Thomas Piketty: New thoughts on capital in the twenty-first century

譯者: Harry Chen 審譯者: Marssi Draw

It's very nice to be here tonight.

今晚能來到 TED 實在太棒了！

So I've been working on the history of income

我一直在研究有關

所得和財富分配的歷史，已經 15 年了，

and wealth distribution for the past 15 years,

and one of the interesting lessons

從這些過往的證據裡

coming from this historical evidence

可以發現一個很有意思的道理，

is indeed that, in the long run,

那就是長期來說

there is a tendency for the rate of return of capital

資本報酬率有高於 經濟成長率的趨勢，

to exceed the economy's growth rate,

and this tends to lead to high concentration of wealth.

這種趨勢容易造成財富高度集中，

Not infinite concentration of wealth,

雖然並不是無止境的財富集中，

but the higher the gap between r and g,

但是資本報酬率 (r) 與經濟成長率 (g) 差距越大，

the higher the level of inequality of wealth

財富不均的程度就會越嚴重，

towards which society tends to converge.

社會裡的不平等也會越嚴重。

So this is a key force that I'm going to talk about today,

這就是我今天要談的主要因素，

but let me say right away

不過讓我先說明，

that this is not the only important force

這並不是所得和財富分配變動的

in the dynamics of income and wealth distribution,

唯一重要因素，

and there are many other forces that play

還有許多其他因素

an important role in the long-run dynamics

在所得和財富分配的長期變動上

of income and wealth distribution.

扮演著重要的角色。

Also there is a lot of data

而且還有許多資料有待蒐集。

that still needs to be collected.

We know a little bit more today

今天我們比以前懂多一些，

than we used to know, but we still know too little,

不過懂的還是太少了，

and certainly there are many different processes —

而且一定還有許多不同的演變過程，

economic, social, political —

像是經濟、社會、政治，

that need to be studied more.

需要再多做研究。

And so I'm going to focus today on this simple force,

而我今天會鎖定在這個單一因素，

but that doesn't mean that other important forces

但這並不是說就沒有 其他重要因素了。

do not exist.

So most of the data I'm going to present

我接下來要呈現的資料

comes from this database

大部分來自可上網取得的資料庫：

that's available online:

the World Top Incomes Database.

「全球高所得資料庫」。

So this is the largest existing

這是現存最大的

historical database on inequality,

所得不均歷史資料庫，

and this comes from the effort

得力於數十個國家

of over 30 scholars from several dozen countries.

超過三十位學者的貢獻。

So let me show you a couple of facts

就讓我來帶大家看一些

coming from this database,

從資料庫裡得出的事實，

and then we'll return to r bigger than g.

然後我們再回來談 r 大於 g。

So fact number one is that there has been

事實一，

a big reversal in the ordering of income inequality

美國和歐洲所得不均的排行

between the United States and Europe

在上個世紀發生了大逆轉。

over the past century.

So back in 1900, 1910, income inequality was actually

時間拉回到 1900 年、1910 年，

歐洲所得不均的排名確實高於美國，

much higher in Europe than in the United States,

whereas today, it is a lot higher in the United States.

而今天美國排名卻遠高於歐洲。

So let me be very clear:

我先聲明，

The main explanation for this is not r bigger than g.

這裡主要的原因並不是 r 大於 g，

It has more to do with changing supply and demand

而是與以往不同的人才供需、

for skill, the race between education and technology,

教育跟科技間的競賽、

globalization, probably more unequal access

全球化有關，

也許和美國不平等的 技能學習管道大有關係。

to skills in the U.S.,

where you have very good, very top universities

美國有非常好、頂尖的大學，

but where the bottom part of the educational system

但基礎教育卻沒有很好。

is not as good,

so very unequal access to skills,

因此不平等的技能學習管道

and also an unprecedented rise

再加上美國高階主管的薪資福利

of top managerial compensation of the United States,

史無前例的大幅提升，

which is difficult to account for just on the basis of education.

很難以教育為基礎來解釋這個問題。

So there is more going on here,

因此這之中還有許多因素，

but I'm not going to talk too much about this today,

但我今天不打算在這上面講太多，

because I want to focus on wealth inequality.

