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

譯者: Pei-Chen Benson Liu 審譯者: Helen Chang

Value creation.

創造價值

Wealth creation.

創造財富

These are really powerful words.

都是很有份量的詞

Maybe you think of finance, you think of innovation,

也許你聯想到金融、創新

you think of creativity.

或是創意

But who are the value creators?

但究竟誰創造了價值？

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

說這話的意思就是

並非所有人都在創造價值

Who are they?

誰沒貢獻價值？

The couch potatoes?

整天窩在沙發看電視的人？

The value extractors?

萃取價值的人？

The value destroyers?

破壞價值的人？

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

要解答這問題

我們先要有一個像樣的價值理論

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

今天我以經濟學家的身分

為各位解答

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

我們迷失在這個問題上了

Now, don't look so surprised.

別這麼驚訝

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

我的意思是說

我們已經全盤接受

We've stopped actually asking really tough questions

也不再強硬質疑

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

創造價值和萃取價值的不同

生產活動和非生產活動的差異

productive and unproductive activities.

Now, let me just give you some context here.

我給各位講講背景知識

2009 was just about a year and a half after

2009 年當時

近代最嚴重的其中一次金融危機

one of the biggest financial crises of our time,

才解除不到一年半

second only to the 1929 Great Depression,

僅次於 1929 年的大蕭條

and the CEO of Goldman Sachs said

高盛集團執行長聲稱

他們的員工世上最有生產力

Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world.

Productivity and productiveness, for an economist,

經濟學家認為生產力高低

actually has a lot to do with value.

實際上和價值有很大關係

You're producing stuff,

你生產東西

you're producing it dynamically and efficiently.

用的是動態、有效率的方法

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

那些東西也是大家

所需、所想、所買

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

危機才過短短一年半

那樣的說辭從何而生

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

而且這家銀行

我只是拿高盛舉例

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

當然還有其他很多銀行

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

跟金融危機一點也脫不了關係

因為這些銀行製造出

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

一些出問題的金融產品

主要是抵押貸款

which saw many thousands of people actually lose their homes.

讓成千上萬人失去房產

In 2010, in just one month, September,

2010 年 9 月，僅僅這一個月內

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

有 120,000 人因為這次危機

房子遭銀行徵收而無家可歸

Between 2007 and 2010,

2007 至 2010 年間

8.8 million people lost their jobs.

880 萬人失業

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

這家銀行更是用了

美國納稅人 100 億美金

for the sum of 10 billion dollars.

才脫離險境

納稅人可沒自詡他們創造了價值

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

但很明顯的

but obviously, having bailed out

納稅人應以自己為榮

one of the biggest value-creating productive companies,

拯救了這些

創造價值、又有生產力的大公司

perhaps they should have.

What I want to do next is kind of ask ourselves

我接著想問大家

how we lost our way,

我們如何迷失了方向

how it could be, actually,

我們怎麼會對那樣的陳述

that a statement like that could almost go unnoticed,

幾乎毫無所覺

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

因為那席話十分認真

並非只是玩笑

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

我想帶大家回顧

經濟概念的 300 年歷史

when, actually, the term was contested.

當時，光是名稱本身就備受爭議

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

那些公司並無對錯

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

但不能無憑無據

給自己冠上價值、財富創造者的名號

There was a lot of debate within the economics profession.

這個問題也曾激起經濟學界熱烈討論

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

我認為我們已經迷失方向了

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

才讓「創造財富」、「價值」這些字

失其份量，得來全不費工夫

to become quite weak and lazy

and also easily captured.

可以脫口而出

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

我很不想提起這件事

300 years ago.

300 年前

Now, what was interesting 300 years ago

300 年前，特別的是

is the society was still an agricultural type of society.

整個社會仍然奉行農業

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

想當然耳

我們稱那時的經濟學家是重農主義者

who were called the Physiocrats,

actually put the center of their attention to farm labor.

