What is economic value, and who creates it? | Mariana Mazzucato

翻译人员: Jiasi Hao 校对人员: psjmz mz

Value creation.

价值创造、

Wealth creation.

财富创造，

这些着实是非常强大的词语。

These are really powerful words.

Maybe you think of finance, you think of innovation,

可能你会想到金融， 想到创新，

you think of creativity.

想到创造力。

But who are the value creators?

但是谁是这些价值的创造者呢？

If we use that word, we must be implying that some people aren't creating value.

如果我们用这个词，我们必然 是在暗示有人没在创造价值。

Who are they?

他们是谁？

The couch potatoes?

懒虫们？

The value extractors?

价值抽取人？

The value destroyers?

价值摧毁者？

To answer this question, we actually have to have a proper theory of value.

要回答这个问题，我们其实 需要一个恰当的价值理论。

And I'm here as an economist to break it to you

作为经济学家，我来是想告诉你们

我们在这个问题上迷失了方向。

that we've kind of lost our way on this question.

Now, don't look so surprised.

不要觉得惊讶。

What I mean by that is, we've stopped contesting it.

我这么说的意思是 我们已经对此停止了争论。

We've stopped actually asking really tough questions

我们实际上已经不再询问 这些棘手的问题，

about what is the difference between value creation and value extraction,

比如价值创造和价值提取，

生产性活动和 非生产性活动的差异。

productive and unproductive activities.

现在，让我给你一些背景。

Now, let me just give you some context here.

2009 was just about a year and a half after

2009 年，距离我们这个时代

one of the biggest financial crises of our time,

最大的金融危机仅过去1年半时间，

second only to the 1929 Great Depression,

这个危机仅次于1929年的大衰退。

and the CEO of Goldman Sachs said

高盛的 CEO 说，

Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world.

高盛的员工是世界上 最具生产力的人。

Productivity and productiveness, for an economist,

生产力和生产率， 对经济学家来说，

actually has a lot to do with value.

其实和价值有着很大关系。

You're producing stuff,

你在生产东西，

you're producing it dynamically and efficiently.

你在动态且高效地生产它。

You're also producing things that the world needs, wants and buys.

你也是在生产世界所需， 所要，所买的东西。

Now, how this could have been said just one year after the crisis,

现在，在危机发生仅 1 年后， 怎么能说出这样的话？

which actually had this bank as well as many other banks --

这个银行，以及很多其他的银行

I'm just kind of picking on Goldman Sachs here --

——我这里只是拿高盛举例——

at the center of the crisis, because they had actually produced

它们处于危机的中心， 因为他们其实制造并销售了

some pretty problematic financial products mainly but not only related to mortgages,

不仅限于房屋贷款的 好些有问题的金融产品，

这让成千上万的人失去住所。

which saw many thousands of people actually lose their homes.

In 2010, in just one month, September,

就在 2010 年的一个月内，

120,000 people lost their homes through the foreclosures of that crisis.

9 月，12万人在这场危机中 丧失了房屋赎回权。

Between 2007 and 2010,

在2007至2010 年间，

8.8 million people lost their jobs.

880 万人失业。

The bank also had to then be bailed out by the US taxpayer

此外，美国纳税人 还必须为这些银行

for the sum of 10 billion dollars.

提供100亿美元的救助。

We didn't hear the taxpayers bragging that they were value creators,

我们没听到那些纳税人 吹嘘自己是价值创造者，

but obviously, having bailed out

但显然，帮助其中一个

one of the biggest value-creating productive companies,

最具价值创造的企业渡过难关，

可能是他们应该做的。

perhaps they should have.

What I want to do next is kind of ask ourselves

我接下来想做的是扪心自问，

我们是如何迷失的，

how we lost our way,

how it could be, actually,

为什么会这样，

that a statement like that could almost go unnoticed,

这样的声明几乎无人注意，

because it wasn't an after-dinner joke; it was said very seriously.

毕竟它不是个饭后玩笑， 而是正儿八经说的。

So what I want to do is bring you back 300 years in economic thinking,

所以我想把你们带回到 300 年前的经济思考，

when, actually, the term was contested.