因為我要聚焦在財富不均。

So let me just show you a very simple indicator

請看這項

關於所得不均的簡易指標。

about the income inequality part.

So this is the share of total income

這是所得前 10% 者的所得

going to the top 10 percent.

佔總所得的比重，

So you can see that one century ago,

所以你可以看到在一個世紀以前，

it was between 45 and 50 percent in Europe

歐洲的比例是在 45% 至 50% 之間，

and a little bit above 40 percent in the U.S.,

美國稍微高過 40%，

so there was more inequality in Europe.

所以歐洲的所得較不平均。

Then there was a sharp decline

到了二十世紀上半葉，

during the first half of the 20th century,

比重大大下滑，

and in the recent decade, you can see that

接著近數十年來，

你可以發現美國所得不均的現象 變得比歐洲更嚴重，

the U.S. has become more unequal than Europe,

and this is the first fact I just talked about.

這正是我剛說的第一個事實。

Now, the second fact is more about wealth inequality,

第二項事實跟財富不均更有關係，

and here the central fact is that wealth inequality

核心的事實就是

財富不均一直遠高於所得不均。

is always a lot higher than income inequality,

and also that wealth inequality,

雖然近幾十年來財富不均日益嚴重，

although it has also increased in recent decades,

is still less extreme today

但是比起上一個世紀，

than what it was a century ago,

現在已經沒那麼極端了。

although the total quantity of wealth

然而現在與所得有關的財富總量

relative to income has now recovered

已從一次世界大戰、大蕭條、

from the very large shocks

caused by World War I, the Great Depression,

第二次世界大戰的重創中

World War II.

恢復正常了。

So let me show you two graphs

請各位看這兩張圖表，

illustrating fact number two and fact number three.

解釋了事實二和事實三。

So first, if you look at the level of wealth inequality,

首先，如果你注意看財富不均的程度，

this is the share of total wealth

這是財富前 10% 者持有財富

going to the top 10 percent of wealth holders,

佔總財富的比重，

so you can see the same kind of reversal

你可以發現

美國與歐洲之間有相同的逆轉，

between the U.S. and Europe that we had before

就跟過去所得不均的逆轉一樣。

for income inequality.

So wealth concentration was higher

所以百年前歐洲財富集中的情形

in Europe than in the U.S. a century ago,

高過於美國，

and now it is the opposite.

現在就顛倒過來了。

But you can also show two things:

另外你也可以看出兩件事情，

First, the general level of wealth inequality

第一、財富不均的程度

is always higher than income inequality.

普遍高於所得不均。

So remember, for income inequality,

記得所得不均的情況，

the share going to the top 10 percent

前 10% 者擁有的所得

was between 30 and 50 percent of total income,

是總所得的 30% 至 50%，

whereas for wealth, the share is always

然而他們擁有的財富比例

between 60 and 90 percent.

卻一直在 60% 至 90% 之間。

Okay, so that's fact number one,

這就是事實一，

and that's very important for what follows.

對之後要說的很重要。

Wealth concentration is always

財富一直都

a lot higher than income concentration.

遠比所得更為集中。

Fact number two is that the rise

事實二、

近幾十年來財富不均惡化的情況

in wealth inequality in recent decades

is still not enough to get us back to 1910.

還不致於像 1910 年那樣嚴重。

So the big difference today,

與過去不同的是，

wealth inequality is still very large,

現在的貧富差距依然很大，

with 60, 70 percent of total wealth for the top 10,

前10% 的富人擁有 60% 至 70% 的總財富，

but the good news is that it's actually

但好消息是

情況的確已經比上個世紀好多了，

better than one century ago,

where you had 90 percent in Europe going to the top 10.

當時 90% 的總財富 落入了前 10% 富人的口袋裡。

So today what you have

那麼今天你們看到的是

is what I call the middle 40 percent,

我稱為中間 40% 的人，

the people who are not in the top 10

不是前 10 %，

and who are not in the bottom 50,

也不是墊底的 50%，

and what you can view as the wealth middle class

他們可以說是財富的中產階級，

that owns 20 to 30 percent

擁有總財富、國家財富的 20% 至 30%；

of total wealth, national wealth,

whereas they used to be poor, a century ago,

然而上個世紀他們卻是窮人，

when there was basically no wealth middle class.

