個人資料
正文

Joseph Stiglitz 新自由主義陰影下的全球選舉

(2024-07-24 13:02:17) 下一個

新自由主義陰影下的全球選舉

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/2024-elections-grappling-with-authoritarian-populism-and-other-legacies-of-neoliberalism-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2024-04

2024 年 5 月 1 日 約瑟夫·E·斯蒂格利茨

雖然醜聞、文化戰爭和對民主的威脅占據了頭條新聞,但今年超級選舉年最大的問題最終還是與經濟政策有關。畢竟,反民主的民粹主義威權主義的興起本身就是錯誤的經濟意識形態的遺產。

紐約——在世界各地,民粹主義民族主義正在興起,並經常為當權的威權主義領導人提供指導。然而,40 年前在西方盛行的新自由主義正統觀念——政府縮減、減稅、放鬆管製——本應加強民主,而不是削弱民主。到底出了什麽問題?

中國的裙帶資本主義繁榮有多特別?

部分答案是經濟方麵的:新自由主義根本沒有兌現它的承諾。在美國和其他接受它的發達經濟體中,1980 年至 COVID-19 大流行期間的人均實際(經通脹調整)收入增長比前 30 年低了 40%。更糟糕的是,底層和中層的收入基本停滯不前,而頂層的收入卻在增加,而故意削弱社會保障導致了更大的金融和經濟不安全。

年輕人擔心氣候變化會危及他們的未來,這是理所當然的,他們可以看到,受新自由主義影響的國家一直未能製定強有力的汙染法規(或者,在美國,未能解決阿片類藥物危機和兒童糖尿病流行)。可悲的是,這些失敗並不令人意外。新自由主義建立在這樣的信念之上:不受約束的市場是實現最佳結果的最有效手段。然而,即使在新自由主義崛起的早期,經濟學家就已經確定,不受監管的市場既不高效也不穩定,更不用說有利於產生社會可接受的收入分配了。

新自由主義的支持者似乎從未意識到,擴大公司的自由會削弱社會其他部分的自由。汙染的自由意味著健康狀況惡化(對於哮喘患者來說,甚至是死亡)、更極端的天氣和不適合居住的土地。當然,總是有權衡的;但任何理性的社會都會得出這樣的結論:生存權比汙染的偽權利更重要。

稅收同樣是新自由主義的詛咒,新自由主義將稅收視為對個人自由的侮辱:一個人有權保留自己賺到的錢,無論他是如何賺到的。但即使他們的收入是誠實的,這種觀點的支持者也沒有意識到,他們賺到的錢是政府在基礎設施、技術、教育和公共衛生方麵的投資的結果。他們很少停下來想一想,如果他們出生在眾多沒有法治的國家之一,他們會怎麽樣(或者,如果美國政府沒有進行導致 COVID-19 疫苗的投資,他們的生活會是什麽樣子)。

具有諷刺意味的是,那些最欠政府債的人往往最先忘記政府為他們做了什麽。如果沒有 2010 年奧巴馬總統的能源部向埃隆·馬斯克和特斯拉提供的近 5 億美元的救命錢,他們會在哪裏?最高法院法官奧利弗·溫德爾·霍姆斯曾說過一句名言:“稅收是我們為文明社會付出的代價。”這一點從未改變:稅收是建立法治或提供 21 世紀社會運轉所需的任何其他公共物品的必需品。

Global Elections in the Shadow of Neoliberalism

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/2024-elections-grappling-with-authoritarian-populism-and-other-legacies-of-neoliberalism-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2024-04

 

While scandals, culture wars, and threats to democracy dominate the headlines, the biggest issues in this super election year ultimately concern economic policies. After all, the rise of anti-democratic populist authoritarianism is itself the legacy of a misbegotten economic ideology.

NEW YORK – Around the world, populist nationalism is on the rise, often shepherding to power authoritarian leaders. And yet the neoliberal orthodoxy – government downsizing, tax cuts, deregulation – that took hold some 40 years ago in the West was supposed to strengthen democracy, not weaken it. What went wrong?

Part of the answer is economic: neoliberalism simply did not deliver what it promised. In the United States and other advanced economies that embraced it, per capita real (inflation-adjusted) income growth between 1980 and the COVID-19 pandemic was 40% lower than in the preceding 30 years. Worse, incomes at the bottom and in the middle largely stagnated while those at the very top increased, and the deliberate weakening of social protections has produced greater financial and economic insecurity.

Rightly worried that climate change jeopardizes their future, young people can see that countries under the sway of neoliberalism have consistently failed to enact strong regulations against pollution (or, in the US, to address the opioid crisis and the epidemic of child diabetes). Sadly, these failures come as no surprise. Neoliberalism was predicated on the belief that unfettered markets are the most efficient means of achieving optimal outcomes. Yet even in the early days of neoliberalism’s ascendancy, economists had already established that unregulated markets are neither efficient nor stable, let alone conducive to generating a socially acceptable distribution of income.

Neoliberalism’s proponents never seemed to recognize that expanding the freedom of corporations curtails freedom across the rest of society. The freedom to pollute means worsening health (or even death, for those with asthma), more extreme weather, and uninhabitable land. There are always tradeoffs, of course; but any reasonable society would conclude that the right to live is more important than the spurious right to pollute.

Taxation is equally anathema to neoliberalism, which frames it as an affront to individual liberty: one has the right to keep whatever one earns, regardless of how one earns it. But even when they come by their income honestly, advocates of this view fail to recognize that what they earn was made possible by government investment in infrastructure, technology, education, and public health. Rarely do they pause to consider what they would have if they had been born in one of the many countries without the rule of law (or what their lives would look like if the US government had not made the investments that led to the COVID-19 vaccine).

Ironically, those most indebted to government are often the first to forget what government did for them. Where would Elon Musk and Tesla be if not for the near-half-billion-dollar lifeline they received from President Barack Obama’s Department of Energy in 2010? “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” the Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously observed. That hasn’t changed: taxes are what it takes to establish the rule of law or provide any of the other public goods that a twenty-first-century society needs to function.

[ 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.