2009 brings hard choices over the future of capitalism
Happy new year? You must be joking. 2009 will begin with a wail, and then get worse. Millions of people have already been put out of work, across the world, by this first truly globalised crisis of capitalism. Tens of millions more will be made jobless soon. Those of us lucky enough still to have work will feel poorer and less secure. To celebrate his Nobel prize in economics, Paul Krugman promises us months of "economic hell". Thank you, Paul, and a happy new year to you too.
Economic troubles will exacerbate political tensions. But rumours of the death of capitalism have been exaggerated. I don't think 2009 will be to capitalism what 1989 was to communism. Maybe on 1 January 2010 I'll have to eat these words. Prediction is a mug's game. (In the Economist's predictive almanac, The World in 2009, the editor has a brave and amusing little column titled "About 2008: Sorry".) But as this year begins I don't see any serious systemic competitor on the horizon - in the way there appeared to be in the days of Soviet communism before 1989. The Hugo Chávez model of socialism depends on capitalists buying his oil, and if you fancy the North Korean model you need to see a doctor.
Something will be very wrong, however, if the assumptions of the kind of free-market capitalism - sometimes called "neoliberal" - that has appeared triumphant since 1989 are not re-examined in this 20th anniversary year. First there's the balance between state and market, public and private, the visible and invisible hand. Even before last September's meltdown, Barack Obama was trying to nudge his compatriots towards the idea that government is not always a dirty word. Subsequent months have seen a dramatic shift towards a larger role for the state, usually in spasms of desperate governmental improvisation, sometimes (as in Gordon Brown's London) ideologically legitimated as Keynesianism, sometimes (as in George Bush's Washington) just plain, unvarnished Desperationism.
How much of that shift is temporary and how much will endure is something we won't know by the end of this year. While most of the movement is towards strengthening the visible hand of government, it may not all go that way. A leading Chinese economic reformer recently argued to me that the Asian financial crisis of a decade ago had catalysed more market-oriented reform of the Chinese economy, and this one would do the same.
If he is right, one could even imagine a kind of global convergence on some version of a European-style social market economy, with the US and China approaching from different ends. But it's important to stress the words "some version". Even within Europe, there are large variations in the mix of state and market, and in the way that mix is organised. What works for one small northern country may not work for a large southern one. There's no universal formula. What matters is what works for you.
A second rethink for 2009 concerns what is needed for sustainable, green, low-carbon growth, to avert the tipping-point in global warming. At issue is how much and what kind of growth. Again, Obama is trying to discover the chance of this crisis, orienting part of his Keynesian fiscal stimulus towards investment in alternative energy. Yet on balance, this seems likely to be a bad year for the fight against global warming.
Moving towards a sustainable, low-carbon economy requires both companies and governments to pay short-term costs for long-term benefits. When they have their backs to the wall they usually do the opposite. Probably the best we can hope for is that they will avoid the beggar-my-neighbour economic nationalism of the 1930s. To get them beyond that will require a deeper shift in the expectations of voters and shareholders. So long as we, the people, are guided in our personal financial and political choices by the lodestar of short- to medium-term economic gain, we shouldn't blame our leaders for trying to give us what we ask for.
So a third essential prise de conscience involves looking again at our personal lodestars. How much more in money and things do we need? Is enough as good as a feast? Could we manage with less? What really matters to you? What contributes most to your individual happiness?
Believe it or not, there's now a whole academic subfield of happiness studies. The economist Richard Layard has written an interesting book, Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. Is this what Freidrich Nietzsche meant by "the gay science"? A Dutch scholar, Ruut Veenhoven, has created a World Database of Happiness, including national rankings. Its results were reported on a Canadian website under the headline "Canada beats US in global happiness index" - beating the United States being itself a clear material contribution to Canadian happiness. A rival ranking and "world map of happiness" has emerged from Leicester University. Denmark scores top in both of them. There's even a Journal of Happiness Studies. Whatever you think of the substantive value of this stuff - sorry, science - you can spend a happy hour surfing it on the web, and wondering how much of it has been invented.
Seriously, though, some of the choices do come back to individual middle-class citizens of richer countries. It must be obvious that the planet cannot sustain 6.7 billion people living as does today's middle class in North America and western Europe - let alone the projected 9 billion world population in mid-century. Either a large part of humankind has to be excluded from the benefits of prosperity or our way of life has to change.