他們把重心擺在農業勞力

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

當他們問：「價值從何來？」

they looked at farming.

考慮的是農事

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

魁奈 (François Quesnay) 帶領其他人

called the "Tableau Economique,"

畫了可能是史上第一張表格

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

稱作「經濟表」

And it was very interesting,

有趣的是

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

他們不只認為「農事創造價值」

They then really worried about what was happening to that value

還很苦惱這些價值究竟是如何產生的

when it was produced.

What the Tableau Economique does --

經濟表的功用便是

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

我會試著不說得那麼難

is it broke down the classes in society into three.

經濟表將社會分為三個等第

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

創造價值的農民

也叫作「生產階級」

Then others who were just moving some of this value around

其他人便只是四處搬動這些價值

but it was useful, it was necessary,

但這種行為很有用且必要

these were the merchants;

這些人是商人

they were called the "proprietors."

稱作「業主」

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

還有另一階級

他們只用現有資產

for an existing asset, the land,

也就是土地，向農民收錢

and they called them the "sterile class."

稱為「不事生產階級」

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

仔細想想的話

這詞其實很沈重，意思是：

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

如果地主得到太多資源

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

則事實上整個系統 生生不息的潛力將受到威脅

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

這些箭號是當時經濟學者在模擬

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

看到空白表格和模型

不得不說他們運用了大數據

they were simulating what would actually happen under different scenarios

他們模擬不同情境

if the wealth actually wasn't reinvested back into production

如果財富不再投入生產 讓土地更有生產力

to make that land more productive

and was actually being siphoned out in different ways,

而是以不同方法分離出去

or even if the proprietors were getting too much.

或如果甚至是業主獲利太多

And what later happened in the 1800s,

之後 1800 年代

and this was no longer the Agricultural Revolution

農業革命已不復存在

but the Industrial Revolution,

工業革命取而代之

is that the classical economists,

古典經濟學者

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

像是 Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx

開創新制

also asked the question "What is value?"

也想瞭解「價值是什麼？」

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

但他們實際生活在工業化時代

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

機械、工廠到處林立

他們的答案是工業勞力

they said it was industrial labor.

一點也不足為奇

So they had a labor theory of value.

他們提出勞動價值說

But again, their focus was reproduction,

重點仍是再生產

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

他們極力想找出

若價值分離到其他地方

if it was getting siphoned out.

創造價值時會發生什麼事

And in "The Wealth of Nations,"

Adam Smith 在《國富論》提到

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

大頭針工廠這個很好的例子

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

如果要一個人負責全部的步驟

at most you can make one pin a day.

一天最多就產一根大頭針

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

但如果有資源

投入到工廠生產和勞力分工

new thinking --

這是新的想法

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

我們現在稱之為「組織創新」

then you could increase the productivity

這樣生產力便會增加

and the growth and the wealth of nations.

國家也會成長、更加富裕

So he showed that 10 specialized workers

他提到了 10 位專業化的工人

who had been invested in, in their human capital,

他們的人力資本獲得資源

could produce 4,800 pins a day,

一天可以生產 4,800 根大頭針

as opposed to just one by an unspecialized worker.

跟一名工人包攬全部工作的結果迥異

And he and his fellow classical economists

Adam Smith 和其他古典經濟學家

also broke down activities into productive and unproductive ones.

也把各類活動分為

生產活動和非生產活動

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And the unproductive ones weren't --

這些非生產活動

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

你們在笑是因為自己也上榜了，對吧？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Lawyers! I think he was right about the lawyers.

律師！我想他把律師放上榜是對的

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

教授真不該在榜上

其他職業也是

So lawyers, professors, shopkeepers, musicians.

律師、教授、店主、音樂家

He obviously hated the opera.

他一定很討厭聽歌劇

He must have seen the worst performance of his life

他寫這本書前一晚

the night before writing this book.

一定聽了最差勁的歌劇

There's at least three professions up there

名單中至少有三種職業

that have to do with the opera.

