There is a narrative, an idea that with resilience, grit and personal responsibility people can pull themselves up and achieve economic success. In the United States we call it the American dream. A similar narrative exists all over the world. But the truth is that the challenges of making this happen have less to do with what we do and more to do with the wealth position in which we are born.
有一種說法、一種想法: 只要有抗壓性、勇氣以及責任感 人們就可以提升自己的生活 達到經濟上的成就 在美國,我們稱之為美國夢 在全世界各地都有類似的說法 但事實是,讓夢想實現的挑戰 和我們的所做所為不是那麼有關 而是和我們出生時的財富狀況比較有關
So I'm going to make the case that the United States government, actually that any government, should create a trust account for every newborn of up to 60,000 dollars, calibrated to the wealth of the family in which they are born. I'm talking about an endowment. Personal seed capital, a publicly established baby trust, what my colleague William Darity at Duke University and I have referred to as baby bonds, a term that was coined by the late historian from Columbia University, Manning Marable.
接下來我將以美國政府為例 其實任何政府 都應該要為每一位新生兒 開立一個約達六萬美元的信託帳戶 並根據他們出生家庭的財富來調校金額 我在談的是一種資助的概念 個人的本金由政府建立的寶寶信託 我和我在杜克大學的 同事威廉.達里泰 稱之為「寶寶公債」 創造這個詞的 是哥倫比亞大學的已故歷史學家 曼寧.馬拉布爾
The reason why we should create these trusts is simple. Wealth is the paramount indicator of economic security and well-being. It provides financial agency, economic security to take risk and shield against loss. Without capital, inequality is locked in. We use words like choice, freedom to describe the benefits of the market, but it is literally wealth that gives us choice, freedom and optionality. Wealthier families are better positioned to finance an elite, independent school and college education, access capital to start a business, finance expensive medical procedures, reside in neighborhoods with higher amenities, exert political influence through campaign finance, purchase better legal counsel if confronted with an expensive criminal justice system, leave a bequest and/or withstand financial hardship resulting from any number of emergencies. Basically, when it comes to economic security, wealth is both the beginning and the end.
我們要開立這個信託的理由很簡單 財富是經濟安全和幸福的重要指標 它提供財務操作和經濟安全 讓人能夠承擔風險 並且在損失時仍有所屏障 沒有資本,貧富不均就難以解套 我們會用一些字眼,比如: 選擇、自由,來描述市場機制的益處 但其實是「財富」讓我們有 選擇、自由、操作空間 比較富有的家庭,較能夠付擔得起: 菁英的私立學校和大學教育 取得資本來創業 付得起昂貴的手術醫療 住在擁有良好設施的社區 透過政治獻金來產生政治影響力 面對代價不斐的刑事司法訴訟體制時 付得起比較好的法律諮詢服務 留下遺產 且/或能經得起 任何緊急事件造成的困境 基本上,談到經濟安全 財富既是起點也是終點
I will frame this conversation in the context of the United States, but this discussion applies virtually to any country facing increasing inequality.
我將今天演說的架構,放在美國的情境 但這些討論適用於任何 面臨貧富不均日益加劇的國家
In the US, the top 10 percent of households hold about 80 percent of the nation's wealth while the bottom 60 percent owns only about one percent. But when it comes to wealth, race is an even stronger predictor than class itself. Blacks and Latinos collectively make up 30 percent of the United States population, but collectively own about seven percent of the nation's wealth. The 2016 survey of consumer finance indicates that the typical black family has about 17,000 dollars in wealth, and that's inclusive of home equity, while the typical white family has about 170,000. That is indicative of an absolute racial wealth gap where the typical black household has about 10 cents for every dollar held by the typical white family.
