標(biāo)題中說(shuō)的傻瓜是指我自己，因?yàn)槲也皇且粋€(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家，而且也沒(méi)有對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)理論或應(yīng)用進(jìn)行過(guò)任何正式學(xué)習(xí)。但是……早在20世紀(jì)70年代初期我就開(kāi)始鉆研和制作一部史詩(shī)紀(jì)錄片，記錄每天有關(guān)全球貧困及其相關(guān)內(nèi)容的社會(huì)現(xiàn)實(shí)。從那時(shí)起，我就開(kāi)始慢慢懂得，為何今天所謂的西方資本主義注定要崩潰。

        當(dāng)我回想在研究120個(gè)國(guó)家以及記錄其中的69個(gè)國(guó)家（也包括在世界銀行和聯(lián)合國(guó)機(jī)構(gòu)）中的所見(jiàn)所聞時(shí)，我依靠的是常識(shí)來(lái)做判斷。根據(jù)常識(shí)我得出的結(jié)論是：資本主義本身不是問(wèn)題所在，出問(wèn)題的是運(yùn)行西方資本主義的短視愚蠢方式。

        現(xiàn)在我將詳細(xì)論述這一觀點(diǎn)。

        到20世紀(jì)70年代早期，真正有識(shí)的發(fā)展學(xué)方面的專家都在關(guān)注一個(gè)事實(shí)：我們的小星球被分成了兩個(gè)世界——涵蓋20%人口的富裕世界（發(fā)展學(xué)的術(shù)語(yǔ)稱為北方），以及涵蓋80%人口的貧困世界（發(fā)展學(xué)的術(shù)語(yǔ)成為南方）。

        在貧困世界，每年大概有1500萬(wàn)不到五歲的兒童死于營(yíng)養(yǎng)不良或一些小病：腹瀉、麻疹、百日咳。這些本容易預(yù)防的疾病卻造成了死亡，只因?yàn)樨毟F——赤貧。大約有不止3億孩子一出生就腦損傷，因?yàn)樵趮寢尩淖訉m里就已經(jīng)營(yíng)養(yǎng)不良。但是，這些數(shù)據(jù)還只是一小部分。這個(gè)星球上的大多數(shù)人都生存在活命的邊緣，沒(méi)有或者常常不能保障所有基本的生存需要——躲避的棚子、充足的營(yíng)養(yǎng)、清潔的淡水、衛(wèi)生保健、教育或工作機(jī)會(huì)。在每個(gè)大陸，我都會(huì)問(wèn)那些最貧窮的父母，他們最需要的一樣?xùn)|西是什么。當(dāng)時(shí)還沒(méi)到手機(jī)時(shí)代，我期望他們中有許多人能說(shuō)需要的是一臺(tái)電視或一些類似的小器具。所有人的答案都在本質(zhì)上與一位貧窮的印度女人相同，她的答案是：“我的孩子能受到教育，這樣他們就不必像我們一樣活得像動(dòng)物一樣。”

        富有的國(guó)家通過(guò)出售商品和服務(wù)來(lái)創(chuàng)造財(cái)富。那么，如果這個(gè)財(cái)富創(chuàng)造過(guò)程是需要可持續(xù)的，如他們的政治家許諾的那樣，富有世界居民的物質(zhì)生活水平會(huì)越來(lái)越高，就要保證世界市場(chǎng)有越來(lái)越多的有能力購(gòu)買(mǎi)富有世界國(guó)家要出售的商品的消費(fèi)者。

        如果西方資本主義國(guó)家的管理者們（公司總裁、銀行家和政治家）不是短視愚蠢的，那么他們應(yīng)該會(huì)這樣告訴自己：如果我們不對(duì)世界上窮人的發(fā)展進(jìn)行投資，讓他們成為市場(chǎng)上有購(gòu)買(mǎi)力的消費(fèi)者，那么我們將缺少需要買(mǎi)我們待出售商品的顧客，我們也將因此無(wú)法維系自己的體系。

