You probably don't know me, but I am one of those .01 percenters that you hear about and read about, and I am by any reasonable definition a plutocrat. And tonight, what I would like to do is speak directly to other plutocrats, to my people, because it feels like it's time for us all to have a chat. Like most plutocrats, I too am a proud and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, cofounded or funded over 30 companies across a range of industries. I was the first non-family investor in Amazon.com. I cofounded a company called aQuantive that we sold to Microsoft for 6.4 billion dollars. My friends and I, we own a bank. I tell you this — (Laughter) — unbelievable, right?
你也许不知道我是谁, 我是你经常听到或读到的 那前1%的高收入者, 所以我是一个铁定的富豪。 今晚,我要做的是 跟其他富豪、我的伙伴们谈一谈, 因为我感觉现在是时候 进行这场谈话了。 身为一名坚定不移的资本主义者, 跟大多富豪一样,我也为之感到自豪。 我已在诸多行业 单独或共同创立、投资了 30多家公司。 我是Amazon.com的 第一位非家族成员投资者。 我与他人合伙创立了 一家名为aQuantive的公司, 以64亿美金高价出售给微软公司。 我与几个朋友拥有一家银行。 我告诉你们这些——(笑声)—— 听起来难以置信,是吧?
I tell you this to show that my life is like most plutocrats. I have a broad perspective on capitalism and business, and I have been rewarded obscenely for that with a life that most of you all can't even imagine: multiple homes, a yacht, my own plane, etc., etc., etc. But let's be honest: I am not the smartest person you've ever met. I am certainly not the hardest working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at all. I can't write a word of code. Truly, my success is the consequence of spectacular luck, of birth, of circumstance and of timing. But I am actually pretty good at a couple of things. One, I have an unusually high tolerance for risk, and the other is I have a good sense, a good intuition about what will happen in the future, and I think that that intuition about the future is the essence of good entrepreneurship.
我说这些是想告诉你们 我的生活跟大多富豪一样。 我在商务和资本上 视野开阔,运筹帷幄, 丰硕的回报让我过上了一种 你们无法想像 的生活: 诸多房产,一辆游艇,私人飞机, 等等等等。 但实话实说:我并不是你们 遇到过的最聪明的人, 也肯定不是工作最努力的, 在学生时代我位于中游, 我根本不懂技术, 我甚至码不出一行代码。 说实话,我的成功源自 极佳的运气、 出身、境遇和时机。 但有些事情我确实非常在行。 其一,我对风险有异常高的承受力, 另外,我有很好的直觉, 良好的直觉告诉我未来会发生什么, 我认为这种对未来的直觉 对优秀的企业家而言是必不可少的。
So what do I see in our future today, you ask? I see pitchforks, as in angry mobs with pitchforks, because while people like us plutocrats are living beyond the dreams of avarice, the other 99 percent of our fellow citizens are falling farther and farther behind. In 1980, the top one percent of Americans shared about eight percent of national [income], while the bottom 50 percent of Americans shared 18 percent. Thirty years later, today, the top one percent shares over 20 percent of national [income], while the bottom 50 percent of Americans share 12 or 13. If the trend continues, the top one percent will share over 30 percent of national [income] in another 30 years, while the bottom 50 percent of Americans will share just six.
你会问, 如今我预测未来会发生什么? 我看到干草叉, 愤怒的暴民手中的干草叉, 因为当我们这样的富豪 已不再视攫取钱财为梦想时, 另外99%的普通国民 却远远地落在我们身后。 在1980年,前1%高收入者的收入 占全美总收入的8%, 而底层的50%美国人的收入 占18%。 30年后的今天,前1%高收入者的收入 占全美总收入的20%, 而底层的50%美国人的收入 占12%到13%。 如果这个趋势持续下去, 前1%的高收入者的收入 在30年内 将超过全美总收入的30%, 而底层的50%的美国人的收入 只占到6%。
You see, the problem isn't that we have some inequality. Some inequality is necessary for a high-functioning capitalist democracy. The problem is that inequality is at historic highs today and it's getting worse every day. And if wealth, power, and income continue to concentrate at the very tippy top, our society will change from a capitalist democracy to a neo-feudalist rentier society like 18th-century France. That was France before the revolution and the mobs with the pitchforks.