那时，这个词是有争议的。

It doesn't mean that they were right or wrong,

这并不是说他们是对或错，

but you couldn't just call yourself a value creator, a wealth creator.

但你不能自称是 价值创造者，财富创造者。

There was a lot of debate within the economics profession.

在经济学界，曾有着无数辩论。

And what I want to argue is, we've kind of lost our way,

我想要争论的是， 我们已经有些迷失了，

and that has actually allowed this term, "wealth creation" and "value,"

也因此使得这些词， “财富创造”和“价值”

变得越发脆弱、慵懒，

to become quite weak and lazy

and also easily captured.

以及容易标榜。

OK? So let's start -- I hate to break it to you --

好了，让我们开始—— 我不喜欢给你剖析——

300 years ago.

300 年前。

Now, what was interesting 300 years ago

300 年前有趣的是

is the society was still an agricultural type of society.

当时的社会仍然是农业社会。

So it's not surprising that the economists of the time,

所以那时的经济学家，

who were called the Physiocrats,

也被称为重农主义者，

actually put the center of their attention to farm labor.

他们实际上把注意力 放在了农业劳动上。

当他们问，“这些价值从哪里来的？”

When they said, "Where does value come from?"

they looked at farming.

他们看向农场。

And they produced what I think was probably the world's first spreadsheet,

他们制作了我认为的 世界上第一个表格，

called the "Tableau Economique,"

名为“经济试算表”，

and this was done by François Quesnay, one of the leaders of this movement.

这是弗朗索瓦·魁奈制作的， 他是这场运动的领导者之一。

And it was very interesting,

这很有趣，

because they didn't just say, "Farming is the source of value."

因为他们不是只说： “农场经营是价值的源泉”。

They then really worried about what was happening to that value

他们然后真的很操心 价值创造出来后

发生的事情。

when it was produced.

What the Tableau Economique does --

经济表所做的——

and I've tried to make it a bit simpler here for you --

我已试图过把这个 简化下说给你们——

是将社会分为 3 个阶级。

is it broke down the classes in society into three.

The farmers, creating value, were called the "productive class."

农民，创造价值，被称为“生产阶级”。

然后其他那些仅仅是流通这些价值的，

Then others who were just moving some of this value around

but it was useful, it was necessary,

但是有用且不可少的，

these were the merchants;

他们些是商人；

they were called the "proprietors."

被称为“经营者”。

And then there was another class that was simply charging the farmers a fee

之后还有一个阶级， 根据现有资产和土地向农民

单纯征收费用的，

for an existing asset, the land,

and they called them the "sterile class."

他们称其为 “不结果实阶级”（不生产阶级）。

Now, this is a really heavy-hitting word if you think what it means:

如果你想想这个的意思， 你就会发现很沉重：

that if too much of the resources are going to the landlords,

如果过多的资源流向地主，

you're actually putting the reproduction potential of the system at risk.

你实际上把系统的再生产潜能 置于危险之地。

And so all these little arrows there were their way of simulating --

这里所有的小箭头 是他们的模拟方式——

again, spreadsheets and simulators, these guys were really using big data --

再次，表格和模拟程序， 他们真的在用大数据——

they were simulating what would actually happen under different scenarios

他们在模拟不同情景下 可能会发生什么，

if the wealth actually wasn't reinvested back into production

如果财富不被重新投资于生产

to make that land more productive

让土地更具生产力

并实际上被以不同的方式吸走，

and was actually being siphoned out in different ways,

or even if the proprietors were getting too much.

或甚至，经营者获取过多。

And what later happened in the 1800s,

然后是1800 年代发生的——

and this was no longer the Agricultural Revolution

不再是农业革命，

but the Industrial Revolution,

而是工业革命——

is that the classical economists,

是古典经济学家，

and these were Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, the revolutionary,

如亚当·斯密，大卫·李嘉图， 卡尔·马克思，这些革命者们，

also asked the question "What is value?"