The mantra with which most political and business leaders enter 2009 is "back to economic growth, whatever it costs". Like the crew of a sailing boat in a storm, they just want to keep it afloat and moving through the waves in some direction - never mind which. But even as we weather the worst of the storm, which has not hit us yet, we should be taking a hard look at the course we are steering. That requires leadership of a high order, but also citizens demanding such leadership. Would I personally be happy making the changes in my way of life that would be necessary? Almost certainly not. But I'd at least like to know what they would be.
新年快樂?你一定是在開玩笑。2009年一開年即是遍地哀鴻,今后只會更糟糕。真正意義上的第一次全球經(jīng)濟危機開始以來,全世界已有數(shù)以百萬計的人失業(yè)。不久的將來還會有上千萬的人失業(yè)。我們這些尚有工作的幸運兒,也會變窮,變得沒有安全感。保羅克拉曼曾向我們許諾,會有幾個月的經(jīng)濟地獄等著我們。謝了,保羅,也祝你今年快樂。
緊張的政治形勢會因經(jīng)濟危機而加劇惡化。但就此宣稱資本主義的末日已到,也太過夸大其詞。我不認為2009年就是資本主義末日,這次并不像1989年對共產(chǎn)主義的意義一樣。也許2010年的1月1日,我會因此話而自打嘴巴。預測可不是件能賺錢的事情。在經(jīng)濟學家的年鑒,對2009年的世界,編者起了一個膽大且別出心裁的題目“關于2008:只能說對不起”。但是,在今年伊始,我不覺得任何世界上誕生了任何比資本主義更具競爭力的體制,而在1989年,的確是出現(xiàn)了比蘇維埃共和國的共產(chǎn)主義更具競爭力的體制的。烏戈·查維斯的社會主義模式建立在向資本主義國家出售其石油的基礎上,當然,如果你向往建立北朝鮮的社會主義模式,我想你該去看看醫(yī)生了。
盡管如此,從1989年開始在世界上占主導地位的自由市場資本主義假設不能度過今年這一20周年的紀念日,那么將會發(fā)生很大的問題。首先,市場和國家的平衡,公眾和私人的平衡,可見的手和不可見的手的平衡,將被打破。早在去年9月份政治權利變更以來,奧巴馬不斷試圖提醒他的同胞們,政府并不總是給人負面的印象。接下來的幾個月里,我們看到聯(lián)邦政府扮演的角色發(fā)生了翻天覆地的變化,變得非常重要。通常面臨絕境的政府會靈機一動,如在喬治布朗時代的倫敦,產(chǎn)生了凱恩斯主義,合法的從意識形態(tài)上拯救了資本主義,又如喬治布什時代的華盛頓,留給人民的只有痛苦和絕望。
到今年年底之前,我們無從得知,這種變革會歷時多久,代價多高?，F(xiàn)在大多數(shù)舉措都著手于加強政府這只看得見的手的作用,但也許并不見效。一個具有前瞻性的中國經(jīng)濟改革者最近跟我討論說,亞洲10年錢的經(jīng)濟危機促發(fā)了中國經(jīng)濟轉向市場經(jīng)濟,而這次的變革,也會造成同樣的后果。
若他所說是正確的,可以想象從某種觀點看來,歐洲,美國,中國的社會經(jīng)濟體制,會在一種全球集權的政策下,走向不同的方向。但是,這里要強調(diào)的是,某種觀點。即使在歐洲內(nèi)部,國家和市場的融合差異程度不同,而且融合的方式也不同。適合北歐小國的體制,不見得適合南歐大國。沒有世界通用的體制,重要的是,每個國家適合什么。
遙望2009年,第二個值得關注的事情是,為了避免全球變暖,該怎么來追求可持續(xù)的綠色無二氧化碳發(fā)展。現(xiàn)在的問題是怎樣來發(fā)展,以及代價幾何。奧巴馬再一次試圖在危機中的發(fā)現(xiàn)轉機,利用凱恩斯主義的財政措施吸引可替代能源的投資。然而一言以概之,今年不是一個對抗全球變暖的好時候。
為了朝向一種可持續(xù),低二氧化碳排放量的經(jīng)濟社會發(fā)展,公司和政府都必須付出短暫的代價以獲取長遠的利益。當他們到了絕境的時候,他們通常采取反措施。我們所能做的最理想的打算,不過是他們能避免1930年那種全軍覆沒的經(jīng)濟國家主義。而讓他們超出我們的預期,需要選民們和股民們轉變他們的觀點。只要我們,人民,看到長遠的經(jīng)濟利益,而不計較短期的得失,我們就不會抱怨領導人沒有給予我們想要的東西。
因此第三個核心的問題,是關于我們自身的道德探討。我們需要多少金錢和物資才夠呢?是否要日日歡宴?我們能否節(jié)約點?你最關心的是什么?你幸福的最重要源泉是什么?