你们看,问题不在于社会 存在一定的不平等。 一定的不平等对于资本主义民主的 高速运作是必不可少的。 问题在于今天的不平等程度 已达历史峰值, 而且日益严重。 如果财富、权力和收入 持续集中 在极少数人手里, 我们的社会就会从 资本主义民主转变为 18世纪法国那样的 新封建食利者社会。 那是法国 在大革命之前 还有手持干草叉的暴民。
So I have a message for my fellow plutocrats and zillionaires and for anyone who lives in a gated bubble world: Wake up. Wake up. It cannot last. Because if we do not do something to fix the glaring economic inequities in our society, the pitchforks will come for us, for no free and open society can long sustain this kind of rising economic inequality. It has never happened. There are no examples. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state or an uprising. The pitchforks will come for us if we do not address this. It's not a matter of if, it's when. And it will be terrible when they come for everyone, but particularly for people like us plutocrats.
因此我有些话要对我的富豪伙伴们说, 要对那些亿万富翁 和生活在 “封闭的泡沫世界”的人说: 警醒吧。 警醒吧。这是无法持续的。 如果我们无所作为, 放任社会里这些极端的经济不平等, 干草叉就会向我们袭来, 任何一个自由开放的社会都无法长期承受 这种持续恶化的不平等。 从没发生过。没有先例。 你若能举出一个极端不平等的社会的例子, 我会告诉你要么那是一个极权国家, 要么起义就要爆发了。 如果我们不解决这个问题, 干草叉就会向我们袭来。 这不是是否会发生的问题,而是什么时候发生的问题。 若问题终将来临, 对所有人, 尤其是对我们富豪,都是很可怕的。
I know I must sound like some liberal do-gooder. I'm not. I'm not making a moral argument that economic inequality is wrong. What I am arguing is that rising economic inequality is stupid and ultimately self-defeating. Rising inequality doesn't just increase our risks from pitchforks, but it's also terrible for business too. So the model for us rich guys should be Henry Ford. When Ford famously introduced the $5 day, which was twice the prevailing wage at the time, he didn't just increase the productivity of his factories, he converted exploited autoworkers who were poor into a thriving middle class who could now afford to buy the products that they made. Ford intuited what we now know is true, that an economy is best understood as an ecosystem and characterized by the same kinds of feedback loops you find in a natural ecosystem, a feedback loop between customers and businesses. Raising wages increases demand, which increases hiring, which in turn increases wages and demand and profits, and that virtuous cycle of increasing prosperity is precisely what is missing from today's economic recovery.
我知道我听起来像极了空想的社会改良家。 我不是。我不是从道义上论说 经济不平等是错误的。 我所论说的是,日益严重的经济不平等 是愚蠢的,是自掘坟墓。 日趋严重的不平等 不只增加我们受干草叉袭击的风险, 对商业而言也是可怕的。 我们这些富人的榜样是亨利•福特。 福特引入时薪$5的举措广为人知, 时薪$5是当时通用标准的两倍, 这不仅提升了 福特工厂的生产力, 他使得被剥削的贫困的汽车工人, 成为蒸蒸日上的中产阶级, 有能力购买自家产品。 福特的直觉在今天被证明是正确的, 即把经济理解为生态系统, 在自然的经济系统中, 经济也具有 反馈回路的特性, 一种由消费者和企业形成的反馈回路。 提高工人薪水将增加社会需求, 会促进雇佣, 进而增加薪水、 社会需求和企业利润。 这种促进繁荣的良性循环 正是当今经济复苏 过程中缺乏的。
And this is why we need to put behind us the trickle-down policies that so dominate both political parties and embrace something I call middle-out economics. Middle-out economics rejects the neoclassical economic idea that economies are efficient, linear, mechanistic, that they tend towards equilibrium and fairness, and instead embraces the 21st-century idea that economies are complex, adaptive, ecosystemic, that they tend away from equilibrium and toward inequality, that they're not efficient at all but are effective if well managed. This 21st-century perspective allows you to clearly see that capitalism does not work by [efficiently] allocating existing resources. It works by [efficiently] creating new solutions to human problems. The genius of capitalism is that it is an evolutionary solution-finding system. It rewards people for solving other people's problems. The difference between a poor society and a rich society, obviously, is the degree to which that society has generated solutions in the form of products for its citizens. The sum of the solutions that we have in our society really is our prosperity, and this explains why companies like Google and Amazon and Microsoft and Apple and the entrepreneurs who created those companies have contributed so much to our nation's prosperity.
