经济学人中文网 - Powered by Discuz! Board

标题: [2009.04.02] 封面文章 The rich under attack 富人成为众矢之的 [打印本页]

作者: searanger 时间: 2009-4-5 19:28 标题: [2009.04.02] 封面文章 The rich under attack 富人成为众矢之的

The rise and fall of the wealthy

The rich under attack
富人成为众矢之的

Apr 2nd 2009
From The Economist print edition

Going for the bankers is tempting for politicians—and dangerous for everybody else
拿银行家开刀对政客来说很具诱惑力，但对他人则是危险的。

STONES thrown through a banker’s windows in Edinburgh, workers “bossnapping” executives in France, retrospective 90% tax rates proposed in Washington, and now a riot in London as G20 leaders arrived for their summit (see article). A sea change in social attitudes that could have profound effects on politics and the world economy is under way.

在爱丁堡，石头打碎了银行家的窗户；在法国，工人们把他们老板扣为人质；在美国，提出了有追溯力的税率为90%的议案，现在正值20国集团的国家首脑赶到伦敦开峰会之时，又爆发了骚乱。一场社会态度的重大而深刻的变化正方兴未艾，这一变化将可能会对政治和全球经济产生深刻影响。

The rich are certainly not the only targets in the current populist backlash. Frightened by the downturn, people are furious with politicians, central bankers and immigrants. But a rising wave of anger is directed against the new “malefactors of great wealth”. Today’s villains are a larger and more global bunch than the handful of American robber barons Teddy Roosevelt denounced a century ago; and most of them are bankers and fund managers, rather than owners of trusts and railroads. Yet the themes are similar to those at the end of that previous gilded age: rising inequality—the top 0.1% of Americans earned 20 times the income of the bottom 90% in 1979 and 77 times in 2006—and a sense that the greedy rich have cheated decent working people of their rightful share of the pie.

目前人们做出强烈反应并非只是指向富人。惊恐于经济衰退，人们迁怒于政客、中央银行负责人和移民。然而新的一轮怒潮正扑向新一代的为富不仁者。今天的反面角色的数量和范围可比百年前的那一小撮被泰德罗斯福斥为”强盗资本家的人要大很多，其中大多数是银行高管和基金经理，非托拉斯或铁路公司老板。但此次运动的主题与上个“黄金时代”的却大同小异：背景也是不断加剧的贫富分化-1979年最富裕0.1%的美国人的收入相当于最低90%的人的66倍，2006年则增长到77倍。还有就是这样一种认识，即贪婪的富人们骗取了本该属于诚实工作的劳动阶层的该得的那部分财富。

Some of this cheating has been of an old familiar sort: building Ponzi schemes and bribing politicians to secure favourable deals. There are greyer areas, in which the rich hide their cash in tax havens and get tax law written to their advantage—witness the indefensible treatment of private-equity profits. But what makes the rich’s behaviour so galling for many critics is that their two greatest crimes were committed in broad daylight, as they were part of the system itself.

一部分骗取手段似曾相识，即通过巧立各种骗局，贿赂政客以达到对己有利的交易。而且存在各种灰色地带，富人把现金藏匿在避税天堂并使得法律以有利于自己的方式编纂-这点只需看看他们是如何以不可告人的方式处置私募基金的利润便知。但真正使富人们的所为引起众怒的是他们的两项罪行是在光天化日之下犯下的，而他们自己又是制度的设计者。

The two great cheats
两项严重诈骗

The first charge is that the rich created a new form of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose capitalism. Traders and fund managers got huge rewards for speculating with other people’s money, but when they failed the parent company, the client and ultimately the taxpayer had to pay the bill. Monetary policy contributed to this asymmetry of risk: when markets faltered central banks usually rescued them by cutting interest rates.

第一项指控是富人们创造了一种新型的怎么玩都是他们赢得资本主义。经纪人和基金经理们通过投机其他人的钱而获取巨额回报，但当他们把所打工的公司搞垮之时，却由客户并最终由纳税人负担。货币政策加剧了这种不对称性风险：即在市场失灵时，央行通常通过降息来拯救他们。

The second charge is that the bankers and fund managers were not doing anything useful. Unlike the “deserving” rich entrepreneurs who set up Microsoft and Google, the “undeserving” traders and brokers just shuffled money around the system to nobody’s profit but their own. The faster the money went round, the larger the financial sector loomed in the rich countries’ economies. At its peak it contributed 41% of domestic American corporate profits, more than double the rate two decades ago. As finance grew, the banks got ever bigger—too big to fail, eventually, so when they tottered taxpayers had to prop them up. Far from epitomising capitalism, the undeserving rich undermined it: it was socialism for the wealthy.