因為那時候基本上沒有 財富的中產階級。

So this is an important change,

所以這是很重大的改變，

and it's interesting to see that wealth inequality

而且看到財富不均沒有完全恢復到

has not fully recovered to pre-World War I levels,

第一次世界大戰之前的程度也很有趣，

although the total quantity of wealth has recovered.

即便財富總量已經是恢復了。

Okay? So this is the total value

沒問題吧？

這是相較於所得的財富總值，

of wealth relative to income,

and you can see that in particular in Europe,

你可以看到特別是歐洲，

we are almost back to the pre-World War I level.

我們幾乎是回到了 第一次世界大戰之前的程度。

So there are really two

這件事其實有兩個不一樣的面向，

different parts of the story here.

One has to do with

一個是關於我們累積的財富總量，

the total quantity of wealth that we accumulate,

and there is nothing bad per se, of course,

當然累積一大堆財富

in accumulating a lot of wealth,

這件事本身沒有不好，

and in particular if it is more diffuse

特別是假如財富更分散，

and less concentrated.

又比較不那麼集中的時候。

So what we really want to focus on

那麼我們真正關心的是什麼？

is the long-run evolution of wealth inequality,

是財富不均的長期演變，

and what's going to happen in the future.

還有未來會發生什麼事。

How can we account for the fact that

我們要如何解釋 第一次世界大戰以前，

until World War I, wealth inequality was so high

財富差距如此大，

and, if anything, was rising to even higher levels,

而且是大到前所未有的程度，

and how can we think about the future?

那麼我們該如何看待未來呢？

So let me come to some of the explanations

那麼讓我來做一些說明，

and speculations about the future.

以及預測未來。

Let me first say that

我先聲明，

probably the best model to explain

解釋財富為什麼比所得

why wealth is so much

還要更集中的最佳經濟模型

more concentrated than income

is a dynamic, dynastic model

大概是一種動態、世代的經濟模型，

where individuals have a long horizon

其中每個人都長期

and accumulate wealth for all sorts of reasons.

為了各種理由來累積財富。

If people were accumulating wealth

假使人們累積財富

only for life cycle reasons,

只是為了因應生命週期，

you know, to be able to consume

為了在他們老的時候

when they are old,

還有能力花錢消費，

then the level of wealth inequality

那麼財富不均的情形

should be more or less in line

應該和所得不均的情形

with the level of income inequality.

相差不遠。

But it will be very difficult to explain

可是你很難說明

why you have so much more wealth inequality

為什麼財富不均要比所得不均更嚴重，

than income inequality

with a pure life cycle model,

只憑生命週期理論，

so you need a story

所以你需要一個情境，

where people also care

在其中的人們會為了 其他理由累積財富。

about wealth accumulation for other reasons.

So typically, they want to transmit

一般來說，他們想把財富

wealth to the next generation, to their children,

交給下一代、他們的小孩，

或者有時候他們累積財富

or sometimes they want to accumulate wealth

because of the prestige, the power that goes with wealth.

是為了特權──伴隨財富而來的權力。

So there must be other reasons

所以累積財富一定有除了

for accumulating wealth than just life cycle

生命週期以外的理由，

to explain what we see in the data.

來解釋我們在資料裡發現的情況。

Now, in a large class of dynamic models

在這種累積財富

of wealth accumulation

with such dynastic motive for accumulating wealth,

是為了累積世代財富的變動模式之中，

you will have all sorts of random,

會有各種毫無規則且加倍的衝擊。

multiplicative shocks.

So for instance, some families

舉例來說：

有些家庭有非常多的小孩，

have a very large number of children,

so the wealth will be divided.

因此財富就會分散，

Some families have fewer children.

有些家庭的小孩則較少。

You also have shocks to rates of return.

你也會對資產報酬率感到吃驚，

Some families make huge capital gains.

有的家庭有大筆資本利得，

Some made bad investments.

有的卻投資失利。

So you will always have some mobility

因此財富累積的過程

in the wealth process.

