Joseph Stiglitz: America is no longer a land of opportunity / “美國夢”已成神話

US inequality is at its highest point for nearly a century. Those at the top – no matter how you slice it – are enjoying a larger share of the national pie; the number below the poverty level is growing. The gap between those with the median income and those at the top is growing, too. The US used to think of itself as a middle-class country – but this is no longer true.

Economists have justified such disparities by citing “marginal productivity theory”, which explains higher incomes through greater societal contributions. But those who have really transformed our society, by providing the knowledge that underpins the advances in technology, earn a relative pittance. Just think of the inventors of the laser, the Turing machine or the discoverers of DNA. The innovation of those on Wall Street, while well compensated, brought the global economy to the brink of ruin; and these financial entrepreneurs walked off with mega-incomes.

One might feel better about inequality if there were a grain of truth in trickle-down economics. But the median income of Americans today is lower than it was a decade and a half ago; and the median income of a full-time male worker is lower than it was more than four decades ago. Meanwhile, those at the top have never had it so good.

Some argue that increased inequality is an inevitable byproduct of the market. False: several countries are reducing inequality while maintaining economic growth.

Markets are shaped by the rules of the game. Our political system has written rules that benefit the rich at the expense of others. Financial regulations allow predatory lending and abusive credit-card practices that transfer money from the bottom to the top. So do bankruptcy laws that provide priority for derivatives. The rules of globalisation – where capital is freely mobile but workers are not– enhance an already large asymmetry of bargaining: businesses threaten to leave the country unless workers make strong concessions.

Textbooks teach us that we can have a more egalitarian society only if we give up growth or efficiency. However, closer analysis shows that we are paying a high price for inequality: it contributes to social, economic and political instability, and to lower growth. Western countries with the healthiest economies (for example those in Scandinavia) are also the countries with the highest degree of equality.

The US grew far faster in the decades after the second world war, when inequality was lower, than it did after 1980, since when the gains have gone disproportionately to the top. There is growing evidence looking across countries over time that suggests a link between equality, growth and stability.

There is good news in this: by reducing rent-seeking – finding ways of getting a larger share of the pie, rather than making the pie larger – and the distortions that give rise to so much of America’s inequality we can achieve a fairer society and a better-performing economy. Laws that tax speculators at less than half the rate of those who work for a living or make the innovations that are transforming our society, say something about our values; but they also distort our economy, encouraging young people to move into gambling rather than into more productive areas. Since so much of the income at the top is derived from rent seeking, higher taxes at the top would discourage rent-seeking.

America used to be thought of as the land of opportunity. Today, a child’s life chances are more dependent on the income of his or her parents than in Europe, or any other of the advanced industrial countries for which there are data. The US worked hard to create the American dream of opportunity. But today, that dream is a myth.

We can once again become a land of opportunity but it will not happen on its own, and it will not happen with a politics that focuses on cutting public education and other programmes to enhance opportunities for the bottom and middle, while cutting taxes for those at the very top. President Barack Obama’s support for these investments, as well as the “Buffett rule” that asks those at the top to pay at least as much in tax as a share of their income as those who are less fortunate, are moves in the right direction. Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s suggestion that we cut back on public employees is worrisome; as is his silence on whether capital gains on speculation should be taxed at a lower rate than income derived from hard work.

The country will have to make a choice: if it continues as it has in recent decades, the lack of opportunity will mean a more divided society, marked by lower growth and higher social, political and economic instability. Or it can recognise that the economy has lost its balance. The gilded age led to the progressive era, the excesses of the Roaring Twenties led to the Depression, which in turn led to the New Deal. Each time, the country saw the extremes to which it was going and pulled back. The question is, will it do so once again?