也在问着同样的问题： “什么是价值？”

But it's not surprising that because they were actually living

毫不令人惊讶的是 由于他们生活在

工业时代下，见证了 机器和工厂的崛起，

through an industrial era with the rise of machines and factories,

they said it was industrial labor.

他们说价值是工业劳动力。

So they had a labor theory of value.

于是他有了劳动价值论。

但再次，他们的关注点是再生产，

But again, their focus was reproduction,

this real worry of what was happening to the value that was created

这种对价值创造的担忧，

if it was getting siphoned out.

假如价值被吸走。

在《国富论》中，

And in "The Wealth of Nations,"

Adam Smith had this really great example of the pin factory where he said

亚当·斯密有一个关于 大头针工厂极佳例子，

他说如果只有一个人负责 大头针生产的所有工序，

if you only have one person making every bit of the pin,

at most you can make one pin a day.

一天你最多只能 制造 1 个大头针。

But if you actually invest in factory production and the division of labor,

但倘若你能投资工厂生产 以及做劳动力分工，

new thinking --

新想法——

today, we would use the word "organizational innovation" --

现在，我们会用“组织创新” 这个词来形容——

then you could increase the productivity

之后你就能提高生产效率、

and the growth and the wealth of nations.

推动经济增长以及国家财富。

So he showed that 10 specialized workers

于是他展示了经由 人力资本投资的

who had been invested in, in their human capital,

10 个专业化分工的工人，

could produce 4,800 pins a day,

每天能生产 4,800 个大头针，

as opposed to just one by an unspecialized worker.

相比 1 个非专业分工的工人 每天只生产 1 个大头针。

And he and his fellow classical economists

他和他的古典经济学家伙伴

also broke down activities into productive and unproductive ones.

也把经济活动分为 生产型和非生产型两类。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

And the unproductive ones weren't --

非生产型不是——

我想你们笑的原因是在座 大部分人都在这个列表上，对吧？

I think you're laughing because most of you are on that list, aren't you?

（笑声）

(Laughter)

Lawyers! I think he was right about the lawyers.

律师！我认为他对律师 的观点是对的。

Definitely not the professors, the letters of all kind people.

绝对不是教授，等纸上的各类人物。

So lawyers, professors, shopkeepers, musicians.

所以律师、教授， 小商品店主和音乐人。

He obviously hated the opera.

他很显然讨厌歌剧。

他一定在写这本书的前夜

He must have seen the worst performance of his life

the night before writing this book.

看了一场最糟糕的演出。

There's at least three professions up there

这上面，至少有 3 个职业

that have to do with the opera.

是和歌剧相关的。

But this wasn't an exercise of saying, "Don't do these things."

但这并不是说 “不要做这些事情”。

It was just, "What's going to happen

这只是“如果这些经济部门占比过高，

if we actually end up allowing some parts of the economy to get too large

尤其当我们让这些 经济部门变得太大

without really thinking about how to increase the productivity

而不去真正思考如何 提高价值创造的源泉，

of the source of the value that they thought was key,

即工业劳动力时，

which was industrial labor.

会发生什么。

And again, don't ask yourself is this right or is this wrong,

再次，不要问自己 这是对或错，

it was just very contested.

这个话题只是争辩不断。

By making these lists,

写出这些清单，

it actually forced them also to ask interesting questions.

其实也在强迫他们 提出有趣的问题。

And their focus, as the focus of the Physiocrats,

而且他们的关注点， 和重农主义的关注点一样，

was, in fact, on these objective conditions of production.

实际上是建立在这些 生产的客观条件上。

They also looked, for example, at the class struggle.

他们也关注，例如阶级斗争。

Their understanding of wages

他们对于工资的理解

had to do with the objective, if you want, power relationships,

与目标有关，如果你愿意， 权力关系，

资本和劳动力的议价能力。

the bargaining power of capital and labor.

But again, factories, machines, division of labor,

但再次，工厂、机器、劳动力分工、

agricultural land and what was happening to it.