这就是为何我们要摒弃 两党都全力支持的政策—— 涓流经济政策 而要信奉被我称为“中产辐射”的经济。 中产辐射经济 颠覆了新古典主义经济学思想 后者认为经济是有效率的、线性的、机械的, 且经济趋向于平衡和平等, 而中产辐射经济拥护二十一世纪的观点, 即经济是复杂的,适应性的 生态的经济系统, 它们偏离平衡,趋向不平等, 根本就没有效率, 但如果管控得好,经济是可以有效的。 二十一世纪的观点让你清楚地看到, 资本主义的运作, 不是通过有效地分配 现有资源。 而是通过有效地为 人类面临的问题创造新解决方案。 资本主义的智慧在于, 它是一个不断发展的“寻求解决方案”的系统。 它会回报那些解决他人问题的人。 落后的社会和 先进的社会的区别,很明显, 在于该社会创造 解决方案的程度有多深, 让民众受恩受惠。 解决方案汇聚成丰硕果实, 促进社会繁荣, 这也就说明了为何 像谷歌、亚马逊、 微软、苹果 以及创立这些公司的企业家们 为我们国家的繁荣昌盛 做出了巨大的贡献。
This 21st-century perspective also makes clear that what we think of as economic growth is best understood as the rate at which we solve problems. But that rate is totally dependent upon how many problem solvers — diverse, able problem solvers — we have, and thus how many of our fellow citizens actively participate, both as entrepreneurs who can offer solutions, and as customers who consume them. But this maximizing participation thing doesn't happen by accident. It doesn't happen by itself. It requires effort and investment, which is why all highly prosperous capitalist democracies are characterized by massive investments in the middle class and the infrastructure that they depend on.
二十一世纪的观点 也明确表明, 经济发展速度 应理解为 解决问题的速度。 但这个速度完全由这两方面决定: 其一,我们有多少问题解决者—— 多样的、有能力的解决者; 其二,有多少民众 积极参与, 包括提供解决方案的企业家, 以及购买产品的消费者。 但参与的最大程度 不会出于偶然, 不会自己增加。 这需要努力与投资, 这就是为什么 所有高度繁荣的资本主义民主 都以发展中产阶级为特点, 并给予中产阶级 有依靠的基础设施。
We plutocrats need to get this trickle-down economics thing behind us, this idea that the better we do, the better everyone else will do. It's not true. How could it be? I earn 1,000 times the median wage, but I do not buy 1,000 times as much stuff, do I? I actually bought two pairs of these pants, what my partner Mike calls my manager pants. I could have bought 2,000 pairs, but what would I do with them? (Laughter) How many haircuts can I get? How often can I go out to dinner? No matter how wealthy a few plutocrats get, we can never drive a great national economy. Only a thriving middle class can do that. There's nothing to be done, my plutocrat friends might say. Henry Ford was in a different time. Maybe we can't do some things. Maybe we can do some things. June 19, 2013, Bloomberg published an article I wrote called "The Capitalist’s Case for a $15 Minimum Wage." The good people at Forbes magazine, among my biggest admirers, called it "Nick Hanauer's near-insane proposal." And yet, just 350 days after that article was published, Seattle's Mayor Ed Murray signed into law an ordinance raising the minimum wage in Seattle to 15 dollars an hour, more than double what the prevailing federal $7.25 rate is. How did this happen, reasonable people might ask. It happened because a group of us reminded the middle class that they are the source of growth and prosperity in capitalist economies. We reminded them that when workers have more money, businesses have more customers, and need more employees. We reminded them that when businesses pay workers a living wage, taxpayers are relieved of the burden of funding the poverty programs like food stamps and medical assistance and rent assistance that those workers need. We reminded them that low-wage workers make terrible taxpayers, and that when you raise the minimum wage for all businesses, all businesses benefit yet all can compete.