總是會有一些流動，

Some people will move up, some people will move down.

有些人會往上升、 有些人則會往下掉。

The important point is that,

重點是任何在這種模型下，

in any such model,

for a given variance of such shocks,

有這種特定的變動衝擊，

the equilibrium level of wealth inequality

財富不均的水平

will be a steeply rising function of r minus g.

會成為急遽升高的 r 減 g 函數。

And intuitively, the reason why the difference

財富報酬率與經濟成長率之間的差異

between the rate of return to wealth

為什麼重要，

and the growth rate is important

is that initial wealth inequalities

想當然是因為只要 r 減 g 的數值越大，

will be amplified at a faster pace

最初財富不均的情況就會被擴大得更快。

with a bigger r minus g.

So take a simple example,

舉個簡單的例子：

with r equals five percent and g equals one percent,

假設 r 是 5% 而 g 是 1%，

wealth holders only need to reinvest

財富持有人只需要再投資

one fifth of their capital income to ensure

資本所得的五分之一，

that their wealth rises as fast

他們財富增加的速度

就會跟經濟成長一樣快。

as the size of the economy.

So this makes it easier

因此創造和保有大筆財富就更容易，

to build and perpetuate large fortunes

because you can consume four fifths,

因為你可以消費五分之四，

assuming zero tax,

假設零稅率，

and you can just reinvest one fifth.

你就可以再投資五分之一。

So of course some families will consume more than that,

當然有些家庭會消費多一些、

some will consume less, so there will be

有的則消費較少，

分配上就會有一些變動，

some mobility in the distribution,

but on average, they only need to reinvest one fifth,

但是總的來看， 他們只要再投資五分之一，

so this allows high wealth inequalities to be sustained.

這樣就能維持財富高度不均。

Now, you should not be surprised

現在你應該不會驚訝於

by the statement that r can be bigger than g forever,

r 永遠可以大於 g 這句話了，

because, in fact, this is what happened

因為事實上，

這種情況在人類史上很常見。

during most of the history of mankind.

And this was in a way very obvious to everybody

這種情況大家都能看得一清二楚，

for a simple reason, which is that growth

理由很簡單，

因為史上大多數時候 經濟成長率幾乎是 0%。

was close to zero percent

during most of the history of mankind.

Growth was maybe 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 percent,

經濟成長率也許是 0.1%、0.2% 或 0.3%，

but very slow growth of population

但人口和人均產出的成長率非常慢，

and output per capita,

whereas the rate of return on capital

那時候資本報酬率

of course was not zero percent.

當然不會是 0%。

It was, for land assets, which was

以土地來說，

the traditional form

在工業化以前的社會，

of assets in preindustrial societies,

土地是典型的資產，

it was typically five percent.

報酬率通常是 5%。

Any reader of Jane Austen would know that.

任何讀過珍奧斯汀作品的人都知道。

If you want an annual income of 1,000 pounds,

假如你想要得到一千英磅的年所得，

you should have a capital value

你應該要有價值兩萬英鎊的資本，

of 20,000 pounds so that

five percent of 20,000 is 1,000.

兩萬的 5% 就是一千。

And in a way, this was

這就是以前社會的基礎，

the very foundation of society,

because r bigger than g

因為 r 大於 g

was what allowed holders of wealth and assets

就會讓財富以及資產的持有者可以

to live off their capital income

靠著資本所得過生活，

and to do something else in life

還能在生活中做些別的事，

than just to care about their own survival.

而不是只關心能不能填飽肚子。

Now, one important conclusion

我的歷史研究

of my historical research is that

有一個重要的結論是

modern industrial growth did not change

現代工業的發展並未如我們期待

this basic fact as much as one might have expected.

改變這個簡單的事實太多。

Of course, the growth rate

當然經濟成長率

following the Industrial Revolution

隨著工業革命後增加，

rose, typically from zero to one to two percent,

通常是多出零到 1% 或 2%，

but at the same time, the rate of return

不過同一時間

資本報酬率也增加了，

to capital also rose

so that the gap between the two

所以貧富差距沒多少改變。

did not really change.