农业用地以及什么发生在其上？

So the big revolution that then happened --

于是，随后发生的重大革新——

顺便说一句，这个在经济课上 不常教授——

and this, by the way, is not often taught in economics classes --

当前经济思想体系发生

the big revolution that happened with the current system

of economic thinking that we have,

的重大革新，

which is called "neoclassical economics,"

被称为“新古典经济学”。

was that the logic completely changed.

逻辑完全改变了。

It changed in two ways.

它在两方面发生了改变。

It changed from this focus on objective conditions to subjective ones.

它从对客观条件的关注转变 为对主观条件的关注。

Let me explain what I mean by that.

让我来解释一下这是什么意思。

Objective, in the way I just said.

客观，就是我之前说的方式。

Subjective, in the sense that all the attention went to

主观，意味着 所有的关注点都聚焦在

不同个体如何做出自己的决定。

how individuals of different sorts make their decisions.

OK, so workers are maximizing their choices of leisure versus work.

好吧，于是工人们最大化 自己休闲的选择而非工作。

Consumers are maximizing their so-called utility,

顾客最大化他们所谓的效用，

which is a proxy for happiness,

即幸福感的代名词，

and firms are maximizing their profits.

而公司最大化自身利润。

And the idea behind this was that then we can aggregate this up,

这背后的想法是我们 可以加总这些

我们看看它能变成什么，

and we see what that turns into,

which are these nice, fancy supply-and-demand curves

这些美妙的供求曲线

which produce a price,

形成了价格，

an equilibrium price.

即均衡价格。

It's an equilibrium price, because we also added to it

这是一个均衡价格， 因为我们也向其中添加了

a lot of Newtonian physics equations

许多牛顿物理方程：

where centers of gravity are very much part of the organizing principle.

重心是组织原则的 重要组成部分。

But the second point here is that that equilibrium price, or prices,

但这里的第二点是 均衡价格，或价格，

reveal value.

揭示了价值。

So the revolution here is a change from objective to subjective,

所以这里的革新是 从客观到主观的改变，

but also the logic is no longer one of what is value,

但与此同时逻辑也不再是 以前的什么是价值，

how is it being determined,

它是如何被决定的，

what is the reproductive potential of the economy,

经济再生产潜力是什么，

which then leads to a theory of price

这就引出了价格理论，

but rather the reverse:

但恰恰相反：

a theory of price and exchange

揭示价值的价格理论

which reveals value.

和交换理论。

这是一个巨大的改变。

Now, this is a huge change.

And it's not just an academic exercise, as fascinating as that might be.

这也不仅仅是一个学术活动， 它可能很吸引人。

它影响着我们如何衡量增长。

It affects how we measure growth.

这影响着我们如何引导经济 去生产更多这种活动，

It affects how we steer economies to produce more of some activities,

减少那种活动，

less of others,

这影响我们某些活动的 报酬比其他活动高。

how we also remunerate some activities more than others.

And it also just kind of makes you think,

这也多少让你思考，

假如你是否是个价值创造者， 你会开心地起床吗，

you know, are you happy to get out of bed if you're a value creator or not,

以及如果你无法决定价格， 那价格系统自身如何决定价格？

and how is the price system itself if you aren't determining that?

我说过，这影响我们 如何思考“产出”。

I mentioned it affects how we think about output.

If we only include, for example, in GDP,

如果我们只是包括，例如 GDP ，

those activities that have prices,

那些有价格标签的活动，

all sorts of really weird things happen.

所有奇怪的事情都会发生。

Feminist economists and environmental economists

女权主义经济学家和环境经济学家

have actually written about this quite a bit.

实际上已经写了很多 关乎于此的文章。

Let me give you some examples.

让我给你举几个例子。

If you marry your babysitter, GDP will go down, so do not do it.

如果你娶了照看孩子的保姆， GDP 就会下降，所以不要这么做。

Do not be tempted to do this, OK?

别被诱惑这么做，好吗？

Because an activity that perhaps was before being paid for is still being done

因为一项原本可被支付的活动 尽管会照常进行，

但结了婚，就没有“付钱”的环节了。

but is no longer paid.

