

you're going to see American democracy

你們將會看到美國民主

rise to meet the challenges that capitalism poses and modernity poses.

面對資本主義和現代性 所帶來的挑戰。

And I ask policymakers to think about --

我要求決策者考慮

decoupling ideology from economics,

將意識形態與經濟學脫鉤，

and think about how good policy can ultimately become good politics.

並考慮好的政策 如何最終成為好政治。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）