我们富豪应该 摒弃涓流经济—— 我们一小部分人越富有, 其他所有人也都会富有。 这个观念是不对的。怎么可能是对的呢? 我的收入是中产阶级的1000倍, 但我不会比他们多买1000倍的东西, 我会吗? 事实上我买了两条这样的裤子, 我的合作伙伴麦克戏称 那是“老板裤”。 我可以买2000条, 但买来干嘛呢?(笑声) 我理多少次发? 我能下多少次馆子? 无论这小部分富豪多么富有, 我们永远不会大幅度推进全国经济。 只有不断壮大的中产阶级才能实现这一愿景。 现在什么都做不了, 我的富豪伙伴们也许会这么说。 亨利•福特处在不同的时期, 也许今天的我们做不了什么。 也许我们可以做些什么。 2013年6月19号, Bloomberg刊登了一篇我写的文章, 《时薪$15的资本实例》 福布斯杂志社的一些善良的人, 包括我的仰慕者, 称之为“尼克•汉诺尔的几近荒唐的提议。” 但是,就在我的文章 发表之后的350天, 西雅图市长艾德•默里签署了一项新法案, 提升西雅图市最低薪资标准, 至时薪$15, 达到联邦普遍的 $7.25两倍以上。 这是如何发生的, 正常的人会问。 原因是我们这一群人, 给他们提醒了 中产阶级才是 资本主义经济繁荣发展的源泉。 我们提醒他们,当工人们腰包更鼓, 商家就会有更多的客户, 就需要雇佣更多的人。 我们提醒他们,当雇主 为工人提供的工资足以生活, 纳税人就会卸下资助扶贫项目的重担, 而这些扶贫项目 包括食品救济券、医疗救助和 房租津贴。 正是那些工人需要的。 我们提醒他们,工人的薪资过低 会让纳税者难堪, 当你提升 所有行业的最低薪资标准, 所有行业都会受惠, 同时保持竞争力。
Now the orthodox reaction, of course, is raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Right? Your politician's always echoing that trickle-down idea by saying things like, "Well, if you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it."
话已至此,通常的回应会是,当然, 提高最低薪资标准会缩减工作岗位数量。对吗? 支持涓流经济思想的政客, 总是这样回应 “雇佣成本若升高, 你猜会怎样?工作岗位会减少。”
Are you sure? Because there's some contravening evidence. Since 1980, the wages of CEOs in our country have gone from about 30 times the median wage to 500 times. That's raising the price of employment. And yet, to my knowledge, I have never seen a company outsource its CEO's job, automate their job, export the job to China. In fact, we appear to be employing more CEOs and senior managers than ever before. So too for technology workers and financial services workers, who earn multiples of the median wage and yet we employ more and more of them, so clearly you can raise the price of employment and get more of it.
你确定吗? 因为这里有截然相反的事实。 自1980年以来,我们国家CEO的薪资 从公司薪资中值的30倍左右 上升到500倍。 这显然是提升了雇佣成本。 而且,据我所知, 我从没见过一个公司 把CEO职位外包出去,或用 机器人取代劳动力, 或外包到中国。 事实上,我们前所未有地雇佣 更多的CEO和高管。 科技工作者和 金融服务人员也是如此, 他们的薪资水平是中值的许多倍, 但我们越来越多地雇佣他们, 因此,很显然,提高雇佣成本的同时 增加职位数量是可行的。
I know that most people think that the $15 minimum wage is this insane, risky economic experiment. We disagree. We believe that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is actually the continuation of a logical economic policy. It is allowing our city to kick your city's ass. Because, you see, Washington state already has the highest minimum wage of any state in the nation. We pay all workers $9.32, which is almost 30 percent more than the federal minimum of 7.25, but crucially, 427 percent more than the federal tipped minimum of 2.13. If trickle-down thinkers were right, then Washington state should have massive unemployment. Seattle should be sliding into the ocean. And yet, Seattle is the fastest-growing big city in the country. Washington state is generating small business jobs at a higher rate than any other major state in the nation. The restaurant business in Seattle? Booming. Why? Because the fundamental law of capitalism is, when workers have more money, businesses have more customers and need more workers. When restaurants pay restaurant workers enough so that even they can afford to eat in restaurants, that's not bad for the restaurant business. That's good for it, despite what some restaurateurs may tell you.
