斯蒂格利茨：抗议的全球化
　　来源：联合早报网
　　作者：斯蒂格利茨 2011-11-11
　　
　　 我们已经看到，不受约束的市场会导致经济和政治危机。只有受到政府管制框架的适当束缚，市场才能良好地运作。而这样的框架只有在反映一般人的利益——而不是1％的人的利益——的民主中才能产生。能用金钱买到的最好政府早已无法担此重任了。
　　
　　
　　在1月肇始于突尼斯，随后蔓延到埃及和西班牙的抗议运动，现在已经波及全球，席卷了华尔街和美国各大城市。如今，全球化和现代技术让社会运动可以同意见一样迅速地跨越国界。世界各地都是社会抗议运动的温床：一种“体系”已经失败的感觉；人们也相信即使在民主国家，选举过程也无法把错误纠正过来——至少在未遭遇人们走上街头的强大压力时是如此。
　　
　　我于5月前往突尼斯抗议活动现场；于7月和西班牙的“愤怒者”（indignados）交谈。接着，我从那里启程前往埃及，与开罗解放广场上的年轻革命者见面。数星期前，我又与纽约“占领华尔街”运动抗议者交谈。这些运动有个共同点，即“占领华尔街”运动所打出的简单标语：“我们是99％。”
　　
　　政治欠公正使经济不平等扩增
　　
　　这口号与我最近发表的一篇文章的标题《那1％》（全名为“Of the 1％ for the 1％ and by the 1％”）有异曲同工之处。文章描述了美国愈演愈烈的不平等：1％的人口控制超过40％的财富，赚取超过20％的收入。而这一撮人获得如此优厚的报酬，往往并非因为他们对社会有更大的贡献——花红和政府的救助摧毁了不平等的合理性——而是因为，恕我直言，他们是成功（有时是腐败）的寻租者（rent seekers，即凭借政府保护进行寻求财富转移活动者）。
　　
　　我不否认这1％中有一些人确实对社会有巨大贡献。事实上，许多真正的创新（不是最终给世界经济带来浩劫的新奇金融“产品”）所带来的社会利益，远远超过了创新者自己所得到的好处。
　　
　　但是，放眼全球，政治影响力和反竞争行为（通常通过政治得以持续），是经济不平等日益扩大的主因。在我们的税务体系中，像巴菲特这样的亿万富豪所支付的税收（占收入的百分比）比他的秘书还少；把全球经济搞得一团糟的投机客所支付的税率也要低于努力赚取收入的人。这样的税制可谓助纣为虐。
　　
　　近年来的研究显示，公正是一个极其重要且深入人心的概念。西班牙和其他国家抗议者的愤怒可谓名正言顺：在现行体系中，银行家获得了援助，而他们的受害者却得自力更生。更糟糕的是，银行家现在踌躇满志地回到办公室，领取比大多数人工作一辈子所赚的收入还高的花红。努力学习、循规蹈矩的年轻人却面临没有理想工作的前景。
　　
　　不平等情况的恶化是恶性循环的结果：富有的寻租者利用他们的财富左右立法，以保护和增加他们的财富——及影响力。美国最高法院在其臭名昭著的公民联合会（Citizens United）判决中，让公司可以随心所欲地用金钱来影响政治动向。富人可以用手里的钱来放大自己的声音，但警察却不允许我用扩音器向“占领华尔街”的抗议者演讲。
　　
　　人们并没有忽略过度监管的民主和不受监管的银行家之间的矛盾。但抗议者却足智多谋：他们把我说的话在人群中重复传开，让所有人都能听到。此外，为了避免“对话”被掌声干扰，他们还转而使用有力的手势来表示赞同我的意见。
　　
　　市场须受政府适当管制
　　
　　他们说我们的“体系”出了问题是对的。放眼世界，我们有许多未被使用的资源——渴望工作的人群、闲置的机器、空荡荡的大楼——还有许多没有被满足的需求：如消除贫困、促进发展、为全球变暖改变经济模式等等。在美国，近几年有超过700万所房贷断供的房子。我们有大量的空房和许多无家可归者。
　　
　　人们批评抗议者没有目标。但这样的批评没有抓到抗议运动的重点。抗议是在表达对选举程序的不满，是在敲响警钟。
　　
　　1999年的西雅图会议本是要展开新一轮贸易谈判，却出现了反全球化抗议，把人们的焦点吸引到全球化及治理全球化的国际机构和协定的失败之处。媒体在认真了解抗议者的指责后，发现他们所说的不乏确实的地方。随后的贸易谈判变不同了——至少在原则上，谈判被视为发展回合（development round），来弥补一些抗议者所凸显的不足的地方——而国际货币基金组织后来也实施了重大改革。
　　
　　在美国，20世纪60年代的民权运动，引起了人们对社会普遍存在的制度性种族主义的关注。这一问题还没有完全被克服，但奥巴马总统的当选显示，抗议活动对美国的进步产生了很大的推动力。
　　
　　从某个层面来说，今日的抗议者要求并不多：他们无非是想有施展技能的机会、收入不错的正当工作、及一个更公正的经济和社会。他们的愿望是渐进性的，不是革命性的。但是，从另一个层面讲，他们的要求很高：一个由人民而不是金钱说话的民主国家；一个能按其原来目的为人们带来好处的市场经济。
　　
　　这两者是相互关联的：我们已经看到，不受约束的市场会导致经济和政治危机。只有受到政府管制框架的适当束缚，市场才能良好地运作。而这样的框架只有在反映一般人的利益——而不是1％的人的利益——的民主中才能产生。能用金钱买到的最好政府早已无法担此重任了。
　　
　　作者Joseph E. Stiglitz是哥伦比亚大学教授，诺贝尔经济学奖得主。
　　
　　本文链接：http://www.guancha.cc/html/49630/2011/11/11/61712.shtml
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　
　　2011-11-04
　　The Globalization of Protest
　　Joseph E. Stiglitz
　　
　　The protest movement that began in Tunisia in January subsequently spreading to Egypt and then to Spain has now become global with the protests engulfing Wall Street and cities across America. Globalization and modern technology now enables social movements to transcend borders as rapidly as ideas can. And social protest has found fertile ground everywhere: a sense that the “system” has failed and the conviction that even in a democracy the electoral process will not set things right – at least not without strong pressure from the street.
