Is capitalism actually broken?

譯者: 柏陞 郭 審譯者: 至磊Zi Le 黃Ng

Each one of these machines represents the economic system of a country.

畫面上的每一台機器都代表著 一個國家的經濟體制。

Every machine has three inputs:

每台機器都有三個生產要素：

labor, people’s work.

勞動力，即人的活動；

Capital, all the stuff that a business might use,

資本，指所有可供商業使用的事物，

including intangibles, like ideas.

想法等無形資產也包括在內；

And natural resources.

以及天然資源。

The machine converts these inputs into goods and services,

機器將上述幾樣轉換成商品和服務，

and because we’re willing to pay for the things the machine produces,

正因為我們願意購買 這台機器製造的產品，

what the machine is really creating here is value.

它所產出的東西才真正有了價值。

Economies turn inputs into value.

經濟即是將生產要素 轉變為有價值的產品。

What determines whether the machine is capitalist, communist, socialist,

那麼該怎麼判斷它是執行 資本主義、共產主義、社會主義

or something else?

或是其他體制呢？

Three dials.

有三個指標。

The first dial controls who owns the capital.

第一個指標：誰擁有資本。

Over here, the government owns every bit of capital,

在光譜的這端， 政府掌握了所有的資本，

down to the last office paperclip.

連辦公用迴紋針都是國家的。

North Korea is probably the closest economy to 0%.

北韓大概是偏向這一側、 最接近零私有經濟的國家。

On the other end of the spectrum, at 100%, private citizens own all the capital.

而在光譜的另一端， 則是由私人完全掌握所有資本。

The US is about here, at roughly two-thirds private ownership.

美國就是偏向這一側， 將近三分之二的資本為私有。

The second dial dictates how much control the government has

第二指標則是政府對於生產 進行多少干預。

over what gets produced.

In economies with high coordination, like the old USSR,

像是曾經存在的蘇聯 就是在高度干預的經濟體制下，

the government dictated what the economy could— and would— produce.

由政府決定能不能或是該生產什麼。

In economies with low coordination,

而在偏向自由經濟的國家，

the government might mandate a few things,

政府可能有權管理少數事務，

but leaves most decision-making up to the private sector.

而將大部分的決策權交予私人企業。

The third dial controls how extensively markets are used to set prices.

第三個指標則是有多少價格 由市場所決定。

Over here at 0%, we have economies with no markets,

在零自由的這端， 這種經濟體沒有發展出市場。

where the government sets all prices, and consumers have no say.

所有產品價格由政府制定， 一點都不容消費者插手。

Over here at 100%,

而在完全自由的這一端，

markets are used to set the price of everything,

市場會自動調整商品的價格。

even things like basic life-saving health care.

就連最基本的急救健康照護也不例外。

You can also think of this dial as controlling the number and extent

你也能從政府調節的多寡和 範圍進行分析。

of government regulations—

from tariffs on foreign goods to antitrust laws

例如是否徵收關稅、 有無制定反壟斷法，

to regulations on net neutrality.

或是對於網路中立進行多少管制。

So, capitalism isn’t just one type of economy—

因此，我們能說資本主義 並不是單一種經濟制度，

it’s a wide range of possible economies,

而是它所包含的各種體系，

which makes answering the question of whether capitalism is broken, complicated.

因此很難斷定 「資本主義是有缺陷的」。

But we’re going to try.

但我們可以試著找出答案。

At the height of the Industrial Revolution,

在工業革命發展至極盛時，

the dials were set pretty close to what we now call free market,

那時候的商業活動相當接近 今日我們所稱的自由市場，

or “laissez-faire” capitalism.

也稱作自由放任式資本主義。

There were very few regulations,

當時政府鮮少干預市場，

and economists of the time believed that capitalism’s “invisible hand”—

那時代的經濟學家普遍相信 資本主義裡「看不見的手」——

basically, individuals acting freely and in their own self-interest—

簡單來說就是透過個人 自由地獲取自利，

would produce optimal outcomes, both for the economy and for society.

就能使經濟和社會的效益最大化。

And that’s how we ended up with embalming fluid in milk.

然而，最終卻發生了 在牛奶中添加防腐劑一事。

In the late 1800s in the United States, food manufacturers put all kinds of cheap

在 19 世紀末的美國，食品加工商 在食物中摻入各種便宜，

(and sometimes dangerous) adulterants in food to maximize profits.

有時甚至有害的添加物以最大化利潤。

What they were doing was legal, but of course, wrong.

儘管他們的行為合法， 也毫無疑問是錯的。

There was a public outcry, and in 1906,

1906 年，在群眾疾呼下，

Congress passed the Pure Food and Drugs Act,

國會通過《純淨食品與藥物法案》，

setting the stage for the Food and Drug Administration,

為食品藥物管理局的奠定基礎，

which watches over the US’s food supply to this day.

該機構直至今日都是美國 食品供給的監管者。

These days, no economy really practices pure “invisible hand” capitalism,

在近代，沒有任何一個國家 實施完全自由放任的資本主義。

but some people are increasingly worried that today’s threats,

但有部分人相信，任何形式的 資本主義都無法解決

like climate change and rising inequality, can’t be solved by any capitalist system.

當代日趨嚴重的氣候變遷和貧富差距。

Let’s look at climate change first.

我們先從氣候變遷開始討論吧！

Capitalist economies incentivize growth.

由於資本主義經濟鼓勵追求更多利益，

That’s created massive demand for the cheapest energy possible,

使得對於最便宜的能源有大量需求。

which, for a long time, was fossil fuels.