        如果這項(xiàng)必要的投資已經(jīng)持續(xù)了10年、15年甚至20年了（為了保證這些投資和提供的其他發(fā)展援助能夠被消化并很少被貪污、發(fā)揮了最大用處，這么長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間是必要的），那么全球?qū)关毨Ш筒话l(fā)達(dá)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)——唯一有關(guān)系的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)就會(huì)取得勝利了。舉個(gè)例子，人口由農(nóng)村向城市的災(zāi)難性漂流應(yīng)該被叫停甚至應(yīng)該顛倒過(guò)來(lái)，農(nóng)村曾有這些人的前途，而對(duì)大部分漂流者而言，城市過(guò)去沒(méi)有他們的前途，將來(lái)也不會(huì)有。

        讓投資達(dá)到需要的規(guī)模意味著，投資的富裕世界國(guó)家發(fā)展得將不會(huì)如此迅速，他們的居民將被迫接受物質(zhì)生活水平不那么豐富，但是相對(duì)于西方資本主義能有一個(gè)可持續(xù)的未來(lái)、我們的后代不論住在哪里都有一個(gè)值得憧憬的未來(lái)（而現(xiàn)在他們并沒(méi)有一個(gè)值得期待的未來(lái)），這個(gè)代價(jià)并不算大，而且值得。

        西方制度的管理者沒(méi)有讓資本主義成為全世界都會(huì)受益的東西，反而選擇任由信用卡充斥著富裕世界，而這些居民因此能夠超越需求生活，并且越來(lái)越深地卷入債務(wù)。“我想要”代替了“我需要”。（我的中產(chǎn)階級(jí)的把拔曾對(duì)我說(shuō)：“孩子，如果我們買(mǎi)不起，那就不要向商店玻璃窗里張望。”）

        富裕世界居民沒(méi)錢(qián)維持西方消費(fèi)資本主義運(yùn)行的那一天注定會(huì)到來(lái)。

        隨后，為了一定程度上刺激債務(wù)驅(qū)動(dòng)型消費(fèi)和政府開(kāi)支，那些貪婪而不負(fù)責(zé)任的銀行家們使出了最后一招，他們利用杠桿投機(jī)，發(fā)明了一系列的看似價(jià)值數(shù)萬(wàn)億美元卻實(shí)際上沒(méi)有實(shí)業(yè)資產(chǎn)進(jìn)行支撐的債務(wù)工具，并最終使西方資本主義走向了墳?zāi)埂＃ㄎ乙粋€(gè)好朋友是一家總部位于倫敦的世界大型銀行的高級(jí)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理師，她告訴我她和自己團(tuán)隊(duì)里的同事在過(guò)去五年中一直提醒公司高層，用米奇作為工具進(jìn)行投機(jī)會(huì)引發(fā)巨大的災(zāi)難，但是他們根本不想聽(tīng)。大家的目光只集中在紅利上。）

        如果杰里米•克拉克森以前就說(shuō)，那些銀行高管應(yīng)該拉出去在他們家人面前給槍斃了，我肯定會(huì)微笑著然后對(duì)自己說(shuō)“要是那樣該多好”。

        我肯定不會(huì)用那些納稅人的錢(qián)去為銀行紓困。我肯定讓它們直接完蛋得了。（資本主義的首要規(guī)則就應(yīng)該是，如果你走錯(cuò)了，那你就完蛋了）。但是在讓那些決定成為公共政策之前，作為首相我肯定會(huì)對(duì)我的人民這么說(shuō)：“不要恐慌。我們本來(lái)為那些不顧后果、不負(fù)責(zé)任的銀行提供的紓困資金，現(xiàn)在要改為創(chuàng)立一個(gè)新的國(guó)家銀行，這個(gè)銀行跟之前那些‘高街銀行’不同，它只為消費(fèi)者的需要服務(wù)。”

        毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，那些銀行高管都目光短淺、貪婪無(wú)度、愚蠢至極，但是。。。它們并不是造成未來(lái)歷史學(xué)家口中的西方資本主義的崩潰的罪魁禍?zhǔn)住Ｕ嬲淖锟準(zhǔn)资悄切┙獬y行和金融市場(chǎng)管制的政治家。而這中間最嚴(yán)重的就是英國(guó)的首相瑪格麗特•撒切爾。1986年10月27日，她在倫敦發(fā)起了金融大改革，突然解除了對(duì)銀行和金融市場(chǎng)的管制。受金融自由主義影響，她堅(jiān)定地相信，如果解除了市場(chǎng)的規(guī)則和限制，市場(chǎng)就能夠更加高效、更好地運(yùn)行。在她看來(lái)，相對(duì)于那些在委員會(huì)的條條框框下做出的眾多決策，自由市場(chǎng)上的交易者的日常決策對(duì)所有的人更有利。

        也許我為了表明自己的觀點(diǎn)有些夸大其詞，而且在一定程度上歪曲了她的說(shuō)法，但是她好像認(rèn)為：“我們不必為舊式產(chǎn)業(yè)和生產(chǎn)財(cái)富的方式操心，銀行和市場(chǎng)已經(jīng)為我們做了這些事兒。”

        而之后事實(shí)證明她好像過(guò)于單純了，做出了錯(cuò)誤的決策，但是在他們之前，里根及其之后的美國(guó)總統(tǒng)都追隨了撒切爾夫人的政策。

        我對(duì)于現(xiàn)在形勢(shì)的理解可以總結(jié)如下：西方國(guó)家的政府債務(wù)實(shí)在太重了，他們根本不可能刺激經(jīng)濟(jì)重新增長(zhǎng)，也無(wú)法獲得償還債務(wù)的資金。基于這種觀點(diǎn)，我認(rèn)為未來(lái)西方只可能出現(xiàn)以下兩種情形。

        一是，為了償還債務(wù)，政府全面削減開(kāi)支，減少、減少、再減少所有事務(wù)（包括國(guó)家退休金、社會(huì)福利和公共服務(wù)等）的預(yù)算支出。失業(yè)率高得不可思議，生活水平低到不可忍受。最后公民起來(lái)反抗，暴力沖突升級(jí)。假冒的民主也會(huì)被終止，取而代之的是軍事管制。奧威爾書(shū)中的1984終將到來(lái)。（在愛(ài)德華•希思剛從首相之位上退下來(lái)時(shí)，我和妻子同他共進(jìn)午餐。那時(shí)我問(wèn)他對(duì)于未來(lái)最大的擔(dān)心是什么。我本來(lái)以為得和世界貧困相關(guān)，因?yàn)樗?jīng)是勃蘭特委員會(huì)的成員。但他很平靜地以一種闡述事實(shí)的口吻告訴我，是“英國(guó)將會(huì)成為民主世界中的第一個(gè)極權(quán)國(guó)家”。）

        另外一種情形是，所有的債務(wù)，包括房屋抵押貸款，都一筆勾銷，然后我們重頭再來(lái)。

        很明顯，一個(gè)新的開(kāi)端必須得基于維護(hù)公平的堅(jiān)定不移的承諾，要真正地使資本主義為所有的人受益。

        和我這樣的傻瓜持相同觀點(diǎn)的還有很多。美國(guó)的馬丁•維斯是維斯評(píng)級(jí)機(jī)構(gòu)（WRA）的創(chuàng)始人。在他最新的演講中，他對(duì)自己的機(jī)構(gòu)成功預(yù)測(cè)過(guò)去四十年的經(jīng)濟(jì)災(zāi)難做出了一些聲明，這個(gè)聲明已經(jīng)被所有美國(guó)主要的報(bào)紙和經(jīng)濟(jì)期刊所確認(rèn)。