第二项指控是银行高管和基金经理们并没有在做任何有用的事。与建立了微软和谷歌的‘该’富的企业家不同，这些“不该”富的经纪人只是在体系内把钱倒来倒去而唯一的获益人就是他们自己。钱转得的越快，金融部门在发达国家经济中愈显重要。在最鼎盛时期，金融部门贡献了美国国内公司利润总额的41%，比20年前增长了2倍多。随着金融的增长，银行也愈大，达到了不能破产的地步，最终，当他们摇摇欲坠时，纳税人就得替他们撑着。这些人非但不能为资本主义增光，反而削弱了它，因为资本主义已成为富人的社会主义。

These two charges run together, but the second has much less justification. Enormous though the cost of bailing out the banks has been, there is nothing inherently undeserving about finance; even in their flawed state, more liquid markets have brought huge benefits to the rest of the economy. The lower cost of capital has made it easier for industry to invest, innovate and protect itself against interest and exchange-rate risk. Trying to single out financiers from entrepreneurs is a fool’s errand: you will end up hurting both.

这两项指控形影不离，但第二项指控的理由不足。拯救银行的成本固然高昂，金融的本质上并无不良之处，即使是在出了问题的状态下。更富流动性的市场给经济创造了更大的利润。更低的融资成本使得实业更容易投资、革新和保护自己不受利率和汇率风险的影响。试图把金融家从企业家中分离出来是不明智的，因为会两败俱伤。

The heads-I-win charge is not entirely proven, either: some of the people who ran banks did lose when they went bust. Yet even a newspaper as inherently pro-business as this one has to admit that there was something rotten in finance: the basic capitalist bargain, under which genuine risktakers are allowed to garner huge rewards, seems a poor one if taxpayers are landed with a huge bill for it all. Hence the anger.

只有一方赢的指控也未得到完全证明。某些经营银行的人在破产时真是陪了钱。就连像本刊这样一家本质上亲商业的报纸，也得承认金融确实有烂掉的地方。允许真正的冒险者获得巨额回报是一桩基本资本主义交易。可如果让纳税人最终买单，这桩交易可就不怎么样了。所以才会有这么大的愤怒。

A time for correction and brown paper bags
是纠正错误和低调的时候了

Periods of excess, when inequality has grown, tend to be followed by eras of reform: Roosevelt bust the trusts and shortly afterwards Congress moved towards introducing a federal income tax. Part of the genius of capitalism is its ability to adjust to disruption from within and attacks from without.

当贫富悬殊增大时，过度膨胀的阶段可能会接着改革的阶段：罗斯福解散了托拉斯，其后不久，国会开始引入所得税。资本主义的天才之处在于它既能进行调整以适应内外部的冲击。

Indeed, the system is already beginning to correct itself. As our special report this week points out, the rich are not as rich as they were: some $10 trillion, around a quarter of the wealthy’s assets, has been lost. Inequality will decline. Investment banks and hedge funds are shrinking; private-equity groups are struggling to finance takeovers. Having discovered how volatile markets can be, banks will be less keen on trading in the future. There is even a correction going on in conspicuous consumption: Net-a-porter, a pricey website, offers to deliver designer outfits to its customers in brown paper bags.

的确，资本主义已经开始自我纠正了。正如本刊本周的特别报道指出的那样：富人已经不像以前那样富有了，他们已损失了10兆美元，即约四分之一的财产。贫富悬殊将会拉近。投行和对冲基金的规模正在缩小；私募基金正艰难地为并购筹资。在领教了市场的反复无常后，银行将不再热衷于期货交易。对炫耀性消费的纠正已经开始，如Net-a-porter，一家奢侈品购物网站，就用牛皮纸给客户寄送定制时装。

The market’s self-correction will not be enough, however. Higher taxes will eventually be inevitable, since so many governments have lurched heavily into deficit. But politicians must tread carefully. Tax rises right away would be a rotten idea, since for the moment fiscal stimulus is needed. And even when governments raise the money, they should first get rid of deductions and reverse unmeritocratic measures (such as George Bush’s repeal of America’s death tax) rather than jacking up income-tax rates to punitive levels. Squeeze the rich until the pips squeak, and the juice goes out of the economy.