不管信與否,在關于幸福的研究中,衍生了一個很大的學術領域。經(jīng)濟學家理查德拉雅寫過一本有趣的書,幸?！靶驴茖W的教程。這是否是佛雷德意指的蓋伊科學?荷蘭學者,拉特維荷芬,創(chuàng)造了一個包括國家等級在內(nèi)的世界幸福數(shù)據(jù)庫。它的結果登載在加拿大的網(wǎng)站上,標題為”加拿大的幸福指數(shù)高于美國“。對加拿大人的幸福而言,從物資上打敗了美國本身就是一種幸福。英國的萊斯特大學里,提出另一具有競爭力的觀點和“全球幸福地球”。丹麥比加拿大和美國都還要幸福。甚至有一奔幸福研究雜志。不管你如何看待這些研究的價值,抱歉,是科學,也可以花一些時間在網(wǎng)絡上享受幸福時光,并想想到底得到多少幸福感。
回歸正題,盡管,有些選擇權還是會回到富國的中產(chǎn)階級手上。這個星球不可能讓世界上67億人都過得如今天北美和西歐的中產(chǎn)階級一樣,且不談到本世紀中期,人口會達到90億。要么世界上大部分的人無法受益于經(jīng)濟繁榮,要么,我們開始改變。
2009年大多數(shù)政治和商業(yè)領袖的臺詞是不計一切代價恢復經(jīng)濟增長。如同暴風雨里的一葉扁舟,他們只是希望自己的船避過風浪繼續(xù)向某個方向前行,而不考慮方向為何。但是我們面臨的是最猛烈的暴風雨,即使沒有波及我們,我們也要看看自己掌舵的方向。這需要有高素質(zhì)的,但人民也需要具有這種領袖素質(zhì)。在變革之中,我自身的幸福是必須的嗎?答案幾乎是否定的。但是我需要你們知道,最終,幸福會來到。
Happy new year? You must be joking. 2009 will begin with a wail, and then get worse. Millions of people have already been put out of work, across the world, by this first truly globalised crisis of capitalism. Tens of millions more will be made jobless soon. Those of us lucky enough still to have work will feel poorer and less secure. To celebrate his Nobel prize in economics, Paul Krugman promises us months of "economic hell". Thank you, Paul, and a happy new year to you too.
Economic troubles will exacerbate political tensions. But rumours of the death of capitalism have been exaggerated. I don't think 2009 will be to capitalism what 1989 was to communism. Maybe on 1 January 2010 I'll have to eat these words. Prediction is a mug's game. (In the Economist's predictive almanac, The World in 2009, the editor has a brave and amusing little column titled "About 2008: Sorry".) But as this year begins I don't see any serious systemic competitor on the horizon - in the way there appeared to be in the days of Soviet communism before 1989. The Hugo Chávez model of socialism depends on capitalists buying his oil, and if you fancy the North Korean model you need to see a doctor.
Something will be very wrong, however, if the assumptions of the kind of free-market capitalism - sometimes called "neoliberal" - that has appeared triumphant since 1989 are not re-examined in this 20th anniversary year. First there's the balance between state and market, public and private, the visible and invisible hand. Even before last September's meltdown, Barack Obama was trying to nudge his compatriots towards the idea that government is not always a dirty word. Subsequent months have seen a dramatic shift towards a larger role for the state, usually in spasms of desperate governmental improvisation, sometimes (as in Gordon Brown's London) ideologically legitimated as Keynesianism, sometimes (as in George Bush's Washington) just plain, unvarnished Desperationism.
How much of that shift is temporary and how much will endure is something we won't know by the end of this year. While most of the movement is towards strengthening the visible hand of government, it may not all go that way. A leading Chinese economic reformer recently argued to me that the Asian financial crisis of a decade ago had catalysed more market-oriented reform of the Chinese economy, and this one would do the same.
If he is right, one could even imagine a kind of global convergence on some version of a European-style social market economy, with the US and China approaching from different ends. But it's important to stress the words "some version". Even within Europe, there are large variations in the mix of state and market, and in the way that mix is organised. What works for one small northern country may not work for a large southern one. There's no universal formula. What matters is what works for you.