在美國,收入前 10% 的家庭 擁有約全國財富的 80 % 而收入殿後 60 % 的家庭 總共只有全國財富的 1 % 但談到財富時 比起階級,種族是更有效的預測變因 黑人和拉丁裔合計占了 美國人口的 30% 但總共只擁有全國財富的 7% 一項 2016 年的消費者財務調查 指出:一般黑人家庭的財富 大約是一萬七千美元 那包含了房屋淨值在內 而一般的白人家庭則是十七萬美元 這明顯點出了種族間 有著絕對的財富落差 一般的黑人家庭每握有約十分錢 一般的白人家庭則有一元
But regardless of race, the market alone has been inadequate to address these inequalities. Even in times of economic expansion, inequality grows. Over the last 45 years, wealth disparity has increased dramatically, and essentially, all the economic gains from America's increase in productivity have gone to the elite or the upper middle class. Yet, much of the framing around economic disparity focuses on the poor choices of black, Latino and poor borrowers. This framing is wrong. The directional emphasis is wrong. It is more likely that meager economic circumstance, not poor decision making or deficient knowledge, constrains choice itself and leaves people with no options but to turn to predatory finance.
但若不考慮種族 單就市場機制並無法 妥善處理這些貧富不均 即便在經濟成長時 貧富不均的差距亦增加 在過去 45 年 貧富差距戲劇性地成長 基本上,美國生產力上升 帶來的所有經濟收益 都進了菁英或中上階層的口袋 但這樣框架下的經濟差距 都聚焦在黑人、拉丁裔 和貧窮借方的拙劣選擇 這樣的框架定調是錯誤的 強調的方向是錯誤的 比起拙劣的決策或是缺乏知識 更常是因為經濟境況的貧乏 限制了選項,讓人們沒有選擇 而轉向掠奪式的金融
In essence, education is not the magic antidote for the enormous inherited disparities that result from laws, policies and economic arrangement. This does not diminish the value of education. Indeed, I'm a university professor. There are clear intrinsic values to education, along with a public responsibility to expose everyone to a high-quality education, from grade school all the way through college. But education is not the panacea. In fact, blacks who live in families where the head graduated from college typically have less wealth than white families where the head dropped out of high school. Perhaps we overstate the functional role of education at the detriment of understanding the functional role of wealth. Basically, it is wealth that begets more wealth.
本質上,教育並不是神奇解藥 無法解決法律、政策和經濟協議下 所產生先天性的巨大落差 這並不是在貶低教育的價值 其實,我是一位大學教授 教育有其明確的內在價值 並伴隨著公共責任 那就是讓每個人 都有機會接觸到良好的教育 從小學到大學 但是教育並不是萬靈藥 事實上,大學畢業的黑人 擁有的財富 通常比那些高中輟學的白人少 或許我們過於強調教育的功能性 讓我們低估了財富的力量 本質上,財富帶來更多財富
That's why we advocate for baby trust. An economic birthright to capital for everyone. These accounts would be held in public trust to be used as a foundation to an economically secure life. The concept of economic rights is not new nor is it radical. In 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt introduced the idea of an economic Bill of Rights. Roosevelt called for physical security, economic security, social security and moral security. Unfortunately, since the Nixon administration, the political sentiment regarding social mobility has radically shifted away from government mandates to economic security to a neoliberal approach in which the market is presumed to be the solution for all our problems, economic or otherwise. As a result, the onus of social mobility has shifted on to the individual. The pervasive narrative is that even if your lot in life is subpar, with perseverance and hard work and the virtues of the free market, you can turn your proverbial rags into riches. Of course, the flip side is that the virtues of the market will likewise sanction those that are not astute, those that lack motivation or those that are simply lazy. In other words, the deserving poor will receive their just rewards.
