硅谷毁灭性赤字风暴编辑本段回目录
当一个行业的冷淡，兴趣缺缺甚至易怒的的客户们开始转身离开，当曾经惊艳全球的产品演变成今天利润微薄的庸常之物，当最有前景的行业先驱们宁愿转而尝试需要一镑钚的新技术也不愿遵从传统智慧，当自己阵营老前辈们公开质疑行业前景时，你对这个行业有什么看法？我只想提醒各位从业者，零点丧钟已经响起。
Welcome to Silicon Valley — that intersection of venture capital, start-ups, markets, and IPOs — in the 21st century. Today, America — and the world's — great engine of innovation has got Disruption Deficit Disorder. How do we know? Well, apart from the points above (read the links — they rock), here's what I'd say is the most disturbing datapoint. Recently, some seriously awesome research by John Haltiwanger, Ron Jarmin, and Javier Miranda has concluded that the greatest number of new jobs are created by startups. So if you wanted a blinking warning signal of venture investors' fumbling inability to seed startups that matter — well, you'd be hard pressed to find one better than the deepest unemployment crisis since the Great Depression. From high tech to biotech to nanotech to cleantech, the venture-backed industries that are supposed to be seeding tomorrow's prosperity are falling down on the job. Why? I'd say it's a lack of bigger purpose, a breakdown in social usefulness, a failure to create thick value. Of course, my friends among the venture-digi-rati see it differently.
欢迎来到二十一世纪的硅谷——风险资金，创业，市场，首次上市的汇集之地。今天，美国——世界上最强大的创新引擎遭遇了毁灭性赤字风暴。我们怎么知道的？当然，除了以上几点，这儿还有几点最令人不安的数据。约翰霍尔蒂万格，罗恩加敏，哈维尔米兰达最近的一个严肃惊人的研究数据表明创业产生了最多的工作机会。所以，如果你想要一个风险投资家什么时候不适合投资创业的预警时——自从大萧条以来很难找到比严重失业危机更准确的信号了。从高科技可以到生物技术从纳米科技到清洁科技，这些需要大量风险资金为后盾支持的所谓明日希望的行业可供的工作机会都大幅下降。为什么？我认为主要原因是，缺少更长远的目标，社会实用性方面的不足，创造更高价值方面也存在问题。当然，我一个风险投资数字网络方面的朋友不这么认为。
But consider that today, Silicon Valley's latest darlings are companies like Zynga and Facebook — lightweight, feel-good ideas that are, far from promising to free the economy from the jagged teeth of a new depression and unlock a new era of prosperity, more innovation's Britney Spears and Katy Perry than its Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi.
考虑到那些，现今，硅谷最近的大胆举动就算在Zynga和Facebook这样的公司了——轻量级自我感觉良好型的公司，期望他们能让经济从脱离开新一轮大萧条的虎口开辟出新的繁荣时代还远远不够，就如同布兰妮斯皮尔斯和凯蒂佩里对对世界的变革作用往往要比纳尔逊曼德拉和圣雄甘地大一样。
So here's my impertinent, and perhaps gigantically thick-headed, suggestion: maybe, just maybe: Silicon Valley should be the crucible of 21st century capitalism instead of the last bastion of 20th century capitalism. Here's what I mean by that.
请原谅我粗鲁的，或许是愚笨的看法：或许，只是或许：硅谷在21世纪更像是资本主义的试炼场而不再是20世纪的资本主义的堡垒。下面我会解释为什么会这么说：
Consider an analogy. You're in the car, but the car's not moving. You can believe that the engine is fine, and the problem is that it's just out of gas. Or you can believe that the engine itself has broken down, and that putting more gas in it will make things worse, not better. I believe the latter, but I'd bet that many of my pals in the digerati believe the former.
举个例子。你开的车不能动了。你认为引擎是好的，问题出在油上。或者你认为引擎本身抛锚了，加更多的油只会让情况不会好转只会更糟，我打赌许多我计算机领域的朋友会倾向于前者。
Let me explain. I heartily applaud the "superangels" — innovators who are shaking up the Valley's stultifyingly, suffocatingly stuffy old boys' club with a vengeance. They've taken the first step on what I think will be a longer — and tougher — journey of reinvention. Here's how I see it.