A second rethink for 2009 concerns what is needed for sustainable, green, low-carbon growth, to avert the tipping-point in global warming. At issue is how much and what kind of growth. Again, Obama is trying to discover the chance of this crisis, orienting part of his Keynesian fiscal stimulus towards investment in alternative energy. Yet on balance, this seems likely to be a bad year for the fight against global warming.
Moving towards a sustainable, low-carbon economy requires both companies and governments to pay short-term costs for long-term benefits. When they have their backs to the wall they usually do the opposite. Probably the best we can hope for is that they will avoid the beggar-my-neighbour economic nationalism of the 1930s. To get them beyond that will require a deeper shift in the expectations of voters and shareholders. So long as we, the people, are guided in our personal financial and political choices by the lodestar of short- to medium-term economic gain, we shouldn't blame our leaders for trying to give us what we ask for.
So a third essential prise de conscience involves looking again at our personal lodestars. How much more in money and things do we need? Is enough as good as a feast? Could we manage with less? What really matters to you? What contributes most to your individual happiness?
Believe it or not, there's now a whole academic subfield of happiness studies. The economist Richard Layard has written an interesting book, Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. Is this what Freidrich Nietzsche meant by "the gay science"? A Dutch scholar, Ruut Veenhoven, has created a World Database of Happiness, including national rankings. Its results were reported on a Canadian website under the headline "Canada beats US in global happiness index" - beating the United States being itself a clear material contribution to Canadian happiness. A rival ranking and "world map of happiness" has emerged from Leicester University. Denmark scores top in both of them. There's even a Journal of Happiness Studies. Whatever you think of the substantive value of this stuff - sorry, science - you can spend a happy hour surfing it on the web, and wondering how much of it has been invented.
Seriously, though, some of the choices do come back to individual middle-class citizens of richer countries. It must be obvious that the planet cannot sustain 6.7 billion people living as does today's middle class in North America and western Europe - let alone the projected 9 billion world population in mid-century. Either a large part of humankind has to be excluded from the benefits of prosperity or our way of life has to change.