我知道大多数人认为 $15的最低薪资 是荒唐的,是有风险的经济试验。 我们不同意。 我们相信 西雅图$15的最低薪资 实际上是 合理经济政策的续篇。 这让我们的城市 促动你们的城市。 因为,你们也看到了, 华盛顿州的 最低薪资标准 在全美所有州中是最高的。 所有工人(平均)时薪是$9.32, 几乎比联邦要求的 最低薪资$7.25高出30%, 更关键的是,它要比联邦要求的 服务员$2.13的最低薪资标准高出427%。 如果涓流经济的观点是正确的, 华盛顿州会有极高的失业率, 西雅图应该“跌入海底”了。 但是,西雅图 是全美发展最快的大城市。 华盛顿州创造小型企业就业机会 的速度高于 全美任何州。 西雅图餐饮行业?高速发展着。 为什么?因为资本主义运作最基本的法则是, 当工人有更多的钱, 商家就会有更多的客户, 需要更多的工人。 当餐馆为其员工支付的酬劳足够多, 多到甚至他们都可以有钱在餐馆吃饭, 这对于餐饮业来说不是坏事, 是好事, 即便某些餐馆店主也许不会这么说。
Is it more complicated than I'm making out? Of course it is. There are a lot of dynamics at play. But can we please stop insisting that if low-wage workers earn a little bit more, unemployment will skyrocket and the economy will collapse? There is no evidence for it. The most insidious thing about trickle-down economics is not the claim that if the rich get richer, everyone is better off. It is the claim made by those who oppose any increase in the minimum wage that if the poor get richer, that will be bad for the economy. This is nonsense. So can we please dispense with this rhetoric that says that rich guys like me and my plutocrat friends made our country? We plutocrats know, even if we don't like to admit it in public, that if we had been born somewhere else, not here in the United States, we might very well be just some dude standing barefoot by the side of a dirt road selling fruit. It's not that they don't have good entrepreneurs in other places, even very, very poor places. It's just that that's all that those entrepreneurs' customers can afford.
现实是不是要比我描述的复杂得多? 当然是的。 现实的不确定性因素太多了。 但能不能请我们不要再坚持这样的观点—— 如果低薪工人赚得多一点点, 失业率就会井喷, 经济就会崩盘。 没有证据支持这个观点。 涓流经济 最荒唐的地方, 不在于它声称富人更富, 所有人都会更富, 而在于那些反对 提高最低薪资标准的人们的观点—— 穷人有钱了, 会对经济发展有负面影响。 这根本没有道理。 能不能请我们摒弃这种说辞—— 像我这样富有的家伙 和我的富豪伙伴们成就了 我们国家的繁荣? 我们富豪都知道, 即便我们不喜欢在公众面前承认, 如果我们生在别处, 不是在美国, 我们很有可能是一位光脚站在 肮脏的路边卖水果的家伙。 其他地方并不是没有优秀的企业家, 即便是极为贫寒的地方, 只不过是那里的企业家面临的 消费者购买力太过有限。
So here's an idea for a new kind of economics, a new kind of politics that I call new capitalism. Let's acknowledge that capitalism beats the alternatives, but also that the more people we include, both as entrepreneurs and as customers, the better it works. Let's by all means shrink the size of government, but not by slashing the poverty programs, but by ensuring that workers are paid enough so that they actually don't need those programs. Let's invest enough in the middle class to make our economy fairer and more inclusive, and by fairer, more truly competitive, and by more truly competitive, more able to generate the solutions to human problems that are the true drivers of growth and prosperity. Capitalism is the greatest social technology ever invented for creating prosperity in human societies, if it is well managed, but capitalism, because of the fundamental multiplicative dynamics of complex systems, tends towards, inexorably, inequality, concentration and collapse. The work of democracies is to maximize the inclusion of the many in order to create prosperity, not to enable the few to accumulate money. Government does create prosperity and growth, by creating the conditions that allow both entrepreneurs and their customers to thrive. Balancing the power of capitalists like me and workers isn't bad for capitalism. It's essential to it. Programs like a reasonable minimum wage, affordable healthcare, paid sick leave, and the progressive taxation necessary to pay for the important infrastructure necessary for the middle class like education, R and D, these are indispensable tools shrewd capitalists should embrace to drive growth, because no one benefits from it like us.
