THE American dream is that any child can make it from the bottom to the top. That may still be true in politics; the son of a Kenyan immigrant, raised partly by his grandparents, is now president of the United States. But it is much less true, in economic terms, than most Americans think. Social mobility is less easy in America than in other countries. For example, three-quarters of Danes born in the lowest-earning 20% of the population escape their plight in adulthood. Seven out of ten poor children in supposedly class-ridden Britain achieve the same feat. But fewer than six in ten Americans do so.
美國(guó)夢(mèng)是指任何一個(gè)孩子都可以出人頭地。這如今也許在政治領(lǐng)域還是可行的。一個(gè)肯尼亞移民的后代，被他的祖父母養(yǎng)大，他現(xiàn)在是美國(guó)的總統(tǒng)。（如今的美國(guó)總統(tǒng)是一個(gè)肯尼亞移民的后代，他的祖父母撫養(yǎng)他長(zhǎng)大）但是在經(jīng)濟(jì)范疇，并不像美國(guó)人想象的那樣現(xiàn)實(shí)。美國(guó)的社會(huì)階層的流動(dòng)性與其他國(guó)家相比并不容易。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，出生在占總?cè)丝?0%的最貧困人群中的丹麥人有75%在長(zhǎng)大以后脫離了困境。在被認(rèn)為是社會(huì)階層穩(wěn)固的英國(guó)有70%的貧困兒童在長(zhǎng)大之后可以脫貧。但是在美國(guó)這種比率低于60%。
Similarly, with rags-to-riches stories. It is far less common for Americans from the bottom 20% in childhood to move into the top 20% in adulthood than it is in Denmark or in Britain. On the whole, America’s wealthy prosper while the average citizen struggles; the richest 1% of Americans gained 93% of the additional income created in 2010. The pay workers get has failed to move in line with productivity in the past 30 years. But Americans have yet to realise the extent of this tectonic shift. In a survey conducted in 2011 the average respondent thought that the richest fifth of the population had 60% of the wealth, not 85% as is the case. The respondents’ ideal income distribution would be for the top quintile to have just 30% of the wealth.
同樣的，白手起家的故事，對(duì)于美國(guó)人來(lái)說(shuō)并不常見。在美國(guó)從20%的社會(huì)底層奮斗到社會(huì)的頂層的可能性要低于丹麥人和英國(guó)人?？偟膩?lái)說(shuō)，在美國(guó)的財(cái)富暴增同時(shí)美國(guó)普通階層卻在掙扎。1%的最富的人掌握著2010年美國(guó)總收入的93%。在過(guò)去的30年間，工人拿到的工資不能趕上生產(chǎn)力水平。但是美國(guó)人并未發(fā)覺(jué)這種結(jié)構(gòu)性改變的程度。從2011年的數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)看，平均訪問(wèn)者認(rèn)為，最富的15%的人占有60%的財(cái)富，而不是像上文提到的85%。被采訪者的理想收入分布應(yīng)該是最富有的20%的人擁有30%財(cái)富的。
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winner in economics and a regular critic of liberal capitalism, addresses this issue in his new book, which he wrote in response to the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Indeed, he argues that their slogan, “We are the 99%”, echoes an article entitled, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”, that he wrote in Vanity Fair in May 2011.
Joseph Stiglitz是諾貝爾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)獎(jiǎng)獲得者，一位堅(jiān)定的自由主義者，在他的新書中提到了這個(gè)問(wèn)題，他寫這本書來(lái)聲援“占領(lǐng)華爾街”的支持者。的確，他支持他們的口號(hào)，“我們是99%”被冠以這樣的名稱，“這1%中的一員，通過(guò)這1%，為了這1%”這些都是他2011年5月在Vanity Fair寫的。
To Mr Stiglitz, this inequality is the result of public policy being captured by an elite who have feathered their own nests at the expense of the rest. They have used their power to distort political debate, pushing through tax cuts to favour the rich and adjusting monetary policy to favour the banks. Many of the new rich are not entrepreneurs but “rent-seekers”, he says, who use monopoly power to boost profits.