The mantra with which most political and business leaders enter 2009 is "back to economic growth, whatever it costs". Like the crew of a sailing boat in a storm, they just want to keep it afloat and moving through the waves in some direction - never mind which. But even as we weather the worst of the storm, which has not hit us yet, we should be taking a hard look at the course we are steering. That requires leadership of a high order, but also citizens demanding such leadership. Would I personally be happy making the changes in my way of life that would be necessary? Almost certainly not. But I'd at least like to know what they would be.
新年快樂?你一定是在開玩笑。2009年一開年即是遍地哀鴻,今后只會更糟糕。真正意義上的第一次全球經(jīng)濟危機開始以來,全世界已有數(shù)以百萬計的人失業(yè)。不久的將來還會有上千萬的人失業(yè)。我們這些尚有工作的幸運兒,也會變窮,變得沒有安全感。保羅克拉曼曾向我們許諾,會有幾個月的經(jīng)濟地獄等著我們。謝了,保羅,也祝你今年快樂。
緊張的政治形勢會因經(jīng)濟危機而加劇惡化。但就此宣稱資本主義的末日已到,也太過夸大其詞。我不認為2009年就是資本主義末日,這次并不像1989年對共產(chǎn)主義的意義一樣。也許2010年的1月1日,我會因此話而自打嘴巴。預測可不是件能賺錢的事情。在經(jīng)濟學家的年鑒,對2009年的世界,編者起了一個膽大且別出心裁的題目“關于2008:只能說對不起”。但是,在今年伊始,我不覺得任何世界上誕生了任何比資本主義更具競爭力的體制,而在1989年,的確是出現(xiàn)了比蘇維埃共和國的共產(chǎn)主義更具競爭力的體制的。烏戈·查維斯的社會主義模式建立在向資本主義國家出售其石油的基礎上,當然,如果你向往建立北朝鮮的社會主義模式,我想你該去看看醫(yī)生了。
盡管如此,從1989年開始在世界上占主導地位的自由市場資本主義假設不能度過今年這一20周年的紀念日,那么將會發(fā)生很大的問題。首先,市場和國家的平衡,公眾和私人的平衡,可見的手和不可見的手的平衡,將被打破。早在去年9月份政治權利變更以來,奧巴馬不斷試圖提醒他的同胞們,政府并不總是給人負面的印象。接下來的幾個月里,我們看到聯(lián)邦政府扮演的角色發(fā)生了翻天覆地的變化,變得非常重要。通常面臨絕境的政府會靈機一動,如在喬治布朗時代的倫敦,產(chǎn)生了凱恩斯主義,合法的從意識形態(tài)上拯救了資本主義,又如喬治布什時代的華盛頓,留給人民的只有痛苦和絕望。
到今年年底之前,我們無從得知,這種變革會歷時多久,代價多高?，F(xiàn)在大多數(shù)舉措都著手于加強政府這只看得見的手的作用,但也許并不見效。一個具有前瞻性的中國經(jīng)濟改革者最近跟我討論說,亞洲10年錢的經(jīng)濟危機促發(fā)了中國經(jīng)濟轉向市場經(jīng)濟,而這次的變革,也會造成同樣的后果。
若他所說是正確的,可以想象從某種觀點看來,歐洲,美國,中國的社會經(jīng)濟體制,會在一種全球集權的政策下,走向不同的方向。但是,這里要強調(diào)的是,某種觀點。即使在歐洲內(nèi)部,國家和市場的融合差異程度不同,而且融合的方式也不同。適合北歐小國的體制,不見得適合南歐大國。沒有世界通用的體制,重要的是,每個國家適合什么。
遙望2009年,第二個值得關注的事情是,為了避免全球變暖,該怎么來追求可持續(xù)的綠色無二氧化碳發(fā)展。現(xiàn)在的問題是怎樣來發(fā)展,以及代價幾何。奧巴馬再一次試圖在危機中的發(fā)現(xiàn)轉機,利用凱恩斯主義的財政措施吸引可替代能源的投資。然而一言以概之,今年不是一個對抗全球變暖的好時候。
為了朝向一種可持續(xù),低二氧化碳排放量的經(jīng)濟社會發(fā)展,公司和政府都必須付出短暫的代價以獲取長遠的利益。當他們到了絕境的時候,他們通常采取反措施。我們所能做的最理想的打算,不過是他們能避免1930年那種全軍覆沒的經(jīng)濟國家主義。而讓他們超出我們的預期,需要選民們和股民們轉變他們的觀點。只要我們,人民,看到長遠的經(jīng)濟利益,而不計較短期的得失,我們就不會抱怨領導人沒有給予我們想要的東西。
因此第三個核心的問題,是關于我們自身的道德探討。我們需要多少金錢和物資才夠呢?是否要日日歡宴?我們能否節(jié)約點?你最關心的是什么?你幸福的最重要源泉是什么?
不管信與否,在關于幸福的研究中,衍生了一個很大的學術領域。經(jīng)濟學家理查德拉雅寫過一本有趣的書,幸?！靶驴茖W的教程。這是否是佛雷德意指的蓋伊科學?荷蘭學者,拉特維荷芬,創(chuàng)造了一個包括國家等級在內(nèi)的世界幸福數(shù)據(jù)庫。它的結果登載在加拿大的網(wǎng)站上,標題為”加拿大的幸福指數(shù)高于美國“。對加拿大人的幸福而言,從物資上打敗了美國本身就是一種幸福。英國的萊斯特大學里,提出另一具有競爭力的觀點和“全球幸福地球”。丹麥比加拿大和美國都還要幸福。甚至有一奔幸福研究雜志。不管你如何看待這些研究的價值,抱歉,是科學,也可以花一些時間在網(wǎng)絡上享受幸福時光,并想想到底得到多少幸福感。
回歸正題,盡管,有些選擇權還是會回到富國的中產(chǎn)階級手上。這個星球不可能讓世界上67億人都過得如今天北美和西歐的中產(chǎn)階級一樣,且不談到本世紀中期,人口會達到90億。要么世界上大部分的人無法受益于經(jīng)濟繁榮,要么,我們開始改變。
2009年大多數(shù)政治和商業(yè)領袖的臺詞是不計一切代價恢復經(jīng)濟增長。如同暴風雨里的一葉扁舟,他們只是希望自己的船避過風浪繼續(xù)向某個方向前行,而不考慮方向為何。但是我們面臨的是最猛烈的暴風雨,即使沒有波及我們,我們也要看看自己掌舵的方向。這需要有高素質(zhì)的,但人民也需要具有這種領袖素質(zhì)。在變革之中,我自身的幸福是必須的嗎?答案幾乎是否定的。但是我需要你們知道,最終,幸福會來到。