I am a capitalist, and after a 30-year career in capitalism spanning three dozen companies, generating tens of billions of dollars in market value, I'm not just in the top one percent, I'm in the top .01 percent of all earners. Today, I have come to share the secrets of our success, because rich capitalists like me have never been richer. So the question is, how do we do it? How do we manage to grab an ever-increasing share of the economic pie every year? Is it that rich people are smarter than we were 30 years ago? Is it that we're working harder than we once did? Are we taller, better looking?
我是資本主義者, 在三十年橫跨三十多間公司的 資本主義職涯中, 創造了數百億美元的市場價值, 我的收入不只是在前 1%, 還是在前 0.01%。 今天,我來分享我們成功的秘密, 因為像我這樣的資本主義者 以前從來沒有這麼富有過。 問題是:我們是怎麼辦到的? 我們這一群人,是如何掌握 每年都不斷增長的經濟大餅? 是因為有錢人比三十年前更聰明嗎? 還是我們現在更努力了? 我們有比較高、比較好看嗎?
Sadly, no. It all comes down to just one thing: economics. Because, here's the dirty secret. There was a time in which the economics profession worked in the public interest, but in the neoliberal era, today, they work only for big corporations and billionaires, and that is creating a little bit of a problem. We could choose to enact economic policies that raise taxes on the rich, regulate powerful corporations or raise wages for workers. We have done it before. But neoliberal economists would warn that all of these policies would be a terrible mistake, because raising taxes always kills economic growth, and any form of government regulation is inefficient, and raising wages always kills jobs. Well, as a consequence of that thinking, over the last 30 years, in the USA alone, the top one percent has grown 21 trillion dollars richer while the bottom 50 percent have grown 900 billion dollars poorer, a pattern of widening inequality that has largely repeated itself across the world. And yet, as middle class families struggle to get by on wages that have not budged in about 40 years, neoliberal economists continue to warn that the only reasonable response to the painful dislocations of austerity and globalization is even more austerity and globalization.
很不幸的,沒有。 總結起來只有一點: 經濟學。 因為,骯髒的秘密如下。 曾經有段時間,經濟學專業人士 是為了公眾利益努力的, 但在新自由時代, 如今, 他們只為大公司和億萬富翁工作, 那會造成一些問題。 我們可以選擇制定經濟政策、 向富人收更高的稅、 規範強大的企業 或者提高員工的薪資。 這我們以前都做過。 但新自由主義經濟學家會警告說, 這些政策都會是可怕的錯誤, 因為提高稅率會扼殺經濟成長, 而任何形式的政策規範 都沒有效率, 提高薪資則會扼殺工作機會。 用這種想法做事的後果就是, 在過去三十年,光是在美國, 金字塔頂端 1% 的富人財富多了 二十一兆美金, 底部 50% 的窮人財富 則少了九千億美金, 貧富不均的擴大現象 在世界各地不斷地上演。 還有, 就在中產階級這四十年來, 掙扎著餬口的的同時, 新自由經濟學家仍不斷警告, 面對緊縮和全球化的痛苦, 唯一合理的因應方式 竟是更緊縮與更全球化。
So, what is a society to do? Well, it's super clear to me what we need to do. We need a new economics. So, economics has been described as the dismal science, and for good reason, because as much as it is taught today, it isn't a science at all, in spite of all of the dazzling mathematics. In fact, a growing number of academics and practitioners have concluded that neoliberal economic theory is dangerously wrong and that today's growing crises of rising inequality and growing political instability are the direct result of decades of bad economic theory. What we now know is that the economics that made me so rich isn't just wrong, it's backwards, because it turns out it isn't capital that creates economic growth, it's people; and it isn't self-interest that promotes the public good, it's reciprocity; and it isn't competition that produces our prosperity, it's cooperation. What we can now see is that an economics that is neither just nor inclusive can never sustain the high levels of social cooperation necessary to enable a modern society to thrive.