因此,我有一个全新的经济学观点, 一种全新的政治思想, 我称之为新资本主义。 我们先承认资本主义 要比其他社会制度更为优越, 而且包括企业家和消费者在内的 越多的人参与到这其中来, 资本主义的运作会更为有效。 让我们尽一切办法缩减政府的规模, 不是通过削减扶贫项目, 而是通过确保工人获得足够的薪水, 让他们无须依赖这些政府项目。 让我们大力投资中产阶级, 让经济社会更加公平,更加海纳百川, 通过更加平等而真实的竞争, 通过真正的竞争, 来更有能力地成形 解决社会问题的方案 而这些解决方案才是社会繁荣的真正推动者。 资本主义是人类社会科学 最伟大的发明, 只要管理得当, 它会为人类社会创造繁荣, 但资本主义基于 制度复杂的多种的运作机制上, 资本主义势必会趋于不平等, 财富的过度集中,以及经济崩溃。 所谓民主, 是为创造繁荣,需最大限度地海纳百川, 而不是让财富聚集在少数人手里。 政府应营造企业家和消费者 共同发展的社会环境, 来促进繁荣并推动发展。 来创造一种现状能够 使我这样的资本家和工人 都能发迹。 平衡像我这样的资本家 和工人之间的权力对资本主义来说 并不是坏事。 而是必要的。 如合理的最低薪资标准, 担负得起的医疗服务, 带薪的病假, 以及为重要基础设施建设、 中产阶级的教育和研发 提供必要支持的累进税制, 这些政府项目都是必不可少的, 而教育R和D项目 都是精明的资本家 手里的必不可少的工具, 用来推动利润增长, 正是我们从中受惠,而不是其它人。
Many economists would have you believe that their field is an objective science. I disagree, and I think that it is equally a tool that humans use to enforce and encode our social and moral preferences and prejudices about status and power, which is why plutocrats like me have always needed to find persuasive stories to tell everyone else about why our relative positions are morally righteous and good for everyone: like, we are indispensable, the job creators, and you are not; like, tax cuts for us create growth, but investments in you will balloon our debt and bankrupt our great country; that we matter; that you don't. For thousands of years, these stories were called divine right. Today, we have trickle-down economics. How obviously, transparently self-serving all of this is. We plutocrats need to see that the United States of America made us, not the other way around; that a thriving middle class is the source of prosperity in capitalist economies, not a consequence of it. And we should never forget that even the best of us in the worst of circumstances are barefoot by the side of a dirt road selling fruit.
许多经济学家会说服你, 让你相信经济领域是客观的。 我不同意,我认为它也是 人们使用的工具, 用来施加 基于地位和权力上的 社会和道德的喜好与偏见。 这就是为什么一些像我这样的富豪 总在编一些故事, 试图说服所有人, 为什么我们高高在上的地位不可撼动, 且所有人都会因之受益: 比如,我们这些雇主是不可缺少的, 是创造工作机会的, 而你们,可有可无; 比如,减免我们的赋税有利于经济增长, 而对你们的投资 会让负债激增, 会让我们伟大的国家崩盘; 比如,我们才是重要的, 而你们不是。 几千年来,这些故事被称作 “神权说”。 今天,我们将它称作涓流经济。 显而易见, 这一切的说辞都是自私自利。 我们富豪应该意识到, 是美国塑造了我们, 而不是我们塑造了美国; 富足的中产阶级是 资本主义经济繁荣的源泉, 而不是经济繁荣的结果。 而且,我们永远都不应忘记, 即便我们再优秀,若经济环境恶劣, 我们会光着脚在肮脏的路边卖水果。
Fellow plutocrats, I think it may be time for us to recommit to our country, to commit to a new kind of capitalism which is both more inclusive and more effective, a capitalism that will ensure that America's economy remains the most dynamic and prosperous in the world. Let's secure the future for ourselves, our children and their children. Or alternatively, we could do nothing, hide in our gated communities and private schools, enjoy our planes and yachts — they're fun — and wait for the pitchforks.
富豪伙伴们,我想是我们 回馈社会的时候了, 应致力于新型的资本主义, 这种资本主义海纳百川,且更为有效, 是一种会保证 美国经济依旧是 世界上最具活力、最繁荣的经济, 让我们为我们自己 和子孙后代营造未来。 或者,我们也可以无所作为, 藏匿于封闭的社区 和私立学校, 在私人飞机和游艇里寻欢作乐 ——是很有趣—— 并等待干草叉袭来。
Thank you.
谢谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)