        WRA曾提前幾個(gè)月預(yù)測(cè)到了80年代的儲(chǔ)蓄借貸危機(jī)，90年代的大型保險(xiǎn)公司的倒閉以及21世紀(jì)初的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)泡沫。

        WRA是世界上唯一一個(gè)能夠提前一年多預(yù)測(cè)到2008年金融危機(jī)的公司，特別值得一提的是，它還明確預(yù)測(cè)到了隨后倒閉的幾乎所有主要公司的名稱。

        現(xiàn)在馬丁•維斯這樣說(shuō)：

        除非出現(xiàn)奇跡，將會(huì)發(fā)生一次歷史性的、改變世界的事件，它會(huì)終結(jié)我們所熟知的美國(guó)式的生活方式。這次非常事件將會(huì)使大量家庭陷入貧困的噩夢(mèng)，還會(huì)使很多人無(wú)家可歸，處于饑餓狀態(tài)。而最糟糕的情況就是，犯罪率大增，財(cái)產(chǎn)被沒(méi)收，民主權(quán)利被剝奪，甚至?xí)齺?lái)美國(guó)軍隊(duì)強(qiáng)制實(shí)行軍事管制。

        他所預(yù)測(cè)的改變世界的事件就是中國(guó)停止購(gòu)買(mǎi)美國(guó)的債券。他說(shuō)，這也就意味著美國(guó)再也無(wú)法借錢(qián)了，他還說(shuō)，那樣的話就可以看到美國(guó)的金融末日開(kāi)始臨近。

        多年來(lái)我私下里跟朋友所表明的最大的擔(dān)心就是，經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)的進(jìn)一步演化最終會(huì)將我們帶向第三次世界大戰(zhàn)。它有可能發(fā)生，主要是由于一下兩個(gè)相關(guān)的原因：一是政府需要借此將人民的注意力從國(guó)內(nèi)的危機(jī)中轉(zhuǎn)移出去，二是政府需要尋找一個(gè)外部因素對(duì)危機(jī)負(fù)責(zé)。有人說(shuō)現(xiàn)在美國(guó)的政治家已經(jīng)將中國(guó)作為譴責(zé)對(duì)象了。

        我們拭目以待……

        注腳：

        歐洲那種試圖嚴(yán)格控制預(yù)算的計(jì)劃是不合適的，甚至可以說(shuō)是個(gè)鬧劇。這些計(jì)劃是為了阻止現(xiàn)在的愈演愈烈的災(zāi)難再次發(fā)生，但是它們對(duì)于解決現(xiàn)有的債務(wù)危機(jī)一點(diǎn)意義都沒(méi)有。歐洲的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人在馬匹被拴住時(shí)，還要試圖將馬房的門(mén)也關(guān)上。
       
        艾倫•哈特曾經(jīng)報(bào)道過(guò)中東的事件，是一位研究者，作家和ITN與BBC的通訊記者。閱讀更多艾倫的文章，或者訪問(wèn)他的網(wǎng)址。

        此文發(fā)布于2011年12月7日，周三，上午8:00，歸類于資本主義，經(jīng)濟(jì)與經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)，貧困。
 【原    文】
 The idiot of the headline is me in the sense that I am not an economist and have never had any formal association with study of the theory and practise of economics, but… I began to understand why what is today called Western capitalism was bound to crash way back in the early 1970’s when I was researching and producing an epic documentary on the everyday reality of global poverty and its implications for all.

 When I reflected on what I had witnessed and learned while researching in 120 countries (as well as at the World Bank and many UN agencies) and filming in 69 of them, I let commonsense be my guide. It led me to the conclusion that capitalism was not of itself the problem. It was the short-sighted and stupid way Western capitalism was managed.

 Now I’ll put some flesh on that bone.

 By the early 1970’s truly informed development experts were drawing attention to the fact that our one small planet was divided into two worlds – the Rich World containing about 20% of humankind (and known in development jargon as the North), and the Poor World containing about 80% of humankind (and known in development jargon as the South).