The writer is a recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics and the author of the forthcoming ‘The Price of Inequality’

Joseph Stiglitz : “美國夢”已成神話

美國的不平等程度正處於近一個世紀以來的最高點。不管你如何解讀，收入最高的人群正享用著更大的一塊蛋糕﹔位於貧困線以下的人群正在擴大。中值收入和最高收入人群之間的差距也在拉大。美國曾經認為自己是一個中產階級國家，但情況已不再是這樣了。

經濟學家們引用“邊際生產率理論”(marginal productivity theory)為此類差異提供理由，該理論用更大的社會貢獻來解釋更高的收入。但那些提供推動技術進步的知識、從而真正改變我們的社會的人，得到的報酬相對微薄。想想激光、圖靈機的發明人，或者DNA的發現者吧。華爾街高薪人士的創新把全球經濟推向毀滅的邊緣，可這些金融企業家們照樣揣著巨額收入一走了事。

如果滴漏(trickle-down)經濟學有一點點道理的話，人們對於不平等的心態或許會好一點。但美國人如今的收入中值不及15年以前﹔全職男性員工的收入中值低於40多年前。與此同時，那些收入最高的人群從未像現在這樣富有。

一些人辯稱，不平等程度加劇是市場不可避免的副產品。錯：有好幾個國家在降低不平等程度的同時保持了經濟增長。

市場是用游戲規則塑造而成的。我們的政治體制制定了造福於富人、而讓其他人付出代價的規則。金融監管聽任掠奪性的放貸和欺騙性的信用卡業務實踐泛濫，從而讓金錢從底層向頂層轉移。為衍生品提供優先權的破產法也是如此。全球化的規則（資金可以自由流動，但員工不可以）加劇了本已巨大的議價不對稱性：企業威脅，除非員工做出巨大讓步，否則將離開所在國家。

教科書告訴我們，隻有放棄增長或效率，我們才能擁有一個更平等的社會。然而，更仔細的分析顯示，我們正為不平等付出巨大代價：它加劇了社會、經濟和政治的不穩定，也加劇了增長放緩。擁有最健康經濟的西方國家（例如斯堪的納維亞半島國家）也是平等程度最高的國家。

在二戰後不平等程度較低的那幾十年裡，美國經濟的增速遠遠快於1980年以後。1980年后，經濟增長所帶來的好處超出比例地流向收入最高人群。從各個國家的長期數據來看，越來越多的証據表明，平等、增長和穩定之間似乎存在著一定聯系。

從好的方面來看：通過減少“尋租”（設法分得更大一塊蛋糕，而不是把蛋糕做得更大），減少給美國帶來這麼多不平等的扭曲機制，我們可以讓美國社會更加公平，也讓美國經濟運轉得更好。針對投機者的稅率，尚不及掙錢謀生者和創新者適用稅率的一半，這樣的法律在某種程度上體現了我們的價值觀，但也扭曲了我們的經濟，鼓勵年輕人投機，而不是投入生產活動。因為頂層有這麼多收入來自“尋租”，因此對收入最高人群征更高的稅會抑制“尋租”。

過去，人們覺得美國遍地是機會。可在如今的美國，一個孩子在人生機遇方面依賴父母收入的程度，超過歐洲或有數據記錄的其他任何發達工業國家。昔日的美國努力創造機會均等的“美國夢”。但如今，“美國夢” 只是個神話。

美國能夠再次變成一個遍地是機會的地方，但這種變化不會自動發生。只要我們還在實行這樣的政策——削減公共教育和有助於增加中下層發展機會的其他項目、同時削減收入最高人群適用的稅率——這種變化就不會發生。美國總統巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)支持公共教育等投資，並支持“巴菲特規則”（要求針對收入最高人群的所得稅稅率至少達到普通人的水平），這些舉措的方向都是正確的。共和黨總統候選人米特•羅姆尼(Mitt Romney)提出要裁減公務員，同時在另一個問題上（投機產生的資本利得適用稅率是否應低於辛勤工作所得）保持沉默，這些都令人擔憂。

美國將不得不面臨一個抉擇：如果繼續走近幾十年的老路，機會的匱乏將意味著社會分化更加嚴重，經濟增長率降低，社會、政治和經濟更加不穩定。抑或，美國可以意識到：經濟已失衡。黃金時代之後迎來進步時代，咆哮的二十年代(Roaring Twenties)的過分行為引發大蕭條(Depression)，而大蕭條又引出羅斯福新政(New Deal)。每次發現自己正走向極端之後，這個國家都把自己拉回了正常軌道。問題是，這一次還會這樣嗎？

本文作者是2001年諾貝爾經濟學獎(Nobel Prize in economics)得主，新書《不平等的代價》(The Price of Inequality)即將出版