So during the 20th century,

二十世紀

you had a very unique combination of events.

是由許多事件交織成的特殊時代。

First, a very low rate of return

首先是非常低的報酬率，

due to the 1914 and 1945 war shocks,

肇因於 1914 年和 1945 年 戰爭造成的衝擊、

destruction of wealth, inflation,

財富破壞、通貨膨脹、

bankruptcy during the Great Depression,

以及大蕭條期間的破產，

and all of this reduced

以上原因讓個人的財富報酬率

the private rate of return to wealth

to unusually low levels

在 1914 到 1945 年時

between 1914 and 1945.

下降到異常低的程度。

And then, in the postwar period,

接著在戰後期間

you had unusually high growth rate,

出現異常高的經濟成長率，

partly due to the reconstruction.

部分歸功於重建。

You know, in Germany, in France, in Japan,

在德國、法國和日本，

you had five percent growth rate

在 1950 到 1980 年之間，

between 1950 and 1980

出現過 5% 的經濟成長率，

largely due to reconstruction,

大部分歸功於重建，

and also due to very large demographic growth,

也歸功於大量的人口成長，

the Baby Boom Cohort effect.

也就是嬰兒潮世代。

Now, apparently that's not going to last for very long,

顯然那無法持續太久，

or at least the population growth

或者至少未來

is supposed to decline in the future,

人口成長應該會下降，

and the best projections we have is that

我們有的最佳預測是

the long-run growth is going to be closer

長期經濟成長率

to one to two percent

將會是 1% 至 2%，

rather than four to five percent.

而不是 4% 至 5%。

So if you look at this,

如果你看到這邊，

these are the best estimates we have

這是全球國內生產毛額、

of world GDP growth

and rate of return on capital,

資本報酬率、

average rates of return on capital,

也就是平均資產報酬率的最佳預測。

so you can see that during most

你能看到人類史上

of the history of mankind,

大多數時間的

the growth rate was very small,

經濟成長率非常低，

much lower than the rate of return,

遠低於資本報酬率，

and then during the 20th century,

後來在 20 世紀期間，

it is really the population growth,

真的就是人口成長，

very high in the postwar period,

戰後的人口成長率非常高，

and the reconstruction process

而重建的過程

that brought growth

讓經濟成長率

to a smaller gap with the rate of return.

與資產報酬率間的差距縮小了。

Here I use the United Nations population projections,

我用的是聯合國的未來人口預測，

so of course they are uncertain.

當然這些數字還不確定。

It could be that we all start

也許是我們開始準備

having a lot of children in the future,

要在未來生很多的小孩，

and the growth rates are going to be higher,

而經濟成長率就會更高一些，

but from now on,

但是從現在開始，

these are the best projections we have,

這些就是我們現有的最佳預測，

and this will make global growth

這將使得全球的經濟成長下滑、

decline and the gap between

還有與資產報酬率之間的

the rate of return go up.

差距將會擴大。

Now, the other unusual event

另一件 20 世紀發生的特殊事件，

during the 20th century

如同我剛才提到的，

was, as I said,

destruction, taxation of capital,

就是財產破壞、資本稅，

so this is the pre-tax rate of return.

這邊是稅前的報酬率；

This is the after-tax rate of return,

而這是稅後、財產破壞後的報酬率，

and after destruction,

and this is what brought

這是課稅後、財產破壞後的平均報酬率，

the average rate of return

after tax, after destruction,

就是稅金和財產破壞

below the growth rate during a long time period.

讓平均報酬率 長時間低於經濟成長率。

But without the destruction,

但是如果沒有財產破壞和資本稅，

without the taxation, this would not have happened.

這些就不可能發生。

So let me say that the balance between

所以讓我這麼說吧，

returns on capital and growth

資本報酬率以及經濟成長率之間的平衡

depends on many different factors

取決於許多難以預料的各種因素，

that are very difficult to predict:

technology and the development

像是科技和資本密集技術的發展。

of capital-intensive techniques.