跟歌劇有關

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

但這份名單並非要人們

「不要去從事這些職業」

It was just, "What's going to happen

而是在說

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

「如果我們真的讓經濟的一部份

發展的太壯大

without really thinking about how to increase the productivity

還不設法增加這些價值來源的生產力

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

會發生什麼事？」

這裡價值來源指的是工業勞力

which was industrial labor.

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

不要太斟酌其中的對錯

it was just very contested.

列這份名單本來就很有爭議

By making these lists,

it actually forced them also to ask interesting questions.

也讓他們提出一些很有趣的問題

And their focus, as the focus of the Physiocrats,

他們和重農主義者其實都想知道

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

生產的客觀條件

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

他們也研究其他事情，像是階級鬥爭

他們認定工資

Their understanding of wages

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

跟這些客觀的權力階級有關係

the bargaining power of capital and labor.

資方和勞方在工資上討價還價的能力

But again, factories, machines, division of labor,

工廠、機器、勞力分工

agricultural land and what was happening to it.

農業用土地，才是重點

So the big revolution that then happened --

重大變革接著發生

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

順道一提

經濟學課堂裡通常不提這個

the big revolution that happened with the current system

現今我們的經濟思想

稱作新古典經濟學派

of economic thinking that we have,

which is called "neoclassical economics,"

發生重大變革

was that the logic completely changed.

改變了整套邏輯思想

It changed in two ways.

變動了兩個方面

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

人們開始更關心主觀條件 而不是客觀條件

Let me explain what I mean by that.

讓我解釋一下

Objective, in the way I just said.

客觀，就像我剛說的

Subjective, in the sense that all the attention went to

主觀，大家更關注

how individuals of different sorts make their decisions.

不同類型的人如何做決定

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

勞工試圖在工作 和休閒中找到最大效益

Consumers are maximizing their so-called utility,

消費者也想得到最多所謂的效用

which is a proxy for happiness,

效用是幸福的代名詞

and firms are maximizing their profits.

企業也想賺到最多的利益

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

我們可以累積這些效益

看看會有什麼結果

and we see what that turns into,

就是背後的機制

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

是這些完美、花俏的供需曲線

which produce a price,

可以計算出一個價格

an equilibrium price.

一個均衡價格

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

交叉點是一個均衡價格

因為我們也納入許多牛頓的物理等式

a lot of Newtonian physics equations

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

重心就是組織原則的一部分

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

第二點是由均衡價格揭示價值

reveal value.

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

此（經濟理論）變革 不只從客觀變為主觀觀點

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

邏輯也變為

不再考慮什麼有價值

how is it being determined,

如何決定價值

what is the reproductive potential of the economy,

經濟體系的再生產潛力有多大

（上述不再）決定價格

which then leads to a theory of price

but rather the reverse:

反而是正好相反：

a theory of price and exchange

由價格和交換理論揭示其價值

which reveals value.

Now, this is a huge change.

這是個重大的變化

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

因為這不只跟學術有關

雖然學術上很有趣

It affects how we measure growth.

還會影響我們如何量測發展

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

會影響我們如何操縱經濟

增加或減少某些生產活動

less of others,

為何給予某些活動較多酬勞

how we also remunerate some activities more than others.

And it also just kind of makes you think,

還會令你思考

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

如果你沒創造價值的話 是否還願意起床工作

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

如果你沒參與決定 那麼價格體系本身會如何？

我剛剛說了

I mentioned it affects how we think about output.

我們對生產的看法會受到影響

If we only include, for example, in GDP,

如果我們只把定了價的行為

those activities that have prices,

舉例來說，納入 GDP

all sorts of really weird things happen.

很多奇怪的事會發生

Feminist economists and environmental economists

女性主義經濟學家和環境經濟學家

have actually written about this quite a bit.

其實發表了很多相關研究

Let me give you some examples.