但市场的自我纠正机制还不够。更高的税收将无可避免，因为很多国家已负债累累。但领导人必须小心行事。立即征税肯定糟糕透顶，因为目前需要的是财政刺激。即便政府集资，它们也应先首先摈弃减税和扭转非精英主义的措施（如布什取消遗产税），而不是大幅把所得税率提高到惩罚性的水平。把富人榨干, 经济也就失去了活力.

As for heads-I-win capitalism, the problem of asymmetric risk should shrink, because the rule changes needed to make the financial system safer will also remove unwarranted profits. Contra-cyclical capital requirements, forcing banks to build more reserves during good times, will leave them less cash to splurge on bonuses. Many of the sweetest sources of profit sprang up in the cracks between regulatory systems; governments are now filling in these gaps. If central banks focus on asset markets when they rise as well as when they fall, they will remove much of the froth. Treat a bank that becomes too big to fail like a utility, and it will make less money.

对总是一方赢的资本主义来说，不对称的问题应当会有所减小, 因为使金融系统更安全所需的规则变化将会剔出不合理的利润。反周期性的举措，即迫使银行在好过的日子里多做提留，将留给银行更少的现金挥霍在奖金上。很多让银行窃喜的利润源于监管制度的漏洞，政府如今正在堵住这些漏洞。如果央行在资产市场涨和跌时都能密切注视，那么大部分泡沫都将被挤掉。如能像对待一个大到不能倒闭的公益事业公司那样对待银行，它就挣不了那么多钱了。

Curbing the excesses of wealth, then, will be a side effect of regulations designed to make capitalism work better. Such measures will not provide the lyrics to revolutionary anthems, but they are going to be better than going after the wealthy. The rich are an easy target. But when you try to bash them, you usually end up punching yourself in the nose.

这样，削减过度的财富就成为改善资本主义的监管措施的附带作用。这些措施虽不至成为革命歌曲的歌词，但总比拿富人开刀强得多。富人很容易成为目标。但你在痛击他们时，通常拳会落在自己脸上。<object ID=video2 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=62 CLASSID=CLSID:CFCDAA03-8BE4-11CF-B84B-0020AFBBCCFA>
<param name=_ExtentX value=9657>
<param name=_ExtentY value=847>
<param name=AUTOSTART value=0>
<param name=SHUFFLE value=0>
<param name=PREFETCH value=0>
<param name=NOLABELS value=0>
<param name=SRC value=http://bbs.ecocn.org/attachments/month_0904/0904142003387215fa91b7641b.mp3>
<param name=CONTROLS value=StatusBar,controlpanel>
<param name=CONSOLE value=Clip1>
<param name=LOOP value=0>
<param name=NUMLOOP value=0>
<param name=CENTER value=0>
<param name=MAINTAINASPECT value=0>
<param name=BACKGROUNDCOLOR value=#000000>
</object>

《经济学人》（The Economist ( http://www.economist.com ))
仅同意本网站翻译其杂志内容，并未对上述翻译内容进行任何审阅查对

作者: whynot821 时间: 2009-4-5 20:35

they should first get rid of deductions and reverse unmeritocratic measures (such as George Bush’s repeal of America’s death tax)
他们首先要做的是取消税务扣减，扭转非精英主义政策（比如布什推行的遗产税取消）

作者: fredfun 时间: 2009-4-6 21:44

searanger的这篇文章翻译地非常精彩，读一遍下来受益良多，十分佩服。
有几个小问题，请教：
The heads-I-win charge is not entirely proven, either 其中的heads-i-win应该就是指上文中的heads-i-win-tails-you-lose，即对富人的第一项指控
banks will be less keen on trading in the future其中的in the future就是在未来的意思，而不是译者在译文中的期货的意思，期货是futures

作者: searanger 时间: 2009-4-7 14:48

- 感谢阅读和鼓励。

The heads-I-win charge is not entirely proven, either 其中的heads-i-win应该就是指上文中的heads-i-win-tails-you-lose，即对富人的第一项指控