So right now, the most capital-intensive sectors

在目前的經濟裡，

資本最密集的行業是

in the economy are the real estate sector, housing,

地產業、房屋業、能源業，

the energy sector, but it could be in the future

不過未來有可能

that we have a lot more robots in a number of sectors

在部分部門中 我們會用上一大堆機器人，

and that this would be a bigger share

這些行業就會佔有

of the total capital stock that it is today.

比今天更高的總資本量比例。

Well, we are very far from this,

但那還遙不可及，

and from now, what's going on

從現在來說不動產業、能源業

in the real estate sector, the energy sector,

發生的變化，

is much more important for the total capital stock

對資本總量還有所佔比例

and capital share.

更加重要。

The other important issue

另一個重要的課題是

is that there are scale effects in portfolio management,

投資組合管理的規模效果，

together with financial complexity,

結合金融的複雜性

financial deregulation,

與財政法令鬆綁，

that make it easier to get higher rates of return

使得大型的投資組合

for a large portfolio,

更容易得到較高的報酬率，

and this seems to be particularly strong

這對億萬富翁、大型資本捐贈來說

for billionaires, large capital endowments.

似乎格外有效。

Just to give you one example,

給你看個例子，

this comes from the Forbes billionaire rankings

這是富比士的億萬富翁排名，

over the 1987-2013 period,

1987 年到 2013 年期間的資料，

and you can see the very top wealth holders

你可以看到財富最多的那群人

have been going up at six, seven percent per year

財富實質上每年都比 通貨膨脹高 6% 至 7%，

in real terms above inflation,

whereas average income in the world,

但是世界上的平均所得、平均財富

average wealth in the world,

have increased at only two percent per year.

每年卻只增加 2%。

And you find the same

你也會看到同樣的情形

for large university endowments —

出現在大學的大型捐贈，

the bigger the initial endowments,

起始的捐贈基金規模越大，

the bigger the rate of return.

報酬率就越高。

Now, what could be done?

我們可以做什麼呢？

The first thing is that I think we need

第一件事我認為我們需要

more financial transparency.

財務更加透明。

We know too little about global wealth dynamics,

我們對全球的財富流動所知不多，

so we need international transmission

因此我們需要銀行資訊在國際間傳遞，

of bank information.

We need a global registry of financial assets,

我們需要全球性的金融資產登記制度，

more coordination on wealth taxation,

並且在財富稅上做更多協調，

and even wealth tax with a small tax rate

縱使財富稅用較低的稅率，

will be a way to produce information

仍會是提供資訊的方式，

so that then we can adapt our policies

如此一來我們就能

依據發現的問題來調整政策。

to whatever we observe.

And to some extent, the fight

在某個程度來說，

against tax havens

對抗避稅天堂、

and automatic transmission of information

自動傳遞資訊

is pushing us in this direction.

都促使我們朝這個方向前進。

Now, there are other ways to redistribute wealth,

現在有其他重新分配財富的方法

which it can be tempting to use.

讓人非常想要採用，

Inflation:

像是通貨膨脹，

it's much easier to print money

比起擬定稅務規則， 印鈔票是簡單多了，

than to write a tax code, so that's very tempting,

所以那非常誘人，

but sometimes you don't know what you do with the money.

可是有時候你不清楚要怎麼處理錢，

This is a problem.

這就是問題了。

Expropriation is very tempting.

充公是非常吸引人的方式，

Just when you feel some people get too wealthy,

只要你認為有些人太富有了，

you just expropriate them.

你就讓他們的財產充公。

But this is not a very efficient way

但是制定讓財富流動的法令

to organize a regulation of wealth dynamics.

並不是非常有效的辦法；

So war is an even less efficient way,

而戰爭更是無效的辦法，

so I tend to prefer progressive taxation,

所以我比較偏好累進式稅制，

but of course, history — (Laughter) —

當然了，歷史…（笑聲）

history will invent its own best ways,

歷史會找到當下的最佳方法，

and it will probably involve

那可能會是所有方法的匯總。

a combination of all of these.

Thank you.

謝謝！

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Bruno Giussani: Thomas Piketty. Thank you.