這邊有幾個例子

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

如果你娶了你家的褓姆

GDP會下降

所以別這麼做

Do not be tempted to do this, OK?

別想著要這麼做，好嗎？

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

因為之前需要收費的生產活動

雖然現在還持續，卻已經免費了

but is no longer paid.

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

If you pollute, GDP goes up.

如果你汙染環境，GDP 會上升

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

別汙染

但汙染對經濟有益

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

為什麼？

因為我們需要付錢請人清理汙染

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

金融體制發生的事情也同樣很有趣

in the financial sector in GDP.

計算 GDP 時

這個體制歸類在金融產業

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

我一直很意外

that many economists don't know.

很多經濟學家不知道這件事

Up until 1970,

1970 年以前

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

大部分金融產業

還未納入 GDP 計算

It was kind of indirectly, perhaps not knowingly,

重農主義者間接或不知覺地

still being seen through the eyes of the Physiocrats

看穿這件事

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

也就是他們所說的移動東西

卻沒有製造出任何新的出來

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

所以只將明確標價的活動納入計算

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

就像是申請抵押貸款要付手續費

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

會算進 GDP、國民所得、產品會計

但像是給付的淨利息卻不會算進去

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

the difference between what banks were earning in interest

這個數字是銀行貸款給你所賺的利息

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

和銀行付給存款人利息間的差額

這筆錢沒有納入

That wasn't being included.

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

所以會計相關人員開始研究數據

which started to show that the size of finance

發現金融制度的規模

and these net interest payments

還有這些給付的淨利息

were actually growing substantially.

都大幅的成長

And they called this the "banking problem."

他們稱這個現象為「銀行業問題」

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

這些人其實是在 聯合國的一個組織工作

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

叫做國民經濟核算體系

They called it the "banking problem,"

他們稱之為「銀行業問題」

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

像是說：「天啊， 規模這麼大，卻沒有算進去」

他們沒實際去畫經濟表

So instead of stopping and actually making that Tableau Economique

or asking some of these fundamental questions

也沒問基礎的問題

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

那些是古典派學者想知道的

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

經濟中不同類型活動間的實際分工

這些人只幫給付的淨利息取個名字

they simply gave these net interest payments a name.

各商業銀行稱這個現象為

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

「金融中介」

That went into the NIPA accounts.

也納入了國民帳戶

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

投資銀行得到了

「風險承擔活動」的名號

and that went in.

也納入其中

In case I haven't explained this properly,

我怕我沒解釋清楚

這條紅線告訴我們

that red line is showing how much quicker

金融中介跟整個經濟體相比

financial intermediation as a whole was growing

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

也就是藍色這條線

成長的有多快

And so this was quite extraordinary,

這就是不尋常之處

because what actually happened, and what we know today,

有很多關於這個主題的研究

and there's different people writing about this,

這是英格蘭銀行的資料

this data here is from the Bank of England,

因為就真實情況和我們所了解

is that lots of what finance was actually doing

金融體制事實上

from the 1970s and '80s on

從 1970 到 80 年代

was basically financing itself:

其實就是在投資自己

finance financing finance.

金融業投資金融業

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

我指的是金融、保險還有不動產業

In fact, in the UK,

其實在英國

something like between 10 and 20 percent of finance

真正進入到經濟體和產業的資金

finds its way into the real economy, into industry,

大概有百分之十到二十

say, into the energy sector, into pharmaceuticals,

像是進入能源產業、製藥展業

into the IT sector,

或是資訊科技產業

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

但大部分還是回流到

金融業、保險業和不動產業

finance, insurance and real estate.

簡稱 FIRE

It's very conveniently called FIRE.

說 FIRE 比較方便

Now, this is interesting because, in fact,

這很耐人尋味，因為事實上

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

很難斷定資金是好還是壞

but the degree to which,

只能說

by just having to give it a name,

因為實際上創造了收入

because it actually had an income that was being generated,

僅僅為這現象取了個名稱

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

而不是質疑

「實際上是怎麼一回事？」

that was a missed opportunity.