我来解释给你听。我中心欢迎“超级天使”——创新者们以复仇一样的姿态震撼着硅谷的愚笨的令人窒息的老的哥们圈子。他们已经向在我看来一条更长更艰难的在创造之路卖出了坚实的第一步。这就是我的看法。
As it is today, the ventureconomy is predicated on the steadfast belief that yesterday's approach to business isn't just a good enough answer — it's the answer. Silicon Valley is an economy of funds investing cash in companies that commercialize technologies that provide jobs, all of which makes America's GDP go. And nested inside that assumption are all the other assumptions of business as usual: people are consumers, firms are there to earn "profit" by crushing rivals, to maximize "shareholder value," by any legal means, and so on. You only have to look back to see these assumptions hardwired deep into the Valley's very DNA, from Andy Grove's Only the Paranoid Survive to Geoffrey Moore's prescriptions for titanic tornadoes of mega-marketing, to Bill Gates's notoriously ruthless arbitrage of DOS (he didn't build it — he bought it).
就如同今天，我们一直坚定地相信我们昨天接触商业的风险经济策略不仅是已很好的答案，而是唯一的答案，硅谷经济运行的秘诀就是风险资金投资进入商业化技术的公司以提供工作机会，并支持了美国的GDP增长。隐含在这个假设里的是其他一些商业假定如同以往：人民都是消费者，公司靠击败对手来，通过各种合法手段赚取“利润”，最大化“股东价值”等等。只需回头看一下深嵌入硅谷DNA里德这些假定：安迪克罗夫《只有偏执狂才能生存》到杰弗里穆尔德《巨大市场风暴的处方》，到比尔盖茨臭名远扬的无耻的dos套利交易（他并没有发明dos，他只是借用)
Here, then, is what Silicon Valley's not: An economy of funds seeking returns bigger than industrial age short-term "profits," investing in forporations that are built to earn them, which have vaster, more enduring purposes than just "satisfying" already overleveraged, forlorn "consumers," and sparking 21st century jobs that are riveting, involving, compelling and downright fulfilling because they tap into the deeper meaning inherent in all the above — all of which make a more awesome measure of national economic health, like Net National Happiness, go.
现在，就是硅谷做不到的：经济运行资金为了寻求远大于工业时代短期利润回报，投资会进入那些能挣钱的公司，他们相比仅仅满足已经充分利用的孤独的顾客，有更宽广和坚持的目标。例如启动21世纪就业市场，虽然就业已通过深入了解上面这些与生俱来的意义，并充分利用，卷入，利用，并实施了。所有这些都形成了国家经济健康状况的晴雨表，跟净国民幸福指标一样。
Hence, if you wanted to find a shining example of the old order, you'd be hard pressed to do better than Silicon Valley. Funnily enough, while it embraces new gizmos and gadgets with a vengeance, what it hasn't yet embraced with any ardor is new institutions: new kinds of corporations, markets, banks, accounts, jobs, national income, and even "profit." If anything, from an institutional point of view, Silicon Valley is — counterintuitively — a textbook example of 20th century capitalism. Hence, whenever I talk about 21st century capitalism, my friends in the Valley and the Alley (understandably) want to throw me out the nearest window.
因此，如果你很难找到比硅谷更好嫩那个代表旧秩序的亮眼的例子了。有趣的是，当他以复仇之资拥抱新发明和新技术时，却没有任何兴趣的是那些新机构：各种公司，市场，银行，账户，工作机会，国民收入，甚至“利润。”如果机构方面对硅谷有什么看法的话——违反直觉地——20世纪资本主义教科书似的范例。因此，不管什么时候我说道21世纪资本主义，我的硅谷或巷子（你能理解的）里就职的朋友都想把我从最近的窗户里扔出去。
Here's how I'd put this fundamental difference between myself and my tech-savvy friends. You can believe that new technologies wrapped in yesterday's approach to doing business are good enough reboot prosperity: the engine's fine, it just needs more gas. Or you can believe that it will take a better approach to doing business first: the engine's the problem, and it needs to be rebuilt. But you probably can't believe both.