-对，同意。

banks will be less keen on trading in the future其中的in the future就是在未来的意思，而不是译者在译文中的期货的意思，期货是futures

- 同意，再推敲一下。

作者: peanut 时间: 2009-4-8 19:15

多谢分享。本人还有点小问题。
as they were part of the system itself,个人觉得这里的they是指the rich犯的crime，不是指the rich那部分人

作者: caidixin 时间: 2009-4-9 18:39

trusts好像应该译为信托公司比较恰当。

作者: searanger 时间: 2009-4-9 21:31

6# caidixin

trusts 此处肯定是托拉斯

作者: caidixin 时间: 2009-4-9 21:41

7# searanger
　托拉斯直译为商业信托（business trust，原意为托管财产所有权）。垄断组织的高级形式之一。由许多生产同类商品的企业或产品有密切关系的企业合并组成。旨在垄断销售市场、争夺原料产地和投资范围，加强竞争力量，以获取高额垄断利润。（来自百度）
两种译法都一样。一个音译，一个意译。不过知道信托的人应该比知道托拉斯的人多吧。。

作者: jijuxie 时间: 2009-4-9 23:48

8# caidixin

你这个观点错的很严重.

trust这里当然是"托拉斯"的意思. 那是罗斯福的重要功绩.

通常意义上的"信托"跟"托拉斯"一点关系都没有. 美国遍地的信托公司指的是你把你的财产交给他帮你投资运作, 可一点垄断的意思都没.

作者: 插一嘴 时间: 2009-4-10 08:05

8# caidixin

你这个观点错的很严重.

trust这里当然是"托拉斯"的意思. 那是罗斯福的重要功绩.

通常意义上的"信托"跟"托拉斯"一点关系都没有. 美国遍地的信托公司指的是你把你的财产交给他帮你投资运作, 可 ...
jijuxie 发表于 2009-4-9 23:48

完全同意！

trust在此其实和cartel的意思一样，与信托一点关系都没有，百度害人呀！

作者: alberten 时间: 2009-4-11 00:32

本帖最后由 alberten 于 2009-4-11 00:54 编辑

我记得以前高中的政治还是历史课本提到过“托拉斯”，指的是是联合垄断企业。这个和信托还是不一样的。另外我还有一个问题请教：And even when governments raise the money, they should first get rid of deductions and reverse unmeritocratic measures (such as George Bush’s repeal of America’s death tax) rather than jacking up income-tax rates to punitive levels. 一句，翻译为：政府也应先首先摈弃减税和扭转非精英主义的措施（如布什取消遗产税）。似乎仍显拗口，不好理解，能否进一步解释？George Bush’s repeal of America’s death tax是扭转非精英主义的措施，还是扭转精英主义的措施，似乎有歧义。谢谢！老师们辛苦！

作者: wizzy 时间: 2009-4-11 11:09

个人浅见，请指正。

所有资料引自文章，具体请看 http://www.ctax.com.cn/whcsyw/200321794813.htm

简单的说，对财产所有人去世后遗留下来的财产征收的遗产税明显带有“劫富济贫”的性质，death tax 为非精英主义政策，George Bush’s repeal of America’s death tax 为扭转非精英主义政策。

Death Tax得不偿失:

1. 从财政收入角度看，遗产税属于无足轻重的小税种。目前其年收入不足300亿美元，仅相当于美国政府收入规模的1%，遗产税本身就是一个得不偿失的税种，程序繁杂，成本极高。结合文章本身，And even when governments raise the money的时候其实其不了太大的作用，并给人以拿富人开刀的感觉。

2. 据美国国内收入局统计，价值在2000万美元以上的大额遗产适用的平均税率明显低于价值在250-500万美元之间的小额遗产。其中的主要原因在于，纳税人可轻易地利用多种渠道规避纳税义务。此现象在美国富人纳税中非常普遍很多都是利用deductions，所以they should first get rid of deductions（税务
扣减，非减税）非常重要。让富人交应交的税而不是惩罚性的提高income-tax.

作者: peanut 时间: 2009-4-11 14:41

同意,肯定是托拉斯

欢迎光临经济学人中文网 (http://www.ecocn.org/bbs/)