所以,社會該如何是好? 我非常清楚該怎麼做。 我們需要一種新的經濟學。 經濟學一直被描述成 一門沉悶的科學, 雖然學校教這麼多了, 有很好的理由可以說明, 它其實根本不是科學, 儘管用了一堆很玄的數學。 事實上,越來越多學者和業者 得出結論認為,新自由經濟理論 錯的離譜, 現今,不平等越來越嚴重, 政策越來越不穩定, 這些危機都是數十年採用了不好的 經濟理論而直接造成的結果。 現在我們知道, 讓我如此富有的經濟學 不僅是錯的, 還開倒車, 因為,我們發現, 經濟成長並不是資本創造的, 是人創造出來的; 公眾利益並不是靠自利來推動的, 而是靠互惠互利來的; 我們的繁榮並不是競爭造成的, 而是合作。 現在我們能夠了解, 不公正又不包容的經濟 永遠不可能維持高度的社會合作, 但現代社會要繁榮 就少不了社會合作。
So where did we go wrong? Well, it turns out that it's become painfully obvious that the fundamental assumptions that undergird neoliberal economic theory are just objectively false, and so today first I want to take you through some of those mistaken assumptions and then after describe where the science suggests prosperity actually comes from.
所以,我們是哪裡做錯了? 結果發現,這個事實 明顯到讓人感到痛苦: 支撐新自由經濟理論的 那些基礎假設 客觀來說,根本是錯的, 所以,今天,我首先想 跟大家談一些錯誤的假設, 之後再說明,如何從科學的角度 創造繁榮。
So, neoliberal economic assumption number one is that the market is an efficient equilibrium system, which basically means that if one thing in the economy, like wages, goes up, another thing in the economy, like jobs, must go down. So for example, in Seattle, where I live, when in 2014 we passed our nation's first 15 dollar minimum wage, the neoliberals freaked out over their precious equilibrium. "If you raise the price of labor," they warned, "businesses will purchase less of it. Thousands of low-wage workers will lose their jobs. The restaurants will close." Except ... they didn't. The unemployment rate fell dramatically. The restaurant business in Seattle boomed. Why? Because there is no equilibrium. Because raising wages doesn't kill jobs, it creates them; because, for instance, when restaurant owners are suddenly required to pay restaurant workers enough so that now even they can afford to eat in restaurants, it doesn't shrink the restaurant business, it grows it, obviously.
所以,新自由經濟的第一個假設是 市場是一個有效的平衡系統, 基本上,意思就是, 當經濟體中有一個元素提升, 如薪水, 經濟體中的另一個元素 就會下降,如工作機會。 比如,在我居住的西雅圖, 2014 年我們通過了全國 前所未有的十五美金最低薪資, 新自由主義者們對即將失去的 寶貴平衡而驚慌失措。 他們警告: 「如果你們提高勞動力的價格,」 「企業購買的勞動力就會減少。 數以千計的低薪員工 就會失去工作。 餐廳會關門。」不過…… 並沒有發生。 失業率大大下降。 西雅圖的餐廳業 突然好轉。為什麼? 因為根本沒有什麼平衡。 因為提高薪水不會扼殺而會創造 工作機會;因為,比如, 當餐廳老闆突然被要求 支付餐廳員工更多錢, 讓他們都能夠負擔得起 在餐廳用餐, 這就不會讓餐廳的業績萎縮, 很顯然,反而會成長。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Thank you.
謝謝。
The second assumption is that the price of something is always equal to its value, which basically means that if you earn 50,000 dollars a year and I earn 50 million dollars a year, that's because I produce a thousand times as much value as you. Now, it will not surprise you to learn that this is a very comforting assumption if you're a CEO paying yourself 50 million dollars a year but paying your workers poverty wages. But please, take it from somebody who has run dozens of businesses: this is nonsense. People are not paid what they are worth. They are paid what they have the power to negotiate, and wages' falling share of GDP is not because workers have become less productive but because employers have become more powerful. And --
第二個假設是, 任何東西的價格 總是等同於它的價值, 基本上,意思就是, 如果你一年賺五萬美金, 而我一年賺五千萬美金, 那是因為我產出的 價值比你高一千倍。 現在, 對這樣的假設 如果你不會感到太驚訝, 就只有一種可能 : 你是一位會付給自己 五千萬美金年薪, 但付給員工的薪水 卻少的可憐的執行長。 但,拜託,聽聽經營過 數十間企業的人怎麼說: 這很不合理。 人們的工資與他們的價值無關。 他們的薪水取決於 薪資協調的權利, 薪水佔國內生產總值的 比例一直下降, 並非因為勞工的生產力下降, 而是因為僱主的權利變大了。 且——
(Applause)
(掌聲)
And by pretending that the giant imbalance in power between capital and labor doesn't exist, neoliberal economic theory became essentially a protection racket for the rich.