(Laughter)

（笑声）

If you pollute, GDP goes up.

如果你污染环境， GDP 会上升。

Still don't do it, but if you do it, you'll help the economy.

但仍旧别那么做， 可如果要做，你会促进经济。

Why? Because we have to actually pay someone to clean it.

为什么？因为我们要支付某人来清洁。

Now, what's also really interesting is what happened to finance

现在，还有一个真正有趣的，

是金融部门的财务 在 GDP 中发生的情况。

in the financial sector in GDP.

This also, by the way, is something I'm always surprised

顺便，这也是我经常感到意外

但很多经济学家不知道的一件事。

that many economists don't know.

Up until 1970,

直到 1970 年，

most of the financial sector was not even included in GDP.

大多金融部门甚至不 被囊括在 GDP 中。

它是间接的，也许不是故意的，

It was kind of indirectly, perhaps not knowingly,

still being seen through the eyes of the Physiocrats

仍然被重商主义者视为

as just kind of moving stuff around, not actually producing anything new.

只是把东西搬来搬去， 并没有产生新东西的部门。

So only those activities that had an explicit price were included.

所以只有那些明确的价格活动 才被包含进去。

For example, if you went to get a mortgage, you were charged a fee.

例如，如果你要获取贷款， 你会被收取费用。

That went into GDP and the national income and product accounting.

这笔费用会被算入 GDP 、 国民收入以及产品核算。

但比如，净利息支付不算。

But, for example, net interest payments didn't,

the difference between what banks were earning in interest

也就是银行赚取贷款利息收入

if they gave you a loan and what they were paying out for a deposit.

和支付存款利息的差额。

That wasn't being included.

这曾经不算在 GDP 中的。

And so the people doing the accounting started to look at some data,

于是会计从业者 开始研究一些数据，

which started to show that the size of finance

这些数据逐渐显示出了 金融业运转资金

and these net interest payments

以及这些净利息支付的

were actually growing substantially.

高速增长。

And they called this the "banking problem."

他们称其为“银行业问题”。

These were some people working inside, actually, the United Nations

这些人实际上是联合国组织 国民账户体系（SNA）小组的

in a group called the Systems of National [Accounts], SNA.

工作人员。

他们称之为“银行业问题”，

They called it the "banking problem,"

like, "Oh my God, this thing is huge, and we're not even including it."

好比“我的天，这个东西体量那么大， 然而我们甚至没有把它包括进来”。

所以，相较于停下脚步， 专注于制作那张经济试算表

So instead of stopping and actually making that Tableau Economique

or asking some of these fundamental questions

或是问一些那些古典经济学家

that also the classicals were asking about what is actually happening,

询问发生了什么，

the division of labor between different types of activities in the economy,

经济中不同类型活动之间的劳动分工，

they simply gave these net interest payments a name.

他们只是简单给了 这些净利息支付一个名字。

所以商业银行们，被称为“金融媒介”。

So the commercial banks, they called this "financial intermediation."

That went into the NIPA accounts.

这算入国民收入和生产帐户（NIPA）。

And the investment banks were called the "risk-taking activities,"

之后投行们全都被叫做 “风险承担活动”，

and that went in.

也被算入 NIPA 。

In case I haven't explained this properly,

为了避免我没把这解释清楚，

那条红线展示了金融媒介作为整体

that red line is showing how much quicker

financial intermediation as a whole was growing

相比其他行业经济的蓝线

compared to the rest of the economy, the blue line, industry.

的增速要快不少。

And so this was quite extraordinary,

而且这很不寻常，

because what actually happened, and what we know today,

因为实际在发生的，以及我们今天所知的，

and there's different people writing about this,

有不同的人写了这些，

this data here is from the Bank of England,

这是英格兰银行的数据，

is that lots of what finance was actually doing

数据显示从 1970 年代开始 和 80 年代后

银行业实际一直在做的事情

from the 1970s and '80s on

was basically financing itself:

基本上就是给自己融资：

finance financing finance.

