資本主義國家是真民主嗎? 到底公平不公平
The only thing more fallacious than damn lies are statistics, or so the saying goes.
俗話說，統計數據比赤裸裸的謊言更不靠譜。This notion was on full display this weekend, after Financial Times economics editor Chris Gilespublished a blog post calling into question data used by economist Thomas Piketty in his best-selling work Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Giles' analysis found several mistakes in Piketty's data, mistakes which put to doubt whether there has been an observable increase in wealth inequality in Europe and the United States over the past 30 years.
上週末就出現了這樣一幕：英國《金融時報》(Financial Times)的經濟編輯克里斯o蓋斯發表了一篇博文，質疑經濟學家托馬斯·皮凱蒂在暢銷書《21世紀資本論》(Capital in the Twenty-First Century）中使用的數據。蓋斯從皮凱蒂的數據中找出了幾個錯，由此質疑過去30年歐美財富不平等程度到底是否出現了明顯可見的加劇。Piketty's book asserts that the concentration of wealth in capitalist societies naturally grows more extreme, especially in times of low population and economic growth, so the possibility that wealth concentration hasn't really increased in the past 30 years does throw some cold water on the economist's overarching theory.
皮凱蒂在書中認爲，資本主義的社會財富會天然地變得更加集中，特別是在人口和經濟低增長時期。因此，如果過去30年財富集中度根本沒有上升的話，等於給這位經濟學家的中心理論潑上了一盆冷水。
Many of Piketty and Giles' disagreements come down to interpretation of incomplete data. One of the parts of the book that impressed economists so much was Piketty's painstaking assemblage and exploitation of years of wealth data across countries and time periods. It is not surprising, given the fact that wealth data is much less plentiful and uniform than other statistics, that there would be disagreements over what exactly these data say.
皮凱蒂和蓋斯的很多分歧源於對不完全數據的闡釋。皮凱蒂的書有很多地方都給人們留下了深刻印象，其中之一就是皮凱蒂不厭其煩地蒐羅、分析各個國家、各個時期多年的財富數據。由於財富數據不像其他統計數據那樣豐富和標準化，圍繞“這些數據究竟意味着什麼”存在分歧也毫不奇怪。But when you take a step back and look at all the evidence, from much more reliable data on income inequality, to stagnant median wage growth, to a lack of economic mobility in America, to evidence of huge discrepancies in the quality of education offered to the rich and poor, it's quite clear that modern capitalism is failing to offer a level playing field and that there are cultural and public policy changes we could work toward to make the economy better at providing for everyone.
但如果大家退後一步，看看所有這些證據：從可靠度較高的收入不平等數據，到停滯的中值工資增長率，美國缺乏經濟流動性，再到富人和窮人所獲教育質量的天壤之別。有一點很清楚，現代資本主義並不能提供一個公平競爭的舞臺，我們應該推動文化和公共政策變化，讓經濟能更好地服務於每個人。After all, Americans have not been particularly swayed by arguments concerning inequality. If anything is clear from reading Piketty's book, it's that capitalist economies tend to be deeply unequal societies, even following World War II, when income inequality was at its lowest levels. But only in recent years, after it became clear that the average family hasn't gotten richer over the past generation (and that the housing bubble hit hardest those families leaning on rising home prices to compensate for this fact) that Americans started to grow dissatisfied with the distribution of wealth and income.
不過，美國人並沒有特別被這些不平等討論所左右。皮凱蒂的書中有一點非常清楚，資本主義經濟往往是一個高度不平等的社會，即使是在收入不平等處於最低水平的二戰後也是如此。直到近年來，美國人才開始不滿財富和收入的分配：過去整整一代人，普通家庭沒有變得更富裕（房地產泡沫衝擊最嚴重的是那些依賴房價上漲來彌補收入的家庭)。The above Gallup poll shows a clear trend of growing pessimism among Americans about the economy.
上述蓋勒普（Gallup）調查顯示，美國人對於經濟的悲觀情緒清楚地顯示爲上升趨勢。Debates over whether or not capitalism leads to increasing inequality, as Piketty asserts in his book, or leads to decreasing inequality, as economists had once thought, are worthwhile. But most Americans are simply concerned with whether they can feel themselves getting richer and if they have a fair shot at prosperity and security. The data clearly show that economic growth right now is being captured by the very rich, while the rest of the country is struggling to figure out how to pay for education, healthcare, and retirement.
爭論的一方認爲資本主義導致不平等加劇，正如皮凱蒂在書中聲稱的那樣。而另一方則認爲，資本主義導致不平等減弱，正如經濟學家們一度認爲的那樣。這樣的爭論自有其意義。但大多數美國人考慮的是，他們能否感覺到自己變得更富裕，是否有公平的機會獲得財富和保障。數據清楚地顯示，當前經濟增長的好處被最富有的人佔盡，其他美國人還在爲支付教育、醫療和養老費用發愁。It's against this backdrop that policy makers need to decide how to make entitlement programs sustainable going forward, that the wealthy must decide how much of their money to give to charity, and that business leaders must decide how much to pay their workers. It's difficult to see how small disagreements over trends in wealth concentration could affect these decisions.
在這樣的背景下，決策者們需要決定如何制定未來可持續的財富分配製度，富人必須決定將多少錢交給慈善，企業領導人必須決定給工人付多少工資。關於財富集中趨勢的小小分歧，很難影響到這些決定。
