不止中國 全世界的劫富濟貧都幫不了窮人

Making men and women all equal. That I take to be the gist of our political theory.”

“讓所有男女都平等。我將此視爲我們政治理論的主旨。”

This rejoinder to rightwingers who delight in rank and privilege is spoken by Lady Glencora, the free-spirited Liberal heroine of Anthony Trollope’s Phineas Finn. It encapsulates the cardinal error of much of the left.

針對沉迷於等級和特權的右翼人士的這一反駁，來自19世紀英國小說家安東尼•特羅洛普(Anthony Trollope)所著的《Phineas Finn》一書中自由奔放的自由主義女主人公格倫科拉夫人(Lady Glencora)之口。它概括了很多左翼人士的根本錯誤。

Joshua Monk, one of the novel’s Radicals, sees through it. “Equality is an ugly word . . . and frightens,” he says. The aim of the true Liberal should not be equality but “lifting up those below him”. It is to be achieved not by redistribution but by free trade, compulsory education and women’s rights.

這部小說的激進分子之一約舒亞•蒙克(Joshua Monk)看穿了這點。他說：“平等是一個醜陋的詞彙……它讓人害怕。”真正的自由主義者的目標不應該是平等，而是“提升那些地位比他低的人”。實現這一目標不是通過再分配，而是通過自由貿易、義務教育和婦女權利。

And so it came to pass. In the UK since 1800, or Italy since 1900, or Hong Kong since 1950, real income per head has increased by a factor of anywhere from 15 to 100, depending on how one allows for the improved quality of steel girders and plate glass, medicine and economics.

此後發生的情況正是這樣，在英國自1800年開始，或者在意大利自1900年開始，或者在香港自1950年開始，實際人均收入增加了15倍至100倍之多，取決於人們在多大程度上計入鋼樑和平板玻璃的質量提高，以及醫藥和經濟學的進展。

In relative terms, the poorest people have been the biggest beneficiaries. The rich became richer, true. But millions more have gas heating, cars, smallpox vaccinations, indoor plumbing, cheap travel, rights for women, lower child mortality, adequate nutrition, taller bodies, doubled life expectancy, schooling for their kids, newspapers, a vote, a shot at university and respect.

相對而言，最窮人羣一直是最大受益者。富人變得更爲富有了，這沒錯。但還有數百萬人擁有了暖氣、汽車、天花疫苗、室內給排水系統、廉價旅行、婦女權益、兒童死亡率下降、充足的營養、更高的身材、壽命延長一倍、子女上學、報紙、投票權、有機會上大學並得到尊重。

Never had anything similar happened, not in the glory of Greece or the grandeur of Rome, not in ancient Egypt or medieval China. What I call The Great Enrichment is the main fact and finding of economic history.

人類歷史上以往從未發生過類似的事情，古希臘或古羅馬的鼎盛時期沒有出現過，古埃及和中世紀時期的中國也沒有出現過。我所稱的大富裕(Great Enrichment)是經濟歷史的主要事實和發現。

Yet you will have heard that our biggest problem is inequality, and that we must make men and women equal. No, we should not – at least, not if we want to lift up the poor.

然而，你聽到的觀點卻是，我們最大的問題是不平等，我們必須讓所有男女平等。不，我們不應如此——至少，如果我們想提高窮人的生活水平的話，就不應從這個角度出發。

Ethically speaking, the true liberal should care only about whether the poorest among us are moving closer to having enough to live with dignity and to participate in a democracy. They are. Even in already rich countries, such as the UK and the US, the real income of the poor has recently risen, not stagnated – if, that is, income is correctly measured to include better healthcare, better working conditions, more years of education, longer retirements and, above all, the rising quality of goods. Admittedly, it is rising at a slower pace than in the 1950s; but that era of rising prosperity followed the wretched setbacks of the Great Depression and the second world war.