金融融资资金。

And what I mean by that is finance, insurance and real estate.

我的意思是金融，保险和房地产。

In fact, in the UK,

事实上，在英国

something like between 10 and 20 percent of finance

大概 10% - 20% 的融资

finds its way into the real economy, into industry,

能够最终流向实体经济， 流向行业，

say, into the energy sector, into pharmaceuticals,

比如能源部门，制药行业，

into the IT sector,

IT 部门，

but most of it goes back into that acronym, FIRE:

但其中的大部分最终会流回 FIRE，

即金融、保险和房地产。

finance, insurance and real estate.

It's very conveniently called FIRE.

简称为 FIRE 非常方便。

Now, this is interesting because, in fact,

这件事很有趣，因为实际上，

it's not to say that finance is good or bad,

并非说金融的好坏，

而且是其程度，

but the degree to which,

by just having to give it a name,

只要给它一个名字，

because it actually had an income that was being generated,

因为它实际上是有收入的，

as opposed to pausing and asking, "What is it actually doing?" --

而不是停下来问， “它到底在做什么?” --

that was a missed opportunity.

那是一个错失的机会。

Similarly, in the real economy, in industry itself, what was happening?

同样，在实体经济中， 行业自身，正在发生什么？

And this real focus on prices and also share prices

这种对价格以及股票价格 的真正关注

造成了再投资的巨大问题，

has created a huge problem of reinvestment,

again, this real attention that both the Physiocrats and the classicals had

再次，重农主义者和 古典主义者都非常关注

to the degree to which the value that was being generated in the economy

经济中产生的价值在多大程度上

was in fact being reinvested back in.

被重新投资。

And so what we have today is an ultrafinancialized industrial sector

所以我们今天拥有的是 过度金融化的行业部门，

where, increasingly, a share of the profits and the net income

它们越来越多的利润和净收入

are not actually going back into production,

并没有再次投入生产，

into human capital training, into research and development

没有流回人力资本培训， 或产品研发，

but just being siphoned out in terms of buying back your own shares,

而只是把这些资金用于 回购你自己的股票，

which boosts stock options, which is, in fact, the way

这提高了股票期权的价值，事实上，

that many executives are getting paid.

这也是许多高管获得报酬的方法。

And, you know, some share buybacks is absolutely fine,

你知道，股票回购绝对没问题，

但这样的一个系统完全不正常。

but this system is completely out of whack.

These numbers that I'm showing you here

我这里给你显示的这些数字

show that in the last 10 years, 466 of the S and P 500 companies

表明在过去 10 年， 500 家 S&P 公司中的 466 家

have spent over four trillion on just buying back their shares.

已经花了不止 4 万亿美元 在回购他们的股票上。

And what you see then if you aggregate this up at the macroeconomic level,

如果你在宏观经济层面 加总这些数字，

so if we look at aggregate business investment,

如果我们看商业投资的总额，

which is a percentage of GDP,

也就是所占 GDP 的百分比，

you also see this falling level of business investment.

你也会看到商业投资水平 呈现如此的下降趋势。

这是一个问题。

And this is a problem.

This, by the way, is a huge problem for skills and job creation.

顺便说一下，这对技能和创造就业 来说是个大问题。

You might have heard there's lots of attention these days

你可能听到近来很多关于

“机器人会抢走我们的工作吗？” 这样的话题。

to, "Are the robots taking our jobs?"

然而机械化在过去的几个世纪 已经取代了一些工作，

Well, mechanization has for centuries, actually, taken jobs,

but as long as profits were being reinvested back into production,

但只要利润持续重新投入生产，

then it didn't matter: new jobs appeared.

这个趋势丝毫不重要： 新的工作机会会出现。

But this lack of reinvestment is, in fact, very dangerous.

但是再投资的缺乏， 实际上，真的很危险。

Similarly, in the pharmaceutical industry, for example, how prices are set,

同样，在制药行业，其定价方式，

it's quite interesting how it doesn't look at these objective conditions

很有趣的是，它没有考虑这些客观条件

of the collective way in which value is created in the economy.