化石燃料長期以來一直是最佳選擇。

Burning all those fossil fuels unquestionably drove—

而毫無疑問地，燃燒化石燃料使 氣候變遷情況持續惡化。

and continues to drive— climate change.

Not only that, but the desire to maximize profit usually gives corporations

除此之外，追求利潤最大化的慾望

使企業有誘因忽略那些不利的事實。

a powerful incentive to ignore inconvenient truths.

Just like tobacco companies denied the link between cigarettes and cancer,

正如煙草公司否定香菸與癌症的關聯；

oil and gas companies denied or downplayed climate science for decades.

氣候學的觀點幾十年以來都遭到 化石燃料公司的否定或是含糊帶過。

Next, inequality.

再來：貧富差距。

Inequality is complicated enough that we made a whole video about it,

這個議題複雜到我們 曾做一部影片討論它。

but the simple story is:

若要簡單來說：

in many countries, inequality is rising.

許多國家的貧富差距正逐漸擴大。

In the US, the UK, Canada, Ireland, and Australia,

在美國、英國、加拿大、 愛爾蘭和澳洲，

the top 1% of income earners have been eating up a larger and larger share

過去 50 年間頂端 1% 人口 佔有總收入的部分逐年增多。

of total income over the past 50 years.

In the UK, the top 1% share doubled from 7% in 1980 to 14% in 2014.

例如在英國，其頂端 1% 人口的所得從 1980 年的 7% 在 2014 年翻倍成 14%。

But that's not the whole picture.

但這也不盡然是事情的全貌。

In England, the country for which we have the best data before capitalism,

就拿我們資料最完善的例子： 在進入資本主義社會前的英國，

the share of income going to the top 5% of income earners

頂端 5% 人口在 1801 年最高峰時 約佔有總收入的 40%。

peaked at around 40% in 1801,

and then, as capitalism took hold, it fell steadily to a low of about 17% in 1977.

然而在導入資本主義模式後，

這個數字持續下降， 直到 1977 年約介於 17%。

These days, it’s back up— hovering around 26%.

從那時起到現在， 它又回彈至 26% 左右。

And here’s another data point: in many European countries and Japan,

這裡還有另一則資料觀點： 在許多歐洲國家和日本，

the top 1%’s share of income came down from 20 to 25% in the early 1900s

頂端 1% 人口從二十世紀初佔有 20 至 25% 的總收入，

to 7 to 12% today.

在今日已減少成 7 至 12%。

So, is capitalism increasing inequality or not?

那麼，資本主義是否會 加劇貧富差距呢？

It depends.

這要看情況。

Remember, there's a wide range of settings that all fall under capitalism,

請記得：資本主義經濟 有各式各樣的形式，

meaning that one country's version can look very different from another's.

一個國家的模式可能和 另一個國家的相差甚遠。

It’s totally possible that inequality could be increasing

貧富差距非常可能 在中國特色的資本主義下擴大，

in China’s version of capitalism, while it decreases in France’s.

卻在法國的模式下減少。

Capitalism, it seems, is a double-edged sword.

這麼看來資本主義似乎是雙面刃。

On the one hand, it generates a huge amount of value,

它一方面能產出大量的價值，

which translates to almost everyone having more money than they otherwise would.

幾乎所有人得到的錢都比 在其他體制下還要多。

On the other hand, it also funnels the biggest chunk of that money

另一方面也使大多數的金錢被壟斷，

into the wallets of relatively few people.

落入極少數人的口袋。

Capitalism’s staunchest defenders say that with enough grit and determination,

資本主義最忠實的擁護者聲稱： 只要有足夠的決心和毅力，

anyone can join the ranks of the wealthy.

任何人都能攀上富貴的殿堂。

Is that really true?

但這真的是事實嗎？

In a free, capitalist market,

在一個自由的資本主義市場，

the wealth generated by successful companies mostly flows to the owners.

大公司賺得的財富幾乎都落入 所屬企業家的口袋。

And along with that come other benefits:

其他附加的利益也隨著財富而來，

education, health, social standing, and power.

例如：教育、醫療服務、 社會地位、權力。

If owners tinker with the machine so that it benefits them more than others,

如果企業家把國家經濟變成 中飽私囊的機器，

they create a feedback loop where power and everything that flows with it

所有的權力與利益都陷入死循環，

calcifies within their families.

一切都將由他們的家族壟斷。

And then you’ve got, basically, an aristocracy.

基本上這就是一種新型的貴族政治。

So let’s break down the question we started with:

現在我們回頭談談一開始的問題：

is pure, “invisible hand” capitalism,

一個自由、由「看不見的手」管控、

with all the dials set to the extremes, broken?

所有指標都走向極端的 資本主義有缺陷嗎？

Yeah.

毫無疑問是的。

But it’s also kind of irrelevant, since no country uses pure capitalism.

可是這似乎沒回答問題， 因為沒有國家施行純粹的資本主義。

Is contemporary capitalism—

那麼當代的資本主義——

as it’s practiced in much of the world today— broken?

現今多數國家採用的模式 是有缺陷的嗎？

Well, it’s the major driver of climate change

嗯，它正是導致氣候變遷和 許多地方貧富差距增加的主要因素，

and in many places is contributing to rising inequality.

And it may even be creating a de facto aristocracy in certain countries,

甚至促成部分國家出現 新興的貴族制度。

so, not looking good.

這麼看來情況真是不妙。

The critical question is: can we fix contemporary capitalism

最關鍵的問題是我們是否能 透過管控這些指標

by fiddling with the dials or restricting who can turn them,

或是限制那些有權力的操縱者 以修正它的缺陷，

or do we need to tear the machine down and build a new one from scratch?

還是我們該推翻它、 打造新的經濟模式？