個人資料
正文

Stiglitz 我們需要的經濟

(2023-10-16 00:08:16) 下一個

我們需要的經濟  The Economy We Need

2019 年 5 月 3 日 約瑟夫·E·斯蒂格利茨

經過 40 年的市場原教旨主義,美國和誌同道合的歐洲國家辜負了絕大多數公民的期望。 在這一點上,隻有新的社會契約 — — 保證公民的醫療保健、教育、退休保障、經濟適用房和體麵的工作和體麵的報酬 — — 才能拯救資本主義和自由民主。

紐約 — — 三年前,美國總統唐納德·特朗普的當選和英國脫歐公投證實了我們這些長期研究收入統計數據的人已經知道的事實:在大多數發達國家,市場經濟一直讓社會的很大一部分人失望。

沒有哪個地方比美國更能體現這一點。 長期以來,美國一直被視為自由市場個人主義承諾的典範,但如今,與大多數其他發達國家相比,美國的不平等程度更高,向上的社會流動性也更低。 在經曆了一個世紀的上升之後,美國的平均預期壽命現在正在下降。 對於收入分配最底層 90% 的人來說,實際(經通貨膨脹調整後)工資停滯不前:今天典型男性工人的收入與 40 年前相當。

與此同時,許多歐洲國家試圖效仿美國,而那些成功的國家,尤其是英國,現在正在遭受類似的政治和社會後果。 美國可能是第一個創建中產階級社會的國家,但歐洲也緊隨其後。 第二次世界大戰後,在為公民創造機會方麵,中國在很多方麵都優於美國。 通過各種政策,歐洲國家創建了現代福利國家,以提供社會保護,並在市場本身支出不足的領域進行重要投資。

幾十年來,人們所熟知的歐洲社會模式一直很好地服務於這些國家。 麵對全球化、技術變革和其他破壞性力量,歐洲各國政府能夠控製不平等並保持經濟穩定。 當2008年金融危機和隨後的歐元危機爆發時,福利國家最強的歐洲國家,尤其是斯堪的納維亞國家,表現最好。 與許多金融界人士的想法相反,問題不在於國家對經濟的幹預過多,而在於幹預太少。 這兩場危機都是金融部門監管不足的直接結果。

失敗之後

現在,大西洋兩岸的中產階級正在被掏空。 扭轉這種困境需要我們找出問題所在,並通過擁抱進步資本主義來製定新的前進方向,在承認市場優點的同時,也認識到其局限性,並確保經濟為每個人的利益而運轉。

我們不能簡單地回到二戰後幾十年西方資本主義的黃金時代,當時大多數公民似乎都能過上中產階級的生活方式。 我們也不一定願意。 畢竟,這一時期的“美國夢”主要是為少數享有特權的人保留的:白人男性。

對於我們目前的狀況,我們要感謝美國前總統羅納德·裏根和英國前首相瑪格麗特·撒切爾。 20 世紀 80 年代的新自由主義改革基於這樣的理念:不受約束的市場將通過神秘的涓滴過程帶來共同繁榮。 我們被告知,降低富人的稅率、金融化和全球化將提高每個人的生活水平。 相反,美國的增長率下降至戰後時期水平的三分之二左右——這是一個金融監管嚴格、最高邊際稅率始終高於 70% 的時期——而且財富和收入的更大份額來自於戰後時期。 有限的增長被輸送到了最富有的1%。 我們沒有看到承諾的繁榮,而是去工業化、兩極分化和中產階級萎縮。 除非我們改變劇本,否則這些模式將繼續存在——或者變得更糟。

幸運的是,市場原教旨主義還有另一種選擇。 通過政府、市場和公民社會之間務實的權力再平衡,我們可以邁向更自由、更公平、更高效的體係。 進步資本主義意味著在選民和民選官員、工人和企業、富人和窮人之間建立新的社會契約。 為了使中產階級生活水平再次成為大多數美國人和歐洲人的現實目標,市場必須為社會服務,而不是相反。

