肠子pdf下载:来自“贪婪”的1%的辩护

彼得 希夫

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

欧太资本公司

Posted Oct 30, 2011

2011.10.30

Last week, I spent the afternoon visiting the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in lower Manhattan. I brought a film crew and a sign that said "I Am The 1%, Let's Talk." The purpose was to understand what was motivating these protesters and try to educate them about what caused the financial crisis. I went down there with the feeling that much of their anger was justified, but broadly misdirected.

上星期，我利用一个下午的时间参与了位于曼哈顿下城的占领华尔街游行。我带了一位摄制人员和一块写有“我就是那1%，我们来聊一聊”的标语牌。我这么做的目的是想了解抗议者们的动机及向他们普及下金融危机爆发的原因。我到了那里，感觉到抗议者们并不是无理取闹，但大多数的人都被误导了。

Indeed, there were plenty of heated discussions. I did little more than ask how much of my earnings I should be allowed to keep. In return, I was called an idiot, a fool, heartless, and selfish. But when we started talking about the issues, it seemed like the protesters fell into two categories: those who generally understood and agreed that Washington caused this mess, and those who could only recite Marxist talking points. It was the latter who usually resorted to calling names once I pointed out the hypocrisy of their positions. They might shout, "the banks have taken over the regulatory agencies, so we need more regulations!" Obviously, this is paradoxical. If they're blaming government for causing this problem, why would they suggest more government as the solution? 

确实这里有很多气氛热烈的研讨。但我并没有跟抗议者们讨论他们关心的薪酬公平之类的问题，所以我就获得了傻瓜、笨蛋，铁石心肠的自私鬼等称号。但当我们开始谈论有关话题时，抗议者们大概分成了两派：一拨人大概明白并且同意主要是华盛顿方面导致了混乱的危机，而另外一拨人只是在背诵那些“马克思主义者”的言论，也正是后来被我戳破的他们虚假的论据后，经常搬出来救场的那个“马克思”。他们叫嚣着“政府的监管机构应该接手那些华尔街的银行，因为我们需要更严厉的监管！”显然，这是自相矛盾的。如果他们把危机的产生归罪于政府的话，为什么还要让更多的官方力量参与华尔街事务，作为解决问题的方法呢？

Click here to see Peter go head-to-head with an Occupier!

原文图片

I think some of the leadership of Occupy Wall Street comes from this kind of radical Marxist background - and perhaps they're smart to intentionally keep quiet about their goals. Because the vast majority of protesters I met did believe in capitalism - they're just tired of being screwed over by crony capitalism. Noted school-choice activist Michael Strong calls it "crapitalism," and that's what it is. It's a rotten deal for everyone, and they know it.

我认为有些华尔街占领活动的领导者有激进的马克思主义背景，也许他们还巧妙的掩饰了其真正目的。因为大多数的抗议者还是相信资本主义的，他们现在只是跟资本主义老朋友们闹了点别扭。这种不太健康的资本主义，被知名的学院派活动分子Michael Strong称为“垃圾资本主义（crapitalism）”。对于每个人来说那都是个破烂玩意。

The problem is that many of these people are under the mistaken impression that Wall Street banks are to blame for this state of affairs. That's like blaming the dogs for getting into the trashcan. Sure, it's bad behavior, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the authority figures - in this case, Washington. After all, it's not the New York metro area that has benefitted the most from this crisis. Rather, the counties around DC are now ranking as the wealthiest in the country. And while wealthy New Yorkers have historically made their living providing essential financial services to the global economy, Washington has always made its living one way: at our expense.

问题是人们认为是华尔街银行是导致金融危机的罪魁祸首，那就好像责怪狗去翻垃圾箱一样。当然，银行们的确犯了错，但主要的责任还是在有关部门 – 华盛顿。毕竟，并不只是华尔街接受了政府大量的财政援助，华盛顿的肥水都流到周边郡县的田地里了。当富裕的银行家们在为全球的经济提供金融支持时，华盛顿还是老样子：用纳税人的钱潇洒着。

That's why I have trouble sympathizing with people calling themselves the "99%", implying they stand in opposition to wealth no matter how it's earned. I own a brokerage firm, but I didn't receive any bailout money. In fact, I have to work twice as hard to compete with bigger financial firms that are propped up by the US government. The least I deserve is the ability to keep what I earn.

那些自称为99%穷苦的人，他们暗含的逻辑就是无论是合法还是不合法致富的1%的富人都是他们的敌人，所以我并不太同情他们。我拥有一家证券经纪公司，但我并没有接受任何援助资金。实际上我努力工作，以与大型金融企业竞争来支持美国政府，至少对得起我的薪水。

Remember, if the IRS weren't taking so much from the wealthy who have earned it, there would be that much less for Wall Street bailouts. A hundred years ago, major banks had no business lobbying Washington, because compared to their free-market earnings, the government simply didn't have that much money to dole.

请记住，如果税务局都没太多过问富人的收入情况，那在华尔街援助的问题上也省省力气吧。一百年前，华尔街的这几大银行并没有向政府进行援助游说，因为当时政府救济的那点救济钱，还不如银行自己挣得的零头多呢。

The other tool the government didn't have to use against us back then was the Federal Reserve. Even if we drastically reduce taxes, the Fed might decide to do what it has been doing: printing money to finance government profligacy. This acts as a secret tax on everyone with a bank account, and is critical in transferring wealth from hardworking Americans to politically connected elites. So, really, the protests shouldn't be on Wall Street but around the corner on the ironically named Liberty Street, site of the New York Federal Reserve Bank - the heart of this dishonest system. 