浪費了那次機會

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

同樣的

在實際的經濟產業裡發生了什麼事？

And this real focus on prices and also share prices

只專注在價格還有股價

has created a huge problem of reinvestment,

造成再投資這個很大的問題

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

重農主義者和古典主義者

都在關注這個問題

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

經濟體裡，創造出來的價值

was in fact being reinvested back in.

實際上又投資回去

And so what we have today is an ultrafinancialized industrial sector

所以今天我們有超金融化的工業產業

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

其獲利或是淨利的一部分

are not actually going back into production,

沒再投入生產

into human capital training, into research and development

人資訓練、研發

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

只是抽出來買回自己的股份

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

提高了認股權

that many executives are getting paid.

其實也付了很多經理的薪水

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

回購股權沒什麼大不了

但這系統卻很不正常

but this system is completely out of whack.

這些數據告訴我們過去十年

These numbers that I'm showing you here

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

標普 500 公司中

466 間公司

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

花了超過四兆回購股權

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

如果在總體經濟層面

把這些數字加起來

so if we look at aggregate business investment,

看看企業總投資

which is a percentage of GDP,

也就是 GDP 中的佔比

you also see this falling level of business investment.

能看到企業投資下降

And this is a problem.

這就是問題所在

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

這件事對技術

新工作機會，也是很大的問題

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

最近大家可能很常聽到

to, "Are the robots taking our jobs?"

「機器人會搶走我們的工作嗎？」

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

其實機械化這件事幾世紀來

已經搶走了好多工作

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

但只要獲利重新投資回生產活動

then it didn't matter: new jobs appeared.

就沒什麼好擔心的

會出現很多新工作

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

沒有重新投資其實很危險

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

例如，製藥產業價格怎麼定

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

沒有考慮整個經濟體裡

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

創造價值的客觀條件

這件事非常奇怪

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

所以那些受多方影響的產業

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

公部門、私部門

還有第三部門

creating value,

都在創造價值

the way we actually measure value in this sector

我們其實是以價格系統

is through the price system itself.

計算這個部門的價值

Prices reveal value.

價格告訴我們價值

So when, recently,

所以最近

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

抗生速價格一夜之間漲了四倍

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

大家就問這間公司的執行長： 「怎麼可以這樣？

People actually need that antibiotic.

人們需要抗生素，這樣很不公平」

That's unfair."

他回答：「我們有道義責任

He said, "Well, we have a moral imperative

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

要讓價格高到市場所能承受的水平」

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

完全沒考慮到一件事

以美國為例

the National Institutes of Health spent over 30 billion a year

衛生研究院每年花三百億

on the medical research that actually leads to these drugs.

在研究這些藥品

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

所以忽視客觀條件就像是這樣

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

只讓價格系統定義價值

Now, this is not just an academic exercise,

這可不只是學界需要關心

as interesting as it may be.

雖然很有趣

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

這一切都會影響我們如何測量產量

to how we steer the economy,

還有如何引導經濟發展

to whether you feel that you're productive,

你是否覺得自己有生產力

to which sectors we end up helping, supporting

或是決定要扶持哪些產業

and also making people feel proud to be part of.

也要讓人民為身在其中感到光榮

In fact, going back to that quote,

我們如果再看一次那句引用來的話

it's not surprising that Blankfein could say that.

（高盛集團執行長） 布蘭克芬那樣說並不奇怪

He was right.

In the way that we actually measure production, productivity

他沒說錯

從測量經濟體生產

and value in the economy,

生產力和價值的方式來看

of course Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive.

高盛集團的員工當然最有生產力

They are in fact earning the most.

他們事實上也賺最多錢

The price of their labor is revealing their value.

他們的工資定義了價值

我就不再贅述了

But this becomes tautological, of course.

And so there's a real need to rethink.

