克鲁格曼论美国财富分配不平

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

Wages, Wealth and Politics

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=2

Recently, Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, acknowledged that economic inequality is rising in America. In a break with previous administration pronouncements, he also conceded that this might be cause for concern. But he quickly reverted to form, falsely implying that rising inequality is mainly a story about rising wages for the highly educated. And he argued that nothing can be done about this trend, that “it is simply an economic reality, and it is neither fair nor useful to blame any political party.”

最近我们的财长Henry Paulson先生承认了美国的经济不平等正在上升的事实。相比较此前施政纲领的一个突破, 是他还勉强承认这应当引起关注。但他很快就又返回到之前的立场，假惺惺地暗示, 持续增加的不平等的主要原因, 是那些受过高等教育者的工资的提高。而且他还辩称这种趋势是没办法阻挡的，他说“ 这是一个很简单的经济上的事实，既不存在不公平的问题，也不能责备任何政党。"

History suggests otherwise.
I’ve been studying the long-term history of inequality in the United States. And it’s hard to avoid the sense that it matters a lot which political party, or more accurately, which political ideology rules Washington.

然而历史并不支持他的说词。
我关于美国长期不平等史的研究正在进行当中。人们很容易的就能意识到这样一个事实， 那就是执政党，或者更准确的说掌权华盛顿的意识形态（对不平等的状况）是有着很大影响的。

Since the 1920’s there have been four eras of American inequality:

自从上世纪20年代以来，美国的不平等史经历了四个时期。

 The Great Compression, 1929-1947: The birth of middle-class America. The real wages of production workers in manufacturing rose 67 percent, while the real income of the richest 1 percent of Americans actually fell 17 percent.

1929-1947，大压缩时期：美国中产阶级的诞生。制造业生产工人的真实工资上涨了67%，而美国人中最富1%的真实工资事实上下降了17%

The Postwar Boom, 1947-1973: An era of widely shared growth. Real wages rose 81 percent, and the income of the richest 1 percent rose 38 percent.

1943-1947， 战后繁荣期：增长被广泛分享。真实工资提高了81%，而且最富1%的收入增加了38%

Stagflation, 1973-1980: Everyone lost ground. Real wages fell 3 percent, and the income of the richest 1 percent fell 4 percent.

1973-1980，滞涨期：人人都有倒退。真实工资下降3%，最富1%的收入也下降了4%。

The New Gilded Age, 1980-?: Big gains at the very top, stagnation below. Between 1980 and 2004, real wages in manufacturing fell 1 percent, while the real income of the richest 1 percent — people with incomes of more than $277,000 in 2004 — rose 135 percent.

1980-？，新镀金时代：最上层的获益不浅，下层的收入停滞不前。在1980到2004年间，制造业的真实工资下降了1%，然而最富1%——在2004年里指收入达到27.7万美元的——的真实收入上涨了135%。

 What’s noticeable is that except during stagflation, when virtually all Americans were hurt by a tenfold increase in oil prices, what happened in each era was what the dominant political tendency of that era wanted to happen.

这里面值得注意的是，除了在石油价格上涨十倍，从而给所有的美国人都造成了确实损伤的滞涨期以外，每一个时期的结果都符合那时的主导性政治诉求。

Franklin Roosevelt favored the interests of workers while declaring of plutocrats who considered him a class traitor, “I welcome their hatred.” Sure enough, under the New Deal wages surged while the rich lost ground.

为工人的利益着想的富兰克林罗斯福，对那些责其为阶级叛徒的财阀权贵回复道，“我欢迎他们的仇视”。毫无疑问的，在新政时期工资大幅提高，但是富人们的财富却大幅缩水。

What followed was an era of bipartisanship and political moderation; Dwight Eisenhower said of those who wanted to roll back the New Deal, “Their number is negligible, and they are stupid.” Sure enough, it was also an era of equable growth.

其后是一个双党合作且政治稳健的时期。艾森豪威尔说那些想要物价回到新政时期的群众“数量是可以忽略的，而且也很愚蠢。” 不用问，那也是一个平稳增长的时期。

By the way: Yes, Bill Clinton was president for eight years. But for six of those years Congress was controlled by hard-line right-wingers. Moreover, in practice Mr. Clinton governed well to the right of both Eisenhower and Nixon.

顺便说一下：比尔 克林顿虽然说当政了8年，但在其中的6年里，国会都是被持强硬路线的右翼分子所控制。而且，在实际的执政过程中，克林顿先生完全是偏向于艾森豪威尔和尼克松的右倾。

Now, this chronology doesn’t prove that politics drives changes in inequality. There were certainly other factors at work, including technological change, globalization and immigration, an issue that cuts across party lines.

现在这个年表并不能证明说, 政治主导着不平等变化。应该还有包括技术进步，全球化和移民在内的其它因素产生影响，这造成了政党路线作用的削弱。

But it seems likely that government policies have played a big role in America’s growing economic polarization — not just easily measured policies like tax rates for the rich and the level of the minimum wage, but things like the shift in Labor Department policy from protection of worker rights to tacit support for union-busting.

但看起来好像是政府政策在美国日益增大的两极分化过程中扮演了重要角色—并不是指像对于富人们的税率或是最低工资水平那些容易测度的政策，而是指诸如劳工部的政策变化，从对工人权利的保护到对破败工会的默许。

And if that’s true, it matters a lot which party is in power — and more important, which ideology. For the last few decades, even Democrats have been afraid to make an issue out of inequality, fearing that they would be accused of practicing class warfare and lose the support of wealthy campaign contributors.

而且如果这是事实的话，哪个政党--更重要的，是哪种意识形态--执政是有很大影响的。在过去的几十年里，甚至是民主党也害怕会弄出关于不平等的争端，担心会被控诉造成阶级冲突，并失去那些有钱的竞选捐助者们的支持。

That may be changing. Inequality seems to be an issue whose time has finally come, and if the growing movement to pressure Wal-Mart to treat its workers better is any indication, economic populism is making a comeback. It’s still unclear when the Democrats might regain power, or what economic policies they’ll pursue when they do. But if and when we get a government that tries to do something about rising inequality, rather than responding with a mixture of denial and fatalism, we may find that Mr. Paulson’s “economic reality” is a lot easier to change than he supposes.

或许在发生变化。不平等看起来确实是个问题，而（关注）它的时代终于到来了。如果日增的对沃尔玛施压以使其提高其员工待遇的倾向是一个迹象的话，那么经济民粹主义正在复活。民主党何时能够重新执政，或者说在他们执政时会采取何种经济政策现在看来仍不明朗。但是，如果我们能有一个对继续上升的不平等有所作为的政府，而不是拒不承认或是对此认为无可奈何的政府，到那时我们将会发现, 改变鲍尔森先生的“经济现实”要比他所料想的容易得多。

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-12-9 5:32:05编辑过]

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：财富分配 克鲁格曼 鲁格曼 克鲁格 Polarization 美国 财富 克鲁格曼

社会财富分配不均以及阶级的分化从某种意义上说（比如社会学）在可预见的未来是不可避免的！