這正是我們倡導嬰兒信託基金的原因 給每個人與生俱來的資本權利 這些帳戶應該由公共信託機構來持有 當作一個經濟安全無虞的基礎 經濟權利的概念既不新也不激進 在1944年,富蘭克林.羅斯福總統 導入了經濟權利法案的概念 羅斯福倡導呼籲人身安全 經濟安全、社會安全和道德安全 不幸的是,從尼克森執政時期開始 關於社會流動性的政治觀點 已經大幅度地從政府命令下的經濟安全 轉向為一種新自由主義的方法 在新的方法中,市場機制 被認為是解決一切問題的手段 不論是經濟問題或是其他問題 因此,社會流動性的責任 落到了個人身上 普遍的詮釋是:即便你的生活低於水平 只要透過持之以恆地努力工作 加上自由市場機制的優點 你也可以從魯蛇變身人生勝利組 當然,市場機制優點的另一面 也會同樣懲罰那些不夠精明 和那些缺少動力、純粹就是懶惰的人 換句話說,那些應得的窮人 將獲得他們應得的回報
What is glaringly missing from this narrative is the role of power and capital, and how that power and capital can be used to alter the rules and structure of transactions and markets in the first place. Power and capital become self-reinforcing. And without government intervention, they generate an iterative cycle of both stratification and inequality. The capital finance provided by baby trust is intended to deliver a more egalitarian and an authentic pathway to economic security, independent of the family financial position in which individuals are born. The program would complement the economic rights to old-age pensions and provide a more comprehensive social security program, designed to provide capital finance from cradle all the way through grave.
這種說法中明顯忽略了 權力和資本的作用 以及權力和資本 如何在一開始就被用來改變 交易和市場的規則和結構 權力和資本會自我強化 沒有政府的介入 他們會創造出一個 分層和不平等的疊代迴圈 寶寶信託提供的資本金融 旨在創建一個更加平等、可信的途徑 以保障經濟安全 獨立於原生家庭的財務狀況 這個方案將與老年退休金的 經濟權利相輔相成 並提供一個更全面的社會安全體系 這個體系的目的就是提供 從出生到死亡的資本財務
We envision endowing American newborns with an average account of 25,000 dollars that gradually rises upwards to 60,000 dollars for babies born into the poorest families. Babies born into the wealthiest families would be included as well in the social contract, but they would receive a more nominal account of about 500 dollars. The accounts would be federally managed, and they would grow at a guaranteed annual interest rate of about two percent per year in order to curtail inflation cost, and be used when the child reaches adulthood for some asset-enhancing activity, like financing a debt-free university education, a down payment to purchase a home, or some seed capital to start a business. With approximately four million babies born each year in the US, if the average endowment of a baby trust is set at 25,000 dollars, the program would crudely cost about 100 billion dollars a year. This would constitute only about two percent of current federal expenditures and be far less than the 500-plus billion dollars that's already being spent by the federal government on asset promotion through tax credits and subsidies.
我們預想對於美國的新生兒進行 平均每個帳戶兩萬五千美金的資助 資助金額會逐漸上升到六萬美金 對應給那些最貧困家庭的新生兒 而出生在最富裕家庭的孩子 也會被包含在這份社會契約 但是他們會收到一個大約 五百美金的虛帳戶 這些帳戶由聯邦政府來管理 並且將會以一個保障的年利率增長 這個利率大概是每年 2% 以便抑制通貨膨脹的成本 當孩子到達成年時 用於一些提高資產(價值)的活動 比如:成為大學學費的資金而免於學貸 或是購屋的頭期款 或是創業的種子基金 美國一年大約有四百萬名新生兒 若平均的嬰兒信託基金額度 為兩萬五千美金 這個方案粗估每年將消耗一千億美金 這將只占聯邦政府每年開支的 2% 遠低於每年五千多億美金的耗資 而這五千多億美金正在被政府用於 透過減免稅收和補貼的方式鼓勵置產
At issue is not the amount of that allocation but to whom it's distributed. Currently, the top one percent of households, those earning above 100 million dollars, receive only about one third of this entire allocation, while the bottom 60 percent receive only five percent. If the federal asset-promoting budget were allocated in a more progressive manner, federal policies could be transformative for all Americans.
爭議不在於撥款的金額 而在將分配給誰 當前,前 1% 的家庭 也就是那些身家大約一億美金的人 只收到了大約三分之一的撥款 而底層的 60% 家庭 只收到了 5% 的撥款 如果聯邦政府用於鼓勵置產的預算 能以一種更激進的方式去配置 聯邦政策可能會對所有美國人 產生革命性的改變
This is a work in progress. There are obviously many details to be worked out, but it is a policy proposal grounded in the functional roles and the inherited advantages of wealth that moves us away from the reinforcing status quo behavioral explanations for inequality towards more structural solutions. Our existing tax policy that privileges existing wealth rather than establishing new wealth is a choice. The extent of our dramatic inequality is at least as much a problem of politics as it is a problem of economics. It is time to get beyond the false narratives that attribute inequality to individual personal deficits while largely ignoring the advantages of wealth.
