纽约时报：美国贫富不均为世界之最 Nicolas D. Kristof 文 危炜 译

dengxi6489

　　本月初，我的一篇专栏文章激怒了不少读者。文中提到，若想看看由于贪婪和掠夺导致的巨大收入差距，你不必再跑到香蕉共和国(译者注：指由外资控制的，只有单一经济作物的拉丁美洲小国)，环顾四周就好。
　　我的本意是，美国现在最富的财阀对国民收入的占有比例比那些历史上动荡不安的国家，如尼加拉瓜、委内瑞拉、英属圭亚那等，还要高出许多。但有读者们抗议，这一结论过于轻率，有失公允。在复核了相关证据后，我遗憾地承认，他们说得有道理。
　　没错，我也许冤枉那些香蕉共和国了。
　　一些拉美读者愤愤不平，认为这个比喻既令人反感，又伤害了他们的感情。事实上，近几十年来，拉丁美洲已日渐成熟，趋向平等，而恰恰是美国的分配状况越发不平等起来。
　　我能找到的最好例子莫过于阿根廷。20世纪40年代，阿根廷最富的1%人口控制了国民收入的20%。这个数字约是同期美国的2倍。
　　从那时起，情况开始颠倒过来。阿根廷最富1%人口所掌握的国民收入比例降至15%。同时，美国的不平等状况迅速恶化，堪比60年前的阿根廷：2007年1%的最富人口控制了全国24%的财富。
　　在贫富差距如此惊人的今天，国会应该将7000亿美元优先用于为年薪超过25万美金的富人减税呢，还是优先用于为下个月起就无权享受失业保险的穷人延长发放失业救济金呢？
　　一种检验这一决定的方法是搁置道德考虑，仅看税收用在哪些领域能更好地刺激经济复苏。这样一来，结论很明显：把钱放进失业者的口袋能带来更多收益，因为他们会很快将钱花出去。
　　相反，给富人们减去的税收有一部分会成为存款--这已被基础经济理论和近几年的历史经验所论证--所以减税在创造就业方面的作用要差得多。比如，联邦党人想给那最富的1%的人平均每人减税37万美金。有人当真认为这些纳税人减税之后会倾巢而出，抢购跑车游艇，创立新公司，雇佣更多看门人和司机吗？
　　与此相反，小布什政府执政期间劳工部牵头的一项研究表明，失业救济金才能创造就业的力量，因为钱会很快被用于消费。该研究显示，如果没有失业保险，这场经济危机将多造成18%的损失，这笔花在失业保险上的钱每季度保住了1600万份工作。
　　但这也有个大问题：我们期待拥有什么样的国家？我们当真希望自己的国家变成那种最富1%人口拥有的资本净值远超过最穷90%民众的财阀集团吗？
　　啊呀！这正是我们的现状。设在华盛顿的经济政策研究所公布的数据显示，美国最富的1%人口拥有美国私人资产净值的34%。底层90%民众的财富占有率只有29%。
　　这同样意味着最富的10%控制了美国超过70%的资产总净值。
　　加州大学伯克利分校经济学家Emmanuel Saez是研究收入不平等的国际顶尖专家。他注意到，美国历史上大多数时期的收入分配都比目前平等。其他资本主义国家也没有出现我们如此大的收入差距。
　　“大多数工业国家的不平等情况都有所加重，但都不如美国这么极端，” Saez教授说。
　　美国最显著的特点之一就是其经济的流动性，这与欧洲的等级制度不同。这种流动性也许能够解释为什么许多美国的工薪阶层反对遗产税和高边际税率。但研究者发现，美国如今白手起家的创业者们的财富代际流动并不比欧洲更常见，甚至可能更加少见。
　　我惊讶于我们不断扩大的财富差距，因为我在那些功能失调的国家旅行时的所见所闻，那里的富人对下层民众漠不关心。恶果便是造成了一个缺乏社会网络和民族团结意识的国家。财富的过度集中会将任何一个国家的灵魂侵蚀殆尽。
　　我看到国会在如此可怕的大萧条时期还认为扩大失业保障在财政上是盲目的，而坚持给最富的美国人减去37万美金的税赋。我不知道这是否会将我们的国家变成“香蕉共和国”或者是“对冲基金共和国”，但我知道这种做法对任何共和国而言都不利于其健康发展。

