g******4
发帖数: 6339 | 1 朱敬一教你一次讀懂《21世紀資本論》
皮氏分析，這個資本累積逐漸集中化的趨勢，是有理論背景與走向軌跡可循的。如果我
們再不改弦更張，那麼大約30年之內，全球各主要市場經濟下的資本集中度，大概會有
80%以上集中到社會最富有10%的人手中。這種情況大略與《孤星淚》的寫作背景、或是
馬克思寫《資本論》時所見、或是法國大革命前夕的社會環境相當。由於財富分配太不
平均，社會上絕對充滿不安定的因子。總之，這麼不平等的社會，絕對是無法永續的。
這樣的「資本主義咦鹘K將動亂論」，其實與馬克思的「資本主義終將覆亡論」相當接
近。差別是：馬克思所參考的歷史資料非常少，但是皮凱提所引所用卻是極為廣泛周延
。馬克思的資本主義覆亡論顯然沒有實現，皮氏推論是不是也可能言之過早呢？
要去挑戰皮氏的「終將動亂論」，恐怕要比挑戰馬克思的論述來得困難。皮凱提用種種
數據佐證：如果沒有一次與二次世界大戰，西歐諸資本主義老字號國家極可能會有高得
不像話的資本集中度，而馬克思所預言的無産階級革命，就並非不可能。因此，我們只
能說是世界大戰的程咬金打亂了經濟咦鞯牟秸{，而不是馬克思的終極推論有什麼先驗
邏輯錯誤。無論如何，不論是無產階級革命或是兩次世界大戰，都是顛覆性的災難。由
後者取代前者而讓資本主義剎車，實在不是什麼光彩的事。
另一個挑戰皮凱提推論的難處，也是皮氏所擁有馬克思沒有的本事，就是他的嚴謹數理
模型推導。在經濟學文獻裡，關於經濟成長與資本動態累積的理論，是有些專業門檻的
；非要知道隨機過程論與極限分配論(ergodic distribution theory)才能入門。皮氏
對這些數學工具掌握精熟；而當他說：「當資本報酬率（r) 大於經濟成長率（g) 時，
資本佔國民所得的比重就會增加，而資本就會更集中在資本已然雄厚的富人手中」，背
後其實有嚴謹的數理推論，讀者根本無從挑戰；這與成百上千人對馬克思的推論指指點
點，簡直不可同日而語。
http://www.stormmediagroup.com/opencms/review/detail/8e36ad4f-e
----------------------------------
法國經濟學家Thomas Piketty劃時代的巨作《廿一世紀的資本》是頭號暢銷書。全書共
685頁，一般人看完26頁便擱下了。作者紀思道為我們消化厚書，簡化成五個重點，以
節省我們的時間。
林中斌 2014年8月1日
-----------------
"An Idiot’s Guide to Inequality"
--------------
First, economic inequality has worsened significantly in the United States
and some other countries. The richest 1 percent in the United States now own
more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.
Second, inequality in America is destabilizing. Some inequality is essential
to create incentives, but we seem to have reached the point where
inequality actually becomes an impediment to economic growth.
Third, disparities reflect not just the invisible hand of the market but
also manipulation of markets. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning
economist, wrote a terrific book two years ago, “The Price of Inequality,”
which is a shorter and easier read than Piketty’s book. In it, he notes:
“Much of America’s inequality is the result of market distortions, with
incentives directed not at creating new wealth but at taking it from others.”
Fourth, inequality doesn’t necessarily even benefit the rich as much as we
think. At some point, extra incomes don’t go to sate desires but to attempt
to buy status through “positional goods” — like the hottest car on the
block.
Fifth, progressives probably talk too much about “inequality” and not
enough about “opportunity.” Some voters are turned off by tirades about
inequality because they say it connotes envy of the rich; there is more
consensus on bringing everyone to the same starting line.
-------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/opinion/nicholas-kristof-idio |
|