這是一項進行中的工作 明顯地還有很多細節需要發展 但這是一個奠基於功能性 和生而賦予財富優勢的政策方案 這個方案能讓我們從 貧富不均惡性循環的現狀 以行為去解釋貧富不均 轉變為更具結構化的解決方案 我們現有的稅收機制賦予富人特權 而非推動白手起家的新貴 是一種人為選擇 現有不平等差距的擴大 不僅是一個經濟的問題 亦是一個政治的問題 是時候突破那些錯誤的詮釋了 這些詮釋把不平等歸結於個人問題 卻大幅地忽略了財富的優勢
Instead, public provisions of a baby trust could go a long way towards eliminating the transmission of economic advantage or disadvantage across generations and establishing a more moral and decent economy that facilitates assets, economic security and social mobility for all its citizens. Regardless of the race and the family positions in which they are born.
取而代之,公共供給的寶寶信託 能對消除貧富世襲發揮巨大作用 並建立一個更道德、正直的經濟體 能夠促進全體公民的資產流通 經濟安全以及社會流動性 不論種族膚色 或他們出生在什麼樣的家庭
Thank you very much.
謝謝大家
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Chris Anderson: Darrick. I mean, there's so much to like in this idea. There's one piece of branding around it that I worry about, which is just that right now, trust-fund kids have a really bad rap. You know, they're the sort of eyeball-rolling poster children for how money, kind of, takes away motivation. So, these trusts are different. So how do you show people in this proposal that it's not going to do that?
克里斯.安德森(安):戴瑞克 我想,這個想法有很多可取之處 在宣傳這個概念的時候 我擔心其中的一點: 現在的狀況是:那些擁有 信託基金的孩子們名聲不佳 您知道,他們有點像是那種 蠻不在乎的代表人物 因為金錢似乎……奪走他們意志 所以,這些信託是不一樣的 那麼你怎樣向人們說明 同樣的狀況不會發生在這個方案?
Darrick Hamilton: If you know you have limited resources or you're going to face discrimination, there's a narrative that, well, the economic returns to investing in myself are lower than that of someone else, so I might as well enjoy my leisure. Of course, there's another narrative as well, so we shouldn't get caught up on that, you know, somebody who's poor and going to face discrimination, they also might pursue a resume-building strategy. The old adage, "I have to be twice as good as someone else." Now, when we say that, we never ask at what cost, are there health costs associated with that. I haven't answered your question, but coming back to you question, if you know you're going to receive a transfer at a later point in life, that only increases the incentive for you to invest in yourself so that you can better use that trust.
戴瑞克.漢彌爾頓: 如果你知道自己的資源有限 或者你將遭受歧視 有一種說法 投資自身的經濟回報 比投資其他人的經濟回報更低 這樣的話,我不妨就悠閒度日 當然,也有另外一種說法 所以我們不應該在此問題上糾纏不清 你知道,有人很窮並且將面臨歧視 他們可能會採取為自己增值的策略 老話說:「我必須要比別人加倍優秀」 當我們說句話的時候 我們從不問代價是什麼 是否是以健康為代價呢 我還沒有回答你的問題 回到你的問題上 如果你知道自己在不久的將來 將收到一筆款項 這只會增加你投資自身的動機 以便於你能更好地使用那份信託基金
CA: You're giving people possibilities of life they currently cannot imagine having. And therefore the motivation to do that. I could talk with you for hours about this. I'm really glad you're working on this.
安:你為人生帶來更多可能 超越人們現在的想像 還有為此努力的動力 我對這個主題很感興趣 我很高興你為件事而努力
Thank you.
謝謝你
(Applause)
(掌聲)