在Mr.Stiglitz看來(lái)，不平等是公共政策被有錢，有房，有空閑的精英所掌握而導(dǎo)致的。他們運(yùn)用其力量主導(dǎo)政策辯論，推動(dòng)減稅來(lái)博取富人們的歡心，調(diào)整貨幣政策來(lái)取悅銀行家。他說(shuō)，很多新富翁不是企業(yè)家而是“尋租者”，那些通過(guò)壟斷力量來(lái)獲得（竊?。┦找娴娜?。
Mr Stiglitz’s views are representative of clever, leftish America and Mr Stiglitz is (mostly) skilled at making his argument. Imagine, he says, what it would be like if the world had free movement of labour, but not of capital. “Countries would compete to attract workers. They would promise good schools and a good environment, as well as low taxes on workers. This could be financed by high taxes on capital.” The result would be a much more equal society.
Mr.Stiglitz的觀點(diǎn)被聰明的左翼人士所贊同，而且Mr.Stiglitz很善于展示他的觀點(diǎn)。想象一下，他說(shuō)，如果世界上只允許勞動(dòng)力流動(dòng)而不允許資本流動(dòng)，這個(gè)世界將會(huì)變成什么樣子？“國(guó)家將會(huì)充分的吸引工人（勞動(dòng)者，勞動(dòng)力），政府將會(huì)承諾好的學(xué)校和好的環(huán)境，同時(shí)還向勞動(dòng)者收取很低的稅。高的資本賦稅將會(huì)用來(lái)支持這些政策”這樣的會(huì)促使一個(gè)更加公平的社會(huì)形成。
Mr Stiglitz’s argument would benefit, however, from a better sense of history and geography. He points to the period between 1950 and 1980 as one where inequality was much reduced. But that was a highly unusual time. For much of recorded history there has been a huge gap between a wealthy landowning class and the rest; the Rockefellers and Carnegies were much richer (in real terms) than any modern plutocrat. Mr Stiglitz also views the housing boom and bust as another result of misguided American policy, but Spain and Ireland had property bubbles too—and they are much more equal societies.
從一個(gè)更好的歷史觀和地理觀來(lái)看，Mr.Stiglitz的觀點(diǎn)十分的有用。他指出1950年-1980年這段時(shí)間里，美國(guó)的不公平現(xiàn)象有所減少。但這是一段很特殊的時(shí)期。在很多有記載的歷史里每個(gè)階層的財(cái)富和其他差異都很懸殊；洛克菲勒家族和卡內(nèi)基家族比其他的財(cái)閥都富有很多。Mr.Stiglitz也觀察了房地產(chǎn)泡沫的產(chǎn)生和破滅，像其他錯(cuò)誤的美國(guó)政策，但是西班牙和愛爾蘭也有同樣的泡沫，但是他們卻擁有更公平的社會(huì)。
When it comes to solutions to the inequality problem, Mr Stiglitz wants a top income tax rate of “well in excess of” 50%, targeted fiscal stimulus and greater bank regulation. Here, perhaps, he might have been more open about the trade-offs. Controls on bank leverage, caps on interest rates and greater protection for bankrupts are all likely to reduce bank lending at a time when there already is a credit squeeze. He admits that the 2009 fiscal stimulus was “not as well designed as it could have been”, but blithely hopes that the convoluted American budget-setting process will result in much better stimulus packages in future.
當(dāng)不公平的問(wèn)題得到解決的時(shí)候，Mr.Stiglitz希望得稅稅率上限應(yīng)為現(xiàn)在50%，此舉意在財(cái)政刺激和更好的銀行監(jiān)管。這里假設(shè)他抱著更開放的態(tài)度來(lái)權(quán)衡利弊?？刂沏y行杠桿，設(shè)定利率上限，更好的保護(hù)破產(chǎn)者，將會(huì)在信貸已經(jīng)緊縮的時(shí)候減少銀行負(fù)債。他提到2009年的刺激政策并沒(méi)有按照所設(shè)想的發(fā)揮作用。但是樂(lè)觀的希望于復(fù)雜的美國(guó)財(cái)政預(yù)算進(jìn)程將會(huì)在未來(lái)產(chǎn)生更好的刺激效果。
Whether or not he has the right answers, Mr Stiglitz is surely right to focus on the issue. Across the developed world, the average worker is suffering a squeeze in living standards while bankers and chief executives are still doing very nicely. This dichotomy is bound to have social and political consequences.