把資方和勞方之間 權利嚴重不平衡的情況 裝作沒看到, 新自由經濟理論在根本上 就是富人的保護傘。
The third assumption, and by far the most pernicious, is a behavioral model that describes human beings as something called "homo economicus," which basically means that we are all perfectly selfish, perfectly rational and relentlessly self-maximizing. But just ask yourselves, is it plausible that every single time for your entire life, when you did something nice for somebody else, all you were doing was maximizing your own utility? Is it plausible that when a soldier jumps on a grenade to defend fellow soldiers, they're just promoting their narrow self-interest? If you think that's nuts, contrary to any reasonable moral intuition, that's because it is and, according to the latest science, not true. But it is this behavioral model which is at the cold, cruel heart of neoliberal economics, and it is as morally corrosive as it is scientifically wrong because, if we accept at face value that humans are fundamentally selfish, and then we look around the world at all of the unambiguous prosperity in it, then it follows logically, then it must be true by definition, that billions of individual acts of selfishness magically transubstantiate into prosperity and the common good. If we humans are merely selfish maximizers, then selfishness is the cause of our prosperity. Under this economic logic, greed is good, widening inequality is efficient, and the only purpose of the corporation can be to enrich shareholders, because to do otherwise would be to slow economic growth and harm the economy overall. And it is this gospel of selfishness which forms the ideological cornerstone of neoliberal economics, a way of thinking which has produced economic policies which have enabled me and my rich buddies in the top one percent to grab virtually all of the benefits of growth over the last 40 years.
第三個假設,目前為止 最有害的一個,就是 將人類描述成某種 「經濟智人」的行為模型, 基本上,意思就是, 我們都是非常自私、 非常理性無情, 只會不斷膨脹自我的人類。 但,問問你自己, 真的嗎?你這生當中 每次出手幫忙別人, 都是為了把你的個人利益最大化嗎? 一個士兵撲向手榴彈 以保護他的夥伴, 目的只是心胸狹窄地 想促進自我利益?這說法對嗎? 如果你會認為他們都是笨蛋, 這與任何合理的精神直覺相反, 那是因為根據最新的科學, 它告訴你, 這是假的。 這是因為,以冷酷為核心的 新自由經濟行為模式, 不僅腐蝕了我們的人性道德, 從科學的角度而言,也大錯特錯, 因為, 如果我們接受了錯誤的想法—— 人類基本上是自私的這個想法, 然後轉頭看看這個世界, 看看世界上所有 明確的繁榮昌盛, 從邏輯上, 從定義上來看, 是因為數十億個自私的行為 造就了這個繁榮及 符合大眾利益的社會。 如果我們人類只是自私的膨脹者, 那麼,自私就是我們繁榮的成因。 在這個經濟邏輯下, 貪婪變成是好的, 將不平等擴散出去變成 是對人類有效益的, 而企業的唯一目的 就是讓股東更富裕, 因為若不這麼做, 就會讓經濟成長慢下來, 並傷害到整體經濟。 正是這些自私的信條, 型塑出新自由經濟主義 意識形態的基石, 這種思考方式所 產生出來的經濟政策 讓我和其他在前 1% 的富有夥伴們 能取得過去四十年成長 所帶來的所有利益。
But, if instead we accept the latest empirical research, real science, which correctly describes human beings as highly cooperative, reciprocal and intuitively moral creatures, then it follows logically that it must be cooperation and not selfishness that is the cause of our prosperity, and it isn't our self-interest but rather our inherent reciprocity that is humanity's economic superpower.