下面我就给大家解释我和我科技娴熟的朋友之间基本不同。你认为新技术以昨天的商业渠道包装已经足够重启繁荣：引擎还是好的，他只是需要些油。或者你认为，你认为需要一个更完美的方式来商业化这些技术：引擎的问题，需要重装。但是，你不可能同时认同这两种观点。
What the Valley might just need, I believe, isn't a host of new technologies. It first needs a host of new institutions, updated for 21st century economics (like those I wrote about last week). Silicon Valley and Silicon Alley are currently clusters of technological innovation — but what they might just have to become in the 21st century is clusters of innovation for our basic, fundamental economic institutions instead.
硅谷最需要的到底是什么呢，我认为不是一堆的信技术。最需要的是一些能更新到21世纪的新机构（如我上星期些那些）。硅谷和硅巷都有一长串的技术创新——但是他们需要变得更适合我们基础，基本的经济机构。
If I had to guess, I'd say that a 21st century ventureconomy, just like other 21s century industries, will be built atop markets, networks, and communities. Ask yourself: why aren't there transparent markets for venture finance (like, for example a futures market, to let risk be shared, pooled, and spread)? Liquid networks to let resources be shared, pooled, and remixed amongst aspiring entrepreneurs and seasoned investors? Transparent, self-organizing communities to pool, aggregate, and filter knowledge, access, and even investment ideas? The real question for Silicon Valley is this: who can think beyond "funds," "product," "revenues," and "scale"? Who can move beyond merely making another clubby oligopoly and structurally reshape the ventureconomy, with the liquid, open, transparent, accessible, reconfigurable markets, networks, and communities that spark the reconception of companies, jobs, funds, bottom lines, IPOs, and boards (to name just a few) and as we know them?
如果非得要我预测，我得说21世界风险经济，就像其他21世纪工业，必须建立在市场，网络，和社区基础上。扪心自问：为什么没有一个透明的风险投资的市场（如同，举个例，未来市场，以股份分担风险，合资联营，让前景光明的创业者和投资者互相复配。透明，自我组织的群体来合作，聚集，并筛选知识，可行性，甚至投资方法。谁能在超越仅仅排他性的寡头垄断而重塑风险经济，用更流动性，开放，透明，可实施的，可配置的市场，网络，及群体来重启对公司，工作机会，资金，底线，上市，和董事（只是一少部分名词）在我们的所知范围内的重定义。
Without the courage, foresight, and determination to take on not just the limitations of 20th century hardware (mere machinery) but, more deeply, its software (assumptions, belief
s, and concepts) I think that that the Valley and the Alley might just be in what management scholars sometimes call a competency trap — a situation where yesterday's sources of success (funds, startups, IPOs, "profit") ultimately trap you in an unprofitable place, and the costs of transformation become steep, painful, and arduous.
没有这些勇气，前瞻能力，决心去执行超越20世纪硬件（仅指机器机器）的更艰深的软件（假定，信念，和概念），我想，硅谷和硅巷正处在管理学者们所说的竞争陷阱——昨天的成功元素（资金，创业，初次上市，利润）最终把你圈在一个没有利润的地方，转型成本变得严峻，痛苦，困难。
So here, with humility, is my challenge to the Valley. 21st century innovation isn't just about technology. It's about institutions. Can you craft the building blocks not just of better products and services, but of better economies and societies? Instead of seeding more startups taking a 20th century approach to business as usual, can you seed newer, better, more purposive, more valuable kinds of companies — and then do the same for funds, returns, and IPOs? Instead of refueling America's economic engine, can you rebuild it?
这里，令人羞愧的是，硅谷给我的挑战。21世纪创新不再仅是关于科技，更和机构有关。你能精心设计一个结构单元，不仅只是提供更好的产品和服务，更是为了更好的经济和社会？不同于20世纪常见的启动创业种子将其商业化吗？你能启动更多新的，好的，目的性更强，价值更高的公司——同样的对待资金，回报，和上市吗？不只是重启美国经济的引擎，你能重建他吗
If you can, maybe the history e-books of the 23rd century won't call this era a Great Stagnation. They might just call it, instead, a Great Awakening.
如果你能，或许23世纪的历史电子书上不会把这个时代叫做大停滞时代。他们可能叫他，大觉醒时代。