不論他的答案的正確與否，Mr.Stiglitz非常明智的將他的焦點(diǎn)放在了這些問(wèn)題上?？v觀發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家，普通工作者正在忍受生活標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的降低，而與此同時(shí)，銀行家和高管的生活仍然十分舒適。這種截然不同的情況一定會(huì)帶來(lái)社會(huì)和政治的影響。
美國(guó)夢(mèng)是指任何一個(gè)孩子都可以出人頭地。這如今也許在政治領(lǐng)域還是可行的。一個(gè)肯尼亞移民的后代，被他的祖父母養(yǎng)大，他現(xiàn)在是美國(guó)的總統(tǒng)。（如今的美國(guó)總統(tǒng)是一個(gè)肯尼亞移民的后代，他的祖父母撫養(yǎng)他長(zhǎng)大）但是在經(jīng)濟(jì)范疇，并不像美國(guó)人想象的那樣現(xiàn)實(shí)。美國(guó)的社會(huì)階層的流動(dòng)性與其他國(guó)家相比并不容易。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，出生在占總?cè)丝?0%的最貧困人群中的丹麥人有75%在長(zhǎng)大以后脫離了困境。在被認(rèn)為是社會(huì)階層穩(wěn)固的英國(guó)有70%的貧困兒童在長(zhǎng)大之后可以脫貧。但是在美國(guó)這種比率低于60%。
Similarly, with rags-to-riches stories. It is far less common for Americans from the bottom 20% in childhood to move into the top 20% in adulthood than it is in Denmark or in Britain. On the whole, America’s wealthy prosper while the average citizen struggles; the richest 1% of Americans gained 93% of the additional income created in 2010. The pay workers get has failed to move in line with productivity in the past 30 years. But Americans have yet to realise the extent of this tectonic shift. In a survey conducted in 2011 the average respondent thought that the richest fifth of the population had 60% of the wealth, not 85% as is the case. The respondents’ ideal income distribution would be for the top quintile to have just 30% of the wealth.
同樣的，白手起家的故事，對(duì)于美國(guó)人來(lái)說(shuō)并不常見。在美國(guó)從20%的社會(huì)底層奮斗到社會(huì)的頂層的可能性要低于丹麥人和英國(guó)人?？偟膩?lái)說(shuō)，在美國(guó)的財(cái)富暴增同時(shí)美國(guó)普通階層卻在掙扎。1%的最富的人掌握著2010年美國(guó)總收入的93%。在過(guò)去的30年間，工人拿到的工資不能趕上生產(chǎn)力水平。但是美國(guó)人并未發(fā)覺(jué)這種結(jié)構(gòu)性改變的程度。從2011年的數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)看，平均訪問(wèn)者認(rèn)為，最富的15%的人占有60%的財(cái)富，而不是像上文提到的85%。被采訪者的理想收入分布應(yīng)該是最富有的20%的人擁有30%財(cái)富的。
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winner in economics and a regular critic of liberal capitalism, addresses this issue in his new book, which he wrote in response to the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Indeed, he argues that their slogan, “We are the 99%”, echoes an article entitled, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”, that he wrote in Vanity Fair in May 2011.
Joseph Stiglitz是諾貝爾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)獎(jiǎng)獲得者，一位堅(jiān)定的自由主義者，在他的新書中提到了這個(gè)問(wèn)題，他寫這本書來(lái)聲援“占領(lǐng)華爾街”的支持者。的確，他支持他們的口號(hào)，“我們是99%”被冠以這樣的名稱，“這1%中的一員，通過(guò)這1%，為了這1%”這些都是他2011年5月在Vanity Fair寫的。
To Mr Stiglitz, this inequality is the result of public policy being captured by an elite who have feathered their own nests at the expense of the rest. They have used their power to distort political debate, pushing through tax cuts to favour the rich and adjusting monetary policy to favour the banks. Many of the new rich are not entrepreneurs but “rent-seekers”, he says, who use monopoly power to boost profits.
在Mr.Stiglitz看來(lái)，不平等是公共政策被有錢，有房，有空閑的精英所掌握而導(dǎo)致的。他們運(yùn)用其力量主導(dǎo)政策辯論，推動(dòng)減稅來(lái)博取富人們的歡心，調(diào)整貨幣政策來(lái)取悅銀行家。他說(shuō)，很多新富翁不是企業(yè)家而是“尋租者”，那些通過(guò)壟斷力量來(lái)獲得（竊?。┦找娴娜?。
Mr Stiglitz’s views are representative of clever, leftish America and Mr Stiglitz is (mostly) skilled at making his argument. Imagine, he says, what it would be like if the world had free movement of labour, but not of capital. “Countries would compete to attract workers. They would promise good schools and a good environment, as well as low taxes on workers. This could be financed by high taxes on capital.” The result would be a much more equal society.