即集体创造价值的方式。

So in the sector where you have lots of different actors --

所以在这个行业有着很多参与者——

公共的、私人的，当然， 还有第三部门组织——

public, private, of course, but also third-sector organizations --

creating value,

创造价值，

the way we actually measure value in this sector

我们衡量这些部门价值的方法

is through the price system itself.

是通过价格体系本身。

Prices reveal value.

价格揭示价值。

So when, recently,

所以最近当一个抗生素的价格

the price of an antibiotic went up by 400 percent overnight,

一夜间上涨了 400%，

and the CEO was asked, "How can you do this?

人们问这家企业的 CEO ， “你这么能这么做？

People actually need that antibiotic.

人们需要这些抗生素。

That's unfair."

这不公平。”

He said, "Well, we have a moral imperative

他回答说：“我们有道德义务

to allow prices to go what the market will bear,"

让价格遵循市场走向”。

completely dismissing the fact that in the US, for example,

这完全无视美国的情况，例如，

the National Institutes of Health spent over 30 billion a year

国立卫生研究院每年在医学研究上 花费的300 多亿美元

其实推动了这些药物的开发。

on the medical research that actually leads to these drugs.

So, again, a lack of attention to those objective conditions

所以，再次， 缺乏对这些客观条件的关注，

and just allowing the price system itself to reveal the value.

只是让价格体系来揭示价值。

这也不仅是一个学术实践，

Now, this is not just an academic exercise,

as interesting as it may be.

它可能如此有趣。

All this really matters [for] how we measure output,

所有这些都对我们如何 衡量产出至关重要，

to how we steer the economy,

对我们如何掌舵经济，

to whether you feel that you're productive,

对你能否感到自己有生产效率，

to which sectors we end up helping, supporting

对我们最终帮助和支持哪个行业

and also making people feel proud to be part of.

并让人们因为其工作而感到自豪 至关重要。

In fact, going back to that quote,

实际上，回到那个引言，

it's not surprising that Blankfein could say that.

贝兰克梵（高盛 CEO ）这样说并不奇怪。

He was right.

他是对的。

In the way that we actually measure production, productivity

我们实际在衡量生产，生产力

和经济价值的方式，

and value in the economy,

of course Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive.

当然，高盛的员工是最具生产力的。

They are in fact earning the most.

他们实际上也是赚得最多的。

The price of their labor is revealing their value.

他们的劳动力价格 揭示了他们的价值。

但这也变得同义反复，当然。

But this becomes tautological, of course.

And so there's a real need to rethink.

我们真的需要重新思考。

We need to rethink how we're measuring output,

我们需要重新思考计算 产出的方式，

and in fact there's some amazing experiments worldwide.

而且实际上，世界范围内 有一些很棒的实验，

In New Zealand, for example, they now have a gross national happiness indicator.

比如在新西兰，他们现在 有国民幸福指标。

In Bhutan, also, they're thinking about happiness and well-being indicators.

在不丹，同样，他们在思考 幸福感和健康的指标。

But the problem is that we can't just be adding things in.

但问题在于我们不能只是 一贯往里加东西，

We do have to pause,

我们需要停下脚步，

and I think this should be a moment for pause,

我认为我们现在应该暂停一下，

given that we see so little has actually changed

考虑到自金融危机以来

since the financial crisis,

我们看到的改变如此之少，

to make sure that we are not also confusing

以确保我们没有混淆

价值提取和价值创造，

value extraction with value creation,

so looking at what's included, not just adding more,

所以看一下包括了什么， 而不是增加更多，

to make sure that we're not, for example, confusing rents with profits.

以确保我们不会混淆租金和利润。

Rents for the classicals was about unearned income.

古典主义认为租金是非劳动收入，

Today, rents, when they're talked about in economics,

而今天，经济界探讨的租金

is just an imperfection towards a competitive price

只是一个竞争价格的缺陷，

that could be competed away if you take away some asymmetries.