財富掠奪者的入侵

與新自由主義不同,進步資本主義建立在對當今價值如何創造的正確理解的基礎上。 國家真正和可持續的財富不是來自剝削國家、自然資源和人民,而是來自人類的聰明才智和合作,而這往往是由政府和民間社會機構推動的。

自十八世紀下半葉以來,提高生產力的創新一直是活力和更高生活水平的真正驅動力。

The Economy We Need

NEW YORK – Three years ago, US President Donald Trump’s election and the United Kingdom’s Brexit referendum confirmed what those of us who have long studied income statistics already knew: in most advanced countries, the market economy has been failing large swaths of society.

Nowhere is this truer than in the United States. Long regarded as a poster child for the promise of free-market individualism, America today has higher inequality and less upward social mobility than most other developed countries. After rising for a century, average life expectancy in the US is now declining. And for those in the bottom 90% of the income distribution, real (inflation-adjusted) wages have stagnated: the income of a typical male worker today is around where it was 40 years ago.

Meanwhile, many European countries have sought to emulate America, and those that succeeded, particularly the UK, are now suffering similar political and social consequences. The US may have been the first country to create a middle-class society, but Europe was never far behind. After World War II, in many ways it outperformed the US in creating opportunities for its citizens. Through a variety of policies, European countries created the modern welfare state to provide social protection and pursue important investments in areas where the market on its own would underspend.

The European social model, as it came to be known, served these countries well for decades. European governments were able to keep inequality in check and maintain economic stability in the face of globalization, technological change, and other disruptive forces. When the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent euro crisis erupted, the European countries with the strongest welfare states, particularly the Scandinavian countries, fared the best. Contrary to what many in the financial sector would like to think, the problem was not too much state involvement in the economy, but too little. Both crises were the direct result of an under-regulated financial sector.

After the Fall

Now, the middle class is being hollowed out on both sides of the Atlantic. Reversing this malaise requires that we figure out what went wrong and chart a new course forward, by embracing progressive capitalism, which, while acknowledging the virtues of the market, also recognizes its limitations and ensures that the economy works for the benefit of everyone.

We cannot simply return to the golden age of Western capitalism in the decades after World War II, when a middle-class lifestyle seemed within reach of a majority of citizens. Nor would we necessarily want to. After all, the “American dream” during this period was mostly reserved for a privileged minority: white males.

We can thank former US President Ronald Reagan and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for our current state of affairs. The neoliberal reforms of the 1980s were based on the idea that unfettered markets would bring shared prosperity through a mystical trickle-down process. We were told that lowering tax rates on the rich, financialization, and globalization would result in higher standards of living for everybody. Instead, the US growth rate fell to around two-thirds of its level in the post-war era – a period of tight financial regulations and a top marginal tax rate consistently above 70% – and a greater share of the wealth and income from this limited growth was funneled to the top 1%. Instead of the promised prosperity, we got deindustrialization, polarization, and a shrinking middle class. Unless we change the script, these patterns will continue – or worsen.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to market fundamentalism. Through a pragmatic rebalancing of power between government, markets, and civil society, we can move toward a freer, fairer, and more productive system. Progressive capitalism means forging a new social contract between voters and elected officials, workers and corporations, rich and poor. To make a middle-class standard of living a realistic goal once again for most Americans and Europeans, markets must serve society, rather than vice versa.

Invasion of the Wealth Snatchers

Unlike neoliberalism, progressive capitalism is based on a proper understanding of how value is created today. The true and sustainable wealth of nations comes not from exploiting countries, natural resources, and people, but from human ingenuity and cooperation, often facilitated by governments and civil-society institutions. Since the second half of the eighteenth century, productivity-enhancing innovation has been the real driver of dynamism and higher living standards.

[ 打印 ]
閱讀 ()評論 (0)
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.