个人资料
正文

Stiglitz 我们需要的经济

(2023-10-16 00:08:16) 下一个

我们需要的经济  The Economy We Need

2019 年 5 月 3 日 约瑟夫·E·斯蒂格利茨

经过 40 年的市场原教旨主义,美国和志同道合的欧洲国家辜负了绝大多数公民的期望。 在这一点上,只有新的社会契约 — — 保证公民的医疗保健、教育、退休保障、经济适用房和体面的工作和体面的报酬 — — 才能拯救资本主义和自由民主。

纽约 — — 三年前,美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的当选和英国脱欧公投证实了我们这些长期研究收入统计数据的人已经知道的事实:在大多数发达国家,市场经济一直让社会的很大一部分人失望。

没有哪个地方比美国更能体现这一点。 长期以来,美国一直被视为自由市场个人主义承诺的典范,但如今,与大多数其他发达国家相比,美国的不平等程度更高,向上的社会流动性也更低。 在经历了一个世纪的上升之后,美国的平均预期寿命现在正在下降。 对于收入分配最底层 90% 的人来说,实际(经通货膨胀调整后)工资停滞不前:今天典型男性工人的收入与 40 年前相当。

与此同时,许多欧洲国家试图效仿美国,而那些成功的国家,尤其是英国,现在正在遭受类似的政治和社会后果。 美国可能是第一个创建中产阶级社会的国家,但欧洲也紧随其后。 第二次世界大战后,在为公民创造机会方面,中国在很多方面都优于美国。 通过各种政策,欧洲国家创建了现代福利国家,以提供社会保护,并在市场本身支出不足的领域进行重要投资。

几十年来,人们所熟知的欧洲社会模式一直很好地服务于这些国家。 面对全球化、技术变革和其他破坏性力量,欧洲各国政府能够控制不平等并保持经济稳定。 当2008年金融危机和随后的欧元危机爆发时,福利国家最强的欧洲国家,尤其是斯堪的纳维亚国家,表现最好。 与许多金融界人士的想法相反,问题不在于国家对经济的干预过多,而在于干预太少。 这两场危机都是金融部门监管不足的直接结果。

失败之后

现在,大西洋两岸的中产阶级正在被掏空。 扭转这种困境需要我们找出问题所在,并通过拥抱进步资本主义来制定新的前进方向,在承认市场优点的同时,也认识到其局限性,并确保经济为每个人的利益而运转。

我们不能简单地回到二战后几十年西方资本主义的黄金时代,当时大多数公民似乎都能过上中产阶级的生活方式。 我们也不一定愿意。 毕竟,这一时期的“美国梦”主要是为少数享有特权的人保留的:白人男性。

对于我们目前的状况,我们要感谢美国前总统罗纳德·里根和英国前首相玛格丽特·撒切尔。 20 世纪 80 年代的新自由主义改革基于这样的理念:不受约束的市场将通过神秘的涓滴过程带来共同繁荣。 我们被告知,降低富人的税率、金融化和全球化将提高每个人的生活水平。 相反,美国的增长率下降至战后时期水平的三分之二左右——这是一个金融监管严格、最高边际税率始终高于 70% 的时期——而且财富和收入的更大份额来自于战后时期。 有限的增长被输送到了最富有的1%。 我们没有看到承诺的繁荣,而是去工业化、两极分化和中产阶级萎缩。 除非我们改变剧本,否则这些模式将继续存在——或者变得更糟。

幸运的是,市场原教旨主义还有另一种选择。 通过政府、市场和公民社会之间务实的权力再平衡,我们可以迈向更自由、更公平、更高效的体系。 进步资本主义意味着在选民和民选官员、工人和企业、富人和穷人之间建立新的社会契约。 为了使中产阶级生活水平再次成为大多数美国人和欧洲人的现实目标,市场必须为社会服务,而不是相反。

财富掠夺者的入侵

与新自由主义不同,进步资本主义建立在对当今价值如何创造的正确理解的基础上。 国家真正和可持续的财富不是来自剥削国家、自然资源和人民,而是来自人类的聪明才智和合作,而这往往是由政府和民间社会机构推动的。

自十八世纪下半叶以来,提高生产力的创新一直是活力和更高生活水平的真正驱动力。

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 ]
阅读 ()评论 (0)
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.