布魯諾．吉桑尼： 托瑪．皮凱提，謝謝你。

Thomas, I want to ask you two or three questions,

托瑪，我想請教你兩、三個問題，

because it's impressive how you're in command of your data, of course,

因為你運用資料的方式 讓人印象深刻，這是當然的了，

but basically what you suggest is

不過基本上你指出的是

growing wealth concentration is kind of

財富集中的增長算是

a natural tendency of capitalism,

資本主義的自然趨勢，

and if we leave it to its own devices,

如果我們放任它不管，

it may threaten the system itself,

也許它會傷害到 資本主義本身的系統，

so you're suggesting that we need to act

所以你認為我們需要採取

to implement policies that redistribute wealth,

落實財富重分配的政策，

including the ones we just saw:

包含我們剛剛看到的

progressive taxation, etc.

累進稅制…等等。

In the current political context,

在當前的政治環境裡，

how realistic are those?

那些方法的可能性有多高呢？

How likely do you think that it is

你又認為這些方法

that they will be implemented?

有多少可能性會被採用？

Thomas Piketty: Well, you know, I think

托瑪．皮凱提：好的，我認為

if you look back through time,

如果你回頭看，

the history of income, wealth and taxation

所得、財富還有稅制的歷史

is full of surprise.

總令人意外，

So I am not terribly impressed

所以我對那些事先知道

by those who know in advance

將來會或不會發生什麼事的人

what will or will not happen.

並沒有留下太深刻的印象。

I think one century ago,

我想一個世紀前，

many people would have said

許多人會說，

that progressive income taxation would never happen

累進式所得稅不可行，

and then it happened.

但後來卻實現了。

And even five years ago,

甚至是在五年前，

many people would have said that bank secrecy

很多人會說瑞士的銀行保密

will be with us forever in Switzerland,

會永遠罩著我們，

that Switzerland was too powerful

因為瑞士對其他國家來說太強勢了。

for the rest of the world,

and then suddenly it took a few U.S. sanctions

後來突然間美國對瑞士 提出一些制裁，---

against Swiss banks for a big change to happen,

要求大幅改變，

and now we are moving toward

現在我們的財務會漸漸變得更透明。

more financial transparency.

So I think it's not that difficult

所以我認為要在政治上

to better coordinate politically.

做更多協調不是太難的事。

We are going to have a treaty

不久後會有一項協定

with half of the world GDP around the table

由全球半數 GDP 的國家共同協議，

with the U.S. and the European Union,

包含美國和歐盟，

so if half of the world GDP is not enough

如果佔全球半數 GDP 的國家

to make progress on financial transparency

還不足以改善財務透明、

and minimal tax for multinational corporate profits,

對跨國公司的獲利課點稅，

what does it take?

那需要多少才夠呢？

So I think these are not technical difficulties.

所以我認為並沒有技術上的困難，

I think we can make progress

我認為我們可以改善，

if we have a more pragmatic approach to these questions

只要我們有更務實的方法 來解決這些問題，

and we have the proper sanctions

並且有恰當的制裁手段

on those who benefit from financial opacity.

對付因為財務不透明而獲利的人。

BG: One of the arguments

吉桑尼：有一項爭議

against your point of view

和你的觀點相左，

is that economic inequality

那就是經濟不平等

is not only a feature of capitalism but is actually one of its engines.

不只是資本主義的特色， 更是經濟的引擎之一，

So we take measures to lower inequality,

因此我們採取手段減少不平等現象，

and at the same time we lower growth, potentially.

但同時我們也不經意減少了經濟成長，

What do you answer to that?

你怎麼回應這點呢？

TP: Yeah, I think inequality

皮凱提：我認為

is not a problem per se.

不平等本身並不是個問題，

I think inequality up to a point

我認為不平等某種程度

can actually be useful for innovation and growth.

對創新跟成長確實能有幫助，

The problem is, it's a question of degree.

問題是到什麼程度。

When inequality gets too extreme,

當不平等變得太嚴重，

then it becomes useless for growth

對經濟成長就會沒有幫助，

and it can even become bad

而且它還可能有害，

because it tends to lead to high perpetuation

因為它會導致永久的高度不平等，

of inequality over time

and low mobility.