 In the Poor World an estimated 15 million children under five were dying each year from malnutrition and related and easily preventable diseases such as diahorrea, measles and whooping cough – in a word poverty, abject poverty. And an estimated 300 million more were born brain damaged because of malnutrition in the wombs of their mothers. But those statistics told only a part of the story. The majority of the human inhabitants of Planet Earth were living on the margins of life, without some and in many cases all of the basic necessities for life – shelter, adequate nutrition, clean water, health care, education and work/job opportunities. On each and every continent I asked the poorest parents what was the one thing they most wanted. This was before the age of the mobile telephone and I expected many of them to say a television or some such gadget. What they all said in their various ways echoed one of the poorest Indian women. Her answer was, “Education for my children so they don’t have to live like animals as we do.”

 The rich nations were creating their wealth by selling goods and services. It followed that if this wealth creating process was to have a sustainable future and Rich World citizens were to enjoy ever rising material standards of living as promised by their politicians, the global market place needed more and more consumers with the purchasing power to buy what the Rich World nations had to sell.

 If the managers of Western capitalism (corporate chiefs, bankers and politicians) had not been short-sighted and stupid, they would have said to themselves something like the following. “If we don’t now invest in the development of the poor of the world and bring them progressively into the market place with purchasing power, we are going to run out customers in the numbers needed to buy what we have to sell in order to sustain our system.”

 If the necessary investment had been made over 10, 15 and even 20 years, (it would have needed that amount of time in order to guarantee that the money and other development assistance provided could be absorbed and put to best use with minimum corruption), victory in the war against global poverty and underdevelopment – the only war that matters – would have been assured. To give just one example… The disastrous population drift from the rural areas where there was a future to the urban centres where there was not and is not a future for many of the drifters could have been halted and even reversed.

 Making the investment needed on the necessary scale would have meant that the investing Rich World nations would not have grown so rapidly and their citizens would have had to accept a little less in the way of ever rising material standards of living, but that would have been a small price to pay for giving Western capitalism a sustainable future and all of our children wherever they live the prospect of a future worth having. (Whereas today they do not have a future worth having).

 Instead of starting down the road to making capitalism work for the benefit of all in global terms, the system’s Western managers opted to keep things going by flooding the Rich World with credit cards to enable its citizens to live beyond their means and get deeper and deeper into debt. “I need” was replaced with “I want”. (My working class father used to say to me, “Boy, if we can’t afford it, we don’t look in the shop window.”)

 There was bound to come a time when Rich World citizens simply could not afford to go on buying on the scale needed to keep Western consumer capitalism going.

 Then, partly to fuel debt-driven consumer and government spending, the greed-driven, totally irresponsible bankers drove the final nail into Western capitalism’s coffin by playing their leveraging games, producing debt instruments with a face value of hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars but which were not backed and supported by real assets. (A good friend of mine was the senior risk manager for one of the world’s biggest banks headquartered in London. She told me that for five years she and her team tried to warn top management that leveraging with Mickey Mouse instruments was creating a catastrophe, but top management didn’t want to listen. It was focused only on bonuses).

 If Jeremy Clarkson had said that banking chiefs should have been taken out and shot in front of their families, I would have smiled and said to myself, “If only.”

 And I would not have bailed out the banks with taxpayers’ money. I would have let them go bust. (The first rule of capitalism is supposed to be that if you get it wrong you go bust). But before making that decision public I (as prime minister) would have said to my people something like the following. “Don’t panic. The money we would have to put into bailing out reckless and irresponsible banks will instead be used to create a new national bank which, rather like the High Street banks of the old days, will exist only to serve the needs of their customers.”