　　
　　In May I went to the site of the Tunisian protests; in July I talked to Spain’s indignados; from there I went to meet the young Egyptian revolutionaries in Cairo’s Tahrir Square; and a few weeks ago I talked with Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York. There is a common theme expressed by the OWS movement in a simple phrase: “We are the 99%.”
　　
　　That slogan echoes the title of an article that I recently published entitled “Of the 1% for the 1% and by the 1%” describing the enormous increase in inequality in the United States: 1% of the population controls more than 40% of the wealth and receives more than 20% of the income. And those in this rarefied stratum often are rewarded so richly not because they have contributed more to society – bonuses and bailouts neatly gutted that justification for inequality – but because they are to put it bluntly successful (and sometimes corrupt) rent-seekers.
　　
　　"Follow Project Syndicate on Facebook or Twitter. For more from Joseph E. Stiglitz click here."
　　
　　This is not to deny that some of the 1% have contributed a great deal. Indeed the social benefits of many real innovations (as opposed to the novel financial “products” that ended up unleashing havoc on the world economy) typically far exceed what their innovators receive.
　　
　　But around the world political influence and anti-competitive practices (often sustained through politics) have been central to the increase in economic inequality. And tax systems in which a billionaire like Warren Buffett pays less tax (as a percentage of his income) than his secretary or in which speculators who helped to bring down the global economy are taxed at lower rates than those who work for their income have reinforced the trend.
　　
　　Research in recent years has shown how important and ingrained notions of fairness are. Spain’s protesters and those in other countries are right to be indignant: here is a system in which the bankers got bailed out while those whom they preyed upon have been left to fend for themselves. Worse the bankers are now back at their desks earning bonuses that amount to more than most workers hope to earn in a lifetime while young people who studied hard and played by the rules see no prospects for fulfilling employment.
　　
　　
　　The rise in inequality is the product of a vicious spiral: the rich rent-seekers use their wealth to shape legislation in order to protect and increase their wealth – and their influence. The US Supreme Court in its notorious Citizens Uniteddecision has given corporations free rein to use their money to influence the direction of politics. But while the wealthy can use their money to amplify their views back on the street police wouldn’t allow me to address the OWS protesters through a megaphone.
　　
　　The contrast between overregulated democracy and unregulated bankers did not go unnoticed. But the protesters are ingenious: they echoed what I said through the crowd so that all could hear. And to avoid interrupting the “dialogue” by clapping they used forceful hand signals to express their agreement.
　　
　　They are right that something is wrong about our “system.” Around the world we have underutilized resources – people who want to work machines that lie idle buildings that are empty – and huge unmet needs: fighting poverty promoting development and retrofitting the economy for global warming to name just a few. In America after more than seven million home foreclosures in recent years we have empty homes and homeless people.
　　
　　The protesters have been criticized for not having an agenda. But this misses the point of protest movements. They are an expression of frustration with the electoral process. They are an alarm.
　　
　　The anti-globalization protests in Seattle in 1999 at what was supposed to be the inauguration of a new round of trade talks called attention to the failures of globalization and the international institutions and agreements that govern it. When the press looked into the protesters’ allegations they found that there was more than a grain of truth in them. The trade negotiations that followed were different – at least in principle they were supposed to be a development round to make up for some of the deficiencies highlighted by protesters – and the International Monetary Fund subsequently undertook significant reforms.
　　
　　So too in the US the civil-rights protesters of the 1960’s called attention to pervasive institutionalized racism in American society. That legacy has not yet been overcome but the election of President Barack Obama shows how far those protests moved America.
　　
　　On one level today’s protesters are asking for little: a chance to use their skills the right to decent work at decent pay a fairer economy and society. Their hope is evolutionary not revolutionary. But on another level they are asking for a great deal: a democracy where people not dollars matter and a market economy that delivers on what it is supposed to do.
　　
　　The two are related: as we have seen unfettered markets lead to economic and political crises. Markets work the way they should only when they operate within a framework of appropriate government regulations; and that framework can be erected only in a democracy that reflects the general interest – not the interests of the 1%. The best government that money can buy is no longer good enough.
　　
　　Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University a Nobel laureate in economics and the author of Freefall: Free Markets and the Sinking of the Global Economy.
　　
　　Copyright: Project Syndicate 2011.
　　www.project-syndicate.org
　　
　　http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz144/English
　　Project Syndicate 4 November 2011