英文原文：
Op-Ed Columnist
A Hedge Fund Republic?
Earlier this month, I offended a number of readers with a column suggesting that if you want to see rapacious income inequality, you no longer need to visit a banana republic. You can just look around.
My point was that the wealthiest plutocrats now actually control a greater share of the pie in the United States than in historically unstable countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana. But readers protested that this was glib and unfair, and after reviewing the evidence I regretfully confess that they have a point.
That’s right: I may have wronged the banana republics.
You see, some Latin Americans were indignant at what they saw as an invidious and hurtful comparison. The truth is that Latin America has matured and become more equal in recent decades, even as the distribution in the United States has become steadily more unequal.
The best data series I could find is for Argentina. In the 1940s, the top 1 percent there controlled more than 20 percent of incomes. That was roughly double the share at that time in the United States.
Since then, we’ve reversed places. The share controlled by the top 1 percent in Argentina has fallen to a bit more than 15 percent. Meanwhile, inequality in the United States has soared to levels comparable to those in Argentina six decades ago — with 1 percent controlling 24 percent of American income in 2007.
At a time of such stunning inequality, should Congress put priority on spending $700 billion on extending the Bush tax cuts to those with incomes above $250,000 a year? Or should it extend unemployment benefits for Americans who otherwise will lose them beginning next month?  
One way to examine that decision is to put aside all ethical considerations and simply look at where tax dollars will do more to stimulate the economy. There the conclusion is clear: You get much more bang for the buck putting money in the hands of unemployed people because they will promptly spend it.
In contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy are partly saved — that’s both basic economic theory and recent history — so they are much less effective in creating jobs. For example, Republicans would give the richest 0.1 percent of Americans an average tax cut of $370,000. Does anybody really think that those taxpayers are going to rush out and buy Porsches and yachts, start new businesses, and hire more groundskeepers and chauffeurs?
In contrast, a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush administration makes clear the job-creation power of unemployment benefits because that money is immediately spent. The study suggested that the current recession would have been 18 percent worse without unemployment insurance and that this spending preserved 1.6 million jobs in each quarter.
But there is also a larger question: What kind of a country do we aspire to be? Would we really want to be the kind of plutocracy where the richest 1 percent possesses more net worth than the bottom 90 percent?
Oops! That’s already us. The top 1 percent of Americans owns 34 percent of America’s private net worth, according to figures compiled by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. The bottom 90 percent owns just 29 percent.
That also means that the top 10 percent controls more than 70 percent of Americans’ total net worth.
Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley who is one of the world’s leading experts on inequality, notes that for most of American history, income distribution was significantly more equal than today. And other capitalist countries do not suffer disparities as great as ours.
“There has been an increase in inequality in most industrialized countries, but not as extreme as in the U.S.,” Professor Saez said.
One of America’s greatest features has been its economic mobility, in contrast to Europe’s class system. This mobility may explain why many working-class Americans oppose inheritance taxes and high marginal tax rates. But researchers find that today this rags-to-riches intergenerational mobility is no more common in America than in Europe — and possibly less common.
I’m appalled by our growing wealth gaps because in my travels I see what happens in dysfunctional countries where the rich just don’t care about those below the decks. The result is nations without a social fabric or sense of national unity. Huge concentrations of wealth corrode the soul of any nation.
And then I see members of Congress in my own country who argue that it would be financially reckless to extend unemployment benefits during a terrible recession, yet they insist on granting $370,000 tax breaks to the richest Americans. I don’t know if that makes us a banana republic or a hedge fund republic, but it’s not healthy in any republic.

I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.