如果你消除一些不对称因素就会消失。

Second, we of course can steer activities into what the classicals called

第二，我们当然可以引导活动 进入古典主义者

the "production boundary."

所说的“生产边界”。

This should not be an us-versus-them,

这不应该是“我们 vs. 他们”，

big, bad finance versus good, other sectors.

也不应该是“不好的庞大金融 vs. 好的其它部门”。

我们可以改革金融业。

We could reform finance.

There was a real lost opportunity in some ways after the crisis.

危机过后，在某些方面 我们确实错失机会。

We could have had the financial transaction tax,

我们本可以征收金融交易税，

来回报长期主义更多， 而非短期主义。

which would have rewarded long-termism over short-termism,

but we didn't decide to do that globally.

但我们并没有在全球范围内 决定做这件事。

We can. We can change our minds.

我们可以。我们可以 改变我们的想法。

We can also set up new types of institutions.

我们也可以建立新机构。

There's different types of, for example, public financial institutions worldwide

全球有很多不同的机构， 比如公共金融机构，

that are actually providing that patient, long-term, committed finance

能够给病人提供长期 且稳定的资金，

that helps small firms grow, that help infrastructure and innovation happen.

能够帮助小微企业成长， 确保基建和创新的可能。

But this shouldn't just be about output.

但这不应该只是关于产出。

This shouldn't just be about the rate of output.

这不应该只是关于产出率。

We should also as a society pause

我们也应该做一个社会暂停并问：

and ask: What value are we even creating?

我们到底在创造什么价值？

And I just want to end with the fact that this week we are celebrating

我想以这周我们正在 庆祝登月50周年的事

来结束这个演讲。

the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing.

This required the public sector, the private sector,

登月这事儿需要 公共部门以及私有部门

to invest and innovate in all sorts of ways,

来投资和创新各种东西，

not just around aeronautics.

不仅是航空相关的，

It included investment in areas like nutrition and materials.

也包括对诸如营养和 材料等领域的投资。

There were lots of actual mistakes that were done along the way.

这条路走来，我们犯了不少错。

In fact, what government did was it used its full power of procurement,

实际上，政府所做的就是 充分利用它的采购权力

for example, to fuel those bottom-up solutions,

比如，推动那些自下而上 的解决方案，

of which some failed.

其中有些会失败。

But are failures part of value creation?

但是失败是价值创造的一部分吗？

Or are they just mistakes?

还是它们仅仅是错误？

Or how do we actually also nurture the experimentation,

还是我们应该如何培养实验，

the trial and error and error and error?

试错，再错，再错？

Bell Labs, which was the R and D laboratory of AT and T,

贝尔实验室， 即 AT&T 公司的研发实验室，

actually came from an era where government was quite courageous.

实际上来自一个政府 非常勇敢的时代。

It actually asked AT and T that in order to maintain its monopoly status,

它实际上要求AT和T这样做 是为了保持它的垄断地位，

它必须将利润重新投资于实体经济，

it had to reinvest its profits back into the real economy,

innovation

创新，

超出电信领域外的创新。

and innovation beyond telecoms.

That was the history, the early history of Bell Labs.

这是历史， 这是贝尔实验室的早期历史。

So how we can get these new conditions around reinvestment

因此，我们如何才能使这些 围绕再投资的新条件

to collectively invest in new types of value

共同投资于针对

我们这个时代一些最大挑战 的新型价值

directed at some of the biggest challenges of our time,

like climate change?

例如气候变化呢？

This is a key question.

这是个重要问题。

But we should also ask ourselves,

但是我们也应该自问：

had there been a net present value calculation

是否有过净现值计算

or a cost-benefit analysis done

或成本效益分析来决定

about whether or not to even try to go to the Moon and back again

是否要在我们可能不会开始的

in a generation,

一代人的时间里

we probably wouldn't have started.

尝试去月球再回来。

So thank God,

所以感谢上帝，

because I'm an economist, and I can tell you,

因为我是一个经济学家， 所以我可以告诉你

value is not just price.

价值不仅等同于价格。

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）