Mr.Stiglitz的觀點(diǎn)被聰明的左翼人士所贊同，而且Mr.Stiglitz很善于展示他的觀點(diǎn)。想象一下，他說(shuō)，如果世界上只允許勞動(dòng)力流動(dòng)而不允許資本流動(dòng)，這個(gè)世界將會(huì)變成什么樣子？“國(guó)家將會(huì)充分的吸引工人（勞動(dòng)者，勞動(dòng)力），政府將會(huì)承諾好的學(xué)校和好的環(huán)境，同時(shí)還向勞動(dòng)者收取很低的稅。高的資本賦稅將會(huì)用來(lái)支持這些政策”這樣的會(huì)促使一個(gè)更加公平的社會(huì)形成。
Mr Stiglitz’s argument would benefit, however, from a better sense of history and geography. He points to the period between 1950 and 1980 as one where inequality was much reduced. But that was a highly unusual time. For much of recorded history there has been a huge gap between a wealthy landowning class and the rest; the Rockefellers and Carnegies were much richer (in real terms) than any modern plutocrat. Mr Stiglitz also views the housing boom and bust as another result of misguided American policy, but Spain and Ireland had property bubbles too—and they are much more equal societies.
從一個(gè)更好的歷史觀和地理觀來(lái)看，Mr.Stiglitz的觀點(diǎn)十分的有用。他指出1950年-1980年這段時(shí)間里，美國(guó)的不公平現(xiàn)象有所減少。但這是一段很特殊的時(shí)期。在很多有記載的歷史里每個(gè)階層的財(cái)富和其他差異都很懸殊；洛克菲勒家族和卡內(nèi)基家族比其他的財(cái)閥都富有很多。Mr.Stiglitz也觀察了房地產(chǎn)泡沫的產(chǎn)生和破滅，像其他錯(cuò)誤的美國(guó)政策，但是西班牙和愛爾蘭也有同樣的泡沫，但是他們卻擁有更公平的社會(huì)。
When it comes to solutions to the inequality problem, Mr Stiglitz wants a top income tax rate of “well in excess of” 50%, targeted fiscal stimulus and greater bank regulation. Here, perhaps, he might have been more open about the trade-offs. Controls on bank leverage, caps on interest rates and greater protection for bankrupts are all likely to reduce bank lending at a time when there already is a credit squeeze. He admits that the 2009 fiscal stimulus was “not as well designed as it could have been”, but blithely hopes that the convoluted American budget-setting process will result in much better stimulus packages in future.
當(dāng)不公平的問(wèn)題得到解決的時(shí)候，Mr.Stiglitz希望得稅稅率上限應(yīng)為現(xiàn)在50%，此舉意在財(cái)政刺激和更好的銀行監(jiān)管。這里假設(shè)他抱著更開放的態(tài)度來(lái)權(quán)衡利弊?？刂沏y行杠桿，設(shè)定利率上限，更好的保護(hù)破產(chǎn)者，將會(huì)在信貸已經(jīng)緊縮的時(shí)候減少銀行負(fù)債。他提到2009年的刺激政策并沒(méi)有按照所設(shè)想的發(fā)揮作用。但是樂(lè)觀的希望于復(fù)雜的美國(guó)財(cái)政預(yù)算進(jìn)程將會(huì)在未來(lái)產(chǎn)生更好的刺激效果。
Whether or not he has the right answers, Mr Stiglitz is surely right to focus on the issue. Across the developed world, the average worker is suffering a squeeze in living standards while bankers and chief executives are still doing very nicely. This dichotomy is bound to have social and political consequences.
不論他的答案的正確與否，Mr.Stiglitz非常明智的將他的焦點(diǎn)放在了這些問(wèn)題上?？v觀發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家，普通工作者正在忍受生活標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的降低，而與此同時(shí)，銀行家和高管的生活仍然十分舒適。這種截然不同的情況一定會(huì)帶來(lái)社會(huì)和政治的影響。