但, 如果我們摒棄這些信條, 改接納最新的實證研究、 真正的科學,正確地描述人類 是高度合作的、 互惠的, 且在直覺上具有道德的動物, 根據這樣的邏輯, 人類是合作的 而非自私的, 造就我們繁榮昌盛的 不是我們的自我利益 而是人類天生的互惠能力 造就了人類的繁榮昌盛。
So at the heart of this new economics is a story about ourselves that grants us permission to be our best selves, and, unlike the old economics, this is a story that is virtuous and also has the virtue of being true.
所以, 在這新經濟學的核心, 是一個關於我們自己的故事, 讓我們可以成為最好的自己, 不像以前的舊經濟學, 這個故事是良善的, 也具有真實的美德。
Now, I want to emphasize that this new economics is not something I have personally imagined or invented. Its theories and models are being developed and refined in universities around the world building on some of the best new research in economics, complexity theory, evolutionary theory, psychology, anthropology and other disciplines. And although this new economics does not yet have its own textbook or even a commonly agreed upon name, in broad strokes its explanation of where prosperity comes from goes something like this.
現在, 我想要強調這種新經濟學 並非我個人想像或發明出來的。 它的理論和模型 正在世界各地的大學裡 發展和完善, 建構的基礎是一些 最好的經濟相關新研究、 複雜理論、演化理論、 心理學、人類學,及其它行為準則。 雖然這種新經濟學還沒有 它自己的教科書, 甚至沒有一個大家都同意的名稱, 廣義來說, 它對於繁榮從何而來的 解釋是像這樣的。
So, market capitalism is an evolutionary system in which prosperity emerges through a positive feedback loop between increasing amounts of innovation and increasing amounts of consumer demand. Innovation is the process by which we solve human problems, consumer demand is the mechanism through which the market selects for useful innovations, and as we solve more problems, we become more prosperous. But as we become more prosperous, our problems and solutions become more complex, and this increasing technical complexity requires ever higher levels of social and economic cooperation in order to produce the more highly specialized products that define a modern economy.
市場資本主義是一個演化系統, 在這個系統中,繁榮的出現, 是因為透過不斷增長的 創新與消費需求 之間的正向回饋,循環而成的。 創新就是我們用來 解決人類問題的過程, 消費者需求是一種機制, 市場透過它來選擇 哪些創新是有用的, 隨著我們解決更多問題, 我們就變得更繁榮。 但,隨著我們變得更繁榮, 我們的問題和解決方案 會變得更複雜, 技術的複雜度一直上升, 就會需要更高程度的 社會和經濟合作, 才能產生出更專業的產品, 來定義現代經濟。
Now, the old economics is correct, of course, that competition plays a crucial role in how markets work, but what it fails to see is that it is largely a competition between highly cooperative groups -- competition between firms, competition between networks of firms, competition between nations -- and anyone who has ever run a successful business knows that building a cooperative team by including the talents of everyone is almost always a better strategy than just a bunch of selfish jerks.
當然,舊的經濟學也沒錯, 在市場的運作方式中, 競爭扮演了關鍵的角色, 但你在這裡面看不到 高度合作團體之間的競爭—— 公司之間的競爭、 公司網路協作的競爭、 國家之間的競爭—— 曾經經營過成功企業的人都知道, 用大家的才華來打造 團結的團隊幾乎一定是 比用一堆自私渾蛋更好的策略。
So how do we leave neoliberalism behind and build a more sustainable, more prosperous and more equitable society? The new economics suggests just five rules of thumb.
所以,我們要如何把 新自由主義拋諸腦後, 建立一個更永續、更繁榮, 且更平等的社會? 新經濟學提出了五條法則。
First is that successful economies are not jungles, they're gardens, which is to say that markets, like gardens, must be tended, that the market is the greatest social technology ever invented for solving human problems, but unconstrained by social norms or democratic regulation, markets inevitably create more problems than they solve. Climate change, the great financial crisis of 2008 are two easy examples.
第一,成功的經濟不是叢林, 是花園, 也就是說, 市場像花園一樣需要照顧, 這個市場是有史以來 可以解決人類問題的 最偉大的社會技術。 而不是靠社會規範或 民主監管來約束, 這樣的市場只會創造出 更多無法避免的問題, 像氣候變遷、2008 年的金融危機 是兩個很容易想到的例子。
The second rule is that inclusion creates economic growth. So the neoliberal idea that inclusion is this fancy luxury to be afforded if and when we have growth is both wrong and backwards. The economy is people. Including more people in more ways is what causes economic growth in market economies.