不過我們需要思考

We need to rethink how we're measuring output,

思考我們測量產量的方式

and in fact there's some amazing experiments worldwide.

各國其實持續在做一些很奇妙的實驗

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

像是紐西蘭有國民幸福總值

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

不丹也有幸福感指數

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

問題在於我們不能只是把數字加起來

We do have to pause,

我們要停下來想一想

and I think this should be a moment for pause,

現在就是個很好的時機

given that we see so little has actually changed

因為從金融危機以來

我們沒做什麼改變

since the financial crisis,

to make sure that we are not also confusing

這時間也讓我們能夠分辨

value extraction with value creation,

萃取價制和創造價值

應該要看看什麼包含於其中

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

而不只是把數字往上加

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

確保我們沒把

像是租金算進獲利

Rents for the classicals was about unearned income.

古典學派視租金為非勞動所得

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

現在經濟學提到租金

is just an imperfection towards a competitive price

就是競爭價格的小瑕疵

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

如果移除一些不對稱因素

就能抵銷掉

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

再者，我們當然也能引導生產活動

到古典學派所稱的「生產邊界」

the "production boundary."

This should not be an us-versus-them,

這不該是彼此對立

big, bad finance versus good, other sectors.

大規模、不良資金

與其他優良部門對立

We could reform finance.

我們能夠改良金融體系

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

金融危機過後，我們錯失了良機

We could have had the financial transaction tax,

我們本應該徵收金融交易稅

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

鼓勵長期投資而不是短期投資

but we didn't decide to do that globally.

但並非全世界都有這樣做

We can. We can change our minds.

我們能夠改變思考模式

We can also set up new types of institutions.

我們也能設立新的機構

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

全世界有很多像是公共財務機構

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

提供長期、穩定的資金給小型企業

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

促進基礎建設和創新

But this shouldn't just be about output.

我們不能只著眼於產量

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

或是生產速度

整個社會都應該緩一緩並想一想

We should also as a society pause

and ask: What value are we even creating?

我們創造的是什麼價值

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

我最後想跟各位分享

這個星期是

人類登月五十週年

the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing.

This required the public sector, the private sector,

這項創舉需要公部門、私部門

to invest and innovate in all sorts of ways,

在各方面投資和創新

not just around aeronautics.

不只侷限在飛行技術

It included investment in areas like nutrition and materials.

還包含要投資營養、材料等領域

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

一路上其實錯誤百出

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

事實上政府只是運用他們的採購能力

for example, to fuel those bottom-up solutions,

找出從細節到整體的解決方法

of which some failed.

有些失敗了

But are failures part of value creation?

但失敗是創造價值的一部分嗎？

Or are they just mistakes?

或單純就只是錯誤？

Or how do we actually also nurture the experimentation,

還是我們也助長了實驗的方法

the trial and error and error and error?

試驗還有很多的錯誤經驗呢？

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

貝爾實驗室曾負責 AT&T 的研發工作

actually came from an era where government was quite courageous.

當年的政府勇氣可嘉

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

政府那時要求 AT&T 為了保持壟斷

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

必須要把獲利

重新投資進實體經濟、創新

innovation

and innovation beyond telecoms.

不限於電信領域的創新

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

這是貝爾實驗室的早期歷史

So how we can get these new conditions around reinvestment

我們要怎麼達到新條件以再投資

to collectively invest in new types of value

來一起投資新型的價值

directed at some of the biggest challenges of our time,

來解決我們這代最大的問題

like climate change?

像是環境變遷？

This is a key question.

這才是關鍵問題

But we should also ask ourselves,

我們也該問問自己

had there been a net present value calculation

倘若進行了淨現值計算

or a cost-benefit analysis done

或做了成本效益分析

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

以決定是否嘗試一次次往返月球

in a generation,

we probably wouldn't have started.

我們可能就不會開始

So thank God,

所以感謝老天爺

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

我是經濟學家，所以能告訴你

value is not just price.

價值並非只是價格

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）