另外一个政府并不反对支援华尔街的原因是美联储。在政府又需要来点钱潇洒的时候，美联储的反应就是开动印钞机印钱。所以即使国会已经通过了大量减税的政策，大量辛勤工作的美国人民存在银行里的汗水钱，仍然会被政治精英们用这种变相的隐秘的税收手段收到他们自己的腰包里。所以抗议者们真的找错了对象，你们应该去占领在“自由街”的纽约联邦储蓄银行–这个诈骗系统的核心

Until these twin sources of financial oppression are brought under control, the average American's standard of living will most likely continue to fall, more jobs will leave for increasingly capitalist emerging markets, and more young kids will be left with nothing better to do than block traffic.

如果这些金融限制不解除的话，美国人的生活将越来越差，更多的工作机会被新兴资本主义市场抢走，还将会有更多无所事事的年轻人占领街道。

One common refrain I heard at the protests was that our problems result from the rich not paying enough taxes. Most feel that economy was better when marginal tax rates were higher, and that lower rates are a cause of financial decline. Forget about the faulty logic of this assumption, it ignores two key points. First, while it's true that marginal tax rates were much higher after World War II, the tax code also used to contain many allowances and exceptions, such that very few people actually paid the nominal rate. Second, prior to 1913, the rich paid no income taxes at all; yet, lower- and middle-class living standards rose much faster in the 19th century than in the 20th! 

在这里还有一个我经常听到的抱怨，那就是富人上的税太少。多数人都感觉应该增加边际税率，降低工薪阶层的税率。这个假设本来就是建立在错误的逻辑上的，它忽视了两个关键点。首先，一个事实是现在的税率已经比二战时高很多了，并且涵盖了奖金和其他额外收入，只有很少的人能以正常税率交税。其次，在1913年以前，那会儿富人根本就不上税，但是底层和中产阶级收入的增长比20世纪快得多。

Overall, I think there was a real lack of understanding of basic economic principles among the Occupiers. Protesters thought that the rich owed a duty to share their wealth with society. However, they failed to see that in true capitalism, the rich can only acquire their wealth by serving others. No one succeeds in a vacuum. Consider the late Steve Jobs. He became a billionaire by sharing his wealth. Think about the millions of people around the world whose lives are vastly better because of Apple products. Think of all the Apple employees who benefit from high-paying jobs he created. Think about all those investors who made money from Apple stock. Steve Jobs shared his wealth with the entire planet before he ever paid one dime in taxes. In fact, any money Steve Jobs did pay in taxes likely prevented him from creating and sharing even more wealth. Had Jobs tried to hoard his wealth instead, he never would have acquired it in the first place.

总的来说，我觉得华尔街占领者们缺乏基本的经济常识。抗议者们觉得富人应该与社会分享他们的财富。然而，他们确视而不见，在真正的资本主义社会里，富人是通过服务他人积累财富。没有人能空手套白狼。回想下最近刚离世的乔布斯，他是靠分享财富成为亿万富翁。想想全世界有成百上千万的人生活因苹果的产品而变得更美好，创造了众多苹果公司高薪职位，还有那些因投资苹果公司股票收益的投资者。乔布斯在还没上税前就已经向全世界分享了他的财富。事实上，乔布斯交给政府的税抑制了他更多的创造与分享财富的条件。乔布斯已经厌倦了积累他的财富，因为国税局总是先刮掉几层油水。

Of course, the idea that Occupy Wall Street protesters have a right to share directly in the private profits earned by others is immoral. The protesters were correct in being outraged by having to share in Wall Street's losses. But if they do not want to share the losses, they have no right to demand a share of the profits!

当然，华尔街抗议者们要求其他人分享他们的私人收益的想法是不道德滴。没错，抗议者们对于他们投资在华尔街股票上的损失感到很愤怒。但是股市有风险，入市需谨慎，股票有挣自然也就有赔的时候。

One protester equated the low wages paid by Wal-Mart to slavery, yet thought the government should take 70% of my income. In the case of Wal-Mart, employees are free to choose other jobs. What choice would I have when faced with a 70% income tax? They call it "slavery" when Wal-Mart offers workers better opportunities than they could find elsewhere, and "justice" when government enslaves me by forcibly taking 70% of the fruits of my labor.

还有一个抗议者认为沃尔玛给他的那点收入，就是把他当成了奴隶，而且他认为政府应该向我这样的富人征收70%的收入税。这样做的话，如果员工再碰见沃尔玛这样的奴隶主，就有从富人那里证来的税提供给他，有一定的金融自由，可以选择其他的更好的工作。如果真的当我面对70%的收入税的时候，能有什么选择呢？他们把沃尔玛员工可以自由跳槽称之为“奴隶制”，然后拿走我7成的劳动果实称之为“公正”。

Another protester challenged my claim that businesses create jobs by stating that consumers create the jobs by spending money. When I asked him where the consumers got their money, he replied "from their jobs," which actually proved my point. Without jobs, consumers have no purchasing power. And without production, there is nothing to purchase.

另外一个抗议者以消费拉动就业的理论挑战我的主张。当我问他消费者买东西的钱是哪儿来的时候，他说“工作挣得嘛”，这证实了我的论点。没有工作，不但削弱消费，而且大家都不工作了，有钱你都没东西买。

I'm calling for these protesters to educate themselves on the causes of the current financial decline and not to waste their time attacking the wrong target. They have every right to be angry, but also an obligation to be part of the solution. Yes, I am the 1% - but I've earned every penny. Instead of trying to take my wealth away, I hope they learn from my example.

我说这些是为了让他们了解金融危机的原因，不要在浪费自己的时间去攻击错误的目标。他们有权利愤怒，但也有责任作为解决问题的一份子。是的，我就是那1%–但每分钱都是我自己挣得。于其夺吾之鱼，不若效吾之渔。