以及低流動性。

And for instance, the kind of wealth concentrations

舉例來說十九世紀，

that we had in the 19th century

甚至一直到第一次世界大戰以前

and pretty much until World War I

發生在歐洲各國的那種財富集中，

in every European country

was, I think, not useful for growth.

我認為對成長是沒有幫助的。

This was destroyed by a combination

財富集中被悲劇事件和政策改變----

of tragic events and policy changes,

一同摧毀了，

and this did not prevent growth from happening.

卻未阻擋經濟成長。

And also, extreme inequality can be bad

而且極度不平均可能

for our democratic institutions

對我們的民主體制有害，

if it creates very unequal access to political voice,

如果它造成取得政治發言權的不平等，

and the influence of private money

還有在美國政治裡

in U.S. politics, I think,

私人財富的影響力，

is a matter of concern right now.

我認為那是現在該擔心的事了。

So we don't want to return to that kind of extreme,

我們不想要回到那種極端，

pre-World War I inequality.

像第一次世界大戰前那樣的不均。

Having a decent share of the national wealth

讓中產階級享有適當比例的國家財富---

for the middle class is not bad for growth.

對經濟成長不是壞事，

It is actually useful

其實還有助於

both for equity and efficiency reasons.

公平與效率原則。

BG: I said at the beginning

吉桑尼：開頭時我曾說

that your book has been criticized.

你的書不斷被人批評，

Some of your data has been criticized.

有一些是批評你的資料，

Some of your choice of data sets has been criticized.

有些是批評你對資料集的選擇，

You have been accused of cherry-picking data

你被指控只篩選某些資料做案例，---

to make your case. What do you answer to that?

你要怎麼來回答這個問題呢？

TP: Well, I answer that I am very happy

皮凱提：我想說我真的很高興

that this book is stimulating debate.

這本書引起討論，

This is part of what it is intended for.

因為那也是這本書的目的之一。

Look, the reason why I put all the data online

我將全部的資料放上網路，

with all of the detailed computation

包括計算的細節，

is so that we can have an open and transparent

是因為這樣一來我們可以

debate about this.

公開和透明的辯論。

So I have responded point by point

所以我已經一一回應

to every concern.

每一個疑慮，

Let me say that if I was to rewrite the book today,

讓我這麼說吧， 假使我今天要重寫這本書，

I would actually conclude

我一定會斷言

that the rise in wealth inequality,

財富不均日益嚴重的情形，

particularly in the United States,

特別是在美國，

has been actually higher than what I report in my book.

已經超過當初我在書中所述。

There is a recent study by Saez and Zucman

最近賽茲和祖克曼在一項研究中

showing, with new data

採用的新資料

which I didn't have at the time of the book,

就是我出書時還沒有的，

that wealth concentration in the U.S. has risen

研究顯示美國的財富已更加集中，

even more than what I report.

甚至高過於我所寫的。

And there will be other data in the future.

未來還會有其他的資料，

Some of it will go in different directions.

某部分會有不同的走向，

Look, we put online almost every week

你看，我們幾乎是每週 把資料放上網路，

new, updated series on the World Top Income Database

將更新的歷程放上全球高所得資料庫，

and we will keep doing so in the future,

而且我們未來也會繼續這樣做，

in particular in emerging countries,

特別是在新興國家，

and I welcome all of those who want to contribute

而我也歡迎所有想要

to this data collection process.

協助收集資料的人。

In fact, I certainly agree

事實上我絕對同意

that there is not enough

財富變動不夠透明，---

transparency about wealth dynamics,

and a good way to have better data

取得較佳資料的好方法

would be to have a wealth tax

就是要有財富稅，

with a small tax rate to begin with

一開始採取低稅率，

so that we can all agree

這樣我們都能認同

about this important evolution

這項重要改革，

and adapt our policies to whatever we observe.

還有從我們觀察到的來調整政策。

So taxation is a source of knowledge,

所以稅收是重要的資訊來源，

and that's what we need the most right now.

而那正是我們現在最需要的。

BG: Thomas Piketty, merci beaucoup.

吉桑尼：托瑪．皮凱提， 非常感謝（法語）！謝謝你！

Thank you. TP: Thank you. (Applause)

皮凱提：謝謝大家！（掌聲）