 There’s no question that banking chiefs were short-sighted, greedy and stupid, but… They were not the architects of what future historians will call the crash of Western capitalism. They, the architects, were the politicians who deregulated the banks and financial markets. The leading architect was Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. On 27 October 1986, she initiated the “Big Bang” in the City of London, the sudden deregulation of the banks and financial markets. In the name of “financial liberalism” she truly believed that markets would work better, more efficiently, if they were free of rules and restrictions. In her view millions of decisions made every day by traders in a free market would be better for all of us than decisions that had to be made with reference to rules and regulations drawn up by committees of the great and the good.

 Though I might be exaggerating to make a point and may be misrepresenting her to some extent, she seemed to be saying, “We need not bother too much with our old industries and ways of creating wealth, the banks and the markets will do it for us.”

 Events were to prove that she could not have been more naive and more wrong, but before they did American presidents starting with Ronald Reagan had followed her lead.

 My understanding of the situation today can be summarized as follows. The debts of Western governments are so big that no Western country will be able to generate the growth and so the money needed to repay them. On that basis I can see only two scenarios for the future.

 One is that in order to repay the debts, governments slash expenditure across the board, cutting, cutting and cutting back massively on budgets for everything including state pensions and social welfare benefits and services. Unemployment rises to unthinkable levels and living standards plunge to unacceptable levels. Eventually the citizens revolt and violence escalates. What passes for democracy is shut down and martial law is established. Orwell’s 1984 finally arrives. (Soon after Edward Heath ceased to be prime minister, my wife and I had lunch with him. I asked him what his biggest fear for the future was. I expected it to be related to global poverty because he had been a member of the Brandt Commission which studied it. His reply, calm in delivery and matter of fact in tone, was, “That Britain will become the first police state in the democratic world.”)

 In the other scenario all debts, including mortgages on homes, are written off and we all start again.

 By definition a re-start would have to be based on a rock-solid commitment to fairness with a real intention to make capitalism work for the benefit of all.

 This idiot is in quite good company. American Martin Weiss is the founder of the Weiss Rating Agency (WRA). In his latest presentation he makes the following claims about his agency’s astonishing success in predicting economic disasters of the past 40 years, a claim which is confirmed by all the major American newspapers and economic journals.

 Months in advance WRA warned about the S&L crisis of the 1980’s; the great insurance company failures of the 1990’s; plus the great “Tech Wreck” of the early 2000’s.

 WRA was the only firm in the world to warn of the financial crisis of 2008 more than a year in advance, specifically naming nearly every major company that later collapsed.

 Today Martin Weiss says this:

 Barring a miracle, an historic, world-changing event is about to end the American way of life as we know it. This monumental event will plunge vast numbers of families into the nightmare of poverty, homeless and hunger. In a worst case scenario you will see soaring crime, the confiscation of property, the suspension of civil rights, and even the enforcement of martial law by the U.S. military.

 The world-changing event he is anticipating is a decision by China to stop buying U.S. debt, which will mean, he says, that America will no longer be able to borrow money; and that, he adds, will see the beginning of “America’s Financial Doomsday”.

 My own biggest fear which I have been expressing to friends in private for a number of years is that the unfolding economic crisis may take us all the way to World War 111. It could happen for two related reasons. One is the need of governments to deflect the attention of their own people away from the mess within. The other is the need to have an outside party to blame. There’s a case for saying that some American politicians are already setting up China for blame.

 We shall see…

 Footnote

 European plans to bring in tough budget controls are irrelevant, even a farce. They are designed to stop the present unfolding catastrophe from happening again, but they won’t do anything to solve the present debt crisis. European leaders are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

 Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and globally as a researcher, author, and a correspondent for ITN and the BBC. Read other articles by Alan, or visit Alan's website.

 This article was posted on Wednesday, December 7th, 2011 at 8:00am and is filed under Capitalism, Economy/Economics, Poverty.

× 烏有之鄉(xiāng) WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網(wǎng)站日常運(yùn)行與維護(hù)。
幫助我們辦好網(wǎng)站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉(xiāng)網(wǎng)刊微信公眾號(hào)