第二條法則, 包容力能創造經濟成長。 新自由主義者認為 包容力只有在經濟成長時 才會出現的的高檔奢侈品, 這樣的想法是大錯特錯 且是開倒車的。 經濟談的是人。 用更多方法讓更多人參與 才會造就市場經濟的成長。
The third principle is the purpose of the corporation is not merely to enrich shareholders. The greatest grift in contemporary economic life is the neoliberal idea that the only purpose of the corporation and the only responsibility of executives is to enrich themselves and shareholders. The new economics must and can insist that the purpose of the corporation is to improve the welfare of all stakeholders: customers, workers, community and shareholders alike.
第三條, 企業的目的不能只是 讓股東賺更多錢。 現代經濟最大的騙局, 就是新自由主義的這個想法: 企業唯一目的及主管的唯一責任 就是讓他們自己及股東赚更多錢。 新經濟學必須能夠堅持 企業的目的是要改變 所有利害關係人的福祉: 客戶、員工、 社區,和股東等。
Rule four: greed is not good. Being rapacious doesn't make you a capitalist, it makes you a sociopath.
第四條, 貪婪是不好的。 貪心並不會讓你成為資本主義者, 會讓你成為人人討厭的反社會者。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
(Applause)
(掌聲)
And in an economy as dependent upon cooperation at scale as ours, sociopathy is as bad for business as it is for society.
在像我們這種仰賴 規模合作的經濟中, 反社會者對商業和對社會都不好。
And fifth and finally, unlike the laws of physics, the laws of economics are a choice. Now, neoliberal economic theory has sold itself to you as unchangeable natural law, when in fact it's social norms and constructed narratives based on pseudoscience. If we truly want a more equitable, more prosperous and more sustainable economy, if we want high-functioning democracies and civil society, we must have a new economics.
最後,第五條, 不像物理定律, 經濟的定律是種選擇。 新自由經濟理論 把自己當作不變的 自然法則來說服你, 事實上,它是以偽科學為基礎 建構出來的社會規範。 如果我們真心想要更平等、 更繁榮、更永續的經濟, 如果我們想要運作良好的民主 和公民社會, 我們就必須要有一種新經濟學。
And here's the good news: if we want a new economics, all we have to do is choose to have it.
好消息來了: 如果我們想要一種新的經濟學, 我們只需要做一件事: 選擇擁有它。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Moderator: So Nick, I'm sure you get this question a lot. If you're so unhappy with the economic system, why not just give all your money away and join the 99 percent?
主持人:尼克,我相信 你常被問到這個問題。 如果你對於經濟系統如此不滿, 為什麼不甘脆就把你的錢 都送掉,加入 99% 的人?
Nick Hanauer: Yeah, no, yes, right. You get that a lot. You get that a lot. "If you care so much about taxes, why don't you pay more, and if you care so much about wages, why don't you pay more?" And I could do that. The problem is, it doesn't make that much difference, and I have discovered a strategy that works literally a hundred thousand times better --
尼克哈諾爾:好,不,是,對。 常會有人這樣問。常會有。 「如果你這麼在乎稅收, 為什麼不多繳點稅? 如果你這麼在乎薪水, 為什麼不多支付點?」 我是可以那麼做。 問題是, 不會造成什麼不同, 我發現了一項策略, 效果高了十萬倍——
Moderator: OK.
主:好。
NH: which is to use my money to build narratives and to pass laws that will require all the other rich people to pay taxes and pay their workers better.
尼:那就是,用我的錢 來建構成功模式並透過法律, 讓所有其他富人 都有繳稅和給員工更好的待遇。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
And so, for example, the 15-dollar minimum wage that we cooked up has now affected 30 million workers. So that works better.
所以,比如, 我們推出來的十五 美金的最低薪資, 現在影響到三千萬名工作者。 那比較有用。
Moderator: That's great. If you change your mind, we'll find some takers for you.
主:那很棒。 如果你改變心意, 我們會幫你找一些接受人。
NH: OK. Thank you. Moderator: Thank you very much.
尼:好,謝謝。 主:非常謝謝。