三位經濟自由主義捍衛者抨擊資本主義
On a single day last month, capitalism as we know it took a triple blow from some unlikely sources.
在上月的某一天裏，我們所認知的資本主義受到了令人意想不到的三位人士的抨擊。
Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, all decried a system they claimed had neglected the security of its weakest members.
歐洲央行(ECB)行長馬里奧.德拉吉(Mario Draghi)、國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)總裁克里斯蒂娜.拉加德(Christine Lagarde)以及歐洲理事會(European Council)主席唐納德.圖斯克(Donald Tusk)全都譴責資本主義制度，他們宣稱資本主義忽視了最弱勢的社會成員的安全。
That these three prominent champions of economic liberalism — all of whom work for institutions seen as part of an out-of-touch elite — are now critiquing capitalism is a reaction to the political mood of 2016.
這三位經濟自由主義的傑出捍衛者——他們所工作的機構都被視爲隸屬於高高在上的精英階層——如今正在批評資本主義，這是對2016年政治情緒所做出的反應。
This mood has led the UK to turn its back on the EU and to a broader rise of anti-globalisation political movements around the world — notably in the US, where Donald Trump has put protectionism at the heart of his presidential campaign.
這種情緒導致英國選擇脫離歐盟，並使得反全球化政治運動在全球範圍內更爲廣泛的興起，特別是在美國，唐納德.特朗普(Donald Trump)把保護主義作爲其競選的核心綱領。
For the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the system Mr Draghi and his peers helped build is under threat.
自柏林牆倒塌以來，德拉吉及其同僚們幫助創建的制度首次面臨威脅。
Those in power, and large swaths of the electorate, are fearful of what could follow.
那些當權派以及許多選民擔心後續的發展。
The Corruption of Capitalism helps explain why we are where we are.
《資本主義的衰敗》(The Corruption of Capitalism)幫助解釋了我們爲何會面臨現在這種狀況。
The author, Guy Standing, is a professor at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies — an institution known for its opposition to the promotion of liberalism that has characterised mainstream economic thought.
作者是倫敦大學(University of London)東方與非洲研究學院(School of Oriental and African Studies)的教授蓋伊.斯坦丁(Guy Standing)。該學院以反對宣揚自由主義——主流經濟思想的特徵——而聞名。
While the his perspective is leftwing, many of the author’s ideas for fixing he author has to fix the system — such as a universal basic income, where all citizens receive regular payments from the state whether or not they work — are receiving more attention from the mainstream.
儘管斯坦丁的觀點有些左傾，但他提出的許多解決資本主義問題的想法——比如統一的基本收入，即所有公民接受政府發放的定期津貼，無論他們工作與否——越來越受到主流社會的關注。
The result is a timely book, which though flawed in parts isin others a compelling read.
這本書出得非常及時，儘管有些地方存在瑕疵，但仍令人手不釋卷。
Standing explains how capitalism has been corrupted as the security of the many has been weakened to embolden strengthen the position of those who hold the bulk of society’s wealth.
斯坦丁解釋了資本主義是如何被搞得衰敗的，因爲許多人的安全遭到削弱，卻強化了那些擁有社會大量財富的人的地位。
Today, he explains, we have a rigged system that leaves those without much property with few rights.
他解釋說，如今我們的體系受到操縱，使得那些沒有多少財產的人也沒什麼權利。
He borrows from John Maynard Keynes’ critique of the rentier class — broadly, those who live on income from property, including patents and copyright, and investments.
他借用了約翰.梅納德.凱恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)對食利階層的批評——大體上這是指那些依靠財產（包括專利和著作權）及投資所產生的收益生活的人。
And like Keynes, he wants to see the euthanasia end of the rentier on the grounds that the system they have created is both inefficient and grossly unfair.
與凱恩斯一樣，他希望看到食利階層終結，原因是他們創建的體系既沒有效率，又極其不公平。
Those at the bottom of the many he Standing calls the precariat — the class of workers most exposed to the insecurity produced bytypical of this era of rentier capitalism driven by globalisation, has produced.
斯坦丁將那些處於底層的人稱爲無保障無產階級(precariat)，這是指在全球化造就的食利資本主義時代典型的最沒有安全保障的勞動者。
The book is divided into chapters looking at the various ways in which the interests of the rentier class have been promoted to the detriment of the rest.
該書分爲幾個章節，分析了爲促進食利階層的利益而損害其他人利益的各種方式。
There are weaknesses in some of the arguments.
其中一些觀點的理由並不充分。
For the author, the autonomy of central banks to set monetary policy as they see fit as they see fit highlights how little control normal most people have over the forces of finance.
在作者看來，央行可以按照自己認爲合適的方式制定貨幣政策，這種自主權突顯出大多數人對金融力量完全沒有控制力。
Yet he neglects to mention that one of the reasons independence was granted was because is the fact that government control over interest rates had led to double-digit inflation across in advanced economies. The experience of rampant inflation in the 1970s and early 1980s.
然而，他沒有提到賦予央行獨立性的理由之一是，在上世紀70年代和80年代初，政府對利率的控制導致發達經濟體的通脹率達到兩位數。
Racing price rises — and the high interest rates needed to bring them under control — had the most vicious effect on society’s most vulnerable.
價格不斷上漲——以及爲控制通脹出臺的高利率政策——對社會弱勢羣體的影響最爲有害。
But on the gross unfairness of housing policy in the UK, one of the more egregious examples of the power of the rentier, Standing’s the arguments resonate.
但就英國住房政策的不公而言——這是表明食利者權力的更爲惡劣的例子之一——斯坦丁的觀點引發了共鳴。
It is on labour conditions in the era of dark Satanic apps, where data are used to monitor and control a workforce that has little in thewith little by way of employment rights, that Standing — a former employee of the International Labour Organization — the author is at his most prescient.
最能體現作者遠見的是講述邪惡應用時代的勞動條件的部分——在這個時代，資本家用數據來監督和控制勞動者，連保障就業權利的樣子都不做。
Towards the end of the book, Standing, a former employee of the International Labour Organization, writes that the precariat’s vulnerability today is everyone’s tomorrow.
斯坦丁曾經在國際勞工組織(International Labour Organization)任職，他在該書結尾處寫道，無保障無產階級脆弱的今天就是所有人的明天。
On that he is surely right.
就這一點來說，他無疑是正確的。
As even those who helped create it acknowledge, the system as it stands cannot last.
就連幫助創建了資本主義的人也承認，這一制度照這樣下去不可能長久。
While Mr Draghi and Ms Lagarde may feel uneasy about the crushing of the rentier class, At the AUTUMN’S International Monetary Fund’sMF’s October meeting all the talk was of a more inclusive system.
在IMF的10月會議上，大家都在談論創建一種更具包容性的制度。
One hopes that some of what Standing writes is heeded and the system can be reformed in favour of the many before it is too late.
人們希望，斯坦丁在書中提出的一些觀點會受到重視，以有利於衆人的方式改革資本主義制度，以免悔之晚矣。
While a book such as this is perhaps not quite the right place to stress the benefits of capitalism, one only need to look at some of the political forces now on the rise to see that much worse systems could exist than that we now have.
儘管這樣的書或許並不適合強調資本主義的益處，但人們只需看看現在崛起的一些政治力量就會發現，有些制度可能比我們當前實行的制度更爲糟糕。
