淹没在断层社会中的“美国梦”(双语)

英语自学网

　　An ordinary Joe
        　　美国梦
        　　The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers our Future. By Joseph Stiglitz.
         
        　　不平等的代价：如今社会断层是如何危及我们的未来的
        　　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.
         
        　　美国梦是指任何一个孩子都可以出人头地。这如今也许在政治领域还是可行的。一个肯尼亚移民的后代，被他的祖父母养大，他现在是美国的总统。（如今的美国总统是一个肯尼亚移民的后代，他的祖父母抚养他长大）但是在经济范畴，并不像美国人想象的那样现实。美国的社会阶层的流动性与其他国家相比并不容易。举例来说，出生在占总人口20%的最贫困人群中的丹麦人有75%在长大以后脱离了困境。在被认为是社会阶层稳固的英国有70%的贫困儿童在长大之后可以脱贫。但是在美国这种比率低于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.
         
        　　同样的，白手起家的故事，对于美国人来说并不常见。在美国从20%的社会底层奋斗到社会的顶层的可能性要低于丹麦人和英国人。总的来说，在美国的财富暴增同时美国普通阶层却在挣扎。1%的最富的人掌握着2010年美国总收入的93%。在过去的30年间，工人拿到的工资不能赶上生产力水平。但是美国人并未发觉这种结构性改变的程度。从2011年的数据来看，平均访问者认为，最富的15%的人占有60%的财富，而不是像上文提到的85%。被采访者的理想收入分布应该是最富有的20%的人拥有30%财富的。
        　　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是诺贝尔经济学奖获得者，一位坚定的自由主义者，在他的新书中提到了这个问题，他写这本书来声援“占领华尔街”的支持者。的确，他支持他们的口号，“我们是99%”被冠以这样的名称，“这1%中的一员，通过这1%，为了这1%”这些都是他2011年5月在Vanity Fair写的。
       
            
            

enone

        　　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看来，不平等是公共政策被有钱，有房，有空闲的精英所掌握而导致的。他们运用其力量主导政策辩论，推动减税来博取富人们的欢心，调整货币政策来取悦银行家。他说，很多新富翁不是企业家而是“寻租者”，那些通过垄断力量来获得（窃取）收益的人。
        　　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的观点被聪明的左翼人士所赞同，而且Mr.Stiglitz很善于展示他的观点。想象一下，他说，如果世界上只允许劳动力流动而不允许资本流动，这个世界将会变成什么样子？“国家将会充分的吸引工人（劳动者，劳动力），政府将会承诺好的学校和好的环境，同时还向劳动者收取很低的税。高的资本赋税将会用来支持这些政策”这样的会促使一个更加公平的社会形成。
        　　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.
        　　从一个更好的历史观和地理观来看，Mr.Stiglitz的观点十分的有用。他指出1950年-1980年这段时间里，美国的不公平现象有所减少。但这是一段很特殊的时期。在很多有记载的历史里每个阶层的财富和其他差异都很悬殊；洛克菲勒家族和卡内基家族比其他的财阀都富有很多。Mr.Stiglitz也观察了房地产泡沫的产生和破灭，像其他错误的美国政策，但是西班牙和爱尔兰也有同样的泡沫，但是他们却拥有更公平的社会。
        　　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.
        　　当不公平的问题得到解决的时候，Mr.Stiglitz希望得税税率上限应为现在50%，此举意在财政刺激和更好的银行监管。这里假设他抱着更开放的态度来权衡利弊。控制银行杠杆，设定利率上限，更好的保护破产者，将会在信贷已经紧缩的时候减少银行负债。他提到2009年的刺激政策并没有按照所设想的发挥作用。但是乐观的希望于复杂的美国财政预算进程将会在未来产生更好的刺激效果。
        　　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.
        　　不论他的答案的正确与否，Mr.Stiglitz非常明智的将他的焦点放在了这些问题上。纵观发达国家，普通工作者正在忍受生活标准的降低，而与此同时，银行家和高管的生活仍然十分舒适。这种截然不同的情况一定会带来社会和政治的影响。