從道德上講，真正的自由主義者只應關心這樣一個問題：我們當中的最窮人羣是否在趨向於擁有足夠多的資源，可以有尊嚴的生活並參與民主？答案是肯定的。即便在已經富有的國家，例如英國和美國，窮人的實際收入近年也在增加，而沒有停滯——如果正確衡量收入，計入更佳的醫療、更好的工作條件、更長的受教育時間，更長的退休生活以及（最重要的一點）商品質量的不斷提高。沒錯，收入增加的速度慢於上世紀50年代；但那個快速變富的時期是在大蕭條(Great Depression)和二戰的悲慘挫折之後出現的。

It matters ethically, of course, how the rich obtained their wealth – whether from stealing or from choosing the right womb (as the billionaire investor Warren Buffett puts it); or from voluntary exchanges for the cheap cement or the cheap air travel the now-rich had the good sense to provide the once-poor. We should prosecute theft and reintroduce heavy inheritance taxes. But we should not kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.

當然，富人如何獲得財富的問題在道德上很重要——是通過偷盜還是通過投對了胎（借用億萬富翁投資者沃倫•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)的話）？或者來自自願換取廉價水泥或廉價航空旅行，現在富有的人們知道把這些提供給那些曾經貧窮的人們。我們應當對盜竊行爲提起公訴，並重新引入高額遺產稅。但我們不應殺雞取卵。

What does not matter ethically are the routine historical ups and downs of the Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality, or the excesses of the 1 per cent of the 1 per cent, of a sort one could have seen three centuries ago in Versailles. There are not enough really rich people. If we seized the assets of the 85 wealthiest people in the world to make a fund to give annually to the poorest half, it would raise their spending power by less than 4p a day.

在道德上並不重要的是，衡量平等程度的基尼係數(Gini coefficient)不斷輪迴的歷史起落，或者1%的富人中1%的豪富的過分行爲，300年前我們或許能在凡爾賽宮看到類似的行爲。世界上真正富有的人還不夠多。如果我們收繳全球最爲富有的85個人的財產，用其成立一個基金，每年分給最貧窮的一半人，那麼他們的每日購買力僅會增加不到4便士。

All the foreign aid to Africa or South and Central America, for example, is dwarfed by the amount that nations in these areas would gain if the rich world abandoned tariffs and other protections for their agriculture industries. There are ways to help the poor – let the Great Enrichment proceed, as it has in China and India – but charity or expropriation are not the ways.

例如，國際社會對非洲或中南美的全部外援，抵不過富國取消農業關稅和其他保護主義措施給這些地區的國家所帶來的好處。幫助窮人是有辦法的——讓“大富裕”繼續推進吧，就像在中國和印度那樣——但慈善或徵收財產並非解決之道。

The Great Enrichment came from innovation, not from accumulating capital or exploiting the working classes or lording it over the colonies. Capital had little to do with it, despite the unhappy fact that we call the system “capitalism”. Capital is necessary. But so are water, labour, oxygen and pencils. The path to prosperity involves betterment, not piling brick on brick.

“大富裕”來自創新，而非積累資本，剝削工人階級，或者逞殖民主義威風。資本與此幾乎毫無關係，儘管一個令人不快的事實是我們稱這個體系爲“資本主義”。資本是必要的。但水資源、勞動力、氧氣和鉛筆也是如此。通向繁榮之路的關鍵在於改善，而不是一塊塊地堆磚。

Taxing the rich, or capital, does not help the poor. It can throw a spanner into the mightiest engine for lifting up those below us, arising from a new equality, not of material worth but of liberty and dignity. Gini coefficients are not what matter; the Great Enrichment is.

向富人或資本徵稅都不會幫助窮人。要改善地位在我們之下的人們的人生，最強大的發動機來自於一種新的平等，並非物質財富的平等，而是自由和尊嚴上的平等；而向富人或資本徵稅可能阻礙這臺發動機的運轉。重要的不